• 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

Again, it's a little thing called the constitution.

Right, when are we going to start following it?

Roe v Wade was an usurpation of power that was originally and rightfully under the purview of the States.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Maybe when the abortion banners stop insisting we disregard it

that would be about the same time the baby killers stop disregarding it as well, no?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

that would be about the same time the baby killers stop disregarding it as well, no?

The Moral Fascists are so deluded they think abortion is illegal
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

The Moral Fascists are so deluded they think abortion is illegal

The Immoral Fascists are so deluded they think that abortion must remain legal...
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

How do you know that you cannot take care of the child and there is the option of adoption. How about not having sex in the first place?

Women know their situation - financially and emotionally. Adoptions is wrong, IMO -it is wrong to pawn one's child off on others to raise.

Why would I not have sex when *I* have no problem aborting if I were to conceive?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

What's wrong with putting the baby up for adoption?

I am adopted and I would never, EVER inflict that on a child. It is not right to force a child to grow up not knowing who s/he is or where s/he came from.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

With any action comes good or bad consequences except in the liberal world where there are never bad consequences for any action. Never said a thing about sex being bad just that there are consequences good or bad, accept them.



Exactly...and abortion is a consequence too. Do you think it is an easy decision? Fun? Painless? Without risk?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Right or wrong is not a matter of popular opinion. That's relativistic twaddle.


That is why we have a Constitution and anything that is protected in that is NOT left up to the majority.

And it's a matter of personal liberty and women's rights. Those are protected.

YOU - personally - may live YOUR life as you wish within the confines of the Constitution....which seem quite a bit broader than your personal beliefs. However you may not force others to do so.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Of course this is very sad and no one knew it was coming. Putting the baby up for adoption was not mentioned as one of the options available in the post I responded to and yet many women exercise that option every day.

I've mentioned adoption many times as an option. However the post that you responded to here ^^^ is about the risks of pregnancy....which adoption does not allow one to avoid.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Yes, I actually did. You're trying to create a revaluation. You're statement is skewed and it couldn't have the support of Nietzsche, nevermind what it needs. Determining having kids is selfish, following that strain of logic, anything and everything you do can be considered selfish, it is absurd to even go down that path. It is a perfectly reasonable rebuttal to a completely absurd line of reasoning.

I'll agree with that....however you are the one that introduced it by saying that abortion was selfish. If it's not relevant, then please do not use it as a point in an argument.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

No? and where do you believe laws stem from?

Morality.

Agreed upon and codified.

But not all immoral things are against the law. For example, many types of lying and cheating. It is up to individuals to act or not act, it's called free will and even God granted us that.

Infringing on a woman's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is also against the law unless she is convicted of a crime. Getting pregnant is not a crime. You have no right to tell her what to do with her body. To do so you have to infringe on her right to privacy to do so.

And you still cannot explain why our society recognizes allowing termination of a fetus to save a mother's life or to protect her from mental anguish in cases of rape or incest...but that would NEVER be the case with an individual that was already born.

What is the difference there?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

I am adopted and I would never, EVER inflict that on a child. It is not right to force a child to grow up not knowing who s/he is or where s/he came from.

I have twin sisters who are adopted (at birth). They knew their mother before that crack whore died of AIDS. THey know their brother and sisters and maintain a relationship with them. They are infinitely better off with my family than her...they were born when she was in jail and ALL of her children have physical and mental issues from her being on drugs.

They were all fortunate to be adopted, since all had issues. But there are many families that want children that cannot have them....do we need MORE unwanted kids? My sisters' mother was SO irresponsible she couldnt even bother to get abortions.

Believe me...pregnancy and not giving a ****...continuing to smoke,drink, do drugs....THAT is irresponsible. Not abortion.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

for one your argument is skewed because, blacks, mixed, gays, et al. are allowed to live, and are protected under the law to do so,that's the argument. Further, in a free society, you've got to allow, so long as all people are equal in the eyes of the government, you must allow discrimination between others as it is a matter of free association.

Women have equal rights, the unborn do not. Re: your second point....no one is forcing you to associate with anyone...if you dont want to have an abortion, or dont want to associate with anyone that had one...then dont.

You do not have a right to offend. Certainly they do. They're a black spot on society. I live in society, no? Correct, so much so that they should be as far removed from my community as my fellow members of the community see fit.

Correct, there is no right to offend but there is no right prohibiting it either. Nor is there any Constitutional protection against it. How are women who have abortions a 'black spot on society?' What have their actions wrought in society? And how do you even know if/who have had abortions in your community? If you have to ask, research, look for statistics...and that's the ONLY way you know...then apparently there are no other repercussions to your life.

Correct, that is why social issues must be localized. Not one size fits all blanket over the nation.

Sorry, what social issues are 'localized?' We are a diverse society, that is what gives our nation strength. That is what built our nation. So please: tell me what social issues we localize in our society? Honestly, this is the first I've ever heard of such a thing.

Correct, as you aren't entitled to set up little death camps where ever you please.

Well how would you even know about it? It does not affect you and you would have to go out of your way to learn about it. If a CHILD goes missing or is abused, the community knows...it misses the child, it sees a child in pain, etc etc etc. How are abortions affecting you?

As a Federal law, I believe it is a mistake, as a State law I believe it is a mistake -- either for or against.

Yes, I know.

The interesting thing here is that for eons counties in certain states have been known to be "Dry". That is, no liquor can be bought or sold within county lines. No one ever seems to be up in arms about this, but yet if you try to use the same principles with abortion, allowing or disallowing something as egregious as this to fall within the county level of government's purview than everyone wants to talk about choice, and it is a great oppression that can't be allowed. (notice I was making a comparative argument over the principles and not abortion v. liquor)

What? I went to college in PA and they were fighting over dry counties and getting rid of them. And people here in WA St just recently overturned the control of "state liquor stores.' But drinking alcohol is not a Constitutional right. The right to life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness...for those already born....is.


It is a case where you want to have your ideology spread far and wide, not taking into account other people's attitudes, feelings, and beliefs.

So again, you are just as much trying to force your attitude and beliefs on others as you claim that others are doing to you. Which is why this and every other social issue must be localized.

Nope, it's called FREEDOM. People are free to do what they want within the confines of the law, most importantly not infringing on the rights of others. YOUR beliefs offend many....should someone be able to tell you to move somewhere else because they dont like what you believe? If you would like to live somewhere where the govt has control over people's PERSONAL LIVES....there are a few other countries you can check out.

........................................
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

I am adopted and I would never, EVER inflict that on a child. It is not right to force a child to grow up not knowing who s/he is or where s/he came from.


What makes you think a child, IF HE COULD, chose death over adoption ? And do you think your personal experience is universal to all adopted children ?
I don't. in fact I know it's not.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

I am adopted and I would never, EVER inflict that on a child. It is not right to force a child to grow up not knowing who s/he is or where s/he came from.

So you would have preferred to have been aborted?

That must be a deeply troubling feeling and one where you might seriously think about counseling. There is no way in the world why you should not enjoy the blessing of life and all the good you can do with it. Not knowing who your parents were is not all that unusual and most in your position have been able to live full and happy lives despite this. It would seem you need to talk with someone about this.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

I have twin sisters who are adopted (at birth). They knew their mother before that crack whore died of AIDS. THey know their brother and sisters and maintain a relationship with them. They are infinitely better off with my family than her...they were born when she was in jail and ALL of her children have physical and mental issues from her being on drugs.

They were all fortunate to be adopted, since all had issues. But there are many families that want children that cannot have them....do we need MORE unwanted kids? My sisters' mother was SO irresponsible she couldnt even bother to get abortions.

Believe me...pregnancy and not giving a ****...continuing to smoke,drink, do drugs....THAT is irresponsible. Not abortion.


Abortion is absolutely irresponsible.

It is the stopping of a human beating heart every time.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

I have twin sisters who are adopted (at birth). They knew their mother before that crack whore died of AIDS. THey know their brother and sisters and maintain a relationship with them. They are infinitely better off with my family than her...they were born when she was in jail and ALL of her children have physical and mental issues from her being on drugs.

They were all fortunate to be adopted, since all had issues. But there are many families that want children that cannot have them....do we need MORE unwanted kids? My sisters' mother was SO irresponsible she couldnt even bother to get abortions.

Believe me...pregnancy and not giving a ****...continuing to smoke,drink, do drugs....THAT is irresponsible. Not abortion.

Perhaps both are irresponsible.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

As I see it, the abortion debate/discussion is at it's heart a conflict between the rights of the women and the rights of the child (unborn).

In my mind, they both have equal rights to live. Thus my problem with both sides of the argument - they're both wrong, yet also right, and somehow manage to be both at the same time.

Because...even though their rights are equal...sometimes one has to die.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Abortion is absolutely irresponsible.

It is the stopping of a human beating heart every time.

That 'human beating heart' may stop thru miscarriage anyway...you have no way of knowing if it would come to term.

