• 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!

24 hour waiting period for abortion

Does this infringe on the right to have an abortion


  • Total voters
    50
Each time? How many did you have? I know thats a personal question but since your throwing it out there.

I don't see a problem with having a 24 hour waiting period before an abortion.

2 abortions, 1 miscarriage, 2 adoptions, and 2 we kept.

Not in that order.

Long story.
 
Ok so we're talking about an irresponsible dip**** who thought it would be an outstanding idea to ask for a woman's hand in marriage, and then steeped in ignorance they both mutually agreed that bringing children into poverty was the best thing the world needed. Willfully forsaking the benefit of a father's advice and a childhood full of on-the-job training, our model leader finds himself unable to feed himself, his wife, his children, or fulfill the most basic civil duties.

Or somebody who fell on hard times at some point. That happens, doesn't it?


Yeah, I have no problem locking him in the stockade for a few days. No problem at all.

Just think, if america was like you want, everybody'd be hoping for the best luck their entire lives. Bad luck can happen to anybody. Your solution is to jail him and provide him food and shelter. LOL!!!!


Rifles were cheap because you didn't have new and you didn't have to have the latest model. You could have an old hand-me-down in good repair, but this icon of civic virtue couldn't even muster a rusty antique and a few shots.

Well, if you think the gov't ought to be telling people how to spend their money, they you ought to support a despotic government like Mao's or Il's. How nice!

Look, you either approve of gov't taking away people's freedoms and telling them how to spend their money, or you don't. You can't have it one way for guns, and another way for healthcare, abortions, or sports cars. Just think, according to you, the gov't SHOULD tell people to pay for certain health care plans or whatever. Of course, you could just be a hypocrite, and want it one way for guns and another way for the things you don't want the gov't telling you what to buy, but that's your business, not mine.
 
2 abortions, 1 miscarriage, 2 adoptions, and 2 we kept.

Not in that order.

Long story.

Thanks. On a side note we have adopted twice as well. When you think about it, it is something else that it takes over a year to adopt a child and give him or her a family, but some people have a problem with making someone think it over for 24 hours before they get an abortion.
 
Thanks. On a side note we have adopted twice as well. When you think about it, it is something else that it takes over a year to adopt a child and give him or her a family, but some people have a problem with making someone think it over for 24 hours before they get an abortion.

It's like those fast-food costumers I'm becoming acquainted with who have to wait an additional 30 seconds for their food for some random stupid reason. OMG people it's 30 seconds, you took way longer than that making up your order. Calm the **** down.
 
I'll post whatever the **** I want. Don't like it? Don't read it.

My, but you are a twitchy little fella! :rofl

Look, you either approve of the gov't telling citizens what to buy and what to do, or you're not. Which is it? It can't be one way when you want it in one circumstance and one way when you don't. That's called "the divine right of kings," and you'd have to have your own private serfdom to make it work. Critical thinkers in a free country can't pull that **** -- at least not with any sense of self-respect.
 
It's like those fast-food costumers I'm becoming acquainted with who have to wait an additional 30 seconds for their food for some random stupid reason. OMG people it's 30 seconds, you took way longer than that making up your order. Calm the **** down.

OMFG!! You just compared waiting for an abortion with waiting for fast food!!
 
My, but you are a twitchy little fella! :rofl

Look, you either approve of the gov't telling citizens what to buy and what to do, or you're not. Which is it? It can't be one way when you want it in one circumstance and one way when you don't. That's called "the divine right of kings," and you'd have to have your own private serfdom to make it work. Critical thinkers in a free country can't pull that **** -- at least not with any sense of self-respect.

Everything in moderation.
 
Ah, so you're for the gov't telling people what to purchase with their own money, when it's in moderation. Tell me, who gets to decide what "in moderation" is? The gov't? You? Who?
 
Ah, so you're for the gov't telling people what to purchase with their own money, when it's in moderation. Tell me, who gets to decide what "in moderation" is? The gov't? You? Who?

Wow you really have no clue how a democratic republic works?

Jesus Christ you pro-choicers are so ****ing ignorant.
 
Last edited:
How many people can recognize logical fallacies on this board?
Asking you to what effect your argument actually had isnt a logical fallacy.
 
LOL!! You can't afford a gun, so we're going to put you up in jail and pay for your food and shelter there.
Thats what happens to people that break the law.
Not sure why you think your argument here has any teeth.

Sounds like the Taliban to me. Yep.
And to think you spoke of logical fallacies.
This one is a 'non-sequitur'.

Yes, this was my point. Do you think the gov't should tell you that you have to provide health care for the old and the poor, or not? If you say no, then you can't be in favor of "such silliness" as the gov't expecting compliance on telling people to own guns. You both argue for and against a system of doing things depending on whether you happen to agree with the particular topic at that particular time.
On the contrary -- I am arguing that the practice then was as accepted as the practice today.
 
Wow you really have no clue how a democratic republic works?

Can't answer the question, eh?


Jesus Christ you pro-choicers are so ****ing ignorant.

Excuse me, but are you really claiming that ALL pro-choicers are "so ****ing ignorant"? Seriously? That sounds a lot like someone saying, "All pro-lifers are so ****ing ignorant," or "All blacks....," or "All Europeans..." Or is this just another case of you being able to say it for your stance, but nobody else having that same right?
 
Asking you to what effect your argument actually had isnt a logical fallacy.

I raised a hypothetical. For you to then want actual facts and figures as if i was quoting something that occurred is a fallacy. If you don't see that, then fine, and when i do it to you, i expect you to answer it as if it's perfectly logical. Somehow i think you'd not want that.
 
Can't answer the question, eh?

Excuse me, but are you really claiming that ALL pro-choicers are "so ****ing ignorant"? Seriously? That sounds a lot like someone saying, "All pro-lifers are so ****ing ignorant," or "All blacks....," or "All Europeans..." Or is this just another case of you being able to say it for your stance, but nobody else having that same right?

Nop, I can't answer the question, you got me. This thread is about abortion, not to provide you with a high school education. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Thats what happens to people that break the law.

Sometimes, yes. I'm just showing you how silly it is to say that the gov't should demand that a citizen spend his private money in a particular way, and when he doesn't, because he's too poor, you put him in a situation where he CAN'T make any money, AND you're providing for his room and board. Think how happy all the bums in Chicago would be about this law if it was today!!


Not sure why you think your argument here has any teeth.

Not sure why you think it doesn't. I raised a hypothetical that showed the ridiculousness of the law of which you approve, and your only reply is to bolster the ridiculousness i've already highlighted. I not only offered a sufficient argument, but you helped me make my point. Thanks.


And to think you spoke of logical fallacies.
This one is a 'non-sequitur'.

FAIL I was addressing your red herring, jack, in order to try to get you to stay on track from now on, jack.


On the contrary -- I am arguing that the practice then was as accepted as the practice today.

Okay, so you are for the gov't telling people how to spend their privately earned money. Good for you. What products do you think the gov't should force people to spend their money on today, that if they don't purchase will cost them a tour in jail?
 
I raised a hypothetical. For you to then want actual facts and figures as if i was quoting something that occurred is a fallacy. If you don't see that, then fine, and when i do it to you, i expect you to answer it as if it's perfectly logical. Somehow i think you'd not want that.
I'll accept this as your admission that the picture you painted never went to print, therefore nullifying the argument you were trying to make.
 
FAIL I was addressing your red herring, jack, in order to try to get you to stay on track from now on, jack.
Ok, flopsy. Whatever you say, flopsy.
Say hi to Cottontail fot us!
:roll:
 
Nop, I can't answer the question, you got me. This thread is about abortion, not to provide you with a high school education. You got me :roll:

LOL!!!! You raised the gun issue, and praised a particular law in times past, and now you can't answer one itty-bitty question that'll expose your hypocrisy and you have to go hide behind the ole' "it's-not-the-topic-of-this-thread" boulder. That's rich!! :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom