• 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

Lursa said:
Derp derp derp

You didnt respond to what I wrote, you parroted the usual party line.

So fine...beat your head against the brick wall of abortion being legal.
Click to expand...

This transcends the "usual party line": "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
 
American said:
There's nothing more satisfying than a nice abortion, huh Dana?
Click to expand...

Sheesh, I don't know what's gotten into you lately for you to be laying down all these bait posts the way you are doing, but I've had enough of it. You are going on ignore.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

JayDubya said:
Indeed?


You so generously bestowed upon me a pile of unmitigated nonsesnse, like "basic" misrepresentations of the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You have no rebuttals to my statements.

We can all see that.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

mac said:
Have you ever been to the holocaust museum?
Click to expand...

No.

Have you ever been pregnant?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

nota bene said:
This transcends the "usual party line": "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Click to expand...

How does abortion 'transcend' this? Are you elevating a fetus above those Americans already born?
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

mac said:
Have you ever been to the holocaust museum?
Click to expand...

I find it incredibly insulting for you to compare abortion to the holocaust.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

CaptainCourtesy said:
I find it incredibly insulting for you to compare abortion to the holocaust.
Click to expand...

You have no right to be offended.

But, if you actually try to keep up...I was illustrating the impact of human rights violations, not comparing abortion to the holocaust.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

mac said:
You have no right to be offended.
Click to expand...

I can be offended anytime I want.

But, if you actually try to keep up...I was illustrating the impact of human rights violations, not comparing abortion to the holocaust.
Click to expand...

You were comparing the two in regards to human rights violations, something that is ridiculous.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Lursa said:
No.

Have you ever been pregnant?
Click to expand...

Then you probably can't understand the impact of an attack on human rights.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

CaptainCourtesy said:
I can be offended anytime I want.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. But who cares?

You were comparing the two in regards to human rights violations, something that is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You're free to your opinion. There are quite a few that don't see the holocaust as a human rights violation, too.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

mac said:
Uh-huh. But who cares?
Click to expand...

No one needs to. That doesn't stop me from posting it if I choose to.

You're free to your opinion. There are quite a few that don't see the holocaust as a human rights violation, too.
Click to expand...

They are referred to as holocaust deniers.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

CaptainCourtesy said:
No one needs to. That doesn't stop me from posting it if I choose to.



They are referred to as holocaust deniers.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. And they're just as irrational.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

mac said:
Yes, they are. And they're just as irrational.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, with only a slight difference.

Technically, and this is a meager technicality - Holocaust deniers may or may not be bigoted anti-Semites. There's all this evidence that this awful thing happened and they're denying that it ever happened. You can be a Holocaust denier but not think the actions committed in the Holocaust were permissible, as those are two different variables in terms of what someone may or may not think.

Of course there were folks at the time - at the very least the ones running the operation - and probably some folks today who think that it's okay to kill Jews because they aren't really human beings.

The pro-abortion camp is more akin to the latter than the former, but there's some of the former in terms of those so horrifically ignorant of science that they think no one is even killed when a homicide has objectively taken place.

Lursa said:
Exactly. You have no rebuttals to my statements.

We can all see that.
Click to expand...

And yet all of your statements stand rebutted, including tit for tat with the insults, but you won't be getting any more tat from me on that measure.
 
Last edited:
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Lursa said:
How does abortion 'transcend' this? Are you elevating a fetus above those Americans already born?
Click to expand...

This is why I think of the abortion banners as Moral Fascists. They are so convinced of the moral superiority of their beliefs that they think their beliefs "transcend" anything and everything else. Other people's moral codes, the law, the constitution, etc are all meaningless in relation to their imagined moral superiority. The sanctimony is so complete that they even think it's OK if they lie to promote their sick and perverse agenda.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

mac said:
Then you probably can't understand the impact of an attack on human rights.
Click to expand...


No....the comparison to pregnancy is relevant...so apparently you dont understand the impact of an attack on a woman's human rights.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

JayDubya said:
And yet all of your statements stand rebutted, including tit for tat with the insults, but you won't be getting any more tat from me on that measure.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in your imagination but not in writing in this thread. Please, give me the post numbers where you gave the rebuttals.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

sangha said:
This is why I think of the abortion banners as Moral Fascists. They are so convinced of the moral superiority of their beliefs that they think their beliefs "transcend" anything and everything else. Other people's moral codes, the law, the constitution, etc are all meaningless in relation to their imagined moral superiority. The sanctimony is so complete that they even think it's OK if they lie to promote their sick and perverse agenda.
Click to expand...

So is it fair to say that pro-choice people are moral fascists? Literally, from my perspective they are permitting the unethical and inhumane killings of millions and millions of human lives. If someone believes that an unethical mass slaughter of a segment of the population is occurring, how could they not believe that this trumps someone's "personal choice" or believe that the laws, as they are currently, are wrong and massive violations of human rights? Are you trumping someone else's choice or pushing your own "moral superiority" when you support laws against brutal murder? I mean, who are you to say that a woman can't dismember her husband or children and vacuum their pieces into a machine to be disposed of. It's not crazy to believe that the law is imperfect and may allow or injustice, it did with slavery after all.

You should look at perspective before assigning such judgements, or you could just irrationally cling to slander with your arguments.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

digsbe said:
So is it fair to say that pro-choice people are moral fascists?
Click to expand...

No, it's not

Literally, from my perspective they are permitting the unethical and inhumane killings of millions and millions of human lives. If someone believes that an unethical mass slaughter of a segment of the population is occurring, how could they not believe that this trumps someone's "personal choice" or believe that the laws, as they are currently, are wrong and massive violations of human rights? Are you trumping someone else's choice or pushing your own "moral superiority" when you support laws against brutal murder?
Click to expand...

No, my own personal morality has nothing to do with it. I am saying that the law and the constitution trumps any one person's moral code

I mean, who are you to say that a woman can't dismember her husband or children and vacuum their pieces into a machine to be disposed of. It's not crazy to believe that the law is imperfect and may allow or injustice, it did with slavery after all.

You should look at perspective before assigning such judgements, or you could just irrationally cling to slander with your arguments.
Click to expand...

It's not my place, or any other individual's place, to say whether someone can dismember their spouse or children. It's the law that says that.

All you've done is demonstrate an inability to see anything but a personal moral code when it comes to the law. Nothing you've said demonstrates the slightest recognition that we live under the Rule Of Law. Your very own words reveal that the only thing you consider relevant to the setting of laws is one's moral code.

And you wonder why I think of the abortion banners as Moral Fascists!
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Lursa said:
No....the comparison to pregnancy is relevant...so apparently you dont understand the impact of an attack on a woman's human rights.
Click to expand...

A human right, other than self defense, does not give one the right to kill.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

mac said:
A human right, other than self defense, does not give one the right to kill.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem I have with Pro-lifers. The pro-lifers are saying the woman should have to carry the baby to term, while going through all the physical and mental changes to their body, while the man has no responsibility to ANYHTING LEGALLY. They say the woman should accept "personal responsibility" for having sex and getting pregnant, however, there is NO LEGAL requirement for the man to do ANYTHING during the pregnancy at all. So it's all on the woman.

Pro-lifers cannot pull the child support card either, becuase child support goes for either the man or woman. So where is the LEGAL responsibility of the man?

When I see pro-lifers lobying congress to hold the man legally responsible DURING the pregnancy, maybe then I will relook at my stance on being pro-choice. But with everything falling on the woman, I don't support that.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

TheNextEra said:
Here is the problem I have with Pro-lifers. The pro-lifers are saying the woman should have to carry the baby to term, while going through all the physical and mental changes to their body, while the man has no responsibility to ANYHTING LEGALLY. They say the woman should accept "personal responsibility" for having sex and getting pregnant, however, there is NO LEGAL requirement for the man to do ANYTHING during the pregnancy at all. So it's all on the woman.
Click to expand...

I agree the situation is unfortunate, but, the man, the legal system and pro-lifers in general did not design the human body. As far as legality is concerned, the man should be held equally responsible.

Pro-lifers cannot pull the child support card either, becuase child support goes for either the man or woman. So where is the LEGAL responsibility of the man?
Click to expand...

What legal responsibility would you suggest other than child support?

When I see pro-lifers lobying congress to hold the man legally responsible DURING the pregnancy, maybe then I will relook at my stance on being pro-choice. But with everything falling on the woman, I don't support that.
Click to expand...

Actually, I know of several efforts by pro-life groups to make such a thing legal. I'll have to see if I can find some link to that.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

mac said:
A human right, other than self defense, does not give one the right to kill.
Click to expand...

Why is self-defense ok then? Just because you said so?

Some people dont believe in that either. Yet it's generally the law.

Do you believe that it is wrong to terminate the fetus to save the mother's life? And that is not self-defense, because the fetus has not 'intent' to harm.

Do you believe the mother should not be allowed to take chemo or other drugs to save her own life and risk or terminate the fetus?

Those things ARE legal, btw, because the fetus's right to life is not equal to the woman's.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Lursa said:
Why is self-defense ok then? Just because you said so?

Some people dont believe in that either. Yet it's generally the law.
Click to expand...

Self defense is "ok" because you are defending your most basic human right...the right to life.

Do you believe that it is wrong to terminate the fetus to save the mother's life? And that is not self-defense, because the fetus has not 'intent' to harm.
Click to expand...

No, if the fetus puts her life in danger, then she has the right to defend herself.

Do you believe the mother should not be allowed to take chemo or other drugs to save her own life and risk or terminate the fetus?
Click to expand...

She has the right to protect her own life.

Those things ARE legal, btw, because the fetus's right to life is not equal to the woman's.
Click to expand...

No, that is not why it's legal. Defending one's own life, even if it risk another, is a basic human right.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

mac said:
Self defense is "ok" because you are defending your most basic human right...the right to life.

No, if the fetus puts her life in danger, then she has the right to defend herself.

She has the right to protect her own life.

No, that is not why it's legal. Defending one's own life, even if it risk another, is a basic human right.
Click to expand...
A woman's live is endangered by being pregnant. And so far as I am aware, you can also defend yourself against someone who is trying to hurt you.
A woman's health is endangered by being pregnant.

What I'm saying here is that, even if you argue self-defense as the only reasonable arbiter of when you can kill another, I would still think that both the woman and the fetus have nearly equal claims.
 
Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

The Mark said:
A woman's live is endangered by being pregnant. And so far as I am aware, you can also defend yourself against someone who is trying to hurt you.
A woman's health is endangered by being pregnant.

What I'm saying here is that, even if you argue self-defense as the only reasonable arbiter of when you can kill another, I would still think that both the woman and the fetus have nearly equal claims.
Click to expand...

You are also in danger every time you get behind the wheel of a car, that doesn't mean you have the right to kill anyone that gets too close. The point is, there is a threshold that must be reached before danger becomes "worthy" of self defense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom