• 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 Has Spent $23 Million Backing Pro-Abortion Kenya Constitution

Erod said:
So flippant about this, yet God forbid we put Charles Manson in an electric chair. That would be murder.
Click to expand...

Do you know my views on the death penalty? At all? No? May as well shut up before you look stupid.
 
Hatuey said:
Sub-Saharan Africa is a region where patronage politics play a big role. Getting people to support the country's system(whether it's democratic, authoritarian) is dependent on the improvements you make to the living conditions of the group you're speaking of. It's no different than US politics only it's even more overt in Africa. I didn't care when Bush gave Africa/Asian or Latin America money in order to help democracies function. I don't care about it now. It's in the global best interest as well as our own.
Click to expand...
We may disagree but well said nonetheless. I see your point concerning giving a voice to the subservient groups of countries such as this, I'm just a fiscal scrooge.
 
Your Star said:
Actually, no you don't. Your putting more emphasis on the life of the fetus. If the pregnancy puts the mothers life in danger, and a doctor recommends to terminate the pregnancy in order to save her life, and you say that should be illegal, then you are putting the fetus ahead of the woman. Sick stuff really.
Click to expand...

You're trying to tell me what I believe now? I said they were equal. Like siamese twins. In the RARE case that both can't be saved, a doctor makes the call on which one can be saved.

So I'm fine with #'s 1 thru 3...

(1) Every person has the right to life.

(2) The life of a person begins at conception.

(3) A person shall not be deprived of life intentionally, except to the extent authorized by this Constitution or other written law.



And I see no need for #4 except they are writing in a loophole for abortions.

(4) Abortion is not permitted unless, in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is a need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law.
 
Peter Grimm said:
And I see no need for #4 except they are writing in a loophole for abortions.

(4) Abortion is not permitted unless, in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is a need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law.
Click to expand...

So if the mothers going to die, you are against abortion?
 
Hatuey said:
Do you know my views on the death penalty? At all? No? May as well shut up before you look stupid.
Click to expand...

The majority of Liberals are against the death penalty. He had a good point. Shows a lot about the liberal mindset that a helpless child is dispensable, yet a mass murderer deserves to live?
 
Hare said:
If true, it's ridiculous that tax payer money is being used to influence legislative changes in foreign affairs.
Click to expand...


So you are against the Iraq war correct and American hegemony?
 
Peter Grimm said:
I believe I said it ought to be the doctor's call in that case, yes. Whichever one has the highest likelihood of survival should be saved. Like siamese twins.
Click to expand...

And the doctor is always going to side with saving the woman. And even if they didn't, how dare you want to force a woman to carry out a dangerous pregnancy that could endanger HER life. I think your forgetting that, it's her skin, not yours, not anyone else's. It's her life, and if there is a 45% chance that the pregnancy will kill her, she should have the right to decide whether or not to terminate the dangerous pregnancy, or to keep it, and hope for the best. You say it should be up to the doctor, but I doubt you would like it if a doctor forced a woman to have an abortion because it would save the woman if she wanted to keep it. Your argument lacks any sense of logic, or consistency, and you don't give a damn about the woman, very very sad indeed.
 
Hatuey said:
Peter Grimm being dishonest? Shocking I tell you. Shocking. The Obama administration supported a new Kenyan constitution. What the new constitution actually changed were the authoritarian powers of the Kenyan president and created checks and balances to make the country's system far more democratic. This is what section 26* of the new constitution actually says (I remind you that it is identical to the previous Kenyan constitution):



Now to anybody more than two working braincells, that would make the Kenyan constitution far more restrictive than US abortion laws. Why? Because it defines where life begins and implies that the woman and fetus account for two persons. That's not enough for the right wing fringe because well, as we all know, they wont stop until we're all attending mass and paying tithes again. What the anti-choice fringe have done is turned an issue about democracy, into an issue about their ridiculous religious beliefs. Why am I not surprised that the American right is doing this? What's more surprising is that Obama actually supported far more restrictive abortion laws and yet they're still unhappy because 1) they have no idea what the new constitution was about and 2) they have no wish to understand what it was about.

Don't let the facts stop you though Mr Grimm.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Hatuey... knock of the personal attacks.
 
