• 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!

Vote Pro-Choice - Personally Pro-Life[W:479]

Vote Pro-Choice - Personally Pro-Life

  • I'm a male - that describes me

    Votes: 10 31.3%

  • I'm a female - that describes me

    Votes: 8 25.0%

  • I'm a male - that's impossible

    Votes: 8 25.0%

  • I'm a female - that's impossible

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Lies, lies, and more lies....

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • snot rocket

    Votes: 6 18.8%
  • Total voters
    32
mpg said:
There's almost no resemblance between my typing and your reading.
Click to expand...

Not the first time I've been told that.

So what's your beef...in more than one short sentence.
 
sangha said:
I see the Pity Parade has started again.

You can believe what every kooky right wing delusion you want to believe in.
Click to expand...

Are you finding yourself befuddled and in wonderment about the meaning of MPG's posts? He reminds me of the recent guy with an avatar of a gal...who posted about 5000 one liners inside of a month.
 
mpg said:
Do you agree with every single SCOTUS ruling?
Click to expand...

Do you want to void a patients right to privacy between patient and doctor ?

Of so why ?
 
I asked a question near the beginning of this thread and I don't remember anyone addresing it, so I'll repeat it. For those of you who vote pro-choice but are personally pro-life, why are you personally pro-life?
 
mpg said:
No, I don't. Why do you ask?
Click to expand...

Because that is what Roe v Wade is really about.

Roe v Wade did not mean women could have abortions.
Women have been having abortions since the early Greek days.

What Roe did was it allowed women seek medical help to have safer abortions ( for the woman ) and it allowed doctors to treat their patients like first class citizens.
 
Re: Vote Pro-Choice - Personally Pro-Life

mpg said:
Most laws can be decided by the states without a "super majority". Yes, it is a fact that the states can't do that with abortion because of RvW, but even RvW is an opinion. It's also a fact that the Constitution can be amended and RvW can be overturned, so don't say that only one side is presenting facts.
Click to expand...

This silliness has gone on for pages....I never said such a thing. dont nag every poster based on the comment of one.
 
Re: Vote Pro-Choice - Personally Pro-Life

Monserrat said:
Abortions different than shooting a nun out of a cannon though. There's two rights at stake and either way you are going to be trampling on one to protect the rights of the other. I don't think legally you should be able to force someone to keep a living growing human attached to them and feeding off of them for any period of time but I do think ending that life is wrong. Instead of going about it by forcing them to keep the human alive until viability I think we need to work on changing societal views, that and providing incentives for the woman to carry to term.
Click to expand...

Do you have children or have you ever been pregnant?
 
mpg said:
You guys make it sound like I'm not allowed to disagree with a SCOTUS decision, even though they aren't unanimous. Haven't you guys ever disagreed with one of their rulings?
Click to expand...

Sure, you can disagree. But you have to follow the law as they decide, and so does everyone else.

If this were a matter of only one decision on the issue of abortion, Roe v Wade, you could certainly hope that the SC would change and then overturn the decision. But it's not that easy.

First, Roe v Wade was not decided by a simple majority of 5 to 4, but by 7 to 2. Second, it is not the only abortion decision the SC made. There have been quite a few court challenges to Roe v Wade since 1973 on various different points. Hence, as the justices on the SC changed, there were quite a few cases the SC could have used to revisit Roe v Wade and overturn it. But in no case did the SC decision involve attacking the core of the Roe v Wade finding.

Notably, the Planned Parenthood v Casey decision was made when all of the justices were Republican appointees except one, and the one Democratic appointee had dissented in Roe v Wade.

It had no difficulty rejecting application of the first, second, and third trimester division in Roe v Wade, but it upheld the concept that fetal viability is the point at which the state's interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus is compelling enough to override the rights of the woman except for the rights to life and health.

It even replaced the standard of strict scrutiny against state regulations as obstacles to the woman's seeking an abortion with the lesser test of "undue burden." But it upheld the concept that the state could not make regulations onerous enough to be true obstacles to the woman's seeking and obtaining an abortion.

Furthermore, it acknowledged the basis for the doctrine of stare decisis, or the court's standing by precedent decisions unless some change in fact or understanding of the decision had come about, as the interests of a predictable judiciary were against overturning precedent simply because the particular justices were replaced by others.

That was not the only time an abortion case placed the court in a position to revisit Roe v Wade, but the court never revisited its core to overturn it. And with each new decision, more precedent was made, so there was more reason to support the core of Roe v Wade than before.

Furthermore, one of the most vigorous opponents of Roe v Wade, Justice Scalia, is not against Roe v Wade because he supports personhood for zygotes, embryos, or fetuses - though his wife is a noted fetal personhood activist, and if the issue came up to the SC, he might have to recuse himself from being part of deciding a related case. Rather, he is a states' rights judge, who thinks the federal government has no authority in the matter of abortion and that individual states should be recognized as having the final authority.

So even in the unlikely event of a changed SC to overturn Roe v Wade, the result would not be a federal ban on abortion, as most conservative justices have judicial philosophies which, if they did not follow precedent, would leave the matter to individual states rather than let the federal government impose limitations on the power of the states.

SC precedent, its strengthening by multiple decisions with different justices, the tendency for conservative dissenters there to favor states' rights over federal limits on individual rights and states' powers - the whole package bodes against what anti-abortion activists want. Add to that the fact that courts lower than the SC are obligated to follow existing SC decisions, so state abortion bans that legislatures might pass will just go on being struck down as unconstitutional in lower courts.

And the possibility of enough states ever ratifying a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion or establish personhood for fetuses is so low that anti-abortion activists aren't even trying.

So, no, a Supreme Court decision is not just an "opinion," or even a court "majority opinion." Just replacing old justices with new ones cannot change precedent or the reasons for following it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Vote Pro-Choice - Personally Pro-Life

Lursa said:
This silliness has gone on for pages....I never said such a thing. dont nag every poster based on the comment of one.
Click to expand...
That's the sub-debate that you chose to get involved in with post 654.
 
Re: Vote Pro-Choice - Personally Pro-Life

mpg said:
That's the sub-debate that you chose to get involved in with post 654.
Click to expand...

So we all get nagged?

It's just been your way of avoiding adding any substance to the debate.
 
minnie616 said:
Because that is what Roe v Wade is really about.

Roe v Wade did not mean women could have abortions.
Women have been having abortions since the early Greek days.

What Roe did was it allowed women seek medical help to have safer abortions ( for the woman ) and it allowed doctors to treat their patients like first class citizens.
Click to expand...
I've heard the doctor/patient privilege argument before, but that has more to do with enforcing the law than the law itself. If the law said that anything goes between doctors and their patients, doctors could prescribe drugs without FDA approval.
 
choiceone said:
Sure, you can disagree. But you have to follow the law as they decide, and so does everyone else.

If this were a matter of only one decision on the issue of abortion, Roe v Wade, you could certainly hope that the SC would change and then overturn the decision. But it's not that easy.

First, Roe v Wade was not decided by a simple majority of 5 to 4, but by 7 to 2. Second, it is not the only abortion decision the SC made. There have been quite a few court challenges to Roe v Wade since 1973 on various different points. Hence, as the justices on the SC changed, there were quite a few cases the SC could have used to revisit Roe v Wade and overturn it. But in no case did the SC decision involve attacking the core of the Roe v Wade finding.

Notably, the Planned Parenthood v Casey decision was made when all of the justices were Republican appointees except one, and the one Democratic appointee had dissented in Roe v Wade.

It had no difficulty rejecting application of the first, second, and third trimester division in Roe v Wade, but it upheld the concept that fetal viability is the point at which the state's interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus is compelling enough to override the rights of the woman except for the rights to life and health.

It even replaced the standard of strict scrutiny against state regulations as obstacles to the woman's seeking an abortion with the lesser test of "undue burden." But it upheld the concept that the state could not make regulations onerous enough to be true obstacles to the woman's seeking and obtaining an abortion.

Furthermore, it acknowledged the basis for the doctrine of stare decisis, or the court's standing by precedent decisions unless some change in fact or understanding of the decision had come about, as the interests of a predictable judiciary were against overturning precedent simply because the particular justices were replaced by others.

That was not the only time an abortion case placed the court in a position to revisit Roe v Wade, but the court never revisited its core to overturn it. And with each new decision, more precedent was made, so there was more reason to support the core of Roe v Wade than before.

Furthermore, one of the most vigorous opponents of Roe v Wade, Justice Scalia, is not against Roe v Wade because he supports personhood for zygotes, embryos, or fetuses - though his wife is a noted fetal personhood activist, and if the issue came up to the SC, he might have to recuse himself from being part of deciding a related case. Rather, he is a states' rights judge, who thinks the federal government has no authority in the matter of abortion and that individual states should be recognized as having the final authority.

So even in the unlikely event of a changed SC to overturn Roe v Wade, the result would not be a federal ban on abortion, as most conservative justices have judicial philosophies which, if they did not follow precedent, would leave the matter to individual states rather than let the federal government impose limitations on the power of the states.

SC precedent, its strengthening by multiple decisions with different justices, the tendency for conservative dissenters there to favor states' rights over federal limits on individual rights and states' powers - the whole package bodes against what anti-abortion activists want. Add to that the fact that courts lower than the SC are obligated to follow existing SC decisions, so state abortion bans that legislatures might pass will just go on being struck down as unconstitutional in lower courts.

And the possibility of enough states ever ratifying a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion or establish personhood for fetuses is so low that anti-abortion activists aren't even trying.

So, no, a Supreme Court decision is not just an "opinion," or even a court "majority opinion." Just replacing old justices with new ones cannot change precedent or the reasons for following it.
Click to expand...
I was aware of almost all of that but none of it contradicts anything that I said. Was that intended as a rebuttal or are you saying that you agree with me?
 
Maybe I need to clarify my position.

1.)I'm pro-life.
2.)I believe that being pro-choice is a valid position. I can respect an opinion that I disagree with, and this is one of many (see sig).
3.)I'm not expecting to convert anyone to pro-life.
4.)My primary goal when I came to this thread was to get a better understanding of people who vote pro-choice, but are personally pro-life. I asked a question about that twice, but both posts were completely ignored.
5.)I am trying to convince people that being pro-life is a valid position. I hope that you can respect an opinion that you disagree with.
6.)When asked why I'm pro-life, I expressed opinions. People said that opinions weren't enough. I interpreted this to mean that I didn't have a valid reason to be pro-life, so I disagreed. When asked what facts I had to support my opinions, I admitted that I didn't have any. Every time I said I had no facts, people replied by asking what facts I had. That kept getting repeated. It was quite silly.
7.)When I asked what facts the other side, they said abortion is currently legal and they also mentioned RvW. I didn't feel that those facts were enough to make their position more valid than mine, so I refused to admit that it's invalid to be pro-life.
8.)Their facts reminded me of facts, such as the fact that the Constitution is amendable, but even when I presented my own facts, they were dismissed as invalid. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some people seemed to imply that I wanted to disband the SCOTUS, or I wanted legislators to ignore their rulings. I assure you that neither is the case. It's quite possible to disagree with a specific SCOTUS ruling, without wanting to get rid of judicial review. I don't think anybody agrees with each and every SCOTUS ruling, but that only means they want better judicial review, rather than no judicial review at all.
 
Dragonfly said:
I'll just put this right here:

The abortion debate - Carl Sagan
Click to expand...

mpg said:
Maybe I need to clarify my position.

1.)I'm pro-life.
2.)I believe that being pro-choice is a valid position. I can respect an opinion that I disagree with, and this is one of many (see sig).
3.)I'm not expecting to convert anyone to pro-life.
4.)My primary goal when I came to this thread was to get a better understanding of people who vote pro-choice, but are personally pro-life. I asked a question about that twice, but both posts were completely ignored.
5.)I am trying to convince people that being pro-life is a valid position. I hope that you can respect an opinion that you disagree with.
6.)When asked why I'm pro-life, I expressed opinions. People said that opinions weren't enough. I interpreted this to mean that I didn't have a valid reason to be pro-life, so I disagreed. When asked what facts I had to support my opinions, I admitted that I didn't have any. Every time I said I had no facts, people replied by asking what facts I had. That kept getting repeated. It was quite silly.
7.)When I asked what facts the other side, they said abortion is currently legal and they also mentioned RvW. I didn't feel that those facts were enough to make their position more valid than mine, so I refused to admit that it's invalid to be pro-life.
8.)Their facts reminded me of facts, such as the fact that the Constitution is amendable, but even when I presented my own facts, they were dismissed as invalid. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some people seemed to imply that I wanted to disband the SCOTUS, or I wanted legislators to ignore their rulings. I assure you that neither is the case. It's quite possible to disagree with a specific SCOTUS ruling, without wanting to get rid of judicial review. I don't think anybody agrees with each and every SCOTUS ruling, but that only means they want better judicial review, rather than no judicial review at all.
Click to expand...

See the link in my quoted post. Tons of facts.

It's a 4 page read, but it's perfect.

Not sure people said being pro-life is invalid. What most say is it's fine for you to be pro-life - just don't force that belief on others. Especially when you're a male. (okay - I added that last part)
 
Being "pro-life" is a completely acceptable position.

What is not acceptable is attempting to force others to be subject to that position.
 
Dragonfly said:
See the link in my quoted post. Tons of facts.

It's a 4 page read, but it's perfect.

Not sure people said being pro-life is invalid. What most say is it's fine for you to be pro-life - just don't force that belief on others. Especially when you're a male. (okay - I added that last part)
Click to expand...
I apologize for being ambiguous. When I said I was pro-life, I meant it in a political way. Do you consider that position to be invalid?
 
Lursa said:
Being "pro-life" is a completely acceptable position.

What is not acceptable is attempting to force others to be subject to that position.
Click to expand...
Are there any other political issues where you feel that it's unacceptable to disagree with you?
 
mpg said:
I apologize for being ambiguous. When I said I was pro-life, I meant it in a political way. Do you consider that position to be invalid?
Click to expand...

About as invalid as trying to keep gay people from getting married.
 
Dragonfly said:
About as invalid as trying to keep gay people from getting married.
Click to expand...
I support SSM, but I know some hard core Democrats who strongly oppose it. Should I slap them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom