America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 7 years ago by tonygraz. 47 replies replies.
Supreme Court Rejects Texas Abortion Law as ‘Undue Burden
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Gene363 Offline
#1 Posted: Mon, Jun 27 2016, 10:53 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,842
Wouldn't it be great if liberals had the same regard for Second Amendment, clearly written out in the Bill of Rights, as they have for an induced right to have an abortion? Cleary, guns have the potential to be used to take a life, while abortion always does.
ZRX1200 Offline
#2 Posted: Mon, Jun 27 2016, 10:57 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
But you can use a fetus to hunt bears.
victor809 Offline
#3 Posted: Mon, Jun 27 2016, 11:06 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
^this is true. Some of my best bear traps were baited with fetus.

Pro-tip, they like the 2nd trimester ones best. That must be when they're ripe.
bgz Offline
#4 Posted: Mon, Jun 27 2016, 11:41 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
That's good to know, ammo ain't cheap.
Gene363 Offline
#5 Posted: Mon, Jun 27 2016, 11:46 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,842
I can bear-ly stand the direction of this thread. d'oh!
sd72 Offline
#6 Posted: Tue, Jun 28 2016, 6:20 AM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
I think they made the right call. If it's legal, a state shouldn't be able to pull an end around on a law that's been passed and held up many times.
Brewha Offline
#7 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 12:10 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
Gene363 wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if liberals had the same regard for Second Amendment, clearly written out in the Bill of Rights, as they have for an induced right to have an abortion?

Gene, that would be like hoping that conservatives understood the second amendment, or them having respect for a women's right to choose.....

read; not in this life...
jjanecka Offline
#8 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 12:50 PM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Republicans understand that the children are the future; they are unproven and have the potential to exceed the intellectual abilities of their parents. It is only logical that the we stand in support of the right that the offspring live because the child cannot speak for itself.
Brewha Offline
#9 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 1:13 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
It is of course a religious view that an embryo or fetus actually is a child – as both science and the law disagree with this view. And people have absolute every right to have this opinion and fully support it with their life choices.

But they are their life choices, and they don’t get to make them for others – no matter how well they feel they know the mind of God, or how morally superior they know they must be.
Brewha Offline
#10 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 1:59 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
For those of you unfamiliar Texas abortion law story, Governor Greg Abbott (R) who pushed for the law admits it is about restricting abortions in Texas. Basically it means the statewide abortions could not be done in clinics. Women would have to go to one of the few surgical centers – which his sister heavily invested in.

In typical Abbott fashion, He sold it to “protect womens’ safety".
Because he is a d1ck….
Speyside Offline
#11 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 2:12 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
SCOTUS was correct.
DrafterX Offline
#12 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 2:15 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,563
Brewha wrote:
For those of you unfamiliar Texas abortion law story, Governor Greg Abbott (R) who pushed for the law admits it is about restricting abortions in Texas. Basically it means the statewide abortions could not be done in clinics. Women would have to go to one of the few surgical centers – which his sister heavily invested in.

In typical Abbott fashion, He sold it to “protect womens’ safety".
Because he is a d1ck….



I thought Steve Perry was the gov there... Think
teedubbya Offline
#13 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 2:18 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Don't stop beleive in
bgz Offline
#14 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 2:30 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I'm pro abortion (we've had this discussion before, lol)
ZRX1200 Offline
#15 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 2:36 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
Yeah the "zygotes" that weren't viable and born early that I STILL care for might disagree.... weren't supposed to live 6 weeks and are now teenagers.

Why is it illegal to break bald eagle eggs, they're not alive.
Why do some states have laws to hold people responsible for 2 murders when a pregnant woman is killed?


I'm gonna start posting "science and law say" so I sounds d right n stuff too Mellow
teedubbya Offline
#16 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 2:38 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Since it's not legal to own an eagle feather I say ban wigs.
DrafterX Offline
#17 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 2:39 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,563
Indians are allowed to have them... Mellow
teedubbya Offline
#18 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 2:40 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
But the wigs usually look silly on them
bgz Offline
#19 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 2:45 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I have a couple eagle feathers.
firemanmike109 Offline
#20 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 3:21 PM EST
Joined: 05-28-2016
Posts: 251
ZRX1200 wrote:
But you can use a fetus to hunt bears.

And they make great bait for gators...to soon?
Brewha Offline
#21 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 3:34 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
DrafterX wrote:
I thought Steve Perry was the gov there... Think

Rick Perry was - before numb nuts #2 got elected....
jjanecka Offline
#22 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 3:37 PM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Bgz it is not a scientific nor is it a religious issue. It is a social and ethical issue.
Brewha Offline
#23 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 3:46 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
You mean 'cause people won't keep their noses out of other peoples business?
bgz Offline
#24 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 3:49 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
jjanecka wrote:
Bgz it is not a scientific nor is it a religious issue. It is a social and ethical issue.


Huh?

Why are you singling me out, you don't think I should have eagle feathers?
jjanecka Offline
#25 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 4:27 PM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
I'm sorry it was brewha.
bgz Offline
#26 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 4:53 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
*waves hand*

This isn't the troll you're looking for.

Move along.
banderl Offline
#27 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 5:22 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
LMFAO!
Brewha Offline
#28 Posted: Thu, Jun 30 2016, 5:36 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
bgz wrote:
Huh?

Why are you singling me out, you don't think I should have eagle feathers?

First Tailgater and now JJ - You're making a lot of friends here....
Speyside Offline
#29 Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2016, 9:59 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
#26, now that's funny. LMAO!
jjanecka Offline
#30 Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2016, 3:19 PM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
We all make mistakes folks, but still, the fact remains that whether to abort a child or not is niether a scientific or religious issue; it's a social and ethical issue.

Do you defend the right of a woman who may or may not suffer unduely for the sake of a child or do you defend the child who may or may not exceed their mother's own potential? That's the root of the arguement; it's pure ethics.
rfenst Offline
#31 Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2016, 3:45 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,366
sd72 wrote:
I think they made the right call. If it's legal, a state shouldn't be able to pull an end around on a law that's been passed and held up many times.


+1
Brewha Offline
#32 Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2016, 4:02 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
jjanecka wrote:
We all make mistakes folks, but still, the fact remains that whether to abort a child or not is niether a scientific or religious issue; it's a social and ethical issue.

Do you defend the right of a woman who may or may not suffer unduely for the sake of a child or do you defend the child who may or may not exceed their mother's own potential? That's the root of the arguement; it's pure ethics.

Perhaps then we should debate the ethics of forcing a rape victim to carry the child to term.
Because that doesn't sound too ethical to me....

And neither does taking away someone's reproductive rights, in order that the delicate sensibilities of others might not be hurt.
jjanecka Offline
#33 Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2016, 4:55 PM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
I don't disagree; however, I will still take the side of the child on the grounds that regardless of whether it was consented or not the child is still forced to exist. Grant it, rape is a terrible atrocity for the victim, you cannot justify the death of something innocent such as a child just because it came from an evil act. The child should have representation.

I don't see how taking away reproductive rights has any relevence in this argument. If a woman is consenting to intercourse, then she is consenting to the potential that a child may be produced as a result. She knows the risks, women aren't dumb.
bgz Offline
#34 Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2016, 5:09 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
jjanecka wrote:
I don't disagree; however, I will still take the side of the child on the grounds that regardless of whether it was consented or not the child is still forced to exist. Grant it, rape is a terrible atrocity for the victim, you cannot justify the death of something innocent such as a child just because it came from an evil act. The child should have representation.

I don't see how taking away reproductive rights has any relevence in this argument. If a woman is consenting to intercourse, then she is consenting to the potential that a child may be produced as a result. She knows the risks, women aren't dumb.



It's not a child until it can think and feel pain...

Until then it's pretty much just a parasitic bio-mass.

Not to mention, it's cheaper to abort now than to subsidize for life.

hmmmm... $500 now one time, or $500+ per month for life.

Decisions.

Pro-Choice is a liberal position.

Pro-Life is a religious position.

Pro-Abortion is a conservative position.
sd72 Offline
#35 Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2016, 5:14 PM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
Who's position is it when you just DGAF and would rather the decision should be available, and solely up to the individual who's prego, not the disconnected politicos, or a discount cigar forum?

Other than mine.
bgz Offline
#36 Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2016, 5:16 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
sd72 wrote:
Who's position is it when you just DGAF and would rather the decision should be available, and solely up to the individual who's prego, not the disconnected politicos, or a discount cigar forum?

Other than mine.


I believe that would be the liberal position sir...
gummy jones Offline
#37 Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2016, 5:18 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
bgz wrote:
It's not a child until it can think and feel pain...

Until then it's pretty much just a parasitic bio-mass.


So babies in the womb respond to stimuli and can feel pain as well
So I guess that about wraps it up
bgz Offline
#38 Posted: Fri, Jul 1 2016, 5:23 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
gummy jones wrote:
So babies in the womb respond to stimuli and can feel pain as well
So I guess that about wraps it up


Implies that they are far deeper in their pregnancy than 20 weeks if it can be referred to as a baby.

You're argumentative skills are phenomenal, look forward to more word sparring with you in the future.
Brewha Offline
#39 Posted: Sat, Jul 2 2016, 9:49 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
jjanecka wrote:
I don't disagree; however, I will still take the side of the child on the grounds that regardless of whether it was consented or not the child is still forced to exist. Grant it, rape is a terrible atrocity for the victim, you cannot justify the death of something innocent such as a child just because it came from an evil act. The child should have representation.

I don't see how taking away reproductive rights has any relevence in this argument. If a woman is consenting to intercourse, then she is consenting to the potential that a child may be produced as a result. She knows the risks, women aren't dumb.


You are speaking of aborting a "child" in terms that beg the question; when prior to natural birth does life begin as a person? When does it stop being two or more cells and start being a person?

Now I wold say it is at the beginning of the third trimester because of brain development and the fact that the fetus is viable if given life support out side of the womb.

Where do you call the line? At the moment of conception?

The Morning After pill certainly does not kill a child. It does prevent the development of what might become a child - like a condom.


When you tell a women they cannot have a condom, morning after pill, or even a first trimester abortion, you take away her rights. And if you call it murder, you must have some religious definition of a live person in mind....
Speyside Offline
#40 Posted: Sat, Jul 2 2016, 9:57 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
^This.
gummy jones Offline
#41 Posted: Sat, Jul 2 2016, 10:11 AM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
bgz wrote:
Implies that they are far deeper in their pregnancy than 20 weeks if it can be referred to as a baby.

You're argumentative skills are phenomenal, look forward to more word sparring with you in the future.


hmmm

so you said the developing human becomes a baby when it can feel and think but if you do a little research you will see that is quite early

i would suggest it becomes a human at the point it can no longer become a pig, beetle, dolphin, etc

maybe you pick week 23.75 on the dot? week 38.4?

or some other arbitrary day that fits someones conscious and agenda?

says you i suppose?

suppose our technology improves, does that mean the defacto (read arbitrary) human date changes?

i forgot your conjecture was so heavily weighted here

thanks for clarifying
gummy jones Offline
#42 Posted: Sat, Jul 2 2016, 10:12 AM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
Brewha wrote:
When does it stop being two or more cells and start being a person?

Now I wold say it is at the beginning of the third trimester because of brain development and the fact that the fetus is viable if given life support out side of the womb.



i look forward to your ever evolving definition of "person" as our technology improves

i usually prefer to stand on more solid ground
Speyside Offline
#43 Posted: Sat, Jul 2 2016, 11:10 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Gummy, by your definition, that would be the point of conception, since a human embryo/fetus cannot become anything other than human. While the would be a religious belief it is neither a scientific or legal definition.
bgz Offline
#44 Posted: Sat, Jul 2 2016, 11:38 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
gummy jones wrote:
hmmm

so you said the developing human becomes a baby when it can feel and think but if you do a little research you will see that is quite early

i would suggest it becomes a human at the point it can no longer become a pig, beetle, dolphin, etc

maybe you pick week 23.75 on the dot? week 38.4?

or some other arbitrary day that fits someones conscious and agenda?

says you i suppose?

suppose our technology improves, does that mean the defacto (read arbitrary) human date changes?

i forgot your conjecture was so heavily weighted here

thanks for clarifying




Gummy, I think you failed to understand my position on this matter...

I'm pro-abortion, that means I would encourage people who do not want to have kids to have more abortions.

I could give a **** less about all the moral/ethical arguments... the science is well understood and well documented on this subject... thus the reason why the law is never changed no matter how hard the religious people try. Making abortion illegal will never happen in America because of this, to argue otherwise is masturbation.

So I say, embrace it... people don't want to pay for their kids? Neither do I... not so sure why you are so eager to do so when money could be better spent on better programs...

I mean, I understand we need burger flippers (maybe not for long, hear they're trying to automate it), but if more unwanted kids get aborted, then we'll need less burger flippers... see?

I would also encourage government programs to help poor people pay for abortions if they can't afford it... $500 now, or pay for the kid for life.

It's economics.
Brewha Offline
#45 Posted: Sun, Jul 3 2016, 5:24 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
I must point out that the conservative right, who endlessly oppose abortion on "ethical" grounds, are the last ones in line who want to help pay for raising all of the unwanted children. They are pro-birth, and then screw 'em. But I'm sure they pray for them as they vote to cut social programs.......
sd72 Offline
#46 Posted: Sun, Jul 3 2016, 5:35 PM EST
Joined: 03-09-2011
Posts: 9,600
Is it fair to Say if God didn't want abortions, he wouldn't have let us invent them?
tonygraz Offline
#47 Posted: Sun, Jul 3 2016, 9:15 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,288
Yes, if you refuse to fly because you don't have wings.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top