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

sangha said:

Exactly how the term was used

Click to expand...

Scrabaholic said:

Where did I ever say cows are people?

Abortion is not murder. Murder is the ILLEGAL killing of a person by a person. If it's legal, it CANNOT be murder.

Click to expand...

ChezC3 said:

I certainly don't expect you to comprehend what was being said, so to put it succinctly; your comments are unwelcome so please mind your own business.

Click to expand...

clownboy said:

You are factually wrong in at least one case. The prespective father is forced to accept in the case where the prespective mother gets an abortion. And just a nitpick, but not all abortion is legal.

Click to expand...

AGENT J said:

1.) this is 100% false, "acceptance" isnt forced in the least, not even one bit

this thread is proof

is abortion legal? yep

does he "accept" it? nope

2.) has nothgin to do with "acceptance"

3.) yes that is false


does making freedom of speech force you to "accept" everything somebody says? nope
how about freedom of religion? because im a christian are you forced to accept Christianity? nope
does not outlawing premarital sex force all those people with religion that its wrong to accept it? nope
etc etc

acceptance cant be forced


people still dont accept that women and minorities are equal and they still dont accept interracial marriage etc.

you are free to disagree but the fact is nothing is forced, he doesnt have to have an abortion and he factually doesn't accept that its right.

Click to expand...

The Mark said:

Since none of those rules apply, so far as I can tell, he's fine.

What?

My opinion on the rules is as valid as yours.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

I believe in quality of life, not quantity. And personal gain? Less taxpayer $$ out of my pocket (or Texans in this case) to pay for public assistance for children that women cannot afford, court costs for DNA tests and dead-beat dads, the cost to society of women who do not get to fulfill their potential by not completing educations, getting a higher education, not developing a career but ending up in a dead end job, etc. Just a Reader's Digest version.

Click to expand...

Scrabaholic said:

i could say the same to you....... will you practice what you preach and stop responding to my posts?

Click to expand...

clownboy said:

Once again, abortion does affect at least one more person than the one making the decision to abort - the father.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

SInce almost by definition, abortion is for unplanned pregnancies, the 'father' had no previous investment here. Didnt want a kid, didnt have that in mind. To decide after the fact is too late.


I think that the father's rights are a valid discussion tho...if you would like to explore it further, would you start a different thread?

Click to expand...

clownboy said:

Not my contention. Perhaps you should read my posts instead of guessing my positions.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

SInce almost by definition, abortion is for unplanned pregnancies, the 'father' had no previous investment here. Didnt want a kid, didnt have that in mind. To decide after the fact is too late.


I think that the father's rights are a valid discussion tho...if you would like to explore it further, would you start a different thread?

Click to expand...

ChezC3 said:

Well, this is thrice now that he's repeated the same baiting, flaming and/or trolling post

Where?

When someone is asked to refrain from corresponding with you and is asked politely,and they choose to ignore your request, that at the very least is being a jerk.

Yes your opinion is as valid, but I suppose it is for the moderators to decide the issue.

Click to expand...

The Mark said:

1.)Take it another way then.

2.) Anti-abortion types want to force their beliefs on everyone else.
3.) Pro-abortion types want to force their beliefs on everyone else.

4.) Or at least, in both cases, to the degree that laws are made supporting one or the other.

Click to expand...

clownboy said:

Once again, abortion does affect at least one more person than the one making the decision to abort - the father.

Click to expand...

The Mark said:

Agent J is like that - he will not let you get away with leaving the discussion until you prove your point or admit you were wrong.

None of that equals baiting, flaming, or trolling, IMO.

Click to expand...

ChezC3 said:

I didn't recall responding to them in the firts place, but your wish is my command...

Ta ta...

Click to expand...

sangha said:

And walking down the steet slowly slows down the people who want to walk fast.

Too freaking bad

Click to expand...

clownboy said:

You're polishing a turd. He won't leave a the discussion until he declares his opinions to be facts. Source all you want, he just denies and reiterates that his opinions are the facts. And if you come close to the reportable line, he changes tone and says stick to the topic right after repeating yet again, his opinions are the facts. It's a tried and true tactic and I'm prohibitted from calling it any of those things you just mentioned.

Click to expand...

clownboy said:

Actually, if you're blocking the access to the sidewalk or street that is against the law and you may be cited. Poor example.

Click to expand...

Scrabaholic said:

I got you mixed up with someone else. My apologies.

Click to expand...

ChezC3 said:

You can keep on saying it as many times as you'd like, it won't change the fact that you are wrong. WOW, WHOOPEE, YIPEE KI AYEEE, Certainly they are forcing something on me, they're forcing their belief that killing the unborn has to be an accepted part of society. It doesn't. The scarlet letter isn't a bad idea, perhaps if more shame was brought back into society you wouldn't think the killing of the unborn was something to be admired. I read everything I write. Is English your first language? I don't know how many times I can repeat myself in this regard. Chicago. Born on the South side reside on the North. and to further divulge, I purposefully, with specific intent chose to live in the most diversified zip code in the country. So you can find a new place to stick your racial arguments.


It's kind of funny since you can see right here on the forum that not everyone agrees with YOUR beliefs. And yet you believe that our entire society should conform to them. And you say I'm wrong? So, besides women who get abortions, who else would you have wearing a Scarlet Letter in your intolerant community? Women who had sex outside of marriage? Gays? People who keep exotic animals? People who purposely choose not to have kids? People who do extreme sports? People with foot fetishes? People who wear fur? Divorced people? Men that wear their pants down by their knees, gangsta style? People that believe in euthenasia? People that drink alcohol? Smoke cigarettes? Spank their kids?


Don't be childish, our society isn't free, and your arguing to make it even more restrictive. See, you just said exactly as I figured. If people don't want the influence of socially acceptable death in their community -- suck it up.

Well the society that I live in...the community...let's all the people I listed above live together...and they do, peacefully.

Correct, the world doesn't revolve around a single individual which is why a community should have a right to allow or disallow certain things which invade, influence, and cause great harm to them.

Please explain what great harm abortion causes you?

Jesus Christ are you confused, YOU are the one trying to live in a homogenous society of anything goes and close your eyes and cover your ears if you don't like it, not me.

You do not understand the definition of 'homogeneous." Perhaps I have given you too much credit. "Homogenous" means "all the same." Not diversity, which is what I am supporting....many beliefs, personal liberty, free will.



A woman doesn't have a right to kill, abortion is killing, trying to make a distinction between the two, this is your hypocritical mind working overtime. Again nip nip suck suck = empowered woman v. kick in the belly = a murderer. Death to the unborn is the result but you want to find one means acceptable and find the other deplorable. It's relativistic twaddle.

Why does she...or a doctor...have the right to 'kill' the fetus to save her own life? Why is 'self-defense' legal? Why is that killing ok? What is the basis for that if it is mother an 'child?'

And any killing is deplorable...but not illegal and not an infringement on something that has no rights. You never answered....can you kill a toddler for being the product of rape? No. Why not? So why do most people recognize it's ok to terminate a fetus that is a product of rape?

WHat is the difference? You cannot say....because you do not want to admit it the difference between born and unborn. (Psssst....ignoring something doesnt make it untrue).


What's disturbing is your lack of reading comprehension. An abortion clinic isn't a person. The act of doing something is separate for an individual who is doing it, not comprehending this makes me wonder your level of education.

OK, since when did your discussion refer to an abortion clinic rather than an individual woman? You are the one that liked the idea of the Scarlett Letter. But once again....please describe how you are *affected* by such a facility? You are not, beyond it offending your personal beliefs. And as we've discussed, there are no particular protections for that because our American COnstitution places personal liberty and free will above that.




No, I'm sorry dear, you are the one who needs to feel ashamed. Taking the life of the unborn is unacceptable. That is what is pathetic, it makes life's value relative. Which as you've missed before, is the foundation for our destruction. You've proven yourself incapable of understanding this very simple, rudimentary concept. You can't see that all of societal ills are based on the (lack of )value we give to life itself. You find zero value in life, that is what is very sad.

Did you ever give me an answer about how you would feel if a stranger or the govt told you that you HAD to take a risk to your life or long-term health that you didnt believe in? Can you tell me how you'd respond to that demand?

Click to expand...

mac said:

Do you also beleive in judging which life is "quality" and which is not?

Click to expand...

The Mark said:

Agent J is like that - he will not let you get away with leaving the discussion until you prove your point or admit you were wrong.

None of that equals baiting, flaming, or trolling, IMO.

Click to expand...

clownboy said:

I think we already have a few of those. And though I generally support the woman's right to kill her unborn (in the larger sense of societal rules/laws) I do feel the father should have the option to step up. If folks were really pro-choice they wouldn't take that choice away from the father either.

Click to expand...

AGENT J said:

1.) ok whatcha got
2.) true because a personal choice to have an abortion and not be forced to risk ones life against their will, will be taken away
3.) 100% false because nothing will be forced, their personal choice will still be theirs to make, nobody will make it for them
4.) no see 3


its this simple

under pro-choice

person A who is pro-life gets to practice how they believe and their rights stay in tact
person B who is pro-choice gets to practice how they believe and their rights stay in tact

under pro-life

person A who is pro-life gets to practice how they believe and their rights stay in tact
person B who is pro-choice does NOT get to practice how they believe and their rights are infringed

so again the fact is notihing is forced on him and he doesnt have to accept anything

Click to expand...