• 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!

US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules

I am pro-choice and I don't really look at the law as a "pro-life" or "pro-choice" issue. I support higher standards for abortion providers and the facilities they use to provide those services. I also support proper pre-abortion assessment, which I personally feel is best provided with the transvaginal ultrasound.

That isn't to say I support the law in its entirety, or that I don't question the true motives of those who drafted it...but I recognize that there is good that can come of it, and I hope women who have better experiences than *I* did will appreciate it for those benefits. My abortion was a terrible experience...cold, impersonal, rushed, painful....and the after care was even worse. I had mine done by Planned Parenthood of Dallas...by the people who are the friggin' poster children for abortion offerings, mind you...and it was by far the worst medical attention I've ever received. If this law helps women feel more comfortable in the skill level and attentiveness of their doctor I'll stand behind it. And if people are truly dedicated to providing women with safe, easily accessible abortions as they say...well, then they'll find a way to comply with the law and do just that.

Where there's a will, there's a way, right?
 
You know which governments also interfered in peoples sexlives?

Iran, when it abolished contraceptions and abortions after 1979. A step so stupid even these savage fanatics legalised contraceptions again later.

And communist Rumenia. It outlawed abortion and contraception, to make things worse: the government there actualy forced all teenage girls and young women to undergo regular inspections by government nurses to make sure that when one got pregnant - she stayed pregnant.

What`s it like being in company like that?
 
You know which governments also interfered in peoples sexlives?

Iran, when it abolished contraceptions and abortions after 1979. A step so stupid even these savage fanatics legalised contraceptions again later.

And communist Rumenia. It outlawed abortion and contraception, to make things worse: the government there actualy forced all teenage girls and young women to undergo regular inspections by government nurses to make sure that when one got pregnant - she stayed pregnant.

What`s it like being in company like that?

It's a pretty serious stretch to compare outright banning of BC and abortion to the law in Texas. Not a very honest attempt at debate.
 
It's a pretty serious stretch to compare outright banning of BC and abortion to the law in Texas. Not a very honest attempt at debate.

It is considering that the people who wanted the law passed are authoritarian swamp people screaching "abortion holocaust" with their repulsive toothless gobs.
 
You know which governments also interfered in peoples sexlives?

Iran, when it abolished contraceptions and abortions after 1979. A step so stupid even these savage fanatics legalised contraceptions again later.

And communist Rumenia. It outlawed abortion and contraception, to make things worse: the government there actualy forced all teenage girls and young women to undergo regular inspections by government nurses to make sure that when one got pregnant - she stayed pregnant.

What`s it like being in company like that?

They also live in buildings and wear clothes.

What's it like being in company like that?
 
It is considering that the people who wanted the law passed are authoritarian swamp people screaching "abortion holocaust" with their repulsive toothless gobs.

I have to apologize...my original response was made on the assumption that a serious debate was possible. I see that isn't the case, so I'll refrain from further engagement.
 
They also live in buildings and wear clothes.

What's it like being in company like that?

Since when is the wearing of clothes an indication of how radical your political alignment is?
 
Since when is the wearing of clothes an indication of how radical your political alignment is?

Well, you listed some similarities and implied therefore that the more extreme aspects of those two ideologies are related, so I assumed that line of thought also applied to other potential similarities.
 
Cons LOVE government over regulation when it's something THEY like.
That's true of everyone, on everything.

No one likes it when the other team scores a touchdown, but cheers their own team for scoring a touchdown.
 
Cons LOVE government over regulation when it's something THEY like.

I can't speak for other conservatives, but this conservative believes that government regulation has a place in society when it ensures that its citizens can exercise freedom of choice in a safe and secure manner. When it comes to regulations related to guns, as an example, I see no problem with government regulations that ensure those who manufacture guns create safe and properly functioning weapons, ammunition, and accessories but not regulating what you can buy. When it comes to regulations related to Slurpies, as an example, I see no problem with government regulation that ensures Slurpies aren't poisonous or carcinogenic but not regulating where you can buy them or how big a container you can buy. Likewise, with this law, conservatives see no problem with regulations that protect the health and safety of a patient accessing a medical procedure. Abortion, granted, is a special case since there is great disagreement about the rights of the mother as opposed to the unrealized rights of the unborn child - that argument will go on forever.

The difference between liberals and conservatives, in simple terms, may be that liberals want to tell you what you can and can't do and what you must and must not do while conservatives want to ensure that what you want to do can be done safely and not adversely impact the enjoyment of life of all other citizens. Absolutely, there are extreme views on both ends of the spectrum, but I think you'll find, in a general sense, that liberals create legislation that intrudes on individual lives while conservatives create legislation to mitigate the effects of liberal intrusion into personal lives.
 
It is considering that the people who wanted the law passed are authoritarian swamp people screaching "abortion holocaust" with their repulsive toothless gobs.


Is that you Woodrow? ;)


Tim-
 
Conservatives cheer when innocent human life if protected. Imagine that!
 
You mean like mandatory health insurance?

It can be questioned that mandatory health care is advantageous to us or not. Before this mandatory health care, health care cost less and offered more of what an individual needs, not blanket, one-size-fits-all coverage for all, regardless of need. Also, the medical community, with all it's flaws, ran much smoother than it does now under the control of the Obama administration.
 
It can be questioned that mandatory health care is advantageous to us or not.
I fail to see how that is possible? Isn't a healthy nation a better and stronger nation? Considering that we already spend more on "healthcare" than anyone else, if we took that money and made sure that it actually was spent on making people healthy we would be better off and could also save some of that money.

Before this mandatory health care, health care cost less and offered more of what an individual needs
What are individual needs? Can anyone predict with any certainty what illness or accident will befall them? The need is to cover medical expenses as they occur, nothing more nothing less.

Also, the medical community, with all it's flaws, ran much smoother than it does now under the control of the Obama administration.
Lets not make this political, but other than that corporate greed comes back to mind.
 
It can be questioned that mandatory health care is advantageous to us or not. Before this mandatory health care, health care cost less and offered more of what an individual needs, not blanket, one-size-fits-all coverage for all, regardless of need. Also, the medical community, with all it's flaws, ran much smoother than it does now under the control of the Obama administration.

It can certainly be questioned whether extra unwanted, unaffordable babies is advantageous to us or not. Children born to single mothers, or in poverty, or to addicts or in general unwanted, etc....have lower rates of success in life and higher rates of criminal activity.
 
I bet SCOTUS kills it


you want support for this bill that obviously IMO violates the constitution since RvW exists do the following:


have a bill that the MEDICAL COMMUNITY supports/sanctions and writes that is actually about SAFETY, currently they are against this and had nothing to do with it as linked in other threads
have a bill that applies to ALL MEDICAL facilities that do procedures of the same medical/surgery rating instead of intellectually dishonesty and biasedly targeting places that do abortions and ignoring others. Educated and objective people see through such hypocrisy
have a bill that does not violate RvW

I myself would like RvW changed some and rights legislated for a ZEF but i dont want that done by violating people's rights.

If SCOTUS holds this up, which i seriously doubt, so be it they will have to explain thier ruling and show why this doesnt violate rights or make a ruling that revamps RvW.
 
Back
Top Bottom