• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:44]

Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

And you suppor tthem? And do you support them based on the same standard
YOU just put forth, which is that any form of limitation is okay as long as it comes short of stopping it from being possible?



Absolutely.

And I think you should be able to do the first one on private property, though believe it's within the states power to restrict it's access on public roads.

The RPG's issue is it falls into a grey area for me as I see the 2nd in terms of the notion of small arms, such as what an individual within a militia would own, rather than "artillery" such as canons and other such objects whose primary purposes is clearly for interstate warfare than personal defense. Still, if some private range wanted to offer up that experience I don't have a huge issue with it.

I'm also hardly a fan of the outright ban on owning a fully automatic weapon.

None of those things are actual good analogs however.

What you're suggesting is that the government should be able to force an individual to have to purchase and/or undertake an unnecessary private service for no legitimate government purpose NOR for any legitimate purpose relating to the original service being rendered.

So it would be akin to making individuals undertake a class where for an hour they're sat in a dark room and shown horrific images of gunshot wound victims while sounds of gunfire and screaming are occuring prior to being able to purchase any firearm...all for the purpose of making people really "think" about what they're purchasing.

It wasn't my analog...LOL.

It was by some distinct poster, an attempt to justify abortion with out limits using the second amendment as an analogy.

I'm not a fan of justifications by arbitrary comparisons as I think most possess the cognizant lattitude to consider the distinctions between 2 seperate issues no matter their Constitutional derivations.

Do you have a Morgan Gun ? Cause I have a 1983 F150 that needs to be put out of it's misery and I can't think of a better way to do that than turning it into swiss cheese on fire.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

Have you had a transvaginal ultrasound before?

No, have you? I don't have to have experienced having a foreign object forced into my vagina against my will to understand the concept of rape.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

Without getting too graphic a ABORTION is a very INVASIVE procedure.

I can't believe the whole " forcible rape " narrative has gotten this much traction considering the steps of the average Abortion.

Abortion is a woman's choice. Being raped by a probe against her will is not. I'm surprised you don't understand the difference.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

Abortion is a woman's choice. Being raped by a probe against her will is not. I'm surprised you don't understand the difference.

how anybody could miss this fact and not see the different between them is beyond me.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

[h=1]Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law on hospital admitting privileges[/h]


This is pending a full hearing on July 17th, in which the new Wisconsin law is expected to be ruled unconstitutional. In granting the injunction, the judge plainly stated that the State is not going to be able to show the constitutionality of the new law.

Looks like women in Wisconsin have just gotten their vaginas back. Expect the courts to also intervene here in Texas if the same kind of law is passed. Want to ride roughshod over women? Go ahead. You will just waste taxpayer dollars in the process, only to have it smacked down in the courts. Good luck with that.

Article is here.

glad the bill was temporarily blocked

like bills similar to it, if it gets challenged in court it will go down.
There no reason for it and its nonsensical and has no logic behind it. Its just trying to infringe on rights, freedoms and use the backdoor to restrict aboriton
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

The fact that complications exist doesn't mean that the hospital admitting privileges are medically necessary. The nature and severity of the complications, and how much of that information needs to be briefed in detail to the hospital, are what really determines whether this is necessary. To take the extreme example, why not require all abortions to be performed at a hospital with an ER? There could be complications! Hey, there could be complications during an eye exam, so let's do the same with every eye exam... unnecessary, right?

I've never heard a doctor express that they believe this is a useful precaution. And let's face it, safety of the woman is not the reason Wisconsin Republicans are pushing this bill.
I don't care about your anecdotal experience. You're the one claiming exclusive knowledge to start with. There could be complications with an eye exam, but that hardly compares to surgery - a fact every physician will tell you is serious business. Besides, this is invasive surgery, to say the least, no matter how much you seek to minimize it or characterize it as something less than what it is. Again, it's only serious if it happens to you, and the effort to make this removing a spec from one's eye is completely unconvincing. If you're not in favor of those offering surgical services offering a safe means of dealing with complications you should just say so.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

I don't care about your anecdotal experience. You're the one claiming exclusive knowledge to start with. There could be complications with an eye exam, but that hardly compares to surgery - a fact every physician will tell you is serious business. Besides, this is invasive surgery, to say the least, no matter how much you seek to minimize it or characterize it as something less than what it is. Again, it's only serious if it happens to you, and the effort to make this removing a spec from one's eye is completely unconvincing. If you're not in favor of those offering surgical services offering a safe means of dealing with complications you should just say so.

its already safe, thats why the medical industry has the standards they do, the people that are educated in this area havent made these BS requirements needed
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

And yet you parrot the same type of mentality and arguments as the anti-second amendment crowd. How wonderfully hypocritical. So you just support Big Government, intrusion upon individuals rights, and the expansion of the state when it suits your personal emotional feelings. Great to know.
Interesting that you can't separate one distinctive event from another totally separate event.


All well and good, and I'd have zero issue if a place decided to CHOOSE to make this their own practice when dealing with abortions.

But unlike you, I'm not going to empower the government to get further involved into the exchange of PRIVATE services and further into the decision making process of medical procedures all in the name of what "feels good".[/QUOTE]I never said that. You're jumping to conclusions that the statement didn't warrant. I never said we should empower government do such a thing. They already have that power, unless you missed the PPACA decision. I simply said that the failure of an agency of the government, and Planned Parenthood is just that without the official connotation, should be corrected by other means when necessary. I don't like the necessity, but the federal government itself feels no need to offer the obvious (as we are seeing with PPACA), so I leave it to the states to fill in the vacuum. That some may construe that as an attack on abortion rights is just to freaking bad. They see every statement which doesn't offer unmitigated support of their position as an attack.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

its already safe, thats why the medical industry has the standards they do, the people that are educated in this area havent made these BS requirements needed
It's interesting then, that the very same argument that the effectiveness of contraception is used as a justification for abortion. I don't dispute that. When, on the other hand, virtually the same rate of complication is used as an argument that additional medical support may be required based on that number, it's suddenly insignificant. Let me be specific. Depending on the numbers you subscribe to, a roughly 5 or 6% rate of abortion complication is recorded. This is roughly comparable to the numbers of contraceptive failure. If you claim that abortions are justified based on the ineffectiveness of contraception, then I can easily claim that hospital admission should be required to address the complications arising from abortions. You don't get to have it both ways. Based on the numbers.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

It's interesting then, that the very same argument that the effectiveness of contraception is used as a justification for abortion. I don't dispute that. When, on the other hand, virtually the same rate of complication is used as an argument that additional medical support may be required based on that number, it's suddenly insignificant. Let me be specific. Depending on the numbers you subscribe to, a roughly 5 or 6% rate of abortion complication is recorded. This is roughly comparable to the numbers of contraceptive failure. If you claim that abortions are justified based on the ineffectiveness of contraception, then I can easily claim that hospital admission should be required to address the complications arising from abortions. You don't get to have it both ways. Based on the numbers.
I think you are missing a critical detail. In order to get admitting privileges, a place has to utilize the hospital at least so many times a year. Apparently most clinics don't meet that criteria because they don't have a high enough number of screw ups. So to meet the criteria they would have to lower their rate of safe, uncomplicated abortions, and raise the number requiring hospitalization. Now what f'ing gov't has the right to invade my privacy, make me pay for unnecessary ultrasounds, and then tell my provider that he/she has to lower his/her success rate???? I mean really, puullleeeeazeee.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

1.)It's interesting then, that the very same argument that the effectiveness of contraception is used as a justification for abortion. I don't dispute that.
2.) When, on the other hand, virtually the same rate of complication is used as an argument that additional medical support may be required based on that number, it's suddenly insignificant.
3.) Let me be specific. Depending on the numbers you subscribe to, roughly 5 or 6% rate of abortion complication is recorded. This is roughly comparable to the numbers of abortions in which there are complications. 4.) If you claim that abortions are justified based on the ineffectiveness of contraception,
5.) then I can easily claim that hospital admission should be required to address the complications arising from abortions.
6.)
You don't get to have it both ways. Based on the numbers.

1.) i dont make this argument and i have never seen anybody use it as a sole argument ever
2.) nobody called it insignificant only that it doesnt justify BS regulations that the medical industry itself doesnt feel are needed
3.) be as specific as you want its nonseical meanignless filler that has nothign to do with the discussion at hand.
4.) I dont nor does anybody i know use this alone and even if they did its meanignless to the topic at hand its a complete strawman
5.) you can claim it all you want but youll have nothing logical to support for it im not trying to have anything both ways, again you are inventing a strawman
6.) good thing im not trying to have it both ways then and you are just makign up a meaningless anolgy, did you actually think I would fall for that?

the regulation isnt needed thats way its not already put in place by the medical professionals lol
also hospital admission isnt need to address complications, if theres a complication she can be admitted to any hospital she wants the doctor just cant do it directly himself because he isnt considered a staff member, thats it
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

I think you are missing a critical detail. In order to get admitting privileges, a place has to utilize the hospital at least so many times a year. Apparently most clinics don't meet that criteria because they don't have a high enough number of screw ups. So to meet the criteria they would have to lower their rate of safe, uncomplicated abortions, and raise the number requiring hospitalization. Now what f'ing gov't has the right to invade my privacy, make me pay for unnecessary ultrasounds, and then tell my provider that he/she has to lower his/her success rate???? I mean really, puullleeeeazeee.

correct this is true
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

I don't care about your anecdotal experience. You're the one claiming exclusive knowledge to start with. There could be complications with an eye exam, but that hardly compares to surgery - a fact every physician will tell you is serious business. Besides, this is invasive surgery, to say the least, no matter how much you seek to minimize it or characterize it as something less than what it is. Again, it's only serious if it happens to you, and the effort to make this removing a spec from one's eye is completely unconvincing. If you're not in favor of those offering surgical services offering a safe means of dealing with complications you should just say so.

You don't support ER availability for eye exams! You don't want eye exams to be safe? Just say so!

Look, you're the one arguing for the government to dictate a medical procedure. It's not up to me to prove it's not necessary. It's up to you to prove that it is.

At least one freaking opinion from an actual medical professional would be a good place to start.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

No, have you? I don't have to have experienced having a foreign object forced into my vagina against my will to understand the concept of rape.

Watched my wife get these done on a weekly basis. Its really small and allows them to get a great view of the ovaries and uterus. Its also the only way to detect a ectopic pregnancy, which normally do not respond to abortion drugs(Methotrexate), and require surgery.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

correct this is true

Do you have the rules for each hospital in Wisconsin to show that the statement is true?
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

i think they are making all these extreme abortion laws in order for one to make it to the supreme court and have the court strike down roe vrs wade

Most election districts are so partisan one way or the other, that 90+% of elections to legislatures is decided in the primary election, not the general election. If a Republican district, the legislative elections will be decided in the Republican Primary and any Democrat opposition is merely token and known to fail.

The religious rightwing and social conservatives overwhelmingly dominate in Republican majority districts. Therefore, whatever the want - whether realistic, rational or Constitutional -that is what the Republican legislative candidates will promise and what the incumbents will vote for in office. Most don't care about abortion or Roe V. Wade. They care about themselves and winning their primary elections. That is the motive. Winning elections and re-elections.

It is only circumstantial to this for such laws being challenged in federal court. Voters, Republican or Democrat, never hold it against a politician if he votes for a law that is struck down in Court. Rather, the politician declares that proves he/she is "principled" and won't "surrender his beliefs" to unelected federal judges.

So if federal courts over and over and over strike down such laws as unconstitutional? They will not decide their official does not respect the Constitution. Instead, the Republican primary voters hold their palms to the sky declaring "Praise Jesus! We have a God-fearing legislator!"
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

So if federal courts over and over and over strike down such laws as unconstitutional? They will not decide their official does not respect the Constitution. Instead, the Republican primary voters hold their palms to the sky declaring "Praise Jesus! We have a God-fearing legislator!"

Which is really what the abortion "debate" is all about. The GOP needed a wedge issue to score the Christian vote, as their economic policies clearly fall in opposition to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Same-sex marriage accomplishes this also.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

Do you have the rules for each hospital in Wisconsin to show that the statement is true?
the statement is true and well known and is EXACTLY way other restrictions like these in other states of lost because it shuts down to many clinics and is too restrictive. And if you actually know about this case also you will see the complaints are that too many clinics will have to shut down. Why? they wont be able to get admitting privileges. It is the main reason for the judge agreeing to block this by court order. Have you not read any of the articles for Wisconsin and Texas etc. If this was not the case why would any clinics shut down.

also it doesnt work that way for "each hospital"
admitting privileges are already a regulated thing by MEDICAL community, they arent new and thats how they work. :shrug:

heres one article you should read that has some info:
Judge Blocks New Wisconsin Abortion Law - ABC News


most abortions do not entail complications that would require a hospital visit, the lawsuit contends, many abortion doctors do not have admitting privileges at a local hospital, which are typically available only to physicians who can provide a minimum number of annual patient referrals.
nice try
feel free to use something called google and you will find much more info
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

Watched my wife get these done on a weekly basis. Its really small and allows them to get a great view of the ovaries and uterus. Its also the only way to detect a ectopic pregnancy, which normally do not respond to abortion drugs(Methotrexate), and require surgery.

I presume your wife was a willing participant? A woman who is forcibly penetrated by a foreign object against her will is not a willing participant. You do understand the difference, do you not?
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

Greetings, Deuce. :2wave:

How convenient for those contemplating abortion! Perhaps in the early stages of a pregnancy, when it's just a cluster of cells, that perception might be correct, but what do they call it when it's a late term abortion, and ultrasound shows that it looks like a human being, or even an abortion that produces a baby that is born live? :unsure13:

BTW, I have no argument with those that favor abortion--that is their decision to make for whatever reasons they may have. And this topic has been argued for years. It's just not a road I would want to take, based on any government decision. That should be between a woman and her doctor! :peace:

The problem is that the the Government DOES want to make a decision, and more times than not, it is to come between the woman and her doctor, by making decisions for the doctor.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

I presume your wife was a willing participant? A woman who is forcibly penetrated by a foreign object against her will is not a willing participant. You do understand the difference, do you not?

So when you go into the doctor for anything, and the doctor says, "sure, first I need to do this", you are being forced to participate in what you asked the doctor to do?

Puh-freakin-lease. I don't believe for one second that you actually believe the load of garbage you are peddling. Then again, maybe you don't understand the difference between "forced participation" and "willing participation".

But just to check if you really do believe that, then stop posting. Clearly you must listen to me, and have no alternative, thus forced, so I expect no reply. And just to make sure you recognize the difference, if you reply to this, then you are a willing participant.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

So when you go into the doctor for anything, and the doctor says, "sure, first I need to do this", you are being forced to participate in what you asked the doctor to do?

Puh-freakin-lease. I don't believe for one second that you actually believe the load of garbage you are peddling. Then again, maybe you don't understand the difference between "forced participation" and "willing participation".

But just to check if you really do believe that, then stop posting. Clearly you must listen to me, and have no alternative, thus forced, so I expect no reply. And just to make sure you recognize the difference, if you reply to this, then you are a willing participant.

If I go to a doctor to find out why my knees ache, and he says, "Sure, but first I have to shove a metal probe into your vagina", I am not willingly allowing him to do so. I will go to another doctor to find out why my knees ache. Now when the state passes a law that says when any female wants to find out why her knees ache she must first be forcibly raped against her will with a foreign object, she is no longer a willing participant. She is being forced to undergo an invasive procedure that she does not want and does not medically need because the state has decided to play doctor.

A woman who requests an abortion, and who is forced by state law to undergo rape with a foreign object against her will is still not a willing participant no matter how many times you say that she is. The state is requiring invasive procedures that are not medically necessary against females and forcing physicians to conduct them on their own unwilling patients. It is a legislature retaliating against women seeking abortion by legislating medical decisions and issues that should be only between physicians and their patients. That is the bottom line, and you cannot twist it any other way.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

So when you go into the doctor for anything, and the doctor says, "sure, first I need to do this", you are being forced to participate in what you asked the doctor to do?

Puh-freakin-lease. I don't believe for one second that you actually believe the load of garbage you are peddling. Then again, maybe you don't understand the difference between "forced participation" and "willing participation".

But just to check if you really do believe that, then stop posting. Clearly you must listen to me, and have no alternative, thus forced, so I expect no reply. And just to make sure you recognize the difference, if you reply to this, then you are a willing participant.

If it's dictated by the state against the judgment of the doctor and patient, yes, that is forced participation. You know, that big government **** the so-called libertarians are always bitching about and suddenly are totally ok with in this case.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

If it's dictated by the state against the judgment of the doctor and patient, yes, that is forced participation. You know, that big government **** the so-called libertarians are always bitching about and suddenly are totally ok with in this case.
Which so-called libertarians would those be?
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

You don't support ER availability for eye exams! You don't want eye exams to be safe? Just say so!

Look, you're the one arguing for the government to dictate a medical procedure. It's not up to me to prove it's not necessary. It's up to you to prove that it is.

At least one freaking opinion from an actual medical professional would be a good place to start.
Geeze. There are former PP managers, nurses and staff who quit over the quality of the services provided. States have documented innumerable gross and blatant failures to even provide such simple things as clean surgical tables. This has come about because PP claims to be a self-regulating organization. They obviously aren't. Why don't you go and read some of them? Here in Virginia the state did conduct inspections of PP facilities. You might go look for yourself, and read what they found.
 
Back
Top Bottom