Your Star said:
And the doctor is always going to side with saving the woman. And even if they didn't, how dare you want to force a woman to carry out a dangerous pregnancy that could endanger HER life. I think your forgetting that, it's her skin, not yours, not anyone else's. It's her life, and if there is a 45% chance that the pregnancy will kill her, she should have the right to decide whether or not to terminate the dangerous pregnancy, or to keep it, and hope for the best. You say it should be up to the doctor, but I doubt you would like it if a doctor forced a woman to have an abortion because it would save the woman if she wanted to keep it. Your argument lacks any sense of logic, or consistency, and you don't give a damn about the woman, very very sad indeed.
Click to expand...

What concerns me the most is that 50 million abortions have been performed in the United States since Roe v Wade. How many of those were done because the mother's life was legitimately in danger? Very few.

What you're talking about is a very rare exception to the rule.

I think that if we had an amendment written in to our constitution that says life begins at conception, then we can start to have the tougher debates on what to do when both lives are endangered.

I think you might be right about doctors, at least some. A lot of doctors are pro-life, especially those who are Jewish or Catholic/Christian. There are a lot of liberal doctors as well. Not to mention that a woman could always drive to Canada. But that doesn't mean we should permit something that is wrong.
 
Peter Grimm said:
19 week fetus...
Click to expand...

Propaganda. That embryo is not 19 weeks. Posting pictures avoids having to present a valid case. Even allowing that the alleged age were accurate, the health of the mother would still take priority.

94.6% of US abortions occur in the first 15 weeks of a pregnancy, and anything beyond 12 weeks is termed "late".
 
Peter Grimm said:
What concerns me the most is that 50 million abortions have been performed in the United States since Roe v Wade. How many of those were done because the mother's life was legitimately in danger? Very few.

What you're talking about is a very rare exception to the rule.

I think that if we had an amendment written in to our constitution that says life begins at conception, then we can start to have the tougher debates on what to do when both lives are endangered.

I think you might be right about doctors, at least some. A lot of doctors are pro-life, especially those who are Jewish or Catholic/Christian. There are a lot of liberal doctors as well. Not to mention that a woman could always drive to Canada. But that doesn't mean we should permit something that is wrong.
Click to expand...

Don't change the subject, we're talking about Kenya here, not the laws in the US. Also I'm saying that 99% of doctors are going to recommend the woman terminates a dangerous pregnancy, doesn't matter if they are "pro-life", a doctor is going to side with the patient they can see, this situation isn't about whether or not you agree with abortion or not, it's about saving the life of the mother. If you were pregnant, and your doctor told you there was an 80% chance of you dying because of the pregnancy, would you want him to force you carry it to term? I don't think so. Your opinion doesn't even give a passing thought about the welfare of the woman, it's all about the fetus, and that is just ****ed up.
 
So the same stupid story that has been refuted multiple times here gets brought back up, and when it does, those looking for something to be outraged about still break out the same stupid arguments. I am shocked I say, just shocked. Seriously, this is a stupid story that has no basis in truth and those opposed to abortion rights are just making themselves look silly.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Propaganda. That embryo is not 19 weeks. Posting pictures avoids having to present a valid case. Even allowing that the alleged age were accurate, the health of the mother would still take priority.

94.6% of US abortions occur in the first 15 weeks of a pregnancy, and anything beyond 12 weeks is termed "late".
Click to expand...

Do a google search on 19 week and this isn't the only picture. I think the reason I posted it is obvious. People were joking around about a fetus like a piece of meat, and that was just to hold a mirror up to their face.

People can do atrocious things when they don't have to look the problem in the face. A nation can put a million Jews in a concentration camp. The world can stand by while Darfur is in genocide. We can push a button and go to war, and people don't have to see any of the carnage.

I want to see that movie "The Box" with Cameron Diaz. I think it's about that idea.
 
Redress said:
So the same stupid story that has been refuted multiple times here gets brought back up, and when it does, those looking for something to be outraged about still break out the same stupid arguments. I am shocked I say, just shocked. Seriously, this is a stupid story that has no basis in truth and those opposed to abortion rights are just making themselves look silly.
Click to expand...

LOL. Tell us what you really think!
 
Peter Grimm said:
Do a google search on 19 week and this isn't the only picture. I think the reason I posted it is obvious. People were joking around about a fetus like a piece of meat, and that was just to hold a mirror up to their face.

People can do atrocious things when they don't have to look the problem in the face. A nation can put a million Jews in a concentration camp. The world can stand by while Darfur is in genocide. We can push a button and go to war, and people don't have to see any of the carnage.

I want to see that movie "The Box" with Cameron Diaz. I think it's about that idea.
Click to expand...

A person can make a law saying that a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term even though it's going to kill her because they don't have to look her in the face, they don't have to meet her husband, her children, her parents, her siblings, her friends. Terrible terrible things can be done, because people don't have to look at the face of the person they are killing.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Do a google search on 19 week and this isn't the only picture. I think the reason I posted it is obvious. People were joking around about a fetus like a piece of meat, and that was just to hold a mirror up to their face.

People can do atrocious things when they don't have to look the problem in the face. A nation can put a million Jews in a concentration camp. The world can stand by while Darfur is in genocide. We can push a button and go to war, and people don't have to see any of the carnage.

I want to see that movie "The Box" with Cameron Diaz. I think it's about that idea.
Click to expand...


And here is a born baby:

lk.jpg

Pretty sad huh?
 
Your Star said:
Don't change the subject, we're talking about Kenya here, not the laws in the US. Also I'm saying that 99% of doctors are going to recommend the woman terminates a dangerous pregnancy, doesn't matter if they are "pro-life", a doctor is going to side with the patient they can see, this situation isn't about whether or not you agree with abortion or not, it's about saving the life of the mother. If you were pregnant, and your doctor told you there was an 80% chance of you dying because of the pregnancy, would you want him to force you carry it to term? I don't think so. Your opinion doesn't even give a passing thought about the welfare of the woman, it's all about the fetus, and that is just ****ed up.
Click to expand...

If I were pregnant, I would have some serious medical thing going on! And my girl would have to make an honest man out of me, that's for sure...

On Kenya, my concern is that the 4th provision is unnecessary. A doctor could abort a child to save the mother without that provision. All it does is give a loophole for future laws and for a wider range of abortions to be practiced. It's like a foot wedged in the door, and now they can keep prying that door open because they have laid the legal groundwork to do so.

I hope I answered your question with that.
 
Your Star said:
A person can make a law saying that a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term even though it's going to kill her because they don't have to look her in the face, they don't have to meet her husband, her children, her parents, her siblings, her friends. Terrible terrible things can be done, because people don't have to look at the face of the person they are killing.
Click to expand...

Where is our disagreement here?
 
Peter Grimm said:
If I were pregnant, I would have some serious medical thing going on! And my girl would have to make an honest man out of me, that's for sure...

On Kenya, my concern is that the 4th provision is unnecessary. A doctor could abort a child to save the mother without that provision. All it does is give a loophole for future laws and for a wider range of abortions to be practiced. It's like a foot wedged in the door, and now they can keep prying that door open because they have laid the legal groundwork to do so.

I hope I answered your question with that.
Click to expand...

No, he couldn't, without that provision, that is illegal. It does not allow for any other type of abortion, it's idiotic to believe otherwise.
 
Your Star said:
No, he couldn't, without that provision, that is illegal. It does not allow for any other type of abortion, it's idiotic to believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

Dude...

(1) Every person has the right to life.

(2) The life of a person begins at conception.

(3) A person shall not be deprived of life intentionally, except to the extent authorized by this Constitution or other written law.


Alright, #1 and #3 would be enough to allow for abortion if it were going to save the mother's life. Otherwise, why don't they put a #5 in there for siamese twins? Sometimes, you have to separate them or both will die. So the doctor picks the strongest one. It's sad, but it happens. I don't see how that's any different from our hypothetical abortion case here.


Now look at this...

(4) Abortion is not permitted unless, in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is a need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law.

So not only is it allowed when the life of the mother is in danger, but now also any case where a trained health professional (not even a doctor, could be just any nurse) sees the need for "emergency treatment" which is a vague term that can be bent any way a good lawyer wants to bend it.

If that weren't enough, you also have the last bolded part, which allows for any law to be written in the future that explicitly allows other types of abortion, and sets no boundaries on it.

So that's what I mean by jamming their foot in the door.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom