• 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

ecofarm said:
Nonsense. It is without guilt. Recent science has shown that the fetus is affected by several hormones that induce a coma-like state, and thus perceiving cognitive ability is not so easy.
Click to expand...

And it is without innocence. It is nothingness. Until viability and even then, it can have no 'intent.' Dont make up stuff to support an argument.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Lursa said:
And it is without innocence. It is nothingness. Until viability and even then, it can have no 'intent.' Dont make up stuff to support an argument.
Click to expand...

I'm an anti death penalty atheist, so spare me the condescension. The obvious point, which is either beyond your grasp or is being intentionally ignored by you in a brazen display of intellectual dishonesty, is that a person sentenced to death is (presumably) guilty of a heinous crime.

It's viable at ~22 weeks and you claim it cannot think even then? The hormones inducing a coma-like state is not an invention of mine.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

ecofarm said:
I'm an anti death penalty atheist, so spare me the condescension. The obvious point, which is either beyond your grasp or is being intentionally ignored by you in a brazen display of intellectual dishonesty, is that a person sentenced to death is (presumably) guilty of a heinous crime.

It's viable at ~22 weeks and you claim it cannot think even then?
Click to expand...

Well yes, I do claim that it cannot form intent. Do you have evidence otherwise?

I'm a practicing Christian, btw.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Lursa said:
Well yes, I do claim that it cannot form intent. Do you have evidence otherwise?

I'm a practicing Christian, btw.
Click to expand...

Intent is irrelevant. The unborn are guilty of no crime, those sentenced to death presumably are - you cannot ignore this distinction and remain in an intellectually viable position.

Regarding cognition, I am not making up the (recently discovered) hormones causing a coma-like state.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Lursa said:
And it is without innocence. It is nothingness. Until viability and even then, it can have no 'intent.' Dont make up stuff to support an argument.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It is life. Relativism creates the illusion called "viability". You wouldn't, couldn't be here today if someone decided to snuff out your life before you were considered "viable".
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

ecofarm said:
Intent is irrelevant. The unborn are guilty of no crime, those sentenced to death presumably are - you cannot ignore this distinction and remain in an intellectually viable position.

Regarding cognition, I am not making up the (recently discovered) hormones causing a coma-like state.
Click to expand...

They are not guilty because there is no way to be guilty of anything. They just exist and may never be born to enter society.

As for 'regarding cognition'...you just claimed it doesnt make a difference. If they are in a coma-like state, then they never are aware of any action to terminate them. Or now will you claim they feel pain? Please pick one. (It's proven they do feel external stimuli of course, so so much for coma-like state. But then again, the most primitive of organisms respond to external stimuli, that does not prove cognition.)
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

ChezC3 said:
Nonsense. It is life. Relativism creates the illusion called "viability". You wouldn't, couldn't be here today if someone decided to snuff out your life before you were considered "viable".
Click to expand...

My point is Constitutional in nature. Do the rights of the unborn supersede those of the born (woman)? I would say no, as I pointed out in earlier posts.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Lursa said:
They are not guilty because there is no way to be guilty of anything.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So, we can stop pretending that killing a murderer is the same as killing those without guilt?


As for 'regarding cognition'...you just claimed it doesnt make a difference. If they are in a coma-like state, then they never are aware of any action to terminate them. Or now will you claim they feel pain? Please pick one. (It's proven they do feel external stimuli of course, so so much for coma-like state. But then again, the most primitive of organisms respond to external stimuli, that does not prove cognition.)
Click to expand...

While cognition is not required to establish a fetus 'not guilty', it is interesting to note that cognition occurs far earlier and to a far greater extent than recently believed.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Lursa said:
My point is Constitutional in nature. Do the rights of the unborn supersede those of the born (woman)? I would say no, as I pointed out in earlier posts.
Click to expand...

I obviously would say that it is a false choice. To give a quick run down I'm against the death penalty, against abortion, against war, against all forms of aggressive violence. I do believe you have a right to self defense. If you're life is in danger you do have a right to protecting it. Which would be the only time I view abortion as acceptable -- The woman's life (not pocketbook) is in danger.

The woman never, never, never, (never?) NEVER has the "right" to take a life if that life isn't threatening her life (again life not pocketbook or lifestyle).

The constitution also allowed and was protected by the SCOTUS for slavery, does this mean slavery is cool too? So the law of the land argument isn't gong to work.

The problem I have most times with the opposing view point, like I am gleaning from yours is you think that this pregnancy is something that happened to you, as if you had no part. Now, you can come back with rape and that's all fine and dandy, that's a helluva problem, I'll admit, however it has nothing to to with the fundamental understanding that life does begin at conception.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Lursa said:
My point is Constitutional in nature. Do the rights of the unborn supersede those of the born (woman)? I would say no, as I pointed out in earlier posts.
Click to expand...

Rights can only be infringed when balanced against each other. That's how law works. If you ask the question "what about the death penalty", then you have conceded personhood of the fetus. Given personhood, its right to life trumps the woman's right to her body. Could a Siamese Twin have the other killed without there being a threat to its own life?
 
Last edited:
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Lursa said:
Do you believe that the death penalty is murder?
Click to expand...


Yes, the death penalty is prescribed by law for the actions taken by an individual for committing a heinous crime. What exactly did the living fetus do to deserve death?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Lursa said:
1.)That is true...however one has achieved a life while one is only yet 'potential'. It may or may not ever come to fruition.
2.) Religion has it's place in the argument *personally*..however not to force on others.
3.) We have no laws that allow the termination of a living (born) human to save another from death (mother's life is in danger) or mental anguish (in cases of rape or incest). This is an acknowledgement that most pro-life proponents accept...and the law does of course.
4.)
So the rights of both are not equal nor should they be. One may never even be born....
5.) the woman's rights should not be superseded.
Click to expand...

1.) no they are both a live and both have life in regards to living.
now in regards to subjective things like a family member saying "you have no life" then yes
2.) agreed
3.) not sure what you are quite saying here, i think we are just misunderstanding eachother but in general not true, i can easily kill you in self defense, ill have to prove thats what it was but there are laws protecting me in that regard. You can also kill in protection of bodily harm including rape in many areas
4.) this i agree with, they are not.
I do however think they should be BUT the reality is, thats factually impossible due to where the ZEF resides and how it comes to term.
5.) I agree in the majority of cases until viability then its more tricky
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Abortion; killing a child because mom is irresponsible. With the exception of life of the mother, child or rape, abortion is the face of absolute evil. If you are not ready to deal with a child dont have sex. Men and women
This applies to.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

MrVicchio said:
1.)Abortion; killing a child because mom is irresponsible.
2.) With the exception of life of the mother, child or rape, abortion is the face of absolute evil.
3.) If you are not ready to deal with a child dont have sex. Men and women
This applies to.
Click to expand...

1.) you are welcome to this opinion but thats all it is.
millions of people feel obligated and are driven by their morals to have an abortion what makes your morals factually better than theirs
2.) another opinion that is simply set up by your subjective standards that deem ok but the rest evil.
there are many that think any abortion is evil and view you as evil and sinful, what do you think of those people? are they right?
3.) this is simply unrealistic and has never been done throughout time
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

AGENT J said:
1.) you are welcome to this opinion but thats all it is.
millions of people feel obligated and are driven by their morals to have an abortion what makes your morals factually better than theirs
2.) another opinion that is simply set up by your subjective standards that deem ok but the rest evil.
there are many that think any abortion is evil and view you as evil and sinful, what do you think of those people? are they right?
3.) this is simply unrealistic and has never been done throughout time
Click to expand...

What you and your supporters are doing is cheapening life and destroying personal responsibility. In other words there are no consequences for personal choices made including the choice to have sex. If you can justify killing a living being you can justify just about anything. That belief will have to be reconciled at some time in the future. Would love to hear how you explain that belief and try to justify it on economic reasons
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Conservative said:
1.)What you and your supporters are doing is cheapening life and destroying personal responsibility. In other words there are no consequences for personal choices made including the choice to have sex.

2.) If you can justify killing a living being you can justify just about anything.

3.) That belief will have to be reconciled at some time in the future.

4.) Would love to hear how you explain that belief and try to justify it on economic reasons
Click to expand...

1.) you are welcome to this opinion but it cant be backup by any facts what so ever. Also I cant be grouped with others im just me. THere are people that would say people who allow any exceptions cheapen life and destroying personal responsibility. Are they more right than you?

What about the people that say the same thing about you because they feel you cheapen life because you want to infringe on the womans legal and human rights destroying personal responsibility, are they more right?

2.) another opinion so all the people that kill anything and allow exceptions in abortion can just simply justify about anything huh? wow thats just about everybody. Again you are free to have that opinion but theres no facts to support it.

3.) Im fine with this and my believes which you probably have no clue about and which are support by my morals and religion, but unlike you thats meaningless to law and i understand that.

4.) i have no clue what you are asking me here since i never made such a statement, gotta be more specific please. But in general i can explain and justify anything i say.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Conservative said:
What you and your supporters are doing is cheapening life and destroying personal responsibility. In other words there are no consequences for personal choices made including the choice to have sex. If you can justify killing a living being you can justify just about anything. That belief will have to be reconciled at some time in the future. Would love to hear how you explain that belief and try to justify it on economic reasons
Click to expand...

You talk about personal responsibility, but conservatives only want to apply that responsibility to the woman and not the man. Tell us, what law have conservatives proposed for the man during the pregnancy? Oh yeah, none.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Good call by the Supreme Court!
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

AGENT J;1062567903]1.) you are welcome to this opinion but it cant be backup by any facts what so ever. Also I cant be grouped with others im just me. THere are people that would say people who allow any exceptions cheapen life and destroying personal responsibility. Are they more right than you?
Click to expand...

Well, thank you for allowing me my opinion just like you are entitled to yours. Neither of us are going to change the other person's mind. I will be able to reconcile my opinions at some time in the future with "my" God. Good luck with yours. Life is too precious to destroy and I would know, lost my wife of over 40 years


What about the people that say the same thing about you because they feel you cheapen life because you want to infringe on the womans legal and human rights destroying personal responsibility, are they more right?
Click to expand...

Because a woman has a legal right doesn't make that a moral right and yes there is such a thing as right and wrong in the real world. Being legal doesn't change the fact that women killing their baby won't have to reconcile that decision in the future. You see in the liberal world there are no consequences for bad decisions but at some time in the future there will be.

2.) another opinion so all the people that kill anything and allow exceptions in abortion can just simply justify about anything huh? wow thats just about everybody. Again you are free to have that opinion but theres no facts to support it.
Click to expand...

Thank you again, that is indeed my opinion just like the free will I was given to have that opinion. There are always consequences for personal decisions, good or bad. Today's liberals are trying to change that. People are responsible for the choices they make including to have sex. Simply not wanting responsibility doesn't change the fact that people don't have a choice in that area.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

TheNextEra said:
You talk about personal responsibility, but conservatives only want to apply that responsibility to the woman and not the man. Tell us, what law have conservatives proposed for the man during the pregnancy? Oh yeah, none.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that? You always seem to make things up. It takes two to create a baby and both have responsibilities. Child support laws affect the man or didn't you know that?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Conservative said:
Where did I say that? You always seem to make things up. It takes two to create a baby and both have responsibilities. Child support laws affect the man or didn't you know that?
Click to expand...

I didn't say YOU personally, I said conservatives for the most part. Where are the laws proposing the personal responsibility of the man DURING the pregnancy. Child support laws work BOTH for the man AND woman. Where are the laws for the man DURING pregnancy? There is currently NO personal responsibility LEGALLY of the man DURING pregnancy, yet conservatives want laws for the woman DURING pregnancy.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

TheNextEra said:
I didn't say YOU personally, I said conservatives for the most part. Where are the laws proposing the personal responsibility of the man DURING the pregnancy. Child support laws work BOTH for the man AND woman. Where are the laws for the man DURING pregnancy? There is currently NO personal responsibility LEGALLY of the man DURING pregnancy, yet conservatives want laws for the woman DURING pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but there are indeed laws regarding child support and financial responsibility for the men. What laws do you want to create for a man that isn't on the books? I support personal responsibility for both the man and the woman so not sure what your point is. Name the law? There are laws against rape and incest so give me another?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Conservative said:
Sorry, but there are indeed laws regarding child support and financial responsibility for the men.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they are also applied to the woman as well. Where is the law for men DURING pregnancy since you want to force laws on the woman during pregnancy.

Conservative said:
What laws do you want to create for a man that isn't on the books? I support personal responsibility for both the man and the woman so not sure what your point is. Name the law? There are laws against rape and incest so give me another?
Click to expand...

How about financial support DURING the pregnancy. You say it takes too, but I only see conservatives going after the woman.

No you don't, what personal responsiblty is LEGALLY binding for the man DURING pregnancy? You want to LEGALLY bind the woman to person responsibility but nowhere is there any for the man.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

TheNextEra said:
Yes, and they are also applied to the woman as well. Where is the law for men DURING pregnancy since you want to force laws on the woman during pregnancy.



How about financial support DURING the pregnancy. You say it takes too, but I only see conservatives going after the woman.

No you don't, what personal responsiblty is LEGALLY binding for the man DURING pregnancy? You want to LEGALLY bind the woman to person responsibility but nowhere is there any for the man.
Click to expand...

Propose the bill and I will support it. think your third party candidates are in position to do that? What part of my support for personal responsibility don't you understand?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Conservative said:
Propose the bill and I will support it. think your third party candidates are in position to do that? What part of my support for personal responsibility don't you understand?
Click to expand...

I have and NO conservative law maker takes it up. So when are YOU going to advocate to YOUR precious GOP to do that? Afterall personal responsibility is for BOTH right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom