• 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!

Judge sides with Planned Parenthood over Mississippi abortion law

What I understand is people ignorantly like to pretend that limited government means "no government" when it suits their purposes to attack such people.
Pretend? No, it's a very real thing. "Keep the government out of my *insert issue here*" is not an unfamiliar phrase to many.

Sadly, words have meanings. There is very few iteration of political ideology that adhere to the idea of limited government that disagrees with the belief that one legitimate role of government is to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens when said citizens are unable to defend them themselves. Such a notion is in no way against such a "limited government" ideology.
Even if we limit the scope of this particular discussion to abortion, it is dishonest for a pro-lifer to assume only their position is the "correct" one, which is essentially the argument you made in your last post. In other words, you're saying the "limited government" crowd is not hypocritical because they believe government should protect "citizens unable to defend themselves". But it is dishonest for said pro-lifer to assume their position is the only one on the issue. Those who are pro-choice make an equally legitimate argument regarding government intervention into a woman's medical decision. Even if you see the unborn as humans in need of government protection, you simply cannot preclude the other side of the argument. And, in this discussion, those who claim they are for limited government are still advocating for a fairly intensive governmental invasion of a person's private medical decisions, as compared to the opinions of their opposites.

While absolutely, some that adhere to such an ideology do approve of expanded/bigger government action outside the consistent scope of what their claimed ideology actually stands for. However, in the case of abortion, so long as their thought process is born from the foundational belief that the unborn is a human, complete with inalienable rights and innocent of any transgressions that could reasonably suppress said rights, it is an entirely consistent and internally logical stance as it relates to their belief in limited government.
Only if you ignore any argument to the contrary of the pro-lifer's. The pro-life argument doesn't exist in a vacuum. While I understand the argument you're making, it requires the assumption of only one argument on the abortion issue. On this issue, there is a big government and a small government crowd and the pro-lifers are on the big government side.

To call them hypocritical in this instance would require one to believe they are also hypocritical for supporting the governments ability to protect a child from a parent who is raping or attempting to murder them.
No, to call them hypocritical, all you have to do is point out they favor larger government to make the medical decisions for women, whilst railing about big government in situations they don't support. Essentially, they favor small government only when it's convenient for them. Even if you accept one of the responsibilities of limited government is to protect citizens, it still doesn't change the fact that, on this issue, they are the ones advocating for large-scale government intervention. Just because the reason for larger government fits into one of the principles they believe government should stand for, it doesn't change the fact they are arguing for larger governmental intervention into citizens' private lives.

While the argument you speak of may not begin and end with abortion, the argument in THIS THREAD that is about THIS TOPIC absolutely does. If he wanted to make his point about homosexuality or drugs, he could've made a thread about it. He made a thread about abortion, and made a stupid and arrogantly naive argument based off that topic, so that's what I addressed.
We must read his OP differently, as his own commentary in the opening post never once really mentioned abortion (unless you count his congrats to the judge). I see his opening post as railing about the supposed hypocrisy of the "limited government" crowd, using a current event as the discussion starter.

If you can direct me to where, in his opening post, he either A) spoke of abortion specifically or B) limited his attack on hypocrisy to only abortion I'll happily acknowledge that. But I don't think you can do that, because I simply don't see it there.
 
Last edited:
Right, but talking about other issues is moving the goal posts. Your threads topic and title, here in the Breaking News forum, isn't about gay rights. It's not about equal pay for women. It's not about discrimination. It's not about Marijuana. It's not about stem cell research. NONE Of those things were referenced or even mentioned in your OP, nor was your OP in any way presenting itself as discussing some broad idea of hypocrisy by those who view "limited government" as a thing, but rather presented it self (both by it's presentation, and the place you chose to start it) as being focused around abortion, and their hypocrisy there.

Furthermore, whether or not they show hypocrisy in those circumstances (of which I would agree with you), is 100% IRRELEVANT as to whether or not the ACTUAL example you used...in this case, abortion....is a legitimate and accurate argument. Which it's not.



No you're not, and you're clearly



That I actually read peoples posts, and you don't? That I actually am willing to understand and accept the way other people think even if I don't agree with it? Yeah, you're right, that is where you and I differ.

Because if we didn't differ in that way, you would've noticed from the VERY onset, in my very first sentence of my second sentence in my first post:

"I'm far closer to what's be described as pro choice than pro life."

I clearly indicated what I was talking about was not MY PERSONAL VIEW, despite your idiotic rant about what "I" give to the fetus, but rather was me having the intellectual honesty and understanding to recognize what their argument ACTUALLY was rather than simply rejecting the concept of viewing their logic in a consistent fashion simply because I disagreed with it.

You're ABSOLUTELY right Dana. That is where you differ with the people we're speaking of (which I'm not one of). YOU view the mother as having significantly more of a right to "health", and in many cases even a right to "life", than the fetus. OTHERS view it differently, and see the fetus as having at least an equal, if not greater, right to "life" than the mother and absolutely a greater right to "life" then she has to "health". That's the ENTIRE POINT I'm making. Is that despite the fact that you seemingly understand that you and they hold different views, you are judging whether or not they are being hypocritical based on a world in which their view is reached by having the same opinion as you.

You completely missed my point, which was those who talk about individual rights are very good at denying them to those whose beliefs are different from theirs. Abortion is a very good example.

As for the last part of your post, would you really force a woman to carry a rapist's baby to term?
 
and the same people who claim to be for limited government seem to be the ones who want that same government to stomp the hardest.

I'm for limited secular government, where the people cannot use the power of the government to force their ridiculous religious beliefs on anyone. This is a good case.
 
Any decision on abortion should be made between the woman and her doctor.

What's even better is the fact that the vast majority of the loudest, and most evangelical pro-life supports are freakin MEN.

The hypocrisy is often times blinding.

Limited government, less government intrusion, and freedom. Unless you're a female. So say'eth the men.
 
What's even better is the fact that the vast majority of the loudest, and most evangelical pro-life supports are freakin MEN.

The hypocrisy is often times blinding.

Limited government, less government intrusion, and freedom. Unless you're a female. So say'eth the men.

They just want to take the country back.


Back to before the 19th. amendment.
 
Certainly depends on who you are now doesn't it?

It does.
I'm a white male. Wouldn't it be great if I, and people like me, were running things once again? This country was founded on the idea of equality of all white males who owned property, after all, and that black people and women were property. How far we've come from the ideas of the founding fathers!





Just in case... yep. It's satire
 
What's even better is the fact that the vast majority of the loudest, and most evangelical pro-life supports are freakin MEN.

The hypocrisy is often times blinding.

Limited government, less government intrusion, and freedom. Unless you're a female. So say'eth the men.
What is that but a purely sexist statement?

Who cares if its men or women, they are Americans with equality of viewpoints. Or are women supposed to be superior on this issue? What is your reasoning? That feeling of superiority by definition is sexist.
 
What is that but a purely sexist statement?

Who cares if its men or women, they are Americans with equality of viewpoints. Or are women supposed to be superior on this issue? What is your reasoning? That feeling of superiority by definition is sexist.

You just stepped in it with that post. If you are married, it is now time to hide from the wife who holds that rolling pin in her hand. :mrgreen:

As it exists today, women might have an equality of viewpoints, but it is not viewpoints they are looking for. They are looking for equal pay for equal work, the right to control their own health, and other real life situations where, at this time, they are clearly not equal. And what are they looking for on these issues? Not viewpoints, but action so that they can BECOME equal. Sexism is not women feeling superior. It is men feeling so superior that they can make women inferior through their actions, which of course, speak much louder than words.
 
You just stepped in it with that post. If you are married, it is now time to hide from the wife who holds that rolling pin in her hand. :mrgreen:

As it exists today, women might have an equality of viewpoints, but it is not viewpoints they are looking for. They are looking for equal pay for equal work, the right to control their own health, and other real life situations where, at this time, they are clearly not equal. And what are they looking for on these issues? Not viewpoints, but action so that they can BECOME equal. Sexism is not women feeling superior. It is men feeling so superior that they can make women inferior through their actions, which of course, speak much louder than words.
I am not a henpecked husband, no. I was born with balls and dating girls, living with girls, being married does not mean I have to give them up... so sorry for your loss.

Where do they not get equal pay for equal work? Any job I have EVER had, women were started at the same pay and if they had the same longevity and credentials I had, were paid just as well, sometimes better, than I was. The instances where they were paid more, or got choice assignments, was because they knew how and used their feminine charms and, in a couple of cases their booty, to influence things to their betterment. Besides, its a bit more complex than that, read some from Thomas Sowell, the very wise, astute and sourced well black economist on pay and equality.

As to abortion or women's health, you have your viewpoint, which I believe to be terribly flawed and single sided, and has been pointed out to you, others have a differing viewpoint.

From your post #11: "And what is so arrogant to plainly show that the very same people who scream bloody murder against the government getting involved when they don't pay their taxes, or scream bloody murder against the government getting involved over people not paying grazing fees, are the very same people who scream bloody murder for the government to get involved over this issue?

Its very simple, in this case it is actually bloody murder, so why shouldn't we. You would have to admit in cases where bloody murder is involved, it would go against our moral nature not to scream it... and continue screaming it. Point is, where is your moral nature? Why are you not also screaming?

Your last 3 sentences may only be good for fertilizing plants, its total BS nonsense. In the case of abortion it is women, and emasculated men, demanding superiority for one gender over another in a case where biology has simply chosen one of the two of them to be the vessel to carry life. Certainly not to be the sole judge, jury and the only one able to give the approval nod to the executioner. That is not how it should go in our system... and its sexist to think women get to make the choice to kill their young.

If we are going to be adhering to the prerogatives divvied out by biology, you would have to concede men are created by biology to be generally stronger than women. So if we are to follow biological prerogatives, men automatically get to dominate women? I didn't think so.

Of course we are going to scream bloody murder. Bloody murder demands our screams.
 
However, I recognize that the viewpoint of the pro-life side is that a fetus is a child
All reasonable people do recognize that and I dare say, respect that. The problem arises when they, who belie that, attempt to force that viewpoint on others as fact, while the real facts are that such a view point is nothing more than a personal belief, bereft or science, history, and rational thinking. More over, very often, based on posts here, it is clear that such viewpoints are little more than blind devotion to religious dogma which has no place in laws governing a democratic society, or otherwise simple uneducated or ignorant partisan positions.

Pointing out that the current law does not agree with their view on the matter is reasonable.
Actually it is not. Laws should not be based on religious dogma, utter ignorance or other baseless personal preferences.

attacking their argument based off an egotistical self absorbed standpoint that their argument is founded upon your own view on the matter is completely unreasonable and ridiculously dishonest.
But it is not dishonest exposing their argument for exactly what they are, either dogma driven or ignorance.
 
There is very few iteration of political ideology that adhere to the idea of limited government that disagrees with the belief that one legitimate role of government is to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens...
That would be true if that truly existed, but reality does tell us that we only have rights to the extent we recognize them through some form of social contract, in our case our Constitution.

However, in the case of abortion, so long as their thought process is born from the foundational belief that the unborn is a human
While their thought process IS protected by our Constitution, it remains just that, a thought process that can not and should not be forced on the rest of society. They are more than welcome to live their lives according to their beliefs and let others do the same.

complete with inalienable rights and innocent of any transgressions that could reasonably suppress said rights, it is an entirely consistent and internally logical stance as it relates to their belief in limited government.
Actually it is not since it is solely a belief.
 
Yes, they do. They were busted making deals; admitting to it.


Incorrect. They were found to be doing nothing illegal by the investigations. The videos taken by the fake company were found to be heavily edited.
 
Incorrect. They were found to be doing nothing illegal by the investigations. The videos taken by the fake company were found to be heavily edited.

By who?
 
That doesn't change what we already know.

Harris County is one of the most Liberal counties in the country.


What we already know is that you are wrong and have been given an answer that contradicts the implication of your question. What we now is your "most liberal county" throw away line is a dodge from accepting the facts of the matter you now irresponsibly skip over. What I can say again is how lazy you are that you didn't check to find the fact that the D.A. is a Republican, appointed by Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, and personally selected for prosecuting PP by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican, and supported for election by State Rep. Sarah Davis, a Republican. BTW, the D.A., Devon Anderson, advertises herself as being tough with George Soros surrogates and entreaties.

I have addressed your issue with the topic directly, refuted it totally, and additionally completely deflated your distraction of an argument. Give more effort, more respect to your own effort, or go away.
 
That doesn't change what we already know.

Harris County is one of the most Liberal counties in the country.

Oh brother, another crazy conspiracy theorist. :roll:
 
You know, something has always struck me as a little odd. That is people who claim that government stomps on the individual, but in instances where they have their OWN view, they want the government to stomp as hard as possible. That means those people are full of the old caca del toro when they bloviate about individual rights.

Good decision on Mississippi, judge.

Judge sides with Planned Parenthood over Mississippi abortion law | Reuters

It's not odd at all actually. They oppose abortion because they view it as murder. Since Planned Parenthood does about 300,000 abortions a year it makes sense that the government shouldn't be involved with them using their reasoning. Maybe if you bothered to understand your opposition you wouldn't ask such stupid questions. Just a thought.
 
What's even better is the fact that the vast majority of the loudest, and most evangelical pro-life supports are freakin MEN.

The hypocrisy is often times blinding.

Limited government, less government intrusion, and freedom. Unless you're a female. So say'eth the men.

Not even close to true. The most extreme and active pro-lifers are women.
 
Back
Top Bottom