• 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!

Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservatives’ Sway

1.) you are mixing "brain dead" and "vegitative state" two different things the law is CLEAR about when someone is dead.


Well, not as clear cut as you would like I am sure.

"As opposed to brain death, persistent vegetative state (PVS) is not recognized by statute as death in any legal system. In the US and UK, courts have required petitions before termination of life support that demonstrate that any recovery of cognitive functions above a vegetative state is assessed as impossible by authoritative medical opinion.[2]"

Persistent vegetative state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2.) i think the law should pretty much stay the way it is now with MY clarification/cooperation of the laws conserning when someone is LEGALLY alive and dead.


Only that 'your' particular clarification, or definition as it stands is woefully inaccurate.

3.) no, i didn't get mad that the current law helps my arguement.

applicable word here is 'current'.

4.) i said tax payers should cover the bill when a women gets a "needed" (which you agree that there are conditions in which they are appropriate)abortion 3 times seems like plenty to me after that it is clear she is using it for contriception at which point i think the tax payer is no longer liable.

life of the mother is the only one I would concede paying for.

5.) change the law. good luck with that.

Amendment process is the only way that this becomes anything close to an actual right. Short of that it will always be politicized.

j-mac
 
Well, not as clear cut as you would like I am sure.

"As opposed to brain death, persistent vegetative state (PVS) is not recognized by statute as death in any legal system. In the US and UK, courts have required petitions before termination of life support that demonstrate that any recovery of cognitive functions above a vegetative state is assessed as impossible by authoritative medical opinion.[2]"

Persistent vegetative state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Only that 'your' particular clarification, or definition as it stands is woefully inaccurate.



applicable word here is 'current'.



life of the mother is the only one I would concede paying for.



Amendment process is the only way that this becomes anything close to an actual right. Short of that it will always be politicized.

j-mac
so you agree then "vegitative state" does not = death?
how again is my definition not accurate?
yes current, good luck getting your FAR right views passed!
so then if it was your mother/wife's life on the line you would want abortions available for them or would you prefer they get a back ally type?
 
good luck getting your FAR right views passed!

Far right? ha! I don't think so. See if this question on abortion was put up where it should be, in the amendment process, you in defense of it would loose badly, and you know it so you rely on packing the courts system to make it precedent by judicial fiat. It is to say the least a dishonest way of getting what you want.

so then if it was your mother/wife's life on the line you would want abortions available for them or would you prefer they get a back ally type?

This is a common scare tactic of misinformation used by the pro abortion crowd. It is neither factual, nor is it an honest question.

j-mac
 
Far right? ha! I don't think so. See if this question on abortion was put up where it should be, in the amendment process, you in defense of it would loose badly, and you know it so you rely on packing the courts system to make it precedent by judicial fiat. It is to say the least a dishonest way of getting what you want.



This is a common scare tactic of misinformation used by the pro abortion crowd. It is neither factual, nor is it an honest question.

j-mac
so where are your views even slightly left? i've got what i want already you are the one who wants to change the law completely to meet your right wing beilefs.
okay then you are not for having abortions made available to women who NEED them even if it was your mother or wife's life that was on the line?
now i am getting confused!!!
 
so where are your views even slightly left? i've got what i want already you are the one who wants to change the law completely to meet your right wing beilefs.

I think positions I hold on some topics would be viewed as socially moderate. They just appear far to the right based on how far left you are.

okay then you are not for having abortions made available to women who NEED them even if it was your mother or wife's life that was on the line?

Now you are just outright misrepresenting my position. Is that where we are going? Dishonest arguments, fear mongering, and misrepresenting opponents positions?

now i am getting confused!!!

Now?

j-mac
 
in leonardo's day he had to do anatomy in the back alleys and basements to not be prosicuted by the church and to this day the church continues the squelching of information which may be detrimintal to its existance.

:rofl: :lol:
 
Last edited:
Well there are already arguments out there that suggests babies can be 'aborted' up to the time they are two years
And here I thought you had meaningful posts to offer up! Only elephants carry their young for two years, how can you abort a two year old - since they have been out of the womb for 2 years! Where do you get such nonsense? I didn't know you all had a Faux News in Canada, too, to supply you with such gibberish.


old and that women should be forced to have abortions so perhaps some Harvard professors should advise when people should be put to death as well. How about 55? That's when people begin becoming more of a burden to society and our taxes start to go up as a result. Think that might suit the Leftists?
Are Leftists the ones that favor euthanasia in your country? Are they the majority in Canda? Because I read that the majority of Canadians favor euthanasia? And, FYI, 55 years olds are not that old and delapidated! Maybe the cold in Canada does wear out a person much sooner, but here in the USA, especially in the South, a 55 is just old enough to start enjoying life!
 
Then those Republicans, like John McCain, should be ignored and steps taken immediately to have some sort of rational plan to get oil to the lower 48 States. This has been going on too long and the US will continue to decline as a result. I may harass and tease you about our differences but in fact I want to see the American people, our very good neighbors, prosperous and strong.
Why? Because you and some like you think so? You may have a say-so in your country, but fortunately here, the majority seem to think it is not a good idea. I can't imagine you are losing sleep over the welfare of America.



No one from any party want to damage the environment.
Ha, that is too funny! The only time you didn't hear the "Drill baby drill" chant from the conservatives was when we were in the middle of the BP oil leak, and then they wanted Obama to don his bathing suit and go down there and plug the leak. That is about the only time they care about the environment, when it is close to being too late.
That has been blown way out of proportion and as a result the US has become energy dependent.

We are oil dependent, but that doesn't have as much to do with the environment as it means big bucks for certain people.

The environment will change but that doesn't mean t will be destroyed. We've made some huge changes here in Canada and the environmentalists were ina dither for a while but everything is going well now and people, and animals, are getting on fine. The 'environment' is a lot tougher and stronger then we think. It is not 'fragile' at all and will still be humming along once we're all gone.
I'm not a tree hugger, but I think there needs to be some rhyme and reason. We can't put all our eggs in one basket and then complain when things go wrong.


Yes, i know the history about trickle down economics but it is all bunk. Just go out there and make a living wherever you can and things will happen. Reagan said not to trust the government and he was right, particularly since he was also part of the government.
You are right about that, it is all bunk. But that is just it, middle-class is struggling to make a living and conservatives (some are middle-class and struggling) want to continue to coddle the wealthy - that is sheer nonsense.

For Super Rich, Taxes Keep Falling - George Stephanopoulos' Bottom Line


Spend less time worrying about the wealthy and get on with your own life.
I could say the same to you, quit worrying about what I'm worrying about and get on with your own life.

This class envy is destroying the country and we know anyway that even if the government was to take all the money from 'the rich', it wouldn't be enough to pay for all the programs anyway.

Class envy? How about just being fair? So, because it isn't enough to pay for all the programs anyway we should just let the middle-class carry the burden and make it easier for the rich to make more money? That makes a lot of sense, is that how your country operates?


As soon as the rich run out of money, and it is removed from the economy, politicians will then be looking for others to pay for ther continued spending. The only way to survive is for the government to stop spending so much money. There is no other solution and chasing after the rich won't help at all, even in the short term.
Now you are just rambling. I still don't understand your interest in how we run our country?


You know that's not true. You're complaining about the country coming apart and yet you make those wild accusations. Of course it will come apart if you speak so unkindly of those with an opposing view.
They are not wild accusations, that is the way it was before Roe v Wade, I don't know where you were but you obviously don't know much about it. And if they were to do away with it, it would return.


You're making a lot of wild guesses but would't see that anywhere on a Republican platform. I think you should question your sources.
Maybe you need to read the American newspapers, I don't know where you get your info but you are obviously not following the news here.


That's why there should be more State rights, not less.
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it, but when some states become so anal, it is time for the Feds to step in.


General Electric has contributed a great deal to the Democrats.

And yet GE contributes more to Republicans than to Democrats!


Well of course there is going to be animosity if you continue with your attitudes towards the other political party, as well as making clearly untrue comments You are putting your partisan politics ahead of your country, and that's being demonstrated right now by what's happening to the United States.

Ha, you are beginning to sound like a Teabagger! They are the ones that put their beliefs and policies ahead of the country, as evidenced by the way they are leading the GOP by the nose and you have the audacity to tell me that I am putting partisan politics ahead of the country! You know not of what you speak!
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with you at all here. For abortion, conservatives are anti killing of what they believe to be a human being with moral rights. For contraceptives, they are anti any acknowledgment that sex exists before marriage and especially before 20-25.

lol. So basically they are delusional?
 
I think positions I hold on some topics would be viewed as socially moderate. They just appear far to the right based on how far left you are.



Now you are just outright misrepresenting my position. Is that where we are going? Dishonest arguments, fear mongering, and misrepresenting opponents positions?



Now?

j-mac
moderate?
i'm misrepresenting you? you started it!!!
yes now!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom