Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you serious about learning about the issue, or not. To be honest,
Your not being honest in your post here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
you are not helping the conservative cause.
I don't know think you know what a conservative is so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
We are left with the impression that conservatives are close minded and refuse to listen to facts or reason.
But that's your twisted logic which has no basis or reason to it. The irony will go right over your head. Which is rich coming from a poster like you who has no problem making things up. Plus you're wrong too often.
But because you said so we should listen? Use reasons. Reasons matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
If you really want to learn, watch about the MEDICAL PROCEDURES done during colonoscopies.
Informed people don't just say, "here watch". Reasons matter.
Having a debate with you is like dancing with the Tanzanian Devil! You keep twisting and turning your argument when you can no longer debate the issue at hand logically.
ladies, gents - as someone suggested earlier, it's definitely time to stop feeding the (rhymes with role) - who thinks he's "informed", but obviously, well, you know..
he's doing the exact same thing on this thread as he did on the HB2 bathroom thread, ad nauseam. he just repeats the exact same BS on a reply to every single post.
unlike the saying "repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it", no one's buying it.
Totally agree and am done replying to that nonsense. Thanks.
And many, including me, have no problem with that.
But WHY allow lower standards for women's medical care than anyone else's?
Please answer that question.
I don't know squat about the medical standards for women's medical care, but i do know that the levels differ depending on what level is offered or not. I'm a pretty healthy guy, but for a fact, a Doc in a Box is a different operation than a hospital's emergency room or a surgical theater. I've been in all of them.
And, as a male, I've always believed women's health issues that are specific to women are best decided by women, not a bunch of men. As long as any woman can get whatever kind of care she wants, or not, is just fine by me.
I'm happy leaving that question up to the experts, but from what little I've gathered, women's care centers are all adequate for what their services provide. And I'm pretty sure that the centers are regularly inspected, just as our restaurants, barber shops, tanning salons, private emergency centers and our hospitals are. Sanitation differs in all of the above, doesn't it?
Each has its own standards. Its up to the local health dept. to enforce them, and up to the professional medical boards that license our medical professionals to write the laws because they are experts in medical sanitation, not a bunch of politicians who have agendas to promote.
That's what SCOTUS didn't like the idea of politiciians telling med professionals what to do, so I'm happy to go with them.
After all, SCOTUS knows everything that has happened legally since Roe v. Wade was made the law of the land, and they know another attempted work-around when they see one.
They said this was nothing but an impediment with the intent of doing away with abortions, so that's what the Texas laws were.
Roe v. Wade itself came about from an earlier Texas law. Goes to show where Texas' politicians heads are- they would rather waste taxpayer's money on defending laws they know won't ever pass muster than allow their women to decide for themselves what they want or not. Even after 42 years.
Privacy for women, who are faced with a terrible decision. They have to consider their own well-being, and the well-being of the children they already have, and how an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy will negatively affect them. They have to weigh the well-being of themselves and their families against the potential life that a pregnancy represents. They are entitled to do that in private, consulting with their doctors and with their other loved ones.
Why is privacy so important? Because without privacy there is no such thing as freedom. Privacy is innate to true freedom.
And the protection of freedom for all citizens is a federal matter.
The biggest problem with your statement: Privacy is not being protected by the Supreme Court. If it was, the Patriot Act would have been shot down and the TSA would be vastly more limited in it's actions. You're not addressing the fact that the SCOTUS is picking and choosing when to protect the privacy of United States citizens.
But beyond this, the federal government has no right to define when human life begins. Try fitting "human life begins at X point in time" under interstate commerce. It simply can't be done. So it falls to the state governments to define when human life begins. If any given state decides that you're a human being three weeks after conception then you are legally a human being three weeks after conception. It is 100% illegal for me to kill my 5 year old son no matter how I justify it. Perhaps I'm trying to protect or better provide for my wife and other children. Doesn't matter. I don't have the right to kill him. He has the legal right to live and I don't have the right to say differently. Likewise, if state law says that an unborn baby is fully human, then they have that same right to live and infringement of that right is murder by law. On the other hand, if a state determines that human life begins at birth, then an unborn baby has no such protections or rights under the law. The point is, it is up to the state government to determine.
This is nothing new. Issues of morality are regularly decided by state governments. In the state of Utah, you must be 16 years of age in order to marry with parental consent. In the state of Massachusetts, you can marry at age 12 with parental consent. Since there is no clear point in time where marriage transitions from immoral to moral, it is up to the state governments to make laws setting the limits as they see fit. Some state governments use the death penalty. Some do not because they believe it is morally wrong. Again, this is an issue of morality with no clear right or wrong, so it is up to the state government to decide the matter. Laws against murder, rape, child abuse, kidnapping, drunk driving, burglary, shoplifting, indecent exposure and so many other things are all issues of morality and all 100% determined by state law. It is up to the state governments to say that these things are illegal and to specify the penalties for violating the law.
Abortion is also clearly yet another issue of morality. Obviously, it is either right or it is wrong with plenty of opinions going both ways. If it is determined to be morally right and legal, then it must be determined whether there are any limits. For example, almost nobody favors aborting a baby one week before it's due date. So once again we have have an issue where right and wrong need to be determined and penalties set forth for violation. How does this not fall 100% under state law??How on earth did the Supreme Court ever get the idiot idea that they have any business intervening here??
I don't know think you know what a conservative is so.
But that's your twisted logic which has no basis or reason to it. The irony will go right over your head. Which is rich coming from a poster like you who has no problem making things up. Plus you're wrong too often.
But because you said so we should listen? Use reasons. Reasons matter.
Informed people don't just say, "here watch". Reasons matter.
I'd love to hear you expound on this issue.
I have. Read all of my prior posts on this thread. The other poster didn't seem to understand the written reasons so I thought she might understand if she saw a video. Thank you for your interest.
The biggest problem with your statement: Privacy is not being protected by the Supreme Court. If it was, the Patriot Act would have been shot down and the TSA would be vastly more limited in it's actions. You're not addressing the fact that the SCOTUS is picking and choosing when to protect the privacy of United States citizens.
But beyond this, the federal government has no right to define when human life begins. Try fitting "human life begins at X point in time" under interstate commerce. It simply can't be done. So it falls to the state governments to define when human life begins. If any given state decides that you're a human being three weeks after conception then you are legally a human being three weeks after conception. It is 100% illegal for me to kill my 5 year old son no matter how I justify it. Perhaps I'm trying to protect or better provide for my wife and other children. Doesn't matter. I don't have the right to kill him. He has the legal right to live and I don't have the right to say differently. Likewise, if state law says that an unborn baby is fully human, then they have that same right to live and infringement of that right is murder by law. On the other hand, if a state determines that human life begins at birth, then an unborn baby has no such protections or rights under the law. The point is, it is up to the state government to determine.
This is nothing new. Issues of morality are regularly decided by state governments. In the state of Utah, you must be 16 years of age in order to marry with parental consent. In the state of Massachusetts, you can marry at age 12 with parental consent. Since there is no clear point in time where marriage transitions from immoral to moral, it is up to the state governments to make laws setting the limits as they see fit. Some state governments use the death penalty. Some do not because they believe it is morally wrong. Again, this is an issue of morality with no clear right or wrong, so it is up to the state government to decide the matter. Laws against murder, rape, child abuse, kidnapping, drunk driving, burglary, shoplifting, indecent exposure and so many other things are all issues of morality and all 100% determined by state law. It is up to the state governments to say that these things are illegal and to specify the penalties for violating the law.
Abortion is also clearly yet another issue of morality. Obviously, it is either right or it is wrong with plenty of opinions going both ways. If it is determined to be morally right and legal, then it must be determined whether there are any limits. For example, almost nobody favors aborting a baby one week before it's due date. So once again we have have an issue where right and wrong need to be determined and penalties set forth for violation. How does this not fall 100% under state law??How on earth did the Supreme Court ever get the idiot idea that they have any business intervening here??
I agree with the bolded.
As far as minors, society has addressed the needs for it's youth to be protected.
Nothing moral about government.
Abortion is about property rights. The rights of the individual. When does life begin is the age old question.
Leaving the extreme cases of rape, incest, mothers life threatened..., if life begins for example, at 3 months then before 3 months you are not taking a life when you abort. No ones rights have been violated. After 3 months is a different ball game.
Without the right to life the other rights are meaningless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
