no more abortions!

[racrguy]

Ya...curse those good ol' traditional morals that value life. How quaint.

Your morals apply to you. Do not attempt to force me to adhere to your morals. You cannot legislate morality, it doesn't work. People are going to do what they want to do, laws be damned. Look at all of the forms of prohibition over the last century. Do any of them ever work?

[GhostTX]

...
Brent, I disagree with you just a little. Republicans are going to have to shift not only away from their antiquated moral stance but to a more libertarain viewpoint as well, if they want to maintain any relevancy, IMO.

Ya...curse those good ol' traditional morals that value life. How quaint.

[racrguy]

Dissenting opinion on Roe v. Wade (emphasis added):

"At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. ... I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. ... As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court." — Justice Byron R. White.


The FEDERAL government (the only thing restricted by the constitution) is prohibited from saying anything on abortion. The states can decide what they like. A conservative (such as I) would say that the federal government has no authority over marriage either. DOMA? Unconstitutional. Federal government telling states they must recognize gay marriage? Unconstitutional.

Well, isn't that funny. Roe V Wade WAS A STATE CASE

Just fyi, viable in terms of a baby, means survival with assistance. A non-viable preeme won't survive with assistance. The definition of viable varies, but it is around 24 Weeks. I'm not trying to start anything or be a Dick, but ot makes you sound uninformed the way you are using the term.

This has been explained to him, he just keeps ignoring it and thinking if he says the same nonsense it'll somehow be true.


Brent, I disagree with you just a little. Republicans are going to have to shift not only away from their antiquated moral stance but to a more libertarain viewpoint as well, if they want to maintain any relevancy, IMO.

[akfodysvn]

Actually, the point he's making is a fetus isn't a baby because it isn't self sustaining or viable. IF that is the measuring stick, anyone not internally sustaining you could make the argument that they are eligible for late term abortion. We're really just negotiating the time frame in which I can kill someone legally at this point.

Just fyi, viable in terms of a baby, means survival with assistance. A non-viable preeme won't survive with assistance. The definition of viable varies, but it is around 24 Weeks. I'm not trying to start anything or be a Dick, but ot makes you sound uninformed the way you are using the term.

[Forever_frost]

They have no Constitutional authority to do so, so let it go. Keep on with your head in the sand. Republicans are done in Politics until they abandon the gay marriage and abortion issues.

Dissenting opinion on Roe v. Wade (emphasis added):

"At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. ... I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. ... As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court." — Justice Byron R. White.


The FEDERAL government (the only thing restricted by the constitution) is prohibited from saying anything on abortion. The states can decide what they like. A conservative (such as I) would say that the federal government has no authority over marriage either. DOMA? Unconstitutional. Federal government telling states they must recognize gay marriage? Unconstitutional.

[bcoop]

You mean on protecting the lives of children? I can think of nothing that matters more than protecting the most innocent of lives.

They have no Constitutional authority to do so, so let it go. Keep on with your head in the sand. Republicans are done in Politics until they abandon the gay marriage and abortion issues.

[Denny]

[racrguy]

All they did was refuse to reinstate the injunction. The lawsuit is still happening.

[GhostTX]

Fetuses. It's not a 'child' until it's born.

Texas law disagrees with you. Technically, the complex order of cells is an "individual".



On that note, it baffles me why no one has taken a "mom" and her "doctor" to court, under the law.

[lowthreeohz]

You mean on protecting the lives of children? I can think of nothing that matters more than protecting the most innocent of lives.

Fetuses. It's not a 'child' until it's born.

[Forever_frost]

I just wish conservatives would focus on shit that actually matters instead of this moral legislation bullshit.

You mean on protecting the lives of children? I can think of nothing that matters more than protecting the most innocent of lives.

[bcoop]

I just wish conservatives would focus on shit that actually matters instead of this moral legislation bullshit.

[Broncojohnny]

Of course they refused to stop it. This is just state regulation and the court will eventually decide if it goes too far. Why weren't any of these liberals bawling their eyes out back when you couldn't own a handgun in DC? Oh I keep forgetting that injustice only exists for pet liberal causes.

[Forever_frost]

U.S. Supreme Court declines to block Texas abortion law
WASHINGTON Tue Nov 19, 2013 5:59pm EST
0 COMMENTS
Share this

Email
Print
(Reuters) - A split U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to block implementation of a new abortion law in Texas that already has prompted a dozen clinics in the state to stop performing the procedure.

The provision requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility in case women have complications.

The four liberal members of the nine-member court objected to the decision not to block the appeals court ruling that allows the law to go into effect.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/19/us-usa-court-abortion-idUSBRE9AI1BT20131119

[Maddhattter]

I'm not 100% against abortion either! but 20 weeks, yeah, get your shit together, you had plenty of time to figure shit out or make other options.

http://www.dfwmustangs.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1110604&postcount=102