no more abortions!

[racrguy]

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

[Denny]

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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?

We already legislate morality. Murder? Theft? Those basics, no? Society deemed certain moral traits to go by to establish laws on those.

You're hung up on a fetus not being a life to protect. I disagree. Texas, by and large, disagrees with you, as I've said. Just because there's no chalk outline to go by, doesn't mean a human life wasn't killed.

You should be all for supporting that couple in Hood County, after all, it was their moral beliefs to have it go that way.

[racrguy]

We already legislate morality. Murder? Theft? Those basics, no? Society deemed certain moral traits to go by to establish laws on those.

Those are crimes against people, a fetus is not a person. Care to try again?

[GhostTX]

...

You're hung up on a fetus not being a life to protect. I disagree. Texas, by and large, disagrees with you, as I've said. Just because there's no chalk outline to go by, doesn't mean a human life wasn't killed.

You should be all for supporting that couple in Hood County, after all, it was their moral beliefs to have it go that way.

Those are crimes against people, a fetus is not a person. Care to try again?

You can't wrap your head around that, can you?

[Denny]

Those are crimes against people, a fetus is not a personCare to try again?

By your definition.

[talisman]

Brent is right. Until Republicans stop worrying so goddamn much about people with different religious beliefs doing whatever they please with their body they are going to continue to get pummeled. It makes them look like fucking nut jobs some of these stances they take. It isnt the 1950's any more.

[racrguy]

You can't wrap your head around that, can you?

Oh, I understand it completely. You just haven't justified your ban on abortions. Until the point of viability, there's no life to protect.

By your definition.

And the legal one as well.

[GhostTX]

Oh, I understand it completely. You just haven't justified your ban on abortions. Until the point of viability, there's no life to protect.

I'd say it's MORE important to protect an innocent, fragile human life.

And the legal one as well.

Wrong.


(26) "Individual" means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm

And yes, I'm baffled why this legal definition isn't used to defend a fetus in an abortion.