• 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!

Killing a pregnant woman is not double-murder!

radcen said:
Then why are you even asking? :shrug:

Anyway, late-term abortion isn't even what he and I were talking about. He brought it up as a point regarding another aspect, and my response was the equivalent of, "Sure, I buy that, and here's why...".
Click to expand...

Because from your postings, it doesnt seem like you know. And it was relevant to what I responded to but if you arent interested, no amount of info makes a difference.
 
radcen said:
Ummm... I do. It's my thread.

You seem to be reading the words of what people are writing, but not taking the time to absorb what people are saying.
Click to expand...

Of course I am. I read it and my question is, beyond opinion (that of your OP), what is the foundation or justification for that claim? Is it solid objective fact or subjective opinion? If the latter, what is the foundation for it?

And if 'my post' is absorbed, it might lead to a realization that 'who says' might matter.

I note that you didnt address the substance of my post.
 
Master PO said:
and your point of telling me this is?
Click to expand...

It was a direct (I hoped) response to this:

Master PO said:
the USSC has deemed it a privacy issue.

right to privacy vs right to life
Click to expand...
Lursa said:
That violation of a right to privacy can lead to the violation of the right to life for the woman. What does the govt do with the information it takes....if it forces a woman to remain pregant....then how does it protect her right to life?

87,000 women in the US die or suffer severe health consquences (stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, etc) every yr in pregnancy or childbirth...these are the ones that *could not be saved by medically-needed abortion, since those are available.*...these were not predictable or preventable.

Isnt the govt just as responsible for the lives of women? If so, then how is it justified that they force women to take this significant risk against their will? It cannot protect them, so how can it demand it?
Click to expand...

Is there something you would like clarified?
 
matchlight said:
That is false. Of course I produced them both in #188, just as I said--and just as you saw. I will repost the link to them here, and let everyone reading this thread draw their own conclusions about what kind of stunt you are trying to pull, and why.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html#F5


One click of the mouse on that link, and the footnotes I referred to appear.
Click to expand...

Copy and paste "The SPECIFIC FOOTNOTES" that you believe supports your claim.
 
Bucky said:
Do it yourself. He isn't your clerk.
Click to expand...

And neither are you his personal assistant sent to tell me what to do....

He made a claim, Bucky and needs to be specific...not drop a website as a source that is a wall of text (a small book) and tell all to look up some point that he's claiming to be relevant. You're not all that great with posting viable sources yourself.....not so sure why you're standing in for Match...??
 
Removable Mind said:
Copy and paste "The SPECIFIC FOOTNOTES" that you believe supports your claim.
Click to expand...

I copy and paste material, or link to it, as I see fit. Like everyone else, you can have the passages I cited from Heller on your screen in an instant with a single mouse click on the link that I have now posted twice.

Everyone here can see that the real reason you are trying to make the ludicrous claim that you can't read the passages I cited from Heller is that what the Supreme Court said there flatly contradicts your false claim about collective rights. You pretended to know what you do not, got caught at it, and can't admit your mistake.

If a mouse click is so daunting and Herculean a task that it peeves you to have it required of you, why don't you respond to the text from Heller I quoted in #190? No strenuous mouse click needed there. Show us all why Justice Scalia was wrong when he said the First Amendment Petition and Assembly Clause protects an individual right, and not a collective right as you asserted. Show us how you understand constitutional law better than the Supreme Court.
 
matchlight said:
I copy and paste material, or link to it, as I see fit. Like everyone else, you can have the passages I cited from Heller on your screen in an instant with a single mouse click on the link that I have now posted twice.

Everyone here can see that the real reason you are trying to make the ludicrous claim that you can't read the passages I cited from Heller is that what the Supreme Court said there flatly contradicts your false claim about collective rights. You pretended to know what you do not, got caught at it, and can't admit your mistake.

If a mouse click is so daunting and Herculean a task that it peeves you to have it required of you, why don't you respond to the text from Heller I quoted in #190? No strenuous mouse click needed there. Show us all why Justice Scalia was wrong when he said the First Amendment Petition and Assembly Clause protects an individual right, and not a collective right as you asserted. Show us how you understand constitutional law better than the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I reread 188 and 190...and you think that my comments over several posts are false and contradictory to the S.C...that your case is the sum total of what constitutes rights to groups, or should I say, what doesn't constitute rights of groups?

You might want to reread the wording of my posts (look for words like "in addition" and "also". But to be clear what I know about the Constitution. The Constitution is built around "individual rights" NOT "group rights", but if you think that such rights have been shunned by the S.C...think again. And this is a little complicated, and I've got life going on right now - But within the next few days I'll provide you all of the evidence I can muster that "group rights exist" in various ways.

"I'll be back"...as Schwarzenegger says.
 
Master PO said:
i did already, i stated the postions of both sides, by looking at it from both sides, not from just 1 side.
Click to expand...

No it did not seem so, as you only (in writing) felt a woman's right to privacy was violated, while you seemed to believe that the (not currently existing) right to life of the unborn was what was in jeopardy.

So you are avoiding actually discussing it, which is not unexpected....most people do.
 
matchlight said:
That is false. Of course I produced them both in #188, just as I said--and just as you saw. I will repost the link to them here, and let everyone reading this thread draw their own conclusions about what kind of stunt you are trying to pull, and why.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html#F5


One click of the mouse on that link, and the footnotes I referred to appear.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL So...ALL of those apply?

:lamo So much for your credibility.
 
Lursa said:
No it did not seem so, as you only (in writing) felt a woman's right to privacy was violated, while you seemed to believe that the (not currently existing) right to life of the unborn was what was in jeopardy.

So you are avoiding actually discussing it, which is not unexpected....most people do.
Click to expand...

here is what i did.....

i took both sides of the issue, and stated from the perspective of each other not just one side.

the perspective of the left - right to privacy

the perspective of the right - right to life
 
Master PO said:
here is what i did.....

i took both sides of the issue, and stated from the perspective of each other not just one side.

the perspective of the left - right to privacy

the perspective of the right - right to life
Click to expand...

No...you ignore that the right to life is tied to any consequences resulting from violations of a right to privacy. You didnt address anything in my post where I pointed this out.

And that's besides the fact that the unborn have no rights at all. Nor have I seen you substantiate why they should, legally.
 
Lursa said:
No...you ignore that the right to life is tied to any consequences resulting from violations of a right to privacy. You didnt address anything in my post where I pointed this out.

And that's besides the fact that the unborn have no rights at all. Nor have I seen you substantiate why they should, legally.
Click to expand...

you are lost and don't even understand what i was doing then.
 
Master PO said:
here is what i did.....

i took both sides of the issue, and stated from the perspective of each other not just one side.

the perspective of the left - right to privacy

the perspective of the right - right to life
Click to expand...

If a woman is forced by law to remain pregnant much more than her right to privacy is violated. Up to and including her right to life. Her liberty (The positive enjoyment of social, political, or economic rights and privileges), her self-determination, her future.

Why do you believe that the unborn is more entitled to those things than she is? Why should she sacrifice those things in order that the unborn may have the same things?

Of course you keep repeating...nothing...and I'm pretty sure that you cannot support your opinion further than that. But I like posting the tough questions...because others see them too. And usually, the lack of answers.
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
you are lost and don't even understand what i was doing then.
Click to expand...

LOL, your oversimplified claim is your opinion and that's fine, but you didnt provide a reasonable foundation for it. Saying I didnt understand it because I didnt respond the way you wanted is a bit lame, dont you think?
 
Lursa said:
LOL, your oversimplified claim is your opinion and that's fine, but you didnt provide a reasonable foundation for it. Saying I didnt understand it because I didnt respond the way you wanted is a bit lame, dont you think?
Click to expand...

no what you did, is look at the argument of abortion thru your own perspective and thats all , whereas i looked at it from your side, and i looked at it from the other side.

you proved you didn't look at it from the other sides point of view when you stated " unborn have no rights at all"
 
Master PO said:
no what you did, is look at the argument of abortion thru your own perspective and thats all , whereas i looked at it from your side, and i looked at it from the other side.

you proved you didn't look at it from the other sides point of view when you stated " unborn have no rights at all"
Click to expand...

No you didnt look at it from 'my side.' I dont look at it from either 'side,' I look at it based on it's impact on women and the unborn. So you are not being truthful as you certainly did not seem to look at it from 'the woman's perspective.' Your elementary oversimplification is no more than surface spin.

I asked you why, when it comes down to 2 humans, you choose to see the unborn's (implied) rights supersede those of women? (I can clearly and honestly answer this re: the unborn) They cannot be treated equally...legally or practically. So when you incorrectly claim that for women it's only a violation of privacy (and I demonstrated that it is much more) and it's 'life' for the unborn...it comes down to the entirety of a life for both...why do you believe the unborn is more entitled than women to life and ALL that it encompasses (as I've described and you've studiously avoided)?
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
No you didnt look at it from 'my side.' I dont look at it from either 'side,' I look at it based on it's impact on women and the unborn. So you are not being truthful as you certainly did not seem to look at it from 'the woman's perspective.' Your elementary oversimplification is no more than surface spin.

I asked you why, when it comes down to 2 humans, you choose to see the unborn's (implied) rights supersede those of women? (I can clearly and honestly answer this re: the unborn) They cannot be treated equally...legally or practically. So when you incorrectly claim that for women it's only a violation of privacy (and I demonstrated that it is much more) and it's 'life' for the unborn...it comes down to the entirety of a life for both...why do you believe the unborn is more entitled than women to life and ALL that it encompasses (as I've described and you've studiously avoided)?
Click to expand...

you seem to cant understand something here, all i have stated is the perspective of both sides of the issue, i myself have not taken a position either way in any of my post.
 
Master PO said:
you seem to cant understand something here, all i have stated is the perspective of both sides of the issue, i myself have not taken a position either way in any of my post.
Click to expand...

Excuse me then, I apologize. However you still oversimplified the way you applied the rights violated for each...as I pointed out. It's not accurate in any sense of 'reality'. If you choose not to address that, that's fine.
 
radcen said:
You're either for her, or you're against her. ;)
Click to expand...

Not at all. And I love discussing an issue...problem was, he wasnt discussing. But hey, it's the Internet, you can make all the claims and post all the opinions you want and walk away anytime without further supporting them. Po has already tangled with RM....perhaps he's just done. (I think it was RM, cant go back and look right now).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom