• 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!

Arkansas to ban abortion at 12 weeks, earliest in nation [W:1036:1154]

You're missing the point...

The point being that if you were really concerned about "human life", you would have to include sperm and eggs. You're not really concerned about "human life", so much as you're concerned women will get away without punishment for choosing sex.
 
The point being that if you were really concerned about "human life", you would have to include sperm and eggs. You're not really concerned about "human life", so much as you're concerned women will get away without punishment for choosing sex.

Now you've changed the subject.
 
Since there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, and abortions were occurring during that time and it is certain the Founders knew that, we can assume it wasn't a matter of importance to them. They were content to leave that matter to the women who had been handling that matter for centuries.

So we can assume that because it isn't in there that they intended it to be in there anyway. Any there many other laws that are in there but actually aren't in there?
 
So we can assume that because it isn't in there that they intended it to be in there anyway. Any there many other laws that are in there but actually aren't in there?

NO. We can assume because it isn't in there, they intended it to not be there. They never intended to interfere with abortion rights that had existed for centuries.
 
The point being that if you were really concerned about "human life", you would have to include sperm and eggs. You're not really concerned about "human life", so much as you're concerned women will get away without punishment for choosing sex.

You seem confused here. You can have flour, eggs, sugar, etc. on a table, but that doesn't mean you have a cake.
 
NO. We can assume because it isn't in there, they intended it to not be there. They never intended to interfere with abortion rights that had existed for centuries.
How do you know what their views on abortion were? Could you provide a link to their musings?
 
How do you know what their views on abortion were? Could you provide a link to their musings?

She knows everyone's opinion. She knew your thoughts on sperm and eggs before you posted anything about them, and she knows exactly what our framers thought of abortion.
 
You seem confused here. You can have flour, eggs, sugar, etc. on a table, but that doesn't mean you have a cake.

True that, a point I have made many times. I suppose you're implying that eggs and sperm don't constitute "human life", but they're human and alive, so what else is necessary for "human life"? The point being that human and alive is not sufficient reason for society to extend protection.
 
How do you know what their views on abortion were? Could you provide a link to their musings?

Surely, anyone can see that if they had strong views regarding abortion, they would have expressed them. They weren't shy on any other matters. Since they neglected to mention abortion at all, it simply could not have been a matter of importance.
 
Who has the authority to overturn SC rulings? The SC is called "Supreme" for a reason, and that reason is that it is the highest authority. RvW is not actually a law, it is a SC ruling that the states don't have the authority to make blanket anti-abortion laws. It overruled state law, but did not make law; it stated limits on the states for regulating abortion. It is anti-abortionists who need to pass an amendment if they want abortion criminalized, since it is assumed to be legal until declared otherwise by those with the authority to do so.

Well, congress can step on with legislation that would make roe moot. As I said the sc is not supposed to make law.
 
I haven't heard you or anyone else complaining about eggs or sperm being destroyed. That is, before the magic moment they meet.

Flaw in your logic. The absence of me advocating a position is not proof of my stance on any particular belief one way or the other.
 
Well, congress can step on with legislation that would make roe moot. As I said the sc is not supposed to make law.

Congress cannot pass laws that violate the US Constitution. The SCOTUS has already ruled that women have the Constitutional right to privacy concerning abortion within certain limits. Congress does not have the authority to violate the Constitution.
 
Flaw in your logic. The absence of me advocating a position is not proof of my stance on any particular belief one way or the other.

I apologize, my bad. I take it then that you do care deeply about the survival of all eggs and sperm, because they are human and alive, and want to criminalize all contraception. Either you do care or you don't care about sperm and eggs.
 
I apologize, my bad. I take it then that you do care deeply about the survival of all eggs and sperm, because they are human and alive, and want to criminalize all contraception. Either you do care or you don't care about sperm and eggs.

Equating eggs and sperm with a zygote is not legit.
 
I think you may have taken this out of context. I was replying to a post about when the government should have involvement. My point was that although there is disagreement over when, there is a time when the government should become involved.

How about answering the question you quoted: Should the government have no regulations on abortion at nine months?

I already did, dude. And I have a dozen times before. I swear, people keep asking me this question like they think this time I'll be too shy to answer.

No, apart from standard medical safety requirements.
 
Congress cannot pass laws that violate the US Constitution. The SCOTUS has already ruled that women have the Constitutional right to privacy concerning abortion within certain limits. Congress does not have the authority to violate the Constitution.

Didn't say they did...
 
Didn't say they did...

Then please explain further what you expect Congress to do. Pretty please.

Originally Posted by j-mac
Well, congress can step on with legislation that would make roe moot. As I said the sc is not supposed to make law.
 
I apologize, my bad. I take it then that you do care deeply about the survival of all eggs and sperm, because they are human and alive, and want to criminalize all contraception. Either you do care or you don't care about sperm and eggs.

This is BS. You're twisting things so as to build your own strawman argument. Allow me to tell you what I think on that subject, even though it is dangerously close to derailing the thread.

I am against embryo stem cell research
I am against abortion for contraceptive/convenience purposes (which at least the majority of them are)
I am against irresponsible behavior
I am against killing an innocent child in the womb because the mother is an irresponsible person, and doesn't want to be bothered in following through with the decision she made that night after 2 Long Island Ice Tea's.
I am against not letting the father of said child in the womb having a say.
I am against paying for your damned stupid choices or acts.
I am against you telling me what I am obligated to do when I owe you nothing.

I am against a lot, but rather than you dishonestly putting words in my mouth, and demonizing anyone that doesn't agree with your own attitudes, and thoughts on life, I would suggest that you learn how to have a discussion, and find out what others think, rather than assigning their thoughts from your own narrow viewpoint.

Now if you'd like to continue, then do so civilly, or not, I couldn't care less either way.
 
Then please explain further what you expect Congress to do. Pretty please.

If our representatives in congress feel so strongly that an overwhelming majority of their constituents want abortion on demand to be a "right" guaranteed by the constitution, then their path is clear, propose an amendment, and get it passed. Short of that, all you have is a SC decision that given the attitudes of the court and appointees could be overturned any time, made by sitting un-elected Justices that have made law by fiat.
 
They do share humanness and aliveness with a zygote. "Human" as an adjective.

*sigh* Extremism from either side is nonsense.

The egg, or the sperm cell on its own is not a human life per se. It isn't until those two come together in the uterus, and that melding splits into a human embryo that it becomes a human life. Or in other words conception. But, this isn't new, abortion on demand advocates have a long history of renaming, and dismissing the humanity of the human embryo either to ease their own conscience, or to muddle the argument. It is disingenuous to the extreme.
 
This is BS. You're twisting things so as to build your own strawman argument. Allow me to tell you what I think on that subject, even though it is dangerously close to derailing the thread.

I am against embryo stem cell research
I am against abortion for contraceptive/convenience purposes (which at least the majority of them are)
I am against irresponsible behavior
I am against killing an innocent child in the womb because the mother is an irresponsible person, and doesn't want to be bothered in following through with the decision she made that night after 2 Long Island Ice Tea's.
I am against not letting the father of said child in the womb having a say.
I am against paying for your damned stupid choices or acts.
I am against you telling me what I am obligated to do when I owe you nothing.

I am against a lot, but rather than you dishonestly putting words in my mouth, and demonizing anyone that doesn't agree with your own attitudes, and thoughts on life, I would suggest that you learn how to have a discussion, and find out what others think, rather than assigning their thoughts from your own narrow viewpoint.

Now if you'd like to continue, then do so civilly, or not, I couldn't care less either way.

You are against a lot, and you have every right to hold to those ideals when making choices regarding your own body. Nobody has asked you to pay for my stupid choices or even my better choices. You will, however, have to kick in your share when it comes to paying for children who are not supported by their parents. I am certainly not asking anything from you for myself.
 
*sigh* Extremism from either side is nonsense.

The egg, or the sperm cell on its own is not a human life per se. It isn't until those two come together in the uterus, and that melding splits into a human embryo that it becomes a human life. Or in other words conception. But, this isn't new, abortion on demand advocates have a long history of renaming, and dismissing the humanity of the human embryo either to ease their own conscience, or to muddle the argument. It is disingenuous to the extreme.

It's disingenuous to "rename" the embryo "an innocent baby". It's not dismissive to recognize the differences in embryos and babies, and to recognize that at some stage the human acquires a value to society that it did not have earlier. Neither is it dismissive to recognize the price a woman pays to bring a new life into the world, and to grant her the respect of allowing her deciding if it is worth the cost to her.
 
Back
Top Bottom