Texas abortion law: Judge bans state from enforcing regulations

[Texashiker]

That's funny, considering that your views on abortion are much closer to the Nazis' than mine. lol.

And?

What exactly is your point?

 

[Texashiker]

You've used this stale argument before. You have provided nothing to show that a clump of cells is 'creation' and deserves protections or the same rights you and I have. That clump of cells has had as much conscious thought as the sperm cells that never make it outside a condemn or an egg that never gets fertilized.

You feel superior to the point that others have to justify their value and worth.

Rights do not need justification.

 

[fskimospy]

And?

What exactly is your point?

That I find it funny that you so frequently call people Nazis in debates about abortion when your ideology and the Nazi ideology on abortion are quite similar.

The only question is if you're too stupid to realize it or too dishonest to admit it. I guess it could be a combination of the two.

 

[HumblePie]

That kind of thing would haunt me. I'd wonder what my children would look like had I permitted them to develop. I'd wonder how I might've coped with the inconvenience of child-rearing, and if the absence of that inconvenience was worth denying my child his or her life. Worse, I'd wonder if, had the child been born, I would look at him or her now and think, "I wish I had aborted this kid when I had the chance."

I was thinking about this post for some reason and I can't fathom how anyone would think this would haunt them?

Every potential sperm cell I make by nature has the potential to be an unborn child. I don't go stupid over all the unborn potential I could have had whenever I used to jerk it. Every potential woman that walks by me or I come into contact with has the potential to bear my child. I don't spend my time agonizing over all the lost unborn potential my couplings would have created with every woman I possibly could have met.

Heck, one can go a step further and realize that clones can be made from lost cells, like skin cells, as well. That's potential human life lost right there too! I don't worry about the shoulda, coulda, wouldas at all. It's stupid to do so.

 

[Texashiker]

The only question is if you're too stupid to realize it or too dishonest to admit it. I guess it could be a combination of the two.

Rights can not have a subjective limitation.

 

[HumblePie]

Rights can not have a subjective limitation.

Yes they can. I don't give rights to a toaster. I don't give rights to a car. I don't give rights to pieces of skin that have fallen off my arm. I don't give rights to sperm I've flushed down the drain either.

You give rights to born people. That is when rights are ascribed.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You feel superior to the point that others have to justify their value and worth.

Rights do not need justification.

We are granted rights based on different criteria all the time. When do you get the right to vote? A clump of cells isn't a human being. A clump of cells doesn't have the same rights as a viable human that has thought. A BJ isn't a holocaust causing millions of lives, most of us don't look at it like that. Likewise, some cells being tossed out before it is a human isn't murder, as it isn't yet a human being.

 

[Texashiker]

You give rights to born people. That is when rights are ascribed.

Rights are not subjective.

Where would people like you be without a demographic to hate? If you could not justify killing unborn children, what other group would you go after?

Maybe the unborn children of mothers on welfare? Any excuse to people such as yourself to slaughter a certain demographic is a good excuse.

We have too many people on welfare, so lets start aborting babies to welfare moms. Probably sounds like a good idea to you.

We have too many blacks on welfare, so lets start mandatory aborting black babies. Sound ok to you?

If rights do not start at time of creation, then the government has no place in providing for unborn children. No more WIC, no more medicaid, no more anything until after the baby is born.

Rights start at the time of creation. That is why the government has programs such as medicaid and wic.

When a woman test positive that she is pregnant she can get government benefits. The benefits do not start when the child becomes viable outside the womb.

 

[theeedude]

Rights are not subjective.

Exactly, they start when a person is born, not at some arbitrary point where it may or may not be conceived yet.
All the examples you mention are about rights of mothers, not fetuses.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

No doubt rights are subjective.

All these government benefits/programs are subjective as to whether the woman decides to carry a baby/babies to full term. If she chooses to get an abortion these benefits/programs are no longer applicable.

Getting an abortion has nothing to do with hate, it has to do with whether a woman decides she wants to carry a child to term/can afford to support the child after it's born.

 

[Texashiker]

Exactly, they start when a person is born, not at some arbitrary point where it may or may not be conceived yet.
All the examples you mention are about rights of mothers, not fetuses.

Let me ask you this,

If rights are not granted at the time of creation, then the government can terminate the pregnancy?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Let me ask you this,

If rights are not granted at the time of creation, then the government can terminate the pregnancy?

Your argument makes no difference as the SCOTUS has determined that a woman has the right to control whether she aborts a fetus or not.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Let me ask you this,

If rights are not granted at the time of creation, then the government can terminate the pregnancy?

I would think that would be a violation of the woman's rights. Creation has different meaning to me than you. The moment the sperm and egg join is not creation in my mind, so this makes it completely different than murder. It isn't that I need a demographic to hate. It isn't that I feel certain rights that are or should be guaranteed can be taken away from someone or a demographic. It is that I don't feel that conception is creation, it is that I don't feel that is yet 'someone' to take rights away from.

 

[Texashiker]

Your argument makes no difference as the SCOTUS has determined that a woman has the right to control whether she aborts a fetus or not.

That does not mean crap. Supreme Court also upheld slavery, forced sterilization and forced detainment.

The question still stands.

If rights are not granted at the time of creation, then the government can terminate the pregnancy?

 

[Paratus]

I was thinking about this post for some reason and I can't fathom how anyone would think this would haunt them?

Every potential sperm cell I make by nature has the potential to be an unborn child. I don't go stupid over all the unborn potential I could have had whenever I used to jerk it. Every potential woman that walks by me or I come into contact with has the potential to bear my child. I don't spend my time agonizing over all the lost unborn potential my couplings would have created with every woman I possibly could have met.

Heck, one can go a step further and realize that clones can be made from lost cells, like skin cells, as well. That's potential human life lost right there too! I don't worry about the shoulda, coulda, wouldas at all. It's stupid to do so.

Take it even a step further. The child you did have could have been a different child if you used the same sperm with any/every other woman on the planet. All those other children will never be born now because of that sperm and egg was used in the child you did have.

Personally it sound like you've been very responsible, imho.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Well the SCOTUS/law of the land says the woman has the right to control her reproductive organs, whether it be through birth control, night after pill, or an abortion procedure. This will never be overturned so deal with it.

I also foresee the SCOTUS either overruling or recommending modifications to Texas' abortion facilities laws to ensure the constitutional rights of woman which also include their reproductive rights.

You also have the right to piss and moan over women's rights laws that you will never see get changed.

The rest of us have the right to laugh at your pissing/moaning and twisting in the wind arguments over laws that protect women's rights.

 

[alzan]

That does not mean crap. Supreme Court also upheld slavery, forced sterilization and forced detainment.

The question still stands.

If rights are not granted at the time of creation, then the government can terminate the pregnancy?

Poor little TH, he's holding his breath and turning blue because he chooses to be ignorant.

 

[Texashiker]

Well the SCOTUS/law of the land says the woman has the right to control her reproductive organs, whether it be through birth control, night after pill, or an abortion procedure. This will never be overturned so deal with it.

Which again does not mean crap. It is not like the supreme court has a history of upholding human rights.

200 years ago you would have been using the supreme court to justify your ownership of slaves.

Poor little TH, he's holding his breath and turning blue because he chooses to be ignorant.

I choose to believe that life should be protected.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Which again does not mean crap. It is not like the supreme court has a history of upholding human rights.

200 years ago you would have been using the supreme court to justify your ownership of slaves.

The laws have changed over the years to protect human rights.

Just as the law changed allowing women to get abortions if they choose to do so rather than carrying a fetus to full term. It's now the law of the land and seen as a woman's constitutionally protected rights.

I choose to believe that life should be protected.

That's wonderful however, no one else is required to have the same belief as you when it comes to women's reproductive rights.

 

[alzan]

I choose to believe that life should be protected.

Oh so do I; we just have different ideas of when life begins. So does the Supreme Court apparently.

It's a complicated issue to be sure.

 

[Jhhnn]

That does not mean crap. Supreme Court also upheld slavery, forced sterilization and forced detainment.

The question still stands.

If rights are not granted at the time of creation, then the government can terminate the pregnancy?

Obviously not. Her body, her choice.

Take your straw man elsewhere.

 

[theeedude]

This is already a loser issue for the GOP, and is only going to get worse:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-10-07/how-abortion-politics-is-helping-democrats

Going to be like gay marriage, except it will be women voters they'll piss off, and the pro-lifers will not let them off the hook as easy.

 

[theeedude]

Let me ask you this,

If rights are not granted at the time of creation, then the government can terminate the pregnancy?

No, because the mother is given rights over her body, of which a fetus is part of for the duration of pregnancy. This is the best you got?

 

[Sunburn74]

That does not mean crap. Supreme Court also upheld slavery, forced sterilization and forced detainment.

The question still stands.

If rights are not granted at the time of creation, then the government can terminate the pregnancy?

Actually yes. The government actually can terminate a pregnancy.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...ve-abortion/FnbayuYlwyzjNgowPOfL7N/story.html

The order was eventually reversed on appeals, but again shows proof of concept.

If the situation in the above case were reversed where a woman expressed a clear interest in an abortion prior to incompetence, and legal guardians were blocking that interest after development of incompetence, the court could very well force the abortion to occur despite her incompetence and her legal guardian's wishes at the time.

 

[ivwshane]

That does not mean crap. Supreme Court also upheld slavery, forced sterilization and forced detainment.

The question still stands.

If rights are not granted at the time of creation, then the government can terminate the pregnancy?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36784361&postcount=1

Score for justice.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/court-uph...tus-mulls-case

Quote:
Whether to allow Wisconsin’s strict voter ID law for this fall’s election is up to the Supreme Court – a decision that could come any day. But on Monday, an appeals court gave the law’s backers a big lift.

A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit issued a ruling upholding the law. It was the same panel of all-Republican appointees that last month removed a district court judge’s injunction on the law, leading voting rights groups to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.
If someone is too lazy to get an ID, they do not need to be voting in the first place.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds!

The supreme courts rulings only matter when you agree with them otherwise, according to you, they should be ignored.