Irresponsibility is having a child that other people need to pay their own $$ to help you support. Abortion is a very responsible choice. It can enable a woman to continue an education, develop a job into a career, better care for children she already has....all things that are responsible and allow her to contribute more to society.

It is one of a few responsible choices and a woman has the right to choose what's right for her. Not for something that might not ever even be born.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

That 'human beating heart' may stop thru miscarriage anyway...you have no way of knowing if it would come to term.

Irresponsibility is having a child that other people need to pay their own $$ to help you support. Abortion is a very responsible choice. It can enable a woman to continue an education, develop a job into a career, better care for children she already has....all things that are responsible and allow her to contribute more to society.

It is one of a few responsible choices and a woman has the right to choose what's right for her. Not for something that might not ever even be born.
See, there the conflict is again.

Should it have the chance? Or should the women have the chance? Which is more important?

Really, i suppose, it depends on the women in question. But....how far do you carry that? Til birth? Til some semi-arbitrary stage of fetus development? And what criteria do you place on allowing abortions after that? Whim? Mother's life? Nothing?

I've said it before (in other threads) - this issue will only be resolved when an option or options exist which give both the developing child and the mother equal freedom and chance at life.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

See, there the conflict is again.

Should it have the chance? Or should the women have the chance? Which is more important?

Really, i suppose, it depends on the women in question. But....how far do you carry that? Til birth? Til some semi-arbitrary stage of fetus development? And what criteria do you place on allowing abortions after that? Whim? Mother's life? Nothing?

I've said it before (in other threads) - this issue will only be resolved when an option or options exist which give both the developing child and the mother equal freedom and chance at life.

I'm missing the conflict.

Is it a difficult choice? I'm sure it is...but it's made by the individual in her own best interests...SHE, who is already part of society and surviving, is already the best bet for contributing to that society. Only she knows what is best for her. I mean, if her life is in danger from cancer and she chooses to not have chemo to save her fetus...that is her right too, correct? Or if she and her husband already have 3 kids and cant make ends meet....difficult choice but still right for them. I mean...she may lose her job if she has to take time off for a pregnancy. Or if an infant means she will not be able to finish college and her entire future is impacted....never reaching her potential to contribute to society?

Strangers and the govt do not know what is best here. Only that woman does.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

I'm missing the conflict.

Is it a difficult choice? I'm sure it is...but it's made by the individual in her own best interests...SHE, who is already part of society and surviving, is already the best bet for contributing to that society. Only she knows what is best for her. I mean, if her life is in danger from cancer and she chooses to not have chemo to save her fetus...that is her right too, correct? Or if she and her husband already have 3 kids and cant make ends meet....difficult choice but still right for them. I mean...she may lose her job if she has to take time off for a pregnancy. Or if an infant means she will not be able to finish college and her entire future is impacted....never reaching her potential to contribute to society?

Strangers and the govt do not know what is best here. Only that woman does.
The conflict I see is between the unborn child's rights and the mother's rights.

We give the mother precedent because she came first, among other reasons...But does that really make eliminating the child right? Not in my mind.

For me, at least....this issue will never be resolved until and unless both parties have equal opportunity to live
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

I am adopted and I would never, EVER inflict that on a child. It is not right to force a child to grow up not knowing who s/he is or where s/he came from.

while it's unfortunate you feel this way, I know many people who are adopted that are very happy with their life
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

But not all immoral things are against the law. For example, many types of lying and cheating. It is up to individuals to act or not act, it's called free will and even God granted us that.

Infringing on a woman's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is also against the law unless she is convicted of a crime. Getting pregnant is not a crime. You have no right to tell her what to do with her body. To do so you have to infringe on her right to privacy to do so.

And you still cannot explain why our society recognizes allowing termination of a fetus to save a mother's life or to protect her from mental anguish in cases of rape or incest...but that would NEVER be the case with an individual that was already born.

What is the difference there?

pergury, fraud, this is lying and cheating and is against the law. You have a god given right to do whatever the hell you want or are capable of, the consequences are what concern us.

Your right getting pregnant is not a crime. I don't have a right to tell her what to do with her body but I do have a right to say that life which resides in her body is just as valuable worth protecting and defending as her life. If you kill in secret you've still killed.

As I said allowing the termination for protecting the mother's life is acceptable, it is self defense, I never said I agreed to the cause of rape or incest. Society deludes itself to lesser and greater degrees with its rationalization of unacceptable behavior.

The difference is the hypocrisy of relativism which pervades our society. You go to a clinic snip snip suck suck, you're an empowered woman, I kick you in the tummy, I'm a murder. That's the difference.
 
Back
Top Bottom