• 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!

Stop Abortion, Encourage Lesbianism

The right to life for women or black people wasn't written in the Constitution. They must not have it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Aberration said:
The right to life is not written in the Constitution?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Was the rights of Blacks not to be enslaved written into it prior to the 13th? The rights of women to vote prior to the 19th?

Show me where the rights of fetuses are written into it. I'll wait.
 
Aberration said:
The right to life for women or black people wasn't written in the Constitution. They must not have it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They didn't until amendments were passed. You want to give fetuses rights which do not exist, pass an amendment.

Unless you agree that the Constitution is a living document, which can be molded to fit individual wants and needs as the political winds blow, that is.
 
calamity said:
Was the rights of Blacks not to be enslaved written into it prior to the 13th? The rights of women to vote prior to the 19th?

Show me where the rights of fetuses are written into it. I'll wait.
Click to expand...

The rights of blacks to live weren't written in it. No ones right to vote was written in it. Show me where it says fetuses don't. I won't wait.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
calamity said:
They didn't until amendments were passed. You want to give fetuses rights which do not exist, pass an amendment.

Unless you agree that the Constitution is a living document, which can be molded to fit individual wants and needs as the political winds blow, that is.
Click to expand...

When was the rights of blacks and women to live written in it? Which Amendment is that? You want to pretend that fetuses aren't 'persons' just like it was pretended that blacks were not 'persons'.

I don't have to agree to any such thing. I believe the right to life extends to everyone and that each individual group does not need to be enumerated for them to have that right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Aberration said:
When was the rights of blacks and women to live written in it? Which Amendment is that? You want to pretend that fetuses aren't 'persons' just like it was pretended that blacks were not 'persons'.

I don't have to agree to any such thing. I believe the right to life extends to everyone and that each individual group does not need to be enumerated for them to have that right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

In the US:

The unborn ( Fetuses ) were never counted as persons.
They were never counted in census.

Women were counted as persons in the census as were born children.

Blacks were always persons.

Free blacks were counted as persons and slaves were counted as 3/5 persons for the census.
 
So "your wife" says retarded things too.

Cool story, bro.

Great thread topic.
 
Aberration said:
When was the rights of blacks and women to live written in it? Which Amendment is that? You want to pretend that fetuses aren't 'persons' just like it was pretended that blacks were not 'persons'.

I don't have to agree to any such thing. I believe the right to life extends to everyone and that each individual group does not need to be enumerated for them to have that right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There's no pretending that a fetus isn't a person. Our judicial system and the scientific community disagrees with your label.

From a moral standpoint, that's a personal value, which you are entitled.

There's no need in asking if you support government intervention in conception, gestation, and giving birth. The only thing missing would be a camera implanted in a woman's uterus at birth so when she reaches reproduction age government would be able to track when she has sex and successfully conceives. Of course the Pope should get bi-annual report from the government in the number of conceptions.
 
minnie616 said:
In the US:

The unborn ( Fetuses ) were never counted as persons.
They were never counted in census.

Women were counted as persons in the census as were born children.

Blacks were always persons.

Free blacks were counted as persons and slaves were counted as 3/5 persons for the census.
Click to expand...

You can't be a legal person with the right to life if someone can own you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
calamity said:
I saw a great meme the other day: stop abortion, vote for people who provide women with healthcare, equal opportunity, a high school diploma and birth control.

So, I read it to my wife. Her reply, "The anti abortion zealots should just raise their daughters to be lesbians. Problem solved."

I lol'd. Good idea though, in principle. I doubt you could raise someone to be lesbian--not that the typical anti-abortion zealots would agree with me, since they often think gayness is learned--but maybe we should encourage our young women who happen to lean that way to do just that.

More lesbians...fewer abortions. What say you anti-aborts, r ya all in on my plan?
Click to expand...

I think that as long as one argues for almost a million legal abortions pa that obviously eliminates the kids' whole line of posterity, it is inconsistent to argue we should pay much to make posterity's life nice. ;)
 
Last edited:
Aberration said:
You can't be a legal person with the right to life if someone can own you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Who is owning what person?:shock:
 
joG said:
I think that as long as one argues for almost a million legal abortions pa that obviously eliminates the kids' whole line of posterity, it is inconsistent to argue we should pay much to make posterity's life nice. ;)
Click to expand...

WTH?

No line of prosperity has been eliminated. You can't eliminate something that doesn't exist. You can't foretell the future economic contribution or liability (prosperity/success/failures) of any individual fetus that might be born within a specific year.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
That was a answer to Minnie's claim, "Blacks were always persons."
Click to expand...

Well our constitution allowed for slaves to be called persons.(3/5) and freemen (full person)
 
Aberration said:
You can't be a legal person with the right to life if someone can own you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The concern of slave owners can be summed up as simple as them wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They didn't care about the person status of blacks and right to life was the farthest thing from their minds.

Today a legal person could be a business entity. During the period in question status of "a person" was decided by the color on one's skin. The 13th and 14th Amendments didn't exist.

However...the new government was kicking in slave owners had a dilemma. (Don't forget that most of the framers were slave owners.)

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention.

The debate was over whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes.

The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years.

The effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free persons had been counted equally, allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

By the way, there's no such thing as right to life at any stage of life.
 
year2late said:
Well our constitution allowed for slaves to be called persons.(3/5) and freemen (full person)
Click to expand...

You get the idea though whenever pro lifers compare slavery to abortion right? It's a invalid comparison but I understand their reasoning for trying to compare them.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
You get the idea though whenever pro lifers compare slavery to abortion right? It's a invalid comparison but I understand their reasoning for trying to compare them.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand the difference between belief and reality.

And I believe some pro-choicers turn that around and consider that a woman is required to maintain a pregnancy against her will, that is a form of slavery as well.

Neither are legal reality....but both are beliefs.
 
Premise of the thread seems to have been missed. Something the anti-abortion Far Right thinks is bad: gay sex; is actually good, when the goal is to eliminate abortion. Funny how something so basic gets attacked. But, that is to be expected. We are talking about Far Right anti-freedom, abortion foes, after all.
 
calamity said:
I saw a great meme the other day: stop abortion, vote for people who provide women with healthcare, equal opportunity, a high school diploma and birth control.

So, I read it to my wife. Her reply, "The anti abortion zealots should just raise their daughters to be lesbians. Problem solved."

I lol'd. Good idea though, in principle. I doubt you could raise someone to be lesbian--not that the typical anti-abortion zealots would agree with me, since they often think gayness is learned--but maybe we should encourage our young women who happen to lean that way to do just that.

More lesbians...fewer abortions. What say you anti-aborts, r ya all in on my plan?
Click to expand...

Well, I certainly wasn't planning on having an abortion. ;)

But no, nobody can raise their daughter to be gay. You either are or you aren't.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Premise of the thread seems to have been missed. Something the anti-abortion Far Right thinks is bad: gay sex; is actually good, when the goal is to eliminate abortion. Funny how something so basic gets attacked. But, that is to be expected. We are talking about Far Right anti-freedom, abortion foes, after all.
Click to expand...

The far-right is missing out. Gay sex is great! :mrgreen:
 
TheGoverness said:
Well, I certainly wasn't planning on having an abortion. ;)

But no, nobody can raise their daughter to be gay. You either are or you aren't.
Click to expand...

I know, which is why I wrote this exactly like I did.

"I lol'd. Good idea though, in principle. I doubt you could raise someone to be lesbian--not that the typical anti-abortion zealots would agree with me, since they often think gayness is learned--but maybe we should encourage our young women who happen to lean that way to do just that."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom