• 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!

Is This Going Too Far?

Are These Additional Restrictions on Abortion Funding Going Too Far?


  • Total voters
    24
Normally I just call you guys pro aborts, but you all get upset at that. "Choicer" (like truther or birther) is my compromise.

BTW, your analysis is completely wrong anyway. Just because a legal right is created, doesn't make it morally right.

There you are all with that phony "you all" again. Attribute what people say to who says it, not to some group you want to use it against who did not say it.

Legal and moral are separate issues.
 
No, it's called "personal responsibility".

I'm not interested in my tax dollars being used to raise a child and support its mother in order to teach someone personal responsibility.

So how is not using Federal Spening on Abortions being short sighted?

In a dollars-and-cents analysis, it is short-sighted to disallow the cost of abortions vs the cost of supporting mother/child until the child's 18th birthday. My 'short-sighted' comment was directed to Ockham because he relates this issue to dollars-and-cents, citing the original poll. He said, "That's what this post and poll is about "FUNDING", so yes it's about dollars and cents. So in the strictly dollars-and-cents analysis, abortion wins.
 
There you are all with that phony "you all" again. Attribute what people say to who says it, not to some group you want to use it against who did not say it.
Seriously, do you doubt that choicers DO NOT like being called pro aborts? Would you be ok with it?

Legal and moral are separate issues.
If this is true, why have any restrictions on abortion at all?
 
Seriously, do you doubt that choicers DO NOT like being called pro aborts? Would you be ok with it?

I stated what I think it should be called for both sides.

If this is true, why have any restrictions on abortion at all?

I would not be opposed to no limits. However, I think in today's society that is unreasonable and compromise is possible.
 
1) If federal funds are being used to pay for an abortion, I don't see a problem with this at all. After all, if you use THEIR money, then it's reasonable that they get to call the shots.

2) However, I am against using Federal funds to pay for any abortions in the first place. Although I am pro-choice in the matter, I am dead set against forcing the anti-abortion side to pay (via their taxes) for something that they feel is against what they believe in. The Federal government has no business making choices for them. Once again, I am not on the same side as the anti-abortionists, but forcing them to participate in something that they are strongly against is wrong, and IMHO, anti American.
 
Last edited:
Don't Laws reflect the Moral values of the society that makes them?

That would imply that everyone agrees. Positions on morality are a little too subjective for that....;)


.
 
Don't Laws reflect the Moral values of the society that makes them?

Not necessarily, laws reflect what society thinks are the best guidelines for running it's itself.
 
I stated what I think it should be called for both sides.
I see, and if abortion were illegal, would you use the same terms? I ask because when you say it should be "pro abortion rights", well there's already a legally created "right" to it. So, do you support abortion only because it's legal?



I would not be opposed to no limits. However, I think in today's society that is unreasonable and compromise is possible.
So, you're ok with no limits, right up until the baby is born?
 
I see, and if abortion were illegal, would you use the same terms? I ask because when you say it should be "pro abortion rights", well there's already a legally created "right" to it. So, do you support abortion only because it's legal?

Since the question is whether it is a right or not, I think my terms are perfect.

So, you're ok with no limits, right up until the baby is born?

Correct. It's not my choice to make whether people have a certain medical procedure.
 
1) If federal funds are being used to pay for an abortion, I don't see a problem with this at all. After all, if you use THEIR money, then it's reasonable that they get to call the shots.

2) However, I am against using Federal funds to pay for any abortions in the first place. Although I am pro-choice in the matter, I am dead set against forcing the anti-abortion side to pay (via their taxes) for something that they feel is against what they believe in. The Federal government has no business making choices for them. Once again, I am not on the same side as the anti-abortionists, but forcing them to participate in something that they are strongly against is wrong, and IMHO, anti American.
While we're hovering around the subject, in exactly what areas do you consider yourself conservative? I have yet to run across one, that's why I ask.
 
My question to all pro-choice people out there is this? If we are not alive until birth how come when a person murders a pregnant woman he gets charged with the murder of her and her unborn child?
 
While we're hovering around the subject, in exactly what areas do you consider yourself conservative? I have yet to run across one, that's why I ask.

Neat, I haven't seen a "Dana is a fake conservative" post's in a long while.
 
Last edited:
My question to all pro-choice people out there is this? If we are not alive until birth how come when a person murders a pregnant woman he gets charged with the murder of her and her unborn child?

Because when that happens it is assumed that the mother was going to gestate the baby.
 
My question to all pro-choice people out there is this? If we are not alive until birth how come when a person murders a pregnant woman he gets charged with the murder of her and her unborn child?

Because the law is inconsistent.
 
There we go. From gun laws we are rolling into the abortion corner. Let's see if they re-ignite the flag burning scenario forthe hat trick. When times get tough you can almost gurantee that the suits will dive into the big three to distract the American people.
 
There we go. From gun laws we are rolling into the abortion corner. Let's see if they re-ignite the flag burning scenario forthe hat trick. When times get tough you can almost gurantee that the suits will dive into the big three to distract the American people.

Oddly, this is close to what I think is happening here. Not exactly, but close.

What I think this is is making a bill republicans can be sure democrats will vote against so they can say that democrats voted against banning federal funds for abortion. I don't think they have any intention of this bill ever getting passed.
 
Because when that happens it is assumed that the mother was going to gestate the baby.

Why does that matter? If we aren't alive until Birth why does that count? Who is to say she wouldn't change her mind?

If a Murderer charge with that murder then the Law reconginzes the life of a unborn child and there for abortion should not be funded by the Feds or legal for that matter.
 
Since the question is whether it is a right or not, I think my terms are perfect.



Correct. It's not my choice to make whether people have a certain medical procedure.

This is the point where it gets real dicey. If the fetus is viable and the child can be delivered alive we have an issue. Your position is basically giving the mother the right to execute the child.

.
 
Why does that matter? If we aren't alive until Birth why does that count? Who is to say she wouldn't change her mind?

If a Murderer charge with that murder then the Law reconginzes the life of a unborn child and there for abortion should not be funded by the Feds or legal for that matter.

Because it's about the woman's right to choose, not some punk to choose for her.
 
This is the point where it gets real dicey. If the fetus is viable and the child can be delivered alive we have an issue. Your position is basically giving the mother the right to execute the child.

.

That is one spin. I prefer my own.
 
Back
Top Bottom