• 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]

davidtaylorjr said:
I bet you support Obamacare don't you.....
Click to expand...

Says the man supporting the government deciding you need a medical procedure, even if you and your doctor disagree. :lamo

(that is your perception of what Obamacare does, right? I hear that from right-wingers a lot. "Gubmint between me and my doctor.")
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Well in turn, since pro-choice can't see they advocate murder....
Click to expand...

More guilt tripping.............I don't feel guilty because some women terminate their pregnancies. You seem to want everyone to feel "collective" guilt..........................
 
Deuce said:
Says the man supporting the government deciding you need a medical procedure, even if you and your doctor disagree. :lamo

(that is your perception of what Obamacare does, right? I hear that from right-wingers a lot. "Gubmint between me and my doctor.")
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't know what I support.
 
Bonzai said:
More guilt tripping.............I don't feel guilty because some women terminate their pregnancies. You seem to want everyone to feel "collective" guilt..........................
Click to expand...

Not a guilt trip, that is fact.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Clearly you don't know what I support.
Click to expand...

You are arguing that an ultrasound, a medical procedure, should be legally required by the government for an abortion even if the doctor and patient both don't see it as being necessary.

Government dictating a medical procedure against the judgment of the patient and doctor.

Do you perceive Obamacare as doing this?
 
Deuce said:
You are arguing that an ultrasound, a medical procedure, should be legally required by the government for an abortion even if the doctor and patient both don't see it as being necessary.

Government dictating a medical procedure against the judgment of the patient and doctor.

Do you perceive Obamacare as doing this?
Click to expand...

I support the ultrasound being an included part of the abortion procedure. Standard Operating Procedure.
 
These forced vaginal ultrasound laws are nothing more than an attempt to legalize forcible rape by foreign object against unwilling females.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
I support the ultrasound being an included part of the abortion procedure. Standard Operating Procedure.
Click to expand...

Via government decree, against the judgment of the doctor and patient, and with no rational medical basis.
 
DiAnna said:
These forced vaginal ultrasound laws are nothing more than an attempt to legalize forcible rape by foreign object against unwilling females.
Click to expand...

Have you had a transvaginal ultrasound before?
 
danarhea said:
[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.
Click to expand...

Gotten their vagina's back ? What kind of hyperbolic nonsense is that.

Limitations on abortion that do not STOP abortion are Not unconstitutional.

It will be appealed and sent up to the Supreme Court and decided their.

It has nothing to do with a womans " vag" or any other part of her body.
 
DiAnna said:
These forced vaginal ultrasound laws are
nothing more than an attempt to legalize forcible rape by foreign object against unwilling females.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fenton said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between ELECTIVE and NON-ELECTIVE procedures on a patient?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Personal attacks of any kind stop now. Points and thread bans will be handed out from now on.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

Drake McHugh said:
Yes,it is so radical to ask them to look at an ultrasound of the baby. How terrible it would be for them to have to face up to what will happen,some perhaps changing their minds.
Click to expand...

Our laws and limits of what the Government should do are not based on whether or not it is "radical" or "terrible". It's whether or not it's within the scope of the abilities and powers the government has been vested in.

Using governmental power to compel a private citizen attempting to partake in a private service to purchase and/or undertake an medically unnecessary secondary private service is far outside the powers of what the Government should be allowed to do.

"Radical", "terrible"...irrelevant, it's massively big government interjecting itself into the private citizen's lives.

This would be no more in line with what the Government should be doing than forcing people to have to pay for and/or attend a course that shows what victems of gun violence look like prior to purchasing a firearm.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

TheNextEra said:
Do you know the difference between ELECTIVE and NON-ELECTIVE procedures on a patient?
Click to expand...

That's rich, coming from a guy who can't tell the difference between a human and a fetus.

Hint: There's no difference.


That being said, to scream rape because a law adds one more procedure to a already VERY invasive procedure, a Procedure that yes, is an elective procedure is absurd.

A woman, who's decided to go through the killing of her unborn child isn't typically very picky about issues of morality in the first place, unless of course the abortion is to save her life.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

Fenton said:
Limitations on abortion that do not STOP abortion are Not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

This is the same stance you take on firearm ownership then? As long as the limitation doesn't STOP it from being POSSIBLE in some fashion then the Government can do it?
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

Zyphlin said:
Our laws and limits of what the Government should do are not based on whether or not it is "radical" or "terrible". It's whether or not it's within the scope of the abilities and powers the government has been vested in.

Using governmental power to compel a private citizen attempting to partake in a private service to purchase and/or undertake an medically unnecessary secondary private service is far outside the powers of what the Government should be allowed to do.

"Radical", "terrible"...irrelevant, it's massively big government interjecting itself into the private citizen's lives.

This would be no more in line with what the Government should be doing than forcing people to have to pay for and/or attend a course that shows what victems of gun violence look like prior to purchasing a firearm.
Click to expand...

You RINO...

:2razz:
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

Zyphlin said:
This is the same stance you take on firearm
ownership then? As long as the limitation doesn't STOP it from being POSSIBLE in some fashion then the Government can do it?
Click to expand...

But there ARE restrictions on Fire Arms.

I can't mount of Morgan Gun to the bed of my F150, or shoot skeet with a RPG 7, or even own a fully automatic weapon.

Restrictions that I'm ok with.
 
Re: Federal judge temporarily blocks new Wisconsin abortion law..................[W:4

Fenton said:
That's rich, coming from a guy who can't tell the difference between a human and a fetus.

Hint: There's no difference.


That being said, to scream rape because a law adds one more procedure to a already VERY invasive procedure, a Procedure that yes, is an elective procedure is absurd.

A woman, who's decided to go through the killing of her unborn child isn't typically very picky about issues of morality in the first place, unless of course the abortion is to save her life.
Click to expand...

I see, so because she has an ELECTIVE INVASIVE procedure, that makes it ok to add an UN-ELECTIVE invasive procedure just because you like it.

And people wonder where the idea that conservatives are against women's rights comes from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom