• 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!

SCOTUS Allows Kentucky Abortion Bill to Stand

AProudLefty said:
But it does say "ultrasound probe".
Click to expand...

There are internal probes but fetal ultrasounds are done externally on the abdomen.

It may be other kind of gynecological probe, dont know.

I just spent 3 years writing training for sonographers/clinical specialists on ultrasound machines.
 
Lursa said:
It does not (the bold). That is false.
Click to expand...

Taking care of a child does not make you sleep deprived? Does not change your chemical balance? Does not alter your physiology? Maybe not the same as horrible cramps and peeing every ten minutes and all the other challenges, but it is not without deep effect, or no parent I know has been doing it right
 
Lursa said:
Did you read the page? It does not support the statements.
Click to expand...

I know. I was just remembering the discussions. It's moot anyway because abortions between 20 to 26 weeks are so rare anyway.
 
Keridan said:
Nicely done and thank you! A solid argument and reasoning point

Here is the problem - the child is still a human and nothing changes at birth except the way in which the care is given and needs are met, but they are the same care and needs, no matter what language we put on them because of RvW or by partially quoting a convenient statute (by the way, the part c you didn't include invalidates that quote, see below)

The woman didn't commit a crime by getting pregnant, and I don't even believe it's necessarily a crime to end it, but I do think it's a crime to use language and distance to pretend we are not ending what would BECOME a human life - it needs to be acknowledged on a deep level and that's where the choice is made

I see far too many efforts to make it seem abstract or like ending the common cold when no cold ever contributed to the world what one intelligent human just might
Click to expand...

As I pointed out, and I was using your terms, it is a legal argument.

Science is objective, it applies no value. I'd have to ask, what authority claims that unborn life must be protected? Or has rights? Or cannot be killed? (Various forms of the argument.)
 
Keridan said:
Nicely done and thank you! A solid argument and reasoning point

Here is the problem - the child is still a human and nothing changes at birth except the way in which the care is given and needs are met, but they are the same care and needs, no matter what language we put on them because of RvW or by partially quoting a convenient statute (by the way, the part c you didn't include invalidates that quote, see below)

The woman didn't commit a crime by getting pregnant, and I don't even believe it's necessarily a crime to end it, but I do think it's a crime to use language and distance to pretend we are not ending what would BECOME a human life - it needs to be acknowledged on a deep level and that's where the choice is made

I see far too many efforts to make it seem abstract or like ending the common cold when no cold ever contributed to the world what one intelligent human just might
Click to expand...

btw, section c means there arent exceptions basically.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Clearly, lacking knowledge of law as it applies to personhood isn’t your only deficit.

All of my posts have been fact based, whereas yours have been entirely void of facts and heavy with childish sarcasm.

Grow up and learn to debate like an informed adult, Keridan.
Click to expand...

You are so damn cute it's painful! You whine about sarcasm but jumped in with your ignorance not answering any of the questions in 110, much less 38, but making assertions as if you have some knowledge on the subject (painfully obvious false assertions)

Yet, in all your sarcasm and statements of my ignorance, all you have done is claim an unborn child is a thing and demonstrate that you have no real argument beyond pretending you have found fault in mine

It would be nice at some point to see some demonstration for the grounds of your arrogance
 
Keridan said:
Taking care of a child does not make you sleep deprived? Does not change your chemical balance? Does not alter your physiology? Maybe not the same as horrible cramps and peeing every ten minutes and all the other challenges, but it is not without deep effect, or no parent I know has been doing it right
Click to expand...

Of course not...do you think that families or group homes cant care for an infant without such?

I slept thru the night after my very first night home from the hospital...my parents got to sleep all night.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
As I pointed out, and I was using your terms, it is a legal argument.

Science is objective, it applies no value. I'd have to ask, what authority claims that unborn life must be protected? Or has rights? Or cannot be killed? (Various forms of the argument.)
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
btw, section c means there arent exceptions basically.
Click to expand...

If you are getting that philosophical, what authority claims any life must be protected, or has rights or cannot be killed? It's the same one

Btw, read section c in context, it clearly states that it can't be used to affirm the definition of life

Again, remember we are not arguing that abortion should never happen, but that a life should be considered
 
Lursa said:
Of course not...do you think that families or group homes cant care for an infant without such?

I slept thru the night after my very first night home from the hospital...my parents got to sleep all night.
Click to expand...

That's fantastic! I'm so glad they suffered none of the many physiological challenges of raising a child - wish that was the norm
 
Keridan said:
If you are getting that philosophical, what authority claims any life must be protected, or has rights or cannot be killed? It's the same one
Click to expand...
I made the legal ones...and you keep bringing up that basically, killing the unborn is wrong. You seem to be making that presumption. So my question is..."who says? What authority?" I'd apply the same to your questions about any lives as well.

Nobody 'likes' abortion...but "who says" that it's wrong?

Individuals are welcome to make that distinction for themselves, and that's why 'choice' is the most fair, ethical, and Constitutional decision: each woman can make the decision to have or not have a baby according to her own beliefs, none are forced on her.

Btw, read section c in context, it clearly states that it can't be used to affirm the definition of life
Click to expand...

And it cant be used to deny it :doh That's not what it's about. It's legalese to CYA. I write this stuff for a living...I dont include that passage because most people cannot interpret it correctly, they latch onto the ambiguity.

Again, remember we are not arguing that abortion should never happen, but that a life should be considered
Click to expand...

Why do you assume each individual woman does not? Without question, despite the idiocy of the legislation in question, women know the unborn is alive.

No one likes abortion. It's a decision a woman makes out of need. Do you want the govt deciding what you need, when it has a significant risk to your life and future?
 
Last edited:
Keridan said:
That's fantastic! I'm so glad they suffered none of the many physiological challenges of raising a child - wish that was the norm
Click to expand...

Meh, I have 3 other sisters, they were not all so compliant. I know it's unusual but the permutations of family/child rearing are too varied to assume.
 
Lursa said:
I made the legal ones...and you keep bringing up that basically, killing the unborn is wrong. You seem to be making that presumption. So my question is...who says? What authority?"
Click to expand...

And my answer is the same moral authority that protects any life or is none worth protecting?

And it cant be used to deny it :doh That's not what it's about. It's legalese to CYA. I write this stuff for a living...I dont include that passage because most people cannot interpret it correctly.
Click to expand...

Funny, Gonzaga law didn't teach me to leave out parts because they seemed CYA, they said to read the whole ruling, especially when it says it cannot be used to define the subject you are debating

Why do you assume each individual woman does not? Without question, despite the idiocy of the legislation in question, women know the unborn is alive.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear this law is no problem, just a reminder - makes it easier

No one likes abortion. It's a decision a woman makes out of need. Do you want the govt deciding what you need, when it has a significant risk to your life and future?
Click to expand...

Good, then we can stop with the ridiculous distancing language and pretending a reminder that it's a life is a problem


-- look, I respect your opinion, your debate style and your avoidance of devolving into name calling and other idiocy, please remember my point is not to deny abortion as a possibility and that we are not likely to agree and don't lump me into your general "the bible says bad" group; it's much appreciated

Also, I like to reply to everything presented well (which your points tend to be) so please use mulit-quote or such when possible so I don't miss them
 
Grand Mal said:
Here's an idea. Any woman who says she needs an abortion supplies a list of men who might be the father and all the men on the list are required to have a DNA sample taken. And It's up to the nurse how that sample is taken.
Okay with that?
Click to expand...

Yes actually. You've stumbled on a good idea. It will hinder the promiscuity by both men and women, I think, and help create a more sexually modest society.
 
Obscurity said:
Court lets stand Kentucky abortion law on ultrasounds

And the theocrats celebrate. Prepare yourselves. With the impending end of Roe V. Wade, the state will be empowered to ignore bodily autonomy. In response to this ignorant, idiotic, inhumane, and barbaric authoritarian "Do nothingism" by the SCOTUS, I am immediately lobbying for lawmakers in my state to legislate to force organ donation en masse.

If the right to "life" supercedes bodily autonomy to the extent Kentuckians in their vast ignorance presume, then the right to life of those who are already here should not be infringed by those seeking to retain bodily autonomy and thus deny those who need kidney, liver, lung transplants their right to life.

I look forward to the support of -all- pro-birth theocrats jumping on board with this legislation.
Click to expand...

:dramallama:
Do you really see the ultrasound as that much of a hurdle and leaving the ultrasound law in place will lead to overturning Roe v. Wade? If I thought it was being used for what you claim, I'd be against it but there is no proof the ultrasound is being used for any other purpose than to help women make informed choices when it comes to their reproductive health. Don't you want them to make the best choice they can?
 
trixare4kids said:
.... there is no proof the ultrasound is being used for any other purpose than to help women make informed choices when it comes to their reproductive health. Don't you want them to make the best choice they can?
Click to expand...
What if women don’t want “help” making their choice? Why should they be compelled to look at an ultrasound picture and listen to a sermon given by a doctor?
 
Keridan said:
You are so damn cute it's painful! You whine about sarcasm but jumped in with your ignorance not answering any of the questions in 110, much less 38, but making assertions as if you have some knowledge on the subject (painfully obvious false assertions)

Yet, in all your sarcasm and statements of my ignorance, all you have done is claim an unborn child is a thing and demonstrate that you have no real argument beyond pretending you have found fault in mine

It would be nice at some point to see some demonstration for the grounds of your arrogance
Click to expand...
:lamo Please try to prove false any of the facts I’ve posted.
 
trixare4kids said:
:dramallama:
Do you really see the ultrasound as that much of a hurdle and leaving the ultrasound law in place will lead to overturning Roe v. Wade? If I thought it was being used for what you claim, I'd be against it but there is no proof the ultrasound is being used for any other purpose than to help women make informed choices when it comes to their reproductive health. Don't you want them to make the best choice they can?
Click to expand...

They are already fully informed beforehand.
 
Obscurity said:
Court lets stand Kentucky abortion law on ultrasounds

And the theocrats celebrate. Prepare yourselves. With the impending end of Roe V. Wade, the state will be empowered to ignore bodily autonomy. In response to this ignorant, idiotic, inhumane, and barbaric authoritarian "Do nothingism" by the SCOTUS, I am immediately lobbying for lawmakers in my state to legislate to force organ donation en masse.

If the right to "life" supercedes bodily autonomy to the extent Kentuckians in their vast ignorance presume, then the right to life of those who are already here should not be infringed by those seeking to retain bodily autonomy and thus deny those who need kidney, liver, lung transplants their right to life.

I look forward to the support of -all- pro-birth theocrats jumping on board with this legislation.
Click to expand...

No, the rational people celebrate. Not many Theocrats around....
 
RaleBulgarian said:
What if women don’t want “help” making their choice? Why should they be compelled to look at an ultrasound picture and listen to a sermon given by a doctor?
Click to expand...

Well, because she's pregnant, and wants to kill a baby.

(Now watch his head explode).
 
RaleBulgarian said:
What if women don’t want “help” making their choice? Why should they be compelled to look at an ultrasound picture and listen to a sermon given by a doctor?
Click to expand...

They're not compelled.
"The text of the bill says the pregnant woman may choose to avert her eyes from the images, and request the volume of the heartbeat be turned down or off."

Kentucky abortion bill requires ultrasound - CNN
 
Mr Person said:
FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — A federal appeals court said Friday it won’t reconsider a ruling that upheld a Kentucky law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients prior to abortions.




I'm sure the anti-choice small government conservatives will voice no problems with the government interfering in the doctor-patient relationship by making decisions on the doctor's behalf.
Click to expand...

My goodness, that is a big leap you took to CYA.
 
Dans La Lune said:
The right-wing have seen women as chattel for thousands of years, and will see them as chattel for as long as they live. The Christian right-wing are no different than the Islamic right-wing. They are not enemies, they are competitors.
Click to expand...

And a Socialist makes yet another foolish comparison...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom