• 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 says Texas can't ban Planned Parenthood

Interesting 'social Darwinist" take on the matter. So you think ALL deaths are the consequence of the deceased actions?

Duh, of course not. Some people do actually die of natural causes. Some have their life shortened when someone else takes actions to take away their right to life. Accidents do happen, although the number that are not directly attributable to human actions are rare. The government does have the responsibility to try to protect the rights of individuals from being taken away by the actions of other individuals. That is a legitimate government function. But, if you take a look at the leading causes of death, at least in the US, you will see that the individuals actions and choices played a large role in that death occuring or was the result of actions taken by other people. Besides the above mentioned choices that lead to an individual having or not having healthcare, people also choose whether or not to smoke, they choose their diets, they choose whether or not to wear a seatbelt, and they choose whether or not to exercise. Americas healthcare cost would geatly decrease if Americans simply took better care of themselves and made better choices. However, the government should not dictate those choices.
 
I don't see how it can be unconstitutional for a state to decide how to spend the constituents money.
 
And separate but equal isn´t racist.

Well done. One would be hard pressed to make a less relevant, less material comparison. Perhaps next time try using the Nazis?
 
Well done. One would be hard pressed to make a less relevant, less material comparison. Perhaps next time try using the Nazis?

A Libertarian talking about relevance? Rich. I´m sorry the point went over your head. Actually, I´m really not because I could have drawn you a picture and you still wouldn´t have gotten it.
 
A Libertarian talking about relevance? Rich. I´m sorry the point went over your head. Actually, I´m really not because I could have drawn you a picture and you still wouldn´t have gotten it.

I'm not Libertarian and I still do not see the correlation or relevance. But then again, without a Lobotomy and getting shot in the head two or three times, I probably will never be able to degrees my logic and cognitive functions to the point of understanding Liberals.
 
A Libertarian talking about relevance? Rich. I´m sorry the point went over your head. Actually, I´m really not because I could have drawn you a picture and you still wouldn´t have gotten it.

Well you see, what he said was that not spending government money on something at all is not the same thing as saying that the something can not exist by law. Which is a true statement, because they are quite obviously not the same thing.


Comparing that to whether or not having different public facilities for people of different races was racist or not does not, either on its face, or with much scrutiny, make one iota of goddamned sense. But I've noticed that to be an unfortunate hallmark of the left lately (and perhaps it's been going on for perpetuity?) - racebaiting early and often in any topic, regardless of appropriateness.
 
Last edited:
Well you see, what he said was that not spending government money on something at all is not the same thing as saying that the something can not exist by law.

Yes and I stated that separate but equal wasn´t racist. The point was simple, if you use enough rhetoric you can whitewash the true meaning of legislative action. Conservatives and their reject brethren Libertarians have been trying for decades to ban abortion or as they call it overturn Roe V Wade, defunding PP is just another step in that goal.
 
Yes and I stated that separate but equal wasn´t racist. The point was simple, if you use enough rhetoric you can whitewash the true meaning of legislative action. Conservatives and their reject brethren Libertarians have been trying for decades to ban abortion or as they call it overturn Roe V Wade, defunding PP is just another step in that goal.

Again you don't make sense. Overturning Roe v. Wade is certainly a just goal, but that wouldn't represent a federal ban of abortion. That would require a constitutional amendment (itself also a just goal).




I mean, what do you think the people that strongly disapprove of Planned Parenthood and resent that any of their federal taxes go towards that foul organization do so in isolation of how they feel about abortion? Of course not. Duh.

Ending public funding of Planned Parenthood is just that. It doesn't magically overturn Roe. The people that resent funding PP through government coercion probably also want Roe overturned, but that doesn't make defunding anything more than defunding.
 
Last edited:
Again you don't make sense. Overturning Roe v. Wade is certainly a just goal, but that wouldn't represent a federal ban of abortion. That would require a constitutional amendment (itself also a just goal).

Absolute nonsense. In the mid-90s Conservatives tried to pass a federal abortion ban ACT. It was vetoed but it proves you don´t need a constitutional amendment of any sort to ban abortion on a federal level. Actually, you don´t need an amendment to ban anything. You just need an act and a majority.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how it can be unconstitutional for a state to decide how to spend the constituents money.
Again, it was $23M in fed dollars, $3M in TX dollars. It was mainly dollars from all of us, TX was not following fed guidelines on disbursement.
 
Absolute nonsense.

Roe is nonsense. Equal and opposite nonsense is not the solution. Roe is nonsense specifically because the Constitution does not say anything about abortion.

Now, if you want to say that all you need to ignore the rule of law is to have an overwhelming majority of the public to elect politicians who will willfully ignore the rule of law? Well, unfortunately, yes. That's the root of a lot of problems, I'm afraid.

Mob rule - it's why pure democracy sucks.
 
Last edited:
The people that resent funding PP through government coercion probably also want Roe overturned, but that doesn't make defunding anything more than defunding.
LOL....too funny! Just because that is their goal, it doesn't mean that is what they are working towards.
 
Roe is nonsense. Equal and opposite nonsense is not the solution. Roe is nonsense specifically because the Constitution does not say anything about abortion.

Now, if you want to say that all you need to ignore the rule of law is to have an overwhelming majority of the public to elect politicians who will willfully ignore the rule of law? Well, unfortunately, yes. That's the root of a lot of problems, I'm afraid.

Mob rule - it's why pure democracy sucks.
3 times you have said this in this thread, each time you have been told that it is about the rights of a person, namely a woman. A zygote is not a person.
 
3 times you have said this in this thread, each time you have been told that it is about the rights of a person, namely a woman.

This is not a response to what I said, really. The Constitution does not define any rights relevant to the question of abortion, for women or anyone else. It is a plain English document.

A zygote is not a person.

Person being nothing more than a legal construct, this is a truism, doing nothing beyond asserting the central question of the abortion debate.
 
This is not a response to what I said, really. The Constitution does not define any rights relevant to the question of abortion, for women or anyone else. It is a plain English document.
What it shows is that you have no understanding of Roe when you go no about "abortion is not in the constitution". The court did not base their decision on a non-existent word in the document.



Person being nothing more than a legal construct, this is a truism, doing nothing beyond asserting the central question of the abortion debate.
Doing nothing beyond....? Are you kidding? The defining of a person is the basis for ALL of the constitution, it is all for the the person, the individual.
 
Again, it was $23M in fed dollars, $3M in TX dollars. It was mainly dollars from all of us, TX was not following fed guidelines on disbursement.

So the fed send money to TX and tells them how to use it? The feds should just send the money to PP themselves.
 
So the fed send money to TX and tells them how to use it?
Yes, they put some restrictions on how the program distributes the program funds.

The feds should just send the money to PP themselves.
That doesn't guarantee that the funds get to the point of service.
 
Back
Top Bottom