• 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!

Pressed on an Abortion Ban, Donald Trump Sees a Penalty for Women [W:57]

They also considered them...and found them not equal and did not recognize any rights for them.
When? When did the high courts consider blacks and women "before' and not recognize their rights?

Also I notice that you could not provide this:

But if they did, again, it would require the enabling of the violation of many rights for women (since unborn and born cannot be treated equally)...why would they do that? What compelling legal reasons or foundation would you offer the courts to get them to change their decision?
 
When? When did the high courts consider blacks and women "before' and not recognize their rights?

You never heard of the Dred Scott decision?

Also I notice that you could not provide this:

Ah. The personhood and right not to be killed of children, regardless of their geography.
 
Ah. The personhood and right not to be killed of children, regardless of their geography.

And what legal basis is for that, to apply it to the unborn? What can you offer that would make them reverse their decision? It's a nice statement, but it has no foundation....what would be the basis for that change that they didnt consider before? Or that would be 'new?'
 
/QUOTE]

Ack, yeah, that was a bad one. So they reconsidered and change their decisions based on further legal foundation. Thankfully.

I guess there needs to be a foundation to do so for the unborn...dont know what that would be tho.
 
And what legal basis is for that, to apply it to the unborn?

Their status as human beings. I would apply the 5th and 14th Amendments to all people in our land, not just those for whom it is convenient for us to do so.
 
Nothing from Slate could ever be considered "enlightened"

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
 
"Pressed on an Abortion Ban, Donald Trump Sees a Penalty for Women"

I believe the response was to a question dealing with a scenario that abortion was illegal. It would be illogical to suggest that doing something illegal should have no consequence. So he is right. His mistake was responding to an "if" question. The right response would have been to tell the interviewer to bring the question if abortion should become illegal in the future. He is a good businessman but not much of an expert at proper political speech.
 
Fatty jerk makes junior bush look smart
 
I almost hope he wins just to drive libs crazy.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
 
Their status as human beings. I would apply the 5th and 14th Amendments to all people in our land, not just those for whom it is convenient for us to do so.

What is a compelling legal reason besides that label? "Human being" and the rights recognized for them is already clearly codified in the US Code you've seen. *What reasons* can you offer to change it beyond your personal opinion? The law says their status is 'NOT' human beings.

Human beings by law are 'born.' Humans (Homo sapiens) are not automatically recognized as human beings legally. If you want the law changed, there needs to be a legal foundation for it. You, obviously choose not to value the impacts of the violations on women if that law were changed...but the effects on society and women would be very real. Some of us choose to value women more. You choose to value the unborn more...then please explain how that can be legally valid?
 
What is a compelling legal reason besides that label? "Human being" and the rights recognized for them is already clearly codified in the US Code you've seen. *What reasons* can you offer to change it beyond your personal opinion? The law says their status is 'NOT' human beings.

Human beings by law are 'born.' Humans (Homo sapiens) are not automatically recognized as human beings legally.

Precisely. The law does not match reality, and needs to be shifted into conformity with it, as the current discrepancy is allowing for mass human rights abuses.

If you want the law changed, there needs to be a legal foundation for it. You, obviously choose not to value the impacts of the violations on women if that law were changed...but the effects on society and women would be very real.

I don't doubt it. There would be impact across society, men included.

Some of us choose to value women more.

No, you choose to value abortion more. Which is why you oppose laws that require things like admitting rights, and have a dismissive attitude towards the women who suffer from the after effects of having an abortion.
 
Precisely. The law does not match reality, and needs to be shifted into conformity with it, as the current discrepancy is allowing for mass human rights abuses.



I don't doubt it. There would be impact across society, men included.



No, you choose to value abortion more. Which is why you oppose laws that require things like admitting rights, and have a dismissive attitude towards the women who suffer from the after effects of having an abortion.

Actually The UN Human Rights Committee Just Declared Abortion A Human Right

Here Are 5 Reasons It Should Be:

1. Access To Abortion Affects Women's Well-Being

2. The Anti-Abortion Stance Isn't Scientifically Sound

3. Bodily Autonomy Trumps A Fetus's "Life"

4. Abortion Access Leads To Fewer Unsafe Abortions

5. Abortions Can Save Lives

http://www.bustle.com/articles/1392...red-abortion-a-human-right-here-are-5-reasons
 
Last edited:
Actually The UN Human Rights Committee Just Declared Abortion A Human Right

:lol: this would be the committee that features Algeria? Okedoke.

I could care less, technically, what the UN Human Rights Committee declares. But it would be difficult to imagine how. Killing your child isn't any more a human right than owning a slave is.
 
:lol: this would be the committee that features Algeria? Okedoke.

I could care less, technically, what the UN Human Rights Committee declares. But it would be difficult to imagine how. Killing your child isn't any more a human right than owning a slave is.

They gave 5 very solid reasons why women should have access to legal abortions

They punished a country for denying a citizen access to an abortion.

For the first time in history, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has punished a country for denying a citizen an abortion. Through this decision, the UN committee has deemed abortion a human right — and it should be. The ability to decide whether or not you become a parent is not a luxury, but a basic right we all deserve.

In this case, which began in 2001, a 17-year-old in Peru was denied a medically necessary abortion. The woman complained to the Human Rights Committee, which asked that Peru's government pay her reparations. She just received them.

“We are witnessing the results of advocates’ dedicated perseverance and the power of the UN and other international bodies to ensure our basic human rights to dignity, health, and freedom from ill-treatment,”
Lilian Sepúlveda, an attorney who brought the case to the UN, said in a press release.

Read more:

http://www.bustle.com/articles/1392...red-abortion-a-human-right-here-are-5-reasons
 
Last edited:
They gave 5 very solid reasons why women should have access to legal abortions

None of which were correct:

1. Access To Abortion Affects Women's Well-Being

Sure. It harms it.

2. The Anti-Abortion Stance Isn't Scientifically Sound

This is incorrect. An unborn child is nothing other than a human. It's not a dog, it's not a whale, it's not a rock - it's a unique individual human being.

Using Bill Nye as the "proof source" is particularly rich.

3. Bodily Autonomy Trumps A Fetus's Life

This is also false. Just as my property rights are trumped by my slave's rights to liberty, another individuals' right to life trumps my right to do what I please with my body.

4. Abortion Access Leads To Fewer Unsafe Abortions

This is also false - there is no such thing as a "safe abortion". Every attempted abortion puts a minimum of one life directly at risk, and often puts two lives at risk.

5. Abortions Can Save Lives

This is the most dark, twisted, Orwellian statement that I've seen since the PP lady tried to claim that abortion was necessary to keep babies from dying. Abortions are the taking of lives. Arguing that abortion saves lives is like arguing that slavery increases freedom. The number of instances in which they can save a life are miniscule.




They punished a country for denying a citizen access to an abortion.

Which is another excellent reason for us to never - ever - turn over any of our sovereignty to the corrupt dictatorships and el-Presidente's-for-life at the UN.
 
None of which were correct:



Sure. It harms it.



This is incorrect. An unborn child is nothing other than a human. It's not a dog, it's not a whale, it's not a rock - it's a unique individual human being.

Using Bill Nye as the "proof source" is particularly rich.



This is also false. Just as my property rights are trumped by my slave's rights to liberty, another individuals' right to life trumps my right to do what I please with my body.



This is also false - there is no such thing as a "safe abortion". Every attempted abortion puts a minimum of one life directly at risk, and often puts two lives at risk.



This is the most dark, twisted, Orwellian statement that I've seen since the PP lady tried to claim that abortion was necessary to keep babies from dying. Abortions are the taking of lives. Arguing that abortion saves lives is like arguing that slavery increases freedom. The number of instances in which they can save a life are miniscule.






Which is another excellent reason for us to never - ever - turn over any of our sovereignty to the corrupt dictatorships and el-Presidente's-for-life at the UN.

- Abortion harms a women's well being? What are you smoking?
- A fetus is technically a human. Who cares? Only pro lifers. If you had to choose between a 16 week fetus for example, and a 6 month old out of the womb baby, who do you save? After all, they're equal!
- Anyone bringing up slavery is desperate.
- No such thing as a safe abortion? Will, just stop. Abortion is much safer then it was in the past when it was illegal. Women have a much higher chance of death or problems by continuing a pregnancy/giving birth. "Two lives." Yes, one is a fetus.
- Thank god the UN is cracking down on countries trying to force women to give birth. Just look at Zika and countries where women can't get legal abortions. :(
 
Precisely. The law does not match reality, and needs to be shifted into conformity with it, as the current discrepancy is allowing for mass human rights abuses.

So, again...what legal basis would you have the courts consider to change their decision? Reality? Women and their rights are 'reality' too. Their deaths, their sacrifices. So...again...what legal reasoning would you provide to them?

If you want change, that has to occur legally....so please address it legally.

I don't doubt it. There would be impact across society, men included.

Yes, negatively. Abortion has no demonstrable impacts on society...what justification do you have for initiating the negative effects of more unwanted and/or unaffordable children...provably at risk for more criminal activity, more abuses, and fewer opportunities?



No, you choose to value abortion more. Which is why you oppose laws that require things like admitting rights, and have a dismissive attitude towards the women who suffer from the after effects of having an abortion.


I do not 'value' abortion, I never heard of such a thing. I value women...ALL people...more than the unborn. Please do not invent things.

And what are 'admitting rights?' And where do I have a dismissive attitude towards women that 'suffer' from the after effects of abortion? LOL...yes, I write that they must face the consequences of difficult decisions in life just like everyone else. I dont single out women who have abortions. How lame! Is that where you arguments have led, a dead end?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom