• 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!

ABORTION: What is YOUR view, what would YOU do.

Data are independent only if you present all. But beyond that, presenting one's credentials and/or explaining one's interest provide context. I would think, given that you're fond of pronouncing others "stupid," you'd be eager to share your philosophic background and erudite attainments.
 
Data are independent only if you present all. But beyond that, presenting one's credentials and/or explaining one's interest provide context. I would think, given that you're fond of pronouncing others "stupid," you'd be eager to share your philosophic background and erudite attainments.

Wont, just like all "pro choicers", quick to call others cowards for their beliefs. Yet scared to death of their own. Not even willing to put it on a ballot, just raise enough cane and force by way of lawsuit to get the laws they want.
 
Dude, let it go. God himself could come here and tell you its wrong and you wouldnt care. You are just an immature person with no sense of responsibility for your actions if the results of those actions "you dont like" or "they get in the way".

No, God could not come here and tell FutureIncoming it's wrong. Only ignorant people come here and tell any of us its wrong. It is you who "are just an immature person with no sense of responsibility for your actions if the results of those actions 'you dont like' or 'they get in the way'." Making anti-abortion laws and voting for legislators who make them makes you responsible for the results of those actions. There will in fact be some girls and women who are victimized by them.

If a woman dies or is seriously physically disabled or mentally victimized by her pregnancy because such an anti-abortion law is in force, but without the establishment of the personhood of embryos beforehand in law, then the people who made that law and voted for those legislators deserve in the moral universe to be punished for that victimization because women have already had their legal personhood established. And God could come here and tell you that and you wouldn't care.
 
Wont, just like all "pro choicers", quick to call others cowards for their beliefs. Yet scared to death of their own. Not even willing to put it on a ballot, just raise enough cane and force by way of lawsuit to get the laws they want.

Roe v Wade and PP v Casey, etc., already established what pro-choicers want. Those SC decisions established that, at the federal level, the Constitution of the United States allows women to have and doctors to perform voluntary induced abortions within the parameters those decisions set. So it doesn't matter what state legislatures do and it doesn't even matter what Congress does, because laws that go beyond those parameters are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We pro-choicers are upholding the SC in its professional and experienced interpretation of the US Constitution. Meanwhile, abortion opponents are making unconstitutional state laws one after another. And when Mississippi, the most "pro-life" state in the US, put a state constitution amendment to establish the personhood of zygotes on a referendum, the people voted against it. Wake up.
 
Actually, there's no reason to be incorrect, either. The Hyde Amendment stipulates that federal funds can't be used to finance abortions except in the cases of saving the life of the woman or in cases of rape or incest. The reason why is that the federal government is obligated by the Constitution to protect the life of the woman and rape and incest are federal crimes.

Not true. The constitution does not set out any sort of obligation to protect women or men for that matter. It does not obligate the government to make laws against rape, incest or murder or pass any other law. Furthermore, the government has no obligation at all to keep you alive and therefore no obligation to pay for an abortion even if your life is in danger. The fact is there is no sort of obligation for the government to do anything towards abortion in terms of either paying for abortions or passing laws against abortions.
 
Roe v Wade and PP v Casey, etc., already established what pro-choicers want. Those SC decisions established that, at the federal level, the Constitution of the United States allows women to have and doctors to perform voluntary induced abortions within the parameters those decisions set. So it doesn't matter what state legislatures do and it doesn't even matter what Congress does, because laws that go beyond those parameters are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We pro-choicers are upholding the SC in its professional and experienced interpretation of the US Constitution. Meanwhile, abortion opponents are making unconstitutional state laws one after another. And when Mississippi, the most "pro-life" state in the US, put a state constitution amendment to establish the personhood of zygotes on a referendum, the people voted against it. Wake up.


I agree. In fact in the last couple years Idaho, Arizonia and 7 other states tried to pass laws restricting abortions to the 20 week gestation mark.
An appellet court panel stuck down those laws this past May of 2013.

Published: May 21, 2013

Federal appellate panel struck down Arizona’s abortion law on Tuesday, saying it was unconstitutional “under a long line of invariant Supreme Court precedents” that guarantee a woman’s right to end a pregnancy any time before a fetus is deemed viable outside her womb — generally at 24 weeks.

The law, enacted in April 2012 despite vociferous protest by women’s and civil rights groups, made abortions illegal if performed 20 weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period, or roughly 18 weeks after fertilization, even if the woman learned that the fetus had no chance of surviving after birth. At 18 weeks, many fetal abnormalities can be detected through sonograms.
In its opinion, the panel of three judges assigned to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco wrote that a fetus’s viability “varies from pregnancy to pregnancy,” which should be determined by doctors, not legislators.

< SNIP>
The decision applies to Arizona and the eight other Western states under the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction, including Idaho, where similar legislation had already been deemed unconstitutional.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/u...tions-struck-down-in-federal-court.html?_r=3&
 
Not true. The constitution does not set out any sort of obligation to protect women or men for that matter. It does not obligate the government to make laws against rape, incest or murder or pass any other law. Furthermore, the government has no obligation at all to keep you alive and therefore no obligation to pay for an abortion even if your life is in danger. The fact is there is no sort of obligation for the government to do anything towards abortion in terms of either paying for abortions or passing laws against abortions.

If you really think government has no obligation to try to keep a person alive than I guess you must think government does not have a right to pass a law to keep an embryo or fetus alive.
 
Not true. The constitution does not set out any sort of obligation to protect women or men for that matter. It does not obligate the government to make laws against rape, incest or murder or pass any other law. Furthermore, the government has no obligation at all to keep you alive and therefore no obligation to pay for an abortion even if your life is in danger. The fact is there is no sort of obligation for the government to do anything towards abortion in terms of either paying for abortions or passing laws against abortions.

Actually, you're wrong.

From Due Process of Law: legal definition of Due Process of Law:. Due Process of Law: synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.

The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). This clause limits the powers of the states, rather than those of the federal government.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has also been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the twentieth century to incorporate protections of the Bill of Rights, so that those protections apply to the states as well as to the federal government. Thus, the Due Process Clause serves as the means whereby the Bill of Rights has become binding on state governments as well as on the federal government.

Thus, the federal government has the power to make federal laws and has jurisdiction over federal property and other areas states do not, and Congress made and passed and presidents signed various statutes into law and the SC did not find them unconstitutional. Hence, there are federal laws against murder, manslaughter, rape, etc. Such laws were passed to protect not your life and liberty, but your rights to them, against people and states who tried to violate them.

I agree that the government is not under an obligation to pass laws against abortions, but if a state passes them and an individual person complains that this violates her rights, whether as patient or doctor to a court, the court can made a ruling, and if you don't like it, you can keep on appealing up to the SC, and the SC decides whether or not the law violates your constitutional rights.
 
Data are independent only if you present all.
ILLOGICAL. For example, the temperature in Fairbanks, Alaska does not depend on the temperature in Aukland, New Zealand. Each datum stands by itself. Now, having both pieces of data, along with many others, of course allows patterns to be noticed, such as the extent of weather fronts. Note, however, that that is a different topic than the original topic, an individual independent temperature datum. Well, that blog article already covers a number of sub-topics, I saw no reason to get "about me" stuff egotistically associated with it.

But beyond that, presenting one's credentials and/or explaining one's interest provide context.
There are contexts and then there are other contexts. I'm willing to sacrifice perception of "good" context in order to prevent perception of "bad" context.

I would think, given that you're fond of pronouncing others "stupid," ...
FALSE. I have fairly carefully labeled actions (like spouting obvious lies) and attitudes (like prejudice and hypocrisy) as "stupid", not persons. I have accused people of "exhibiting" stupidity --something anyone can do, and most people actually do on occasion-- to encourage them to stop doing that.

... you'd be eager to share your philosophic background and erudite attainments.
Nope. Since your premise (previous quote above) is faulty, your conclusion is also faulty.
 
Not true. The constitution does not set out any sort of obligation to protect women or men for that matter. It does not obligate the government to make laws against rape, incest or murder or pass any other law. Furthermore, the government has no obligation at all to keep you alive and therefore no obligation to pay for an abortion even if your life is in danger. The fact is there is no sort of obligation for the government to do anything towards abortion in terms of either paying for abortions or passing laws against abortions.
POSSIBLY PARTIALLY CORRECT. However, remember the Preamble to the Constitution:
US Constitution said:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It defines the purpose of the document. The details following that Preamble are of course intended to set up a structure that could allow that purpose to be met. Now, since "promote the general Welfare" is in the Preamble, it is actually not difficult to think that the Government actually may have some obligation to do something about it. Of course, the first thing to do is define what that phrase "promote the general Welfare" actually means! Suppose we agreed that "preventing poverty" was a reasonable start to such a definition? Well, while this next Fact may not have been known when the Constitution was written, it certainly is known now that overpopulation causes poverty! So, why should unwanted extra mouths-to-feed be required to be born?

And so I reiterate: Abortion Opponents have absolutely no arguments that have any chance of being both valid and applicable to today's world.
 
POSSIBLY PARTIALLY CORRECT. However, remember the Preamble to the Constitution:

It defines the purpose of the document. The details following that Preamble are of course intended to set up a structure that could allow that purpose to be met. Now, since "promote the general Welfare" is in the Preamble, it is actually not difficult to think that the Government actually may have some obligation to do something about it. Of course, the first thing to do is define what that phrase "promote the general Welfare" actually means! Suppose we agreed that "preventing poverty" was a reasonable start to such a definition? Well, while this next Fact may not have been known when the Constitution was written, it certainly is known now that overpopulation causes poverty! So, why should unwanted extra mouths-to-feed be required to be born?

And so I reiterate: Abortion Opponents have absolutely no arguments that have any chance of being both valid and applicable to today's world.

Nope. The words general welfare as found in the constitution have nothing to do with poverty.

It was meant to ensure that the Powers granted applied to the population in general as opposed to certain towns, counties, or states.
 
Nope. The words general welfare as found in the constitution have nothing to do with poverty.

It was meant to ensure that the Powers granted applied to the population in general as opposed to certain towns, counties, or states.

The use of the word "general" does what you say, but the word "welfare" does what FutureIncoming says. Welfare means faring well, and more specifically,

welfare - definition of welfare by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. wel·fare (wlfâr)n.1.a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.b. Prosperity.2. Welfare work.3.a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.b. Corporate welfare.

Of course, for the time of the Constitution, only (1) applies.
 
The use of the word "general" does what you say, but the word "welfare" does what FutureIncoming says. Welfare means faring well, and more specifically,

welfare - definition of welfare by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. wel·fare (wlfâr)n.1.a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.b. Prosperity.2. Welfare work.3.a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.b. Corporate welfare.

Of course, for the time of the Constitution, only (1) applies.

No. The words "general welfare" mean exactly what I said. Nothing more and nothing less.
 
Nope. The words general welfare as found in the constitution have nothing to do with poverty.
MISDIRECTION, BECAUSE INCOMPLETE. I quoted "promote the general Welfare" and all you are blathering about is "general welfare". The two phrases mean different things, and the first one, the one actually in the Constitution, relates to doing something. So, try again. What do you think "promote the general Welfare" means?
 
thanks for replying to the OP!
why in your opinion though are you so one sides on the issue? why do you value the woman less? why do you think the right move is to violate the womans rights, take some of them away and give all the power to the ZEF and use force against the woman in almost all cases?

and again be clear its fine you want to do that, thats the purpose of the OP to find out what people would do, im just asking why you think thats the right move, what logic you use to support it.

I don't value the woman less.

You're talking about two human beings. The woman and the unborn.
The question should be: why do we discriminate against children?
In this case, citing discrimination would be an understatement! We're not just talking about denying someone to enter a public premise based on his size or age. This is a matter of life and death!

This is a clear violation of human rights, and we willingly should go along with abortion simply because carrying the child to full term will cause 9 months of inconvenience for the woman?

Abortion does not kill women. But it does kill children.
 
Last edited:
What makes us different from the Nazis - who stripped the Jews of their humanity, or the slavers - who stripped the blacks of their humanity? They did those to justify their atrocities. It's easier to kill someone whom you don't think of as human.

Same thing. And much worse.....because we're picking on someone who can't defend himself, who can't fight back....a sitting duck!



Don't talk about human rights or discrimination, if you support, or are neutral about abortion!
 
Human rights belong to born humans.
Legal abortions in the USA are only legal if the pregnant woman herself seeks an abortion.
Therefore there is no comparison to the Nazis.
 
If you're in charge, plenty of women will commit suicide in order not to carry some pregnancies to term.

Beam up to the 21st century!

If one refuses to keep that aspirin held between her knees.....there are tons of preventive pregnancy remedy available mostly over the counter, and in some cases even being given for free!

There's no more stigma to being an unwed or single mother, there are support groups of various shapes and sizes - you name it, we got it! There's some child benefits from the government, too!

Except in cases of rape, there's no excuse to having an unwanted pregnancy! NONE!

And should any bleeding heart bring up concern over the primitive "hanger method of closet abortion" - all I can say is....what happened to the "your body, your choice" slogan?
 
Last edited:
Human rights belong to born humans.
Legal abortions in the USA are only legal if the pregnant woman herself seeks an abortion.
Therefore there is no comparison to the Nazis.

"Human rights belong to born humans." Since when? Sez who?



There's the comparison to the Nazis.
 
The Nazis and the slavers had done it! And we condemn them?

If we can change the status of a human unborn to be downgraded as a subhuman or non-human - don't ever think it'll stop there!


PETER SINGER- NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABORTION AND INFANTICIDE

In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”1

To the dismay of popular abortion advocates, Singer rejects birth as a relevant dividing line between person and nonperson, agreeing with pro-life advocates that there is no ontologically significant difference between the fetus and a newborn.

Instead of upgrading the fetus to the status of a person, however, Peter Singer downgrades the newborn to the status of nonperson because newborns, like fetuses, are incapable “of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”5 They are not rational, self-conscious beings with a desire to live.6 Since, in Singer’s criteria, personhood hinges on these factors, killing a newborn (or fetus) is not the same as killing a person. In fact, some acts of infanticide are less problematic than killing a happy cat. If, for example, parents kill one disabled infant to make way for another baby that will be happier than the first, the total amount of happiness increases for all interested parties.7 Singer’s logic can be summed up this way: Until a baby is capable of self-awareness, there is no controlling reason not to kill it to serve the preferences of the parents.
Peter Singer’s Bold Defense of Infanticide | CRI
 
The Nazis and the slavers had done it! And we condemn them?

If we can change the status of a human unborn to be downgraded as a subhuman or non-human - don't ever think it'll stop there!



Peter Singer’s Bold Defense of Infanticide | CRI

That would be against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Also agaist US law since the US reconizes the born as persons.

The Supreme Court rejected the fetal right to life argument in the Roe vs WAde decision 40 years ago.
 
The Nazis and the slavers had done it! And we condemn them?

If we can change the status of a human unborn to be downgraded as a subhuman or non-human - don't ever think it'll stop there!



Peter Singer’s Bold Defense of Infanticide | CRI

All Peter Singer is saying is that the unborn and newborn infants are not persons. Not once does he dehumanize them. He simply removes the barrier some humans like to cloud themselves into and makes pro lifers like you very uncomfortable. Because your philosophy of the ''sanctity of human life'' is repeatedly challenged and none of you can really challenge them well because most of the lifers are still stuck on mere species membership instead of arguing what the definition of the word ''person'' should be.

Actually you shouldn't be offended at all because something doesn't need to be human at all for it to count as a person.
 
Last edited:
Articlel 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

SINCE WHEN? That's a heavy loaded question.

You're missing the point.

If the Nazis won the war and had become the world leader - and they passed an article of declaration stating that Jews are not humans - I guess that means, that's true? :lol:

To cite UNITED NATIONS as the authority on this issue about human rights, is laughable enough - this is like a Monty Python skit - but you're okay with a group of people deciding who's human and who's not?
Just because they've written it and signed it - you believe it's true?

It's bad enough that dictators get to sit in the UN and decide on human rights....I guess it could get worse.

Better get on your knees and pray that never would the UN be comprised of dictating Talibans or you might see us women becoming non-human! Then we'll really have something to whine about - if that will be allowed.

WOMEN = CHATTELS. Written and signed, which makes it official. And true.
 
Last edited:
If the Nazis won the war and become the world leader - and they passed an article of declaration stating that Jews are not humans - I guess that means, that's true? :lol:

Nope they would state an article of declaration stating the jews are not ''persons.'' Since the definition of the word person is not universally agreed upon some will agree and some will disagree.

They won't be able to conclude the jews are not humans because science state they're. But when it comes to answering the philosophical question of ''What gives something the right to life?'' would be only a matter of opinion and not fact. Some may say a being having rationality and being able to pursue their own personal interests in life would qualify for the ''right to life.''

You make quite a bit of confusion between the word ''human'' and ''person'' like many pro lifers do
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom