• 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!

Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional [W:167:202:330]

Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Did you learn English with a dictionary where "basic" meant relying on complete falsehoods?

Banning abortion does not infringe on anyone's rights.

100% factually false it infringes on a woman's current legal and human rights, this fact has bee proved repeatedly and denying it doenst change this fact.

as always if you disagree by all means bring and FACTS to the table that prove otherwise.
 

changes nothing
facts prove your post wrong

banning abortion factually infringes on a women current legal and human rights, this fact has been proved repeatedly and denying it doenst change it.

as always if you disagree by all means bring and FACTS to the table that prove otherwise.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Your sanctimoniousness is noted. As is the fact that you could not respond with any justification for your overall intolerance for those with differing beliefs and behavior in a country that was built on diversity. And the recognition of the lack of equal rights of the fetus (because you could not offer a rebuttal).

You are welcome to your beliefs. I hope that you are never in the position to force them on others....and no one is attempting to force abortion on you. (You had no rebuttal for that either.)

You're entitled to believe anything you wish. Good day...
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

You're entitled to believe anything you wish. Good day...

its not a belief the fact remains nothing is forced on you and feel free to prove different when every you wish.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Well, the woman must choose.

And many do not choose abortion, which seems to go unnoticed here. It one choice....and many do not choose it.
I know this.

The choice I spoke of was whether to allow the women to chose - obviously, we have allowed it.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Did you learn English with a dictionary where "basic" meant relying on complete falsehoods?

Banning abortion does not infringe on anyone's rights.
Banning abortions infringes on a a woman's right to choose whether she carries a child to term or not.

Simple as that.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Banning abortions infringes on a a woman's right to choose whether she carries a child to term or not.

Simple as that.

There is no such right, never was, never could be. You have no right to hire someone to kill your kid. You could not have such a right as it violates actual human rights.

Ergo, banning such an action does not violate anyone's rights. Simple as that.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

3. Baiting/Flaming/Trolling - To bait someone in a general sense is to make a comment with a purposeful intent to coerce some form of response from the individual. In some cases this device can be a useful tool of debate, eliciting responses to highlight a point or reveal an underlying truth concerning someone’s argument. However, in other cases the intent of the bait is less focused on debating. “Flamebaiting” is making statements intended to cause an angry or emotional response/flame from the person. Another form of baiting is known as “derailing” or “thread-jacking”. This is deliberate act of making statements with an aim of diverting the topic of a thread significantly from its main focus. These negative forms of baiting constitute a rules violation that can potentially lead to a suspension of posting privileges.

"Originally, flame meant to carry forth in a passionate manner in the spirit of honorable debate. Flames most often involved the use of flowery language and flaming well was an art form. More recently flame has come to refer to "any kind of derogatory comment no matter how witless or crude."[google] In a forum with sensitive topics such as this, derogatory flaming is bound to happen. Common sense will prevail, yet this is not an invitation to flame. e.g. "You stupid *****ing moron," is completely unacceptable and could lead to a suspension of posting privileges.

Trolling is a diversionary tactic of those who “deliberately exploit tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people” or those “who post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages” to disrupt normal on-topic discussions. [Wikipedia]. Ignorance, bias, and genuine dissent are not trolling, though at times they may appear similar due to the disingenuous nature of some trolls. Trolling is not allowed and can potentially lead to the suspension of posting privileges.

4. Don't Be A Jerk (DBAJ) - This simply means what it sounds like.


I won't warn you again.

Moderator's Warning:
Stop the personal attacks, I won't warn you again.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

1.) yes which is nothing like "accept"
It is a form of acceptance, in my opinion.
2.) and i am the same although morals are meaningless to the situation when it comes to rights
Morals are the parent of rights. They are anything but meaningless.
3.) no i dont mean the sides like pro-life vs pro choice i mean those extremes views are contradictory to the logic that is used for them typically. Not always but typically.
ah.
4.) thus negating the factuality
No. The fact always stands. The context used to interpret it gives it meaning. To someone not aware of the whole, that interpretation can be made to mean something other than what the facts actually represent. That's government and media spin, really.
5.) you brought up law and thats not quite the same as rights
It is though. Morals/Opinions begat Rights begat Laws. All interconnected.
6.) and thats just it, the extremists and nut balls make it "two sides" but in reality its not
If not, what?
7.) and there it is, who determines reasonable and where is the force applied.

now im not disagree, in my system earlier of 21 weeks the same dilemma exists
Someone has to determine reasonable, and someone will always disagree.

8.) agreed agreed agreed

this is why currently i pick something in the middle that attempts to respect BOTH lives and attempts to grant both lives equality even though its impossible.

funny thing is though only SOME (certainly not all) members of one side become uncivil and call me evil, despicable, say i should be in jail, im just like hitler and slave owners etc LMAO but nobody takes them seriously anyway
You seem relatively tame for a evil,jail-worthy, slave-owning, Hitler...
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Anything else on the rest of it?

Why don't we address the fundamental flaw in your premise, first?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

What other life? Are you referring to a 'potential' life that a woman is carrying? Only she, the woman, can decide what the value of that life "may be". If she chooses not to risk her own life or long-term health for it, then that is up to her. It is a complete unknown, while she is a viable part of society. Only she can consider what the impact of a new baby in her life would mean. Only she can decide if others would end up being responsible for it...and if that was fair.

The 'quality' of the unborn is completely unknown....it can only be judged by it's impact on its host until it is born. That is just IMO.

It is not a "potential" life. It is a living, growing human. It is an actual life. Is there any other situation where you get to judge, arbitrarily, what life is worthy of continuation, and what isn't?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

It is not a "potential" life. It is a living, growing human. It is an actual life. Is there any other situation where you get to judge, arbitrarily, what life is worthy of continuation, and what isn't?

Yes

With DNR's and the continuation of life-preserving medical care, when people are incompetent to make decisions for themselves.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Yes

With DNR's and the continuation of life-preserving medical care, when people are incompetent to make decisions for themselves.

A DNR is a choice made by the person in question.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

No, not always

Usually. In cases where it's not, there are intricate laws and specific criteria for implementing it on an incompetent patient...and always where the chance of survival is nill.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Usually. In cases where it's not, there are intricate laws and specific criteria for implementing it on an incompetent patient...and always where the chance of survival is nill.

In cases of pregnancy, the ZEF is usually not aborted.

And the laws aren't that intricate, nor does the chance of survival need to be nil.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

In cases of pregnancy, the ZEF is usually not aborted.

And the laws aren't that intricate, nor does the chance of survival need to be nil.

Terminating a patient that is likely to survive their current predicament is murder and the situation is not comparable to to terminating a presumably healthy fetus.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Terminating a patient that is likely to survive their current predicament is murder and the situation is not comparable to to terminating a presumably healthy fetus.

Nonsense. It's perfectly legal to refuse medical treatment no matter what the circumstances are
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Nonsense. It's perfectly legal to refuse medical treatment no matter what the circumstances are

That's a personal choice. Not something imposed.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

caretakers make the choice for the incompetent.

Not when their condition is survivable.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Wrong. A caretaker can refuse medical care for their charge regardless of their condition

It's not as cut and dry as that as evidenced by the multitude of legal battles involving parents refusing care for minor children for religious reasons. The Sciavo case, and many others.

You are attempting to over simplify.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

It's not as cut and dry as that as evidenced by the multitude of legal battles involving parents refusing care for minor children for religious reasons. The Sciavo case, and many others.

You are attempting to over simplify.

No, it's usually a pretty simple affair. Of course, people with money can use the courts to wage a major battle. That's true of many things. That doesn't mean that the answer to your original question is not what you expected it to be

Is there any other situation where you get to judge, arbitrarily, what life is worthy of continuation, and what isn't?


The fact is, people make such choices every day.
 
Back
Top Bottom