• 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!

Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

Why is the left so anxious to kill babies? I will never understand that.........
Click to expand...

Because old people squirm too much.
 
To quote doug stanhope "its better than the old method of kicking her down the stairs and hoping for the best"
 
" The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." ~ James Madison
 
The silenced majority said:
" The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." ~ James Madison
Click to expand...

You're right, they don't have the power to stop abortion.

Or were you talking about giving away money? Because Bush still gave the money away, just not to a certain group of scientists.
 
EgoffTib said:
I am a big fan of Obama using funds for Stem Cell research. Most of the people against stem cell research are trying to protect what is basically 100,000 cells worth of a life form. I guess, according to their logic, every time I scratch my nose I commit genocide? :roll:
Click to expand...
Are you really that simple? Well yes, but we'll let it go for now. Embryonic stem cells are what the anti folks are against.
 
Quick questions :

Is this a pig ?

PorcineBlastocyst.jpg


Is this a chicken ?

s_egg1.jpg


Thank you for playing!
 
RightOfCenter said:
You're right, they don't have the power to stop abortion.
Click to expand...

If abortion was actually left up to the states it would likely mirror a hypothetical federal law anyhow. Same goes for "gay marriage"

Or were you talking about giving away money? Because Bush still gave the money away, just not to a certain group of scientists.
Click to expand...

Why are you bringing up Bush? He's gone now, move on. Federally funded abortion counseling would be considered charity wouldn't it?
 
Hatuey said:
Quick questions :

Is this a pig ?

Is this a chicken ?


Thank you for playing!
Click to expand...

1) But pigs and chickens don't have souls! :roll:

2) But pigs and chickens don't have human DNA! :roll:

3) But pigs and chickens can't become the next Obama (or Hitler). :roll:

4) But pigs and chickens don't mind dying before they are even conscious. :roll:

5) We don't know if we shouldn't kill pigs and chickens! :roll: (your lawn agrees)

6) .... Ok... I'm out.
 
Who's presenting emotion laden arguments and foolish straw man mockery? That speaks volumes.
 
1069 said:
You guys nearly destroyed the @#$%ing world.

Our turn.
Click to expand...
I certainly hope you don't succeed.....in destroying the world, that is.
 
Felicity said:
Who's presenting emotion laden arguments and foolish straw man mockery? That speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
Would it make you feel better if I also presented the asinine reasons for being pro-choice?

There's not as many but they do exist.
 
scourge99 said:
Would it make you feel better if I also presented the asinine reasons for being pro-choice?

There's not as many but they do exist.
Click to expand...

No...your asinine posts do fine.
 
danarhea said:
1) As far as abortion goes, I believe it should be legal in those states which want it, and illegal in those which don't. It is up to the states themselves, and none of the Federal government's business. This is the reason that I am opposed to Roe v. Wade, just as I am opposed to any effort to federally criminalize abortion.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that leaving it up to the states leaves the states open to instituting laws which could be wrong. For example. Lets say Washington put a ban on abortion. Law stating that if anyone that lives in Wasington State had an abortion then they would be prosecuted for 1st degree murder. But next door in Idaho abortion is legal. Someone from Washington wants and abortion so they go to Idaho to get it done. They come back to Washington and get turned in by a very nosey nieghbor. This person then gets prosecuted for having an abortion...even though she did it in a state where it is legal. This is why the Federal Government had to take control of the issue. It leaves the states open to make laws that could contradict anothers states laws. IE it leaves it open for abuse.

danarhea said:
2) When you give Federal money for abortion counseling, you are essentially disrespecting the beliefs of those states which made abortion illegal. Yes, I am in favor of a woman's right to choose, but I would not dare to hit those who disagree with me over the head with my belief any more than I would agree with somebody hitting me over the head with a Bible and telling me I am going to hell.
Click to expand...

This links into 1. Something that you also must remember is that for many (certainly not all) the abortion issue is a religious issue. And the government cannot make laws based upon religion.

danarhea said:
3) America is not a one size fits all nation. Different areas of the country have different beliefs, and they are entitled to them. Whether a state supports or bans abortion is, frankly, none of the Federal government's business.
Click to expand...

You are correct here. However for certain issues like abortion a "one size fits all" is a must.
 
danarhea said:
As one of his first acts, President Obama is going to repeal the Bush rule that barred Federal money being used to counsel women on abortion services. Obama is also repealing the Bush rule against Federal money being used for stem cell research.

As far as Federal funding of stem cell research, that is a good decision. However, funding abortion services, IMHO, is wrong. Here is why:

1) As far as abortion goes, I believe it should be legal in those states which want it, and illegal in those which don't. It is up to the states themselves, and none of the Federal government's business. This is the reason that I am opposed to Roe v. Wade, just as I am opposed to any effort to federally criminalize abortion.

2) When you give Federal money for abortion counseling, you are essentially disrespecting the beliefs of those states which made abortion illegal. Yes, I am in favor of a woman's right to choose, but I would not dare to hit those who disagree with me over the head with my belief any more than I would agree with somebody hitting me over the head with a Bible and telling me I am going to hell.

3) America is not a one size fits all nation. Different areas of the country have different beliefs, and they are entitled to them. Whether a state supports or bans abortion is, frankly, none of the Federal government's business.

So, where do I stand in regard to Obama's decision today? On stem cell research, bravo. On Federal funding of abortionists, boo.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

From the linked article (emphasis added):

In one of his first acts as president, Barack Obama is planning to lift a rule that prevents federal money from going to international family planning groups that counsel women on abortion or perform the procedure.

/snip/

Called the "Mexico City policy," the rule prohibiting federal aid for such groups was announced by President Ronald Reagan during a population conference in that city in 1984. Critics call it the "global gag rule" because it discourages family planning groups from discussing abortion.

Since its implementation, the policy has been alternately revoked and reinstituted, depending on the party controlling the White House.
Click to expand...

This executive order has nothing to do with federally funding abortions in the US.
 
danarhea said:
3) America is not a one size fits all nation. Different areas of the country have different beliefs, and they are entitled to them. Whether a state supports or bans abortion is, frankly, none of the Federal government's business.
Click to expand...

In different areas of the country the majority holds different beliefs. The same beliefs are common all across the country, into every nook and cranny, the only difference is the majority. Minorities should be able to adhere to their own beliefs wherever they reside so long as their actions do not cause chaos in society. The entire Bill of Rights is essentially for the purpose of protecting minority's rights, as the majority needs no such protection. IOW, a majority that supports legalizing abortion should not be able to force women to have abortions.
 
1069 said:
Yes, we can.
In fact, we need to waste money in order to stimulate the economy.
I just read it yesterday in TIME.
I'd rather waste it on this than on abstinence-only education.
You just had eight fracking years of "your way".
Now it's time for me to have it my way.
Surely you didn't think the conservative fundamentalist idyll could last forever?
You guys nearly destroyed the @#$%ing world.

Our turn.
Click to expand...

Yes and I'm sure that while you're getting it your way you're fully understand people being just as silent in their complaints as your side have been. You know, I mean, NO ONE on the left EVER complained about the way Bush went about things so naturally republicans shouldn't make a peep for the next ffour years.

:roll:
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes and I'm sure that while you're getting it your way you're fully understand people being just as silent in their complaints as your side have been. You know, I mean, NO ONE on the left EVER complained about the way Bush went about things so naturally republicans shouldn't make a peep for the next ffour years.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair people complained about Bush after he was elected because of how close the race was and how the electoral college said that Bush won, yet the popular vote said that Gore won. People did unite behind Bush after 9/11 too, but that only really lasted until the Iraq war and that's when people really started to criticize him. I'm not trying to justify their complaints, I'm just saying there was a bit more cause there. A lot of people on the right (Rush Limbaugh for instance) are hoping that Obama fails and considering the economic crisis that we are in and all of the other crap I think it's important that we unite at least on that front. That doesn't mean that you can't criticize the man's policies that you didn't agree with in the first place, though.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The problem with this is that leaving it up to the states leaves the states open to instituting laws which could be wrong. For example. Lets say Washington put a ban on abortion. Law stating that if anyone that lives in Wasington State had an abortion then they would be prosecuted for 1st degree murder. But next door in Idaho abortion is legal. Someone from Washington wants and abortion so they go to Idaho to get it done. They come back to Washington and get turned in by a very nosey nieghbor. This person then gets prosecuted for having an abortion...even though she did it in a state where it is legal. This is why the Federal Government had to take control of the issue. It leaves the states open to make laws that could contradict anothers states laws. IE it leaves it open for abuse.


This links into 1. Something that you also must remember is that for many (certainly not all) the abortion issue is a religious issue. And the government cannot make laws based upon religion.



You are correct here. However for certain issues like abortion a "one size fits all" is a must.
Click to expand...
Hahaha, this is choice. Only the federal govt can avoid making the wrong laws. Great logic.
 
That's kind of my point. i've stated in other places that mindless insulting of pointless things for Obama is as stupid as it is for Bush.

But arguing about his change to abortion policy is well...arguing about POLICY. It IS criticizing him on an issue. Just like criticizing Bush about banning embryonic stem cell research or abstinence only education was criticizing policy. And the left did a hell of a lot of complaining about those things (and some on the right too). And now that the left is in control and doing their things, it is patently ignorant and purely pompous to believe that those on the right shouldn't, won't, and can't do the exact same thing now that things THEY don't agree with are being inacted.
 
dclxvinoise said:
I'd say that diminishing the supposed value of an embryo is taking emotion out of it rather than putting it into the situation. Could you please elaborate to me just why embryonic stem cells are somehow "greater than that"? It's still a cell. The fact that you try to build it up as something more important without being able to back it up makes it an emotional argument for you.
Click to expand...

I will never understand some of you people.

I'm building up an embryonic stem cell as something more important? What about the embryonic stem cell research advocates that keep telling us how much more promising embryonic stem cells are relative to non-embryonic stem cells in deriving medical treatments and cures? There is absolutely nothing whatsoever to back up such rhetoric despite decades of ESCR being conducted.

Talk about building something up without being able to back it up... :roll:

It is indisputable that an embryo ain't simply a cell, but a collection of cells with one purpose - human life. An embryo does not exist for any other reason than to become a human life. Hence, destroying that embryo simply for research necessarily means that you're creating life simply to destroy it. Some people have legitimate ethical and moral problems with this, including stem cell research scientists. This is even more grievous when we have developed alternative ESCR techniques that do not require destroying embryoes, such as blodd cord stem cells and cell reprogramming that takes a non-embryonic stem cell and it transformed into a cell that behaves just like an embryonic stem cell.

What is emtional here are these empty appeals to research that has yielded no actual medical treatment. It's all a promise to heal and stop the suffering of individuals afflicted by some injury or disease.

You people have nothing more than sticking your headin the sand to ignore legit ethical and moral considerations in your emotionally wicked need to destroy human life in pursuit of a decades-long promise that has achieved no medical treatments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom