• 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

A human rights violation, by it's very nature, affects all of humanity.
Banning abortions is a human rights violation.

Allowing abortions is a human rights violation.


Which do we choose, then?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

1.)Again, I see it as a form of acceptance. Not, obviously, full acceptance - but at the same time, you're willing to accept something you disagree with is going on to the point that you are not committing illegal acts to change it.

2.)I meant that some morals and opinions were considered to be rights, then codified into laws.

They're interrelated, but not the same thing, I suppose...

3.)That's what I'm saying, though...facts are unchanging, but the interpretation of said facts - which is the only thing most people see - can change.

4.)Morals and opinions are subjective. Some of those were thrashed out into rights.
Rights are subjective, until codified into laws.
Interpretations of laws are subjective, until ruled on by courts.
Interpretations of rulings are subjective, until more rulings further clarify.

Everything is subjective, really - we've just formed a framework of rules, laws, and precedent that removes some of that subjectivity. Remove the framework...and everything is subjective again.

5.) I suppose it is more than 2 sides - but those two sides are the vocal minority who currently are shown as the examples of what the discussion is.

The middle is really more of a motley collection of sides, none really disagreeing with the other.

But forget sides - IMO, none of the available options are acceptable.
The option of allowing abortions, even if only some, causes a human (or some other word/phrase that means "will be human but isn't yet") to die.

Fully or partially disallowing abortions takes rights away from a human, possibly even the right to life - assuming we're talking a life-threatening pregnancy here.

I do not accept any of these options.

6.)But I do accept that we must choose one, for the moment.


7.)Going a bit further, IMO any human decision making is guaranteed to be biased in some way - depending on what the bias is, I agree or disagree with the decision. As everyone does.....

We've already changed the rights and constitution multiple times. Our interpretation of same, even. Some agree with these changes, others do not.

Possibly.

1.) but that doesnt have anything to do with the meaning of acceptance
2.) this is 100% true, SOME are and do happen to line up
3.) but not impact the actual facts
4.) agreed, the end result is removing the subjectivity
5.) i disagree, just look that he abortion here, the most people that disagree are the ones in the middle because SOME magically think that their middle is good and the other middle is evil, its hilarious.
6.) I also thing one must be chooses and RvW isnt that bad, it is in the middle more closely than the extremes SOME people want.
7.) i got no problem with that but thats the basis and where we have to start, some just magically jump to the end and make up thier own rules trying to abandon the framework you were previously talking about.
8.) yes "possibly" you were told that;)
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Banning abortions is a human rights violation.

Allowing abortions is a human rights violation.


Which do we choose, then?

100% correct

this is the reality and facts some choose to ignore or spin over
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

actually we have covered before how murder is not solely a legal term. Hardly surprising that you would continue ignoring that though

And none of the other definitions fit abortion. That has been explained to you before.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Banning abortions is a human rights violation.

Allowing abortions is a human rights violation.


Which do we choose, then?

While I don't think that banning abortion is the best way to go, I also don't beleive doing so is a human rights violation. Banning abortion does not result in death, pregnancy is avoidable, and having control over one's own body does not necessarily mean you should have the right to kill your offspring.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

While I don't think that banning abortion is the best way to go, I also don't beleive doing so is a human rights violation. Banning abortion does not result in death, pregnancy is avoidable, and having control over one's own body does not necessarily mean you should have the right to kill your offspring.
Banning abortion MIGHT result in death, if its a matter of "abort or you will die", which happens occasionally.
Pregnancy is avoidable unless the woman was raped.
Having control over ones body DOES mean that you have the right to do ANYTHING with it, including removal of something you don't want on/in it.
Thus, banning abortions, in whole or in part, is a human rights violation.

This is just my opinion, of course.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Banning abortion MIGHT result in death, if its a matter of "abort or you will die", which happens occasionally.
Pregnancy is avoidable unless the woman was raped.

I beleive any control of abortion should include exceptions for rape and health of the mother under the philosophy of Self Defense. Self Defense is the only time I believe that killing another human is acceptable.

Having control over ones body DOES mean that you have the right to do ANYTHING with it, including removal of something you don't want on/in it.

I disagree. I agree that you have control over your own body up to the point where your actions put another human life in danger.

Thus, banning abortions, in whole or in part, is a human rights violation.

I disagree, unless it's in self defense.

This is just my opinion, of course.

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

1.) but that doesnt have anything to do with the meaning of acceptance
I think we're either using different definitions of "accept", or we just have different takes on what it means.
2.) this is 100% true, SOME are and do happen to line up
excellent.
3.) but not impact the actual facts
Even if you gave people the bald facts, they would apply their own interpretations and still disagree.
4.) agreed, the end result is removing the subjectivity
You can't though. Subjectivity is an inherent part of being human....
5.) i disagree, just look that he abortion here, the most people that disagree are the ones in the middle because SOME magically think that their middle is good and the other middle is evil, its hilarious.
Then they are actually thinking that the "other middle" is the fringe segment - for some, there is no middle ground except agreement with them.
6.) I also thing one must be chooses and RvW isnt that bad, it is in the middle more closely than the extremes SOME people want.
I don't know much about RvW, really - apart from it being current law...and me not knowing exactly what that means...but I tend to agree that it's one of the best options out of a barrel of bad choices.
7.) i got no problem with that but thats the basis and where we have to start, some just magically jump to the end and make up thier own rules trying to abandon the framework you were previously talking about.
You can't get everyone to agree, some will do so out of contrariness.
8.) yes "possibly" you were told that;)
I was actually referring to other stuff. Plus back patting hurts my shoulder.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Apparently you need some type of reference material to understand this. Try again? It's hard to dumb it down further.

Dumb it down? No, I usually refuse to do that. As a fellow Homo sapiens you should have certain basic capacity for reason even if it hasn't been employed recently.

Again, at its most basic level, there is no right violated when the state protects the right to life of all living humans. To claim otherwise remains an exercise in absurdity and futility.


Clearly, the fetus does not have an equal right to life with individuals that are already born.

Clearly? Hardly. All humans have a natural right to life and all humans are created equal.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

1.)While I don't think that banning abortion is the best way to go
I also don't beleive doing so is a human rights violation.
3.) Banning abortion does not result in death
4.), pregnancy is avoidable
5.) and having control over one's own body does not necessarily mean you should have the right to kill your offspring.

1.) its horrible way to go IMO
2.) Your beliefs are proven wrong by facts
3.) yes it can
4.) so is rape, it being avoidable is meaningless
5.) good thing thats not was being discussed

bannign aboriton is a clear rights violation, this fact wont change, you dont have the right to force somebody to risk their life against their will
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

1.)I beleive any control of abortion should include exceptions for rape and health of the mother under the philosophy of Self Defense. Self Defense is the only time I believe that killing another human is acceptable.

2.) I disagree, unless it's in self defense.



Of course.

1.) well there is already a risk of life, always, it may be small sometimes and it maybe be large sometimes but the risk is always there and if you remove the choice of taking that risk its a violation.
2.) you disagreement has been factually proved wrong.

of course since you disagree all you have to do is provide anythign factual that supports your claim
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

1.)I think we're either using different definitions of "accept", or we just have different takes on what it means.
excellent.
2.)Even if you gave people the bald facts, they would apply their own interpretations and still disagree.
3.)You can't though. Subjectivity is an inherent part of being human....
4.) Then they are actually thinking that the "other middle" is the fringe segment - for some, there is no middle ground except agreement with them.
5.) I don't know much about RvW, really - apart from it being current law...and me not knowing exactly what that means...but I tend to agree that it's one of the best options out of a barrel of bad choices.
You can't get everyone to agree, some will do so out of contrariness.
I was actually referring to other stuff. Plus back patting hurts my shoulder.

1.) theres only one to use :shrug:
the conversation has always been about "forcing personal acceptance"
and that is impossible to do
it being legal doesnt force acceptance at all
this fact hasnt changed
2.) that their issue to deal with
3.) you just showed how it is done, the framework is put in place and its done. People may disagree but unless the frame work is chnged its menaignless
4.) hence their denial of reality and facts
5.) well its definitely middle ground. It use viability (50% viability) as a marker and at 24weeks
way better than any extreme option
6.) 1 agree and said as much
7.) i was patting your back you werent, but if your shoulder hurts youll have to rub on your own ointment
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

1.)Again, at its most basic level, there is no right violated when the state protects the right to life of all living humans.
2.)To claim otherwise remains an exercise in absurdity and futility.
3.)All humans have a natural right to life and all humans are created equal.

1.) agreed which will NOT be done if abortion is banned, good job!
2.) also agree which is why abortion cant be banned, another good job!
3.) which is why the only thing close to equal is something in the middle ans not banning abortion.

these facts wont change

currently your view sees the woman as a lesser and not equal this fact has been proven over and over again.
 
Once more, extremist ideology has been defeated in the courts. This will most likely move up to the Supreme Court, where I expect 2 things will happen.

1) SCOTUS will uphold the ruling, saying the Texas law places an undue burden on women.

2) Some here will call Justice Roberts a RINO. Never mind that he will have upheld the Constitution, and left ideology out of his decision.

Of course, for some of the "smaller government crowd, they really do want big government when it suits their own desires to force their own religious beliefs on others.

Article is here.

Late term abortion is murder, and anyone who supports late term abortions is an extremist and a murderer....

IMO, these feminists and progressives murder babies as a hobby just to "embrace" their delusion of civil liberties and to spite the pro-life crowed.

It's really disgusting....

Anyone who supports late term abortions should be treated like the savage killers they are... They deserve no respect - nor should they be treated as "human" - in my book they're nothing more than rabid rodents.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

1.) theres only one to use :shrug:
the conversation has always been about "forcing personal acceptance"
and that is impossible to do
it being legal doesnt force acceptance at all
this fact hasnt changed
Not even a little? /cry
2.) that their issue to deal with
Not entirely. If enough people believe an incorrect interpretation, it can become a larger problem.
3.) you just showed how it is done, the framework is put in place and its done. People may disagree but unless the frame work is changed its menaignless
The framework allows for change, though - if enough disagree, it can change somewhat.
4.) hence their denial of reality and facts
People don't like being wrong.
5.) well its definitely middle ground. It use viability (50% viability) as a marker and at 24weeks
way better than any extreme option
Yep.
6.) 1 agree and said as much
Yep.
7.) i was patting your back you weren't, but if your shoulder hurts youll have to rub on your own ointment
Completely understandable.
 
Late term abortion is murder, and anyone who supports late term abortions is an extremist and a murderer....

IMO, these feminists and progressives murder babies as a hobby just to "embrace" their delusion of civil liberties and to spite the pro-life crowed.

It's really disgusting....

Anyone who supports late term abortions should be treated like the savage killers they are... They deserve no respect - nor should they be treated as "human" - in my book they're nothing more than rabid rodents.

Yeah that's it. They go around murdering for fun. Obama told them to.

We've been found out guys. Quick, to the Fortress of Solitude! Somebody needs to make sure we tell the media to cover for us.
 
Yeah that's it. They go around murdering for fun. Obama told them to.

We've been found out guys. Quick, to the Fortress of Solitude! Somebody needs to make sure we tell the media to cover for us.
You don't get a Fortress of Solitude, that's Superman's place, and he's a good guy.

You obviously have to settle for some evil lair. Bad guys always have evil lairs.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

1.)Not even a little? /cry
2.)Not entirely. If enough people believe an incorrect interpretation, it can become a larger problem.
3.) The framework allows for change, though - if enough disagree, it can change somewhat.
4.) People don't like being wrong.

1.)lol no because i already gave factual example after example
2.) a problem created by them that doesnt change the facts
3.) this is true it does allow for change in a certain way and those people randomly stomping thier feet and crying and just making claims doesnt get it done
4.) SOME people dont like it. Ive been wrong plenty it doesnt impact me at all, normal people simply learn from the experience.
 
You don't get a Fortress of Solitude, that's Superman's place, and he's a good guy.

You obviously have to settle for some evil lair. Bad guys always have evil lairs.

You're right. Sorry, I meant the Legion of Doom lair

ngbbs4dfecc4481f9b.jpg

It's like the new White House.
 
Late term abortion is murder, and anyone who supports late term abortions is an extremist and a murderer....

2.) IMO, these feminists and progressives murder babies as a hobby just to "embrace" their delusion of civil liberties and to spite the pro-life crowed.

3.) It's really disgusting....

4.) Anyone who supports late term abortions should be treated like the savage killers they are... They deserve no respect - nor should they be treated as "human" - in my book they're nothing more than rabid rodents.

1.) who was talking about illegal late term abortions? this bill certainly is not nor is the OP you quoted
2.) well that opinion is factually wrong not to mention the millions of non feminists and non progressives that support pro-choice, do they count or no
3.) you are free to have this opinion but since its based on the aforementioned false statement it doesnt amount to much but a feeling based on a fallacy.
4.) see #1 this is a strawman that i dont believe was mentioned here but i could be mistaken
 
Yeah that's it. They go around murdering for fun. Obama told them to.

We've been found out guys. Quick, to the Fortress of Solitude! Somebody needs to make sure we tell the media to cover for us.

Yes, progressives (not every progressive) but there are a minority that love abortions and have the procedure just because they "can." To them having an abortion is on par with gun rights advocates open and carrying their firearms in public to assert "just because they can."

****ing baby killers belong in prison with other sicko's who commit crimes against children...

Premature babies survive ALL THE TIME - if those kids can survive after 4-5 months in the womb - then late term abortion is ****ing murder...

This goes way beyond "reproductive rights" and into homicide or First Degree Murder - especially when individuals are charged with murder when a mother loser her "fetus" via domestic violence or any sort of violence that resulted in the "fetus" dying in the womb.

Of course that concept is too difficult for progressives to rationalize in their brain considering the facts don't jibe with what the WANT....
 
Yes, progressives (not every progressive) but there are a minority that love abortions and have the procedure just because they "can." To them having an abortion is on par with gun rights advocates open and carrying their firearms in public to assert "just because they can."

There's a saying. It's better to remain silent and be thought an idiot than it is to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You should really give that some consideration because it seems like you're on a quest to out-stupid yourself all the time.
 
1.)Yes, progressives (not every progressive) but there are a minority that love abortions and have the procedure just because they "can." To them having an abortion is on par with gun rights advocates open and carrying their firearms in public to assert "just because they can."

2.)****ing baby killers belong in prison with other sicko's who commit crimes against children...

3.) Premature babies survive ALL THE TIME - if those kids can survive than late term abortion is ****ing murder...

4.) This goes way beyond "reproductive rights" and into homicide or First Degree Murder - especially when individuals are charged with murder when a mother loser her "fetus" via domestic violence or any sort of violence that resulted in the "fetus" dying in the womb.

5.) Of course that concept is too difficult for progressives to rationalize in their brain considering the facts don't jibe with what the WANT....

1.) do you have any links to fact that support this absurd claim?
2.) this iss imply not the topic here, nobody here is "baby killers" that we know of
3.) again blanket statments like this based on zero facts and assumptions are simply not true, especially when there are known facts that prove them wrong
4.) again your opinion is proven wrong by facts.

maybe you have a example that is better explained and not factually false or in blanket form. D you have any specific examples?

5.) insulting people wont help anybodys cause and you haven listed any facts yet, please do so we know what you are referring to.
 
You don't get a Fortress of Solitude, that's Superman's place, and he's a good guy.

You obviously have to settle for some evil lair. Bad guys always have evil lairs.

Does it get to be in the shape of a giant skull built on top of an active volcano? I've always wanted one of those.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

1.)lol no because i already gave factual example after example
Ok :(
2.) a problem created by them that doesn't change the facts
Yet, can still affect others.
3.) this is true it does allow for change in a certain way and those people randomly stomping their feet and crying and just making claims doesn't get it done
Randomly, no. But if they organize a bit...
4.) SOME people don't like it. Ive been wrong plenty it doesn't impact me at all, normal people simply learn from the experience.
I don't like being wrong. But I know I CAN be wrong. So I deal.
 
Back
Top Bottom