• 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!

Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit

MrVicchio said:
We're through until you apologize for attempting to cast me as a bigot. I never once brought race into this, and I don't appreciate you attempting to spin my comments as being about any race.

That sir, was low down dirty pool.
Click to expand...

My bad. I already edited that out before you responded.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit 'Populations That We Don’t Want to Have Too Many Of'


CNSNews.com - Justice Ginsburg Says She Originally Thought Roe v. Wade Was Designed to Limit 'Populations That We Don?t Want to Have Too Many Of'

Hitler would have been so proud.
Click to expand...

Here, have a clue before you go Hilter dropping and making yourself look like an idiot because of it

(as if calling or comparing anything to Nazi's make you look anything other than an idiot anyway)

Guess who can afford to pay for abortions?

Guess who has family that would most likely ostracize them for unwanted pregnancies?

Its not Ghetto Mommas...

This whole idea is ludicrous.

You aren't a bigot, but people throw down bull**** comparisons like that all the time, and its a disservice to the millions, Jewish, Romani, and Germans aplenty, Gay, Etc... who died at their hands...
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
My bad. I already edited that out before you responded.
Click to expand...

Kewl beans. My wife was standing over my shoulder when I read that and she was not impressed. Thank you.
 
Sturmrabe said:
Here, have a clue before you go Hilter dropping and making yourself look like an idiot because of it

(as if calling or comparing anything to Nazi's make you look anything other than an idiot anyway)

Guess who can afford to pay for abortions?

Guess who has family that would most likely ostracize them for unwanted pregnancies?

Its not Ghetto Mommas...

This whole idea is ludicrous.

You aren't a bigot, but people throw down bull**** comparisons like that all the time, and its a disservice to the millions, Jewish, Romani, and Germans aplenty, Gay, Etc... who died at their hands...
Click to expand...

What about the millions of "undesireables" that die every year in abortion clinics? Who speaks for them? Jews and Gypsies weren't seen as being human being either.
 
MrVicchio said:
What about the millions of "undesireables" that die every year in abortion clinics? Who speaks for them? Jews and Gypsies weren't seen as being human being either.
Click to expand...

This pre-assumes that everyone accepts your view that a fetus is the moral equivalent of a human being. That belief is hardly universal.
 
In the midst of all this moralizing and supposed deep, meaningful concern for the poor...what seems to be left along the wayside is that women, even if they are poor, still have the intellectual ability and the right to make the choice of whether they want to have a child or not. All this lording and high-handedness takes on a much different tone when you imagine it coming from folks who would deny the woman that right if given the choice. Which will never happen. :)
 
Kandahar said:
This pre-assumes that everyone accepts your view that a fetus is the moral equivalent of a human being. That belief is hardly universal.
Click to expand...
And Jews and Gypsies weren't the moral equivalent of human beings either, your point being?
 
mixedmedia said:
In the midst of all this moralizing and supposed deep, meaningful concern for the poor...what seems to be left along the wayside is that women, even if they are poor, still have the intellectual ability and the right to make the choice of whether they want to have a child or not. All this lording and high-handedness takes on a much different tone when you imagine it coming from folks who would deny the woman that right if given the choice. Which will never happen. :)
Click to expand...

Women have a choice, then they have sex. At that point they made their choice. All arguments for abortion, aside life of the mother I.E. her health is in grave danger, are selfish.

Women have a choice till they have sex. They shouldn't get a "kill" option later too if they regret their decision.
 
MrVicchio said:
Women have a choice, then they have sex. At that point they made their choice. All arguments for abortion, aside life of the mother I.E. her health is in grave danger, are selfish.

Women have a choice till they have sex. They shouldn't get a "kill" option later too if they regret their decision.
Click to expand...

uh, I disagree. now what? Got some ultimate trump card?
 
Oftencold said:
Which, as I'm sure you know, has been well rebutted.

Myths of Murder and Multiple Regression
'Freakonomics' Abortion Research Is Faulted by a Pair of Economists
Dismal Science
Click to expand...

From your middle link . . .

Edward Glaeser, a Harvard professor who helped referee Mr. Levitt's original abortion submission to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, said the Foote critique isn't damning, though it does suggest the impact of abortion on crime has not been as strong as Mr. Levitt has argued. "These guys have put the [data] through the wringer," Mr. Glaeser says of Mr. Foote and his research assistant. "There is no question that the results get smaller and weaker, but there still seems to be something there."
Click to expand...
 
mixedmedia said:
uh, I disagree. now what? Got some ultimate trump card?
Click to expand...

No.

You either believe that life is sacred, or you believe a woman's "choice" is sacred. I choose life, you choose otherwise.
 
MrVicchio said:
And Jews and Gypsies weren't the moral equivalent of human beings either, your point being?
Click to expand...

So because actual human beings weren't considered human beings, does it logically follow that things that everything in existence should be considered the moral equivalent of human beings? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
So because actual human beings weren't considered human beings, does it logically follow that things that aren't human beings should be considered human beings? :confused:
Click to expand...

A fetus is a human being, you only reach the conclusion they are not because it fits an idealogical position that you back. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
MrVicchio said:
No.

You either believe that life is sacred, or you believe a woman's "choice" is sacred. I choose life, you choose otherwise.
Click to expand...

What about those of us who aren't religious at all and the whole concept of sanctity is therefore meaningless?
 
MrVicchio said:
A fetus is a human being, you only reach the conclusion they are not because it fits an idealogical position that you back. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

Please define "human being," and explain what it is about those entities that makes them entitled to rights that other animals are not entitled to.
 
MrVicchio said:
A fetus is a human being, you only reach the conclusion they are not because it fits an idealogical position that you back. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

A fetus is not a human being, because human beings breathe air.

If you can't understand the terminology, then don't use it.
 
Kandahar said:
What about those of us who aren't religious at all and the whole concept of sanctity is therefore meaningless?
Click to expand...

There are people that see no problem in killing another human being that has wronged them, or insulted their honor. Should we allow them to escape justice and be held accountable just because they have a flawed view of reality?
 
Kandahar said:
What about those of us who aren't religious at all and the whole concept of sanctity is therefore meaningless?
Click to expand...

MrVicchio said:
There are people that see no problem in killing another human being that has wronged them, or insulted their honor. Should we allow them to escape justice and be held accountable just because they have a flawed view of reality?
Click to expand...

No.
Are you saying that not being religious is a "flawed view of reality"? Should the state enforce your religion?
 
Voidwar said:
A fetus is not a human being, because human beings breathe air.
Click to expand...
Human beings breathe air.

Dogs breathe air.

By your reasoning, humans are dogs and vice versa.
 
Voidwar said:
A fetus is not a human being, because human beings breathe air.

If you can't understand the terminology, then don't use it.
Click to expand...

I understand the terminology just fine. And a fetus does "breath" air, through the mother.

See how that works?

Biology, it's amazing!
 
Kandahar said:
No.
Are you saying that not being religious is a "flawed view of reality"? Should the state enforce your religion?
Click to expand...

Man, you are a walking strawman aren't you?

My point was, just because your "personal belief" system is one thing, doesn't mean you have the right of it.

But you missed that, because it was a deeper thought then you usually have.
 
MrVicchio said:
Man, you are a walking strawman aren't you?

My point was, just because your "personal belief" system is one thing, doesn't mean you have the right of it.

But you missed that, because it was a deeper thought then you usually have.
Click to expand...

OK. You have your personal beliefs. I have mine. But in a democratic society, your beliefs aren't sufficient to change the law unless you can convince people that they're right. So I'll hear you out:

Please explain what you think makes human life "sacred" (remember I'm not religious) as opposed to any other form of life...and please define what a human is.
 
MrVicchio said:
I understand the terminology just fine. And a fetus does "breath" air, through the mother.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. You are simply factually wrong. A fetus's blood is oxygenated by close contact with high O2 maternal blood at the placental interface.

MrVicchio said:
See how that works?

Biology, it's amazing!
Click to expand...

Biology, you don't seem to know a darn thing about it !
 
celticlord said:
Human beings breathe air.

Dogs breathe air.

By your reasoning, humans are dogs and vice versa.
Click to expand...

No, that is YOUR reasoning. That's why when I quote it, it says "celticlord" at the top of the box.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom