• 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!

Supreme Court Strikes Down Strict Texas Abortion Law

roughdraft274 said:
Well then we disagree.

It has been declared that women have the right to an abortion if they choose. Saying "ok you can have an abortion, but we'll place such burdens on providers that it will be practically impossible for you to do so" is no different then "well you still have your second amendment, we only made it illegal to sell guns, not buy them!"
Click to expand...

Yes. Everyone knows, what has been declared. The counterrevolutionaries were declare outlaws to be beaten to death, the intellectuals were murdered and the Jews were defined "lebensunwert"; what was it in Rwanda. Witches were legally burned, the Armenians were a danger and a 94 years old was just prosecuted after living free and prosperously but know for what he was for participation in 177.000 murders, because he was working as a clerk at Auschwitz, though he never killed anyone himself.

It is shifty sand to say that a state can allow a million killings a year of innocents. Mao's people were not punished later for participating in the progressive movement and the 94 year old lived a nice life, till his society decided it opportune and again redefined the law and applied it retroactively. It is a mess and we are not making it better.
 
Henrin said:
Why does that matter? Why should they be allowed to follow different rules?
Click to expand...

Why should they be allowed to follow different rules than ambulatory surgical facilities?

Maybe because they aren't such a facility.
 
Henrin said:
How do places that provide surgeries get off not following the same rules because of financial burdens? I'm also somewhat lost why better treatment is needed here. Is equal treatment under the law not good enough?
Click to expand...

Because those places offer surgery which pays for such enhancements.
 
Henrin said:
You do realize they made the whole "undue burden" thing up, right?
Click to expand...

You do realize you made up this claim, right?

Tearing out hallways in a clinic to widen them for gurneys that they don't have is an undue burden, genius.
 
Deuce said:
You do realize you made up this claim, right?

Tearing out hallways in a clinic to widen them for gurneys that they don't have is an undue burden, genius.
Click to expand...

I did? Have you tried googling "undue burden"? :lamo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undue_burden_standard

The undue burden standard is a constitutional test fashioned by the Supreme Court of the United States. The test, first developed in the late 19th century, is widely used in American constitutional law.[1] In short, the Undue Burden standard states that the Legislature cannot make a particular law that is too burdensome or restrictive of one's fundamental rights.
Click to expand...

Did you notice who came up with it? I did.

So if the supreme makes something up and then rules off that made up thing they are doing what? Oh right, ruling based on made up things.
 
Last edited:
Texmex said:
The Constitution of The United States of America is not subject to the particular dictionaries and or definitions that Henrin likes and approves of. Stop being silly.
Click to expand...

I wasn't speaking towards the law, so...
 
joG said:
Yes. Everyone knows, what has been declared. The counterrevolutionaries were declare outlaws to be beaten to death, the intellectuals were murdered and the Jews were defined "lebensunwert"; what was it in Rwanda. Witches were legally burned, the Armenians were a danger and a 94 years old was just prosecuted after living free and prosperously but know for what he was for participation in 177.000 murders, because he was working as a clerk at Auschwitz, though he never killed anyone himself.

It is shifty sand to say that a state can allow a million killings a year of innocents. Mao's people were not punished later for participating in the progressive movement and the 94 year old lived a nice life, till his society decided it opportune and again redefined the law and applied it retroactively. It is a mess and we are not making it better.
Click to expand...

Yea yea yea, I get it, bad **** happens. But we are talking about this, and your post doesn't progress the discussion at all.

We are a country that has decided that the supreme court gets final say on what is constitutional and we have a congress and states that can alter the constitution. This applies to stuff you like and stuff you don't like.

So if you think that the supreme court got it wrong, then the correct action is to add an amendment. What is not ok is trying to pass bull**** laws that merely skirt around the issue in the most buffoonish way possible so rather than actually taking away peoples rights, we are merely making it impossible to exercise those rights.

If you think the supreme court got it wrong and that therefor we should be allowed to just ignore what was said, then you need to give a good reason as to why you are allowed to do that but that the other side shouldn't be allowed to do it to nullify any of your rights that they don't like. You're exact same argument can be twisted to say that I need to pass a law that makes it nearly impossible for anyone to own a gun, or maybe makes it impossible to buy bullets in order to save lives. And you have no good reason as to why one is ok and one isn't.

Along with all of this you are missing the entire point of the abortion debate. It's not a debate about whether the life of a fetus matters. In my opinion it does. The debate is about whether we are allowed to force a woman to use her body in way that is against her will. Just like you can't force someone to donate an organ, you can't force someone to remain pregnant against their will.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Under the constitution the Supreme Court has found that women have the right to an abortion, the undue burden is the act of violating that woman's liberty.
Click to expand...

Like every Socialist you have to lie and misrepresent your political opponents intentions. Being a Libertarian I have no problem with early term abortion. To be fair to Pro-life Conservatives: their opposition to abortion is because they honestly see it as Murder. Saying that outlawing abortion infringes on women’s freedom is like saying outlawing murder is infringing on Ted Bundy’s or Charles Manson’s freedom
 
Casca XV said:
Like every Socialist you have to lie and misrepresent your political opponents intentions. Being a Libertarian I have no problem with early term abortion. To be fair to Pro-life Conservatives: their opposition to abortion is because they honestly see it as Murder. Saying that outlawing abortion infringes on women’s freedom is like saying outlawing murder is infringing on Ted Bundy’s or Charles Manson’s freedom
Click to expand...

What in the **** are you talking about? Im lying?
 
Henrin said:
I did? Have you tried googling "undue burden"? :lamo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undue_burden_standard



Did you notice who came up with it? I did.

So if the supreme makes something up and then rules off that made up thing they are doing what? Oh right, ruling based on made up things.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I get it. The libertarian thinks there no such thing as an unjustified government regulatory burden.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Yea yea yea, I get it, bad **** happens. But we are talking about this, and your post doesn't progress the discussion at all.

We are a country that has decided that the supreme court gets final say on what is constitutional and we have a congress and states that can alter the constitution. This applies to stuff you like and stuff you don't like.

So if you think that the supreme court got it wrong, then the correct action is to add an amendment. What is not ok is trying to pass bull**** laws that merely skirt around the issue in the most buffoonish way possible so rather than actually taking away peoples rights, we are merely making it impossible to exercise those rights.

If you think the supreme court got it wrong and that therefor we should be allowed to just ignore what was said, then you need to give a good reason as to why you are allowed to do that but that the other side shouldn't be allowed to do it to nullify any of your rights that they don't like. You're exact same argument can be twisted to say that I need to pass a law that makes it nearly impossible for anyone to own a gun, or maybe makes it impossible to buy bullets in order to save lives. And you have no good reason as to why one is ok and one isn't.

Along with all of this you are missing the entire point of the abortion debate. It's not a debate about whether the life of a fetus matters. In my opinion it does. The debate is about whether we are allowed to force a woman to use her body in way that is against her will. Just like you can't force someone to donate an organ, you can't force someone to remain pregnant against their will.
Click to expand...

You will find that every mass murder in history had a very good reason to be condoned and usually it was for the good of one's people and progress. That is how it is, when a society defines who may or should be put down. If it is a large group it is, how nicely you put it, "bad **** happens"
 
Henrin said:
It's a good thing you don't check dictionaries before you post.

Child | Definition of Child by Merriam-Webster

Child | Define Child at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...



It's a BAD THING you won't reference the Congressional Definitions (the "OFFICIAL LEGAL DEFINITIONS") that's been presented to you many times. But let me offer it again. Webster, Oxford, and any other dictionary you want to cite...is not legally accepted as an authority by any level of court in this nation.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
 
Redress said:
I missed that. Was trying to read the live blog at SCOTUSblog, but on tablet it was not working well.

By the way, did people here that Lyle Denniston is leaving SCOTUSblog? Sounds kinda like retiring or doing something less time consuming, but a huge loss for every court watcher.
Click to expand...

That was a television reporters statement. I have not had the chance to verify that myself, which why I hedged with the use of the word "apparently".
 
nota bene said:
It's the extinguishing of a human life.
Click to expand...

In your opinion. Abortion is legal and should always be legal and probably always will.
 
Deuce said:
Ahh, I get it. The libertarian thinks there no such thing as an unjustified government regulatory burden.
Click to expand...

I said no such thing. What I said is that the standard they are using for such a thing they made up on their little own.
 
Texmex said:
In your opinion. Abortion is legal and should always be legal and probably always will.
Click to expand...

:roll: You really should use google before posting. Exactly how do you determine that the unborn are not alive and human?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom