• 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!

Mary Wagner jailed again after entering abortion center

jaeger19 said:
Actually.. I wouldn't use terminal cancer. I have actually had patients that HAD curable breast cancer.. but were pregnant and had to make these decisions.

AND the woman didn't put herself in this position. In all the cases I can recall.. the women got pregnant before their cancer was discovered.
Click to expand...

OK, altho I'm not sure why the 2nd point matters here, since it's assumed they wanted a baby and didnt plan on getting cancer.

Re: surviving cancer, like I wrote earlier, even when you tell them that a severely defective fetus will only survive a few days or be hopelessly brain damaged, they tell you that "Drs dont know everything and you never know for sure!" or "there could be a miracle, it's happened before." So my scenario includes that to show the (possible) hypocrisy.
 
Removable Mind said:
Where's the part on how a doctor "knows at a prenatal stage exactly" which specific woman will become a fatality victim of Placenta Previa. And also positively knows which woman will suffer long-term effects?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is why these decisions should be made by the woman in consultation with her physician regarding her risk factors etc.. ...

and not by a government official.
 
Lursa said:
OK, altho I'm not sure why the 2nd point matters here, since it's assumed they wanted a baby and didnt plan on getting cancer.

Re: surviving cancer, like I wrote earlier, even when you tell them that a severely defective fetus will only survive a few days or be hopelessly brain damaged, they tell you that "Drs dont know everything and you never know for sure!" or "there could be a miracle, it's happened before." So my scenario includes that to show the (possible) hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.. lets see if Pizmo replies to my post. I suspect that there will be no reply.. because he/she is unwilling to admit that his/her position will result in two deaths.
 
jaeger19 said:
Hmmm.. lets see if Pizmo replies to my post. I suspect that there will be no reply.. because he/she is unwilling to admit that his/her position will result in two deaths.
Click to expand...

Lack of reply is common, I have to say that it doesnt mean anything except they dont want to confront reality or something that threatens their beliefs.

Note that in the Abortion hurts women threat, Jdog21 has now fixated on chlorine in the water supply rather than abortion. And shortly, I'm guessing he will also just leave. Much like CPwill and FishKing did here.
 
Lursa said:
Lack of reply is common, I have to say that it doesnt mean anything except they dont want to confront reality or something that threatens their beliefs.

Note that in the Abortion hurts women threat, Jdog21 has now fixated on chlorine in the water supply rather than abortion. And shortly, I'm guessing he will also just leave. Much like CPwill and FishKing did here.
Click to expand...

Well.. when there is a lack of a reply.. I look at it like its just one less person who is spewing disinformation and hypocrisy on the subject.
 
jaeger19 said:
Well.. when there is a lack of a reply.. I look at it like its just one less person who is spewing disinformation and hypocrisy on the subject.
Click to expand...

Well, for me it's just one more case where someone cannot justify their position.

Really, if they would just admit they value the unborn more than women...which is the truth when you boil down their positions about women deserving remaining pregnant because they had sex and their *belief" that there is some way to deal with born and unborn equally isnt true...then I respect that.

But they never do.

And if they havent actually learned anything, then they continue to spew the wrong info.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Well, for me it's just one more case where someone cannot justify their position.

Really, if they would just admit they value the unborn more than women...which is the truth when you boil down their positions about women deserving remaining pregnant because they had sex and their *belief" that there is some way to deal with born and unborn equally isnt true...then I respect that.

But they never do.

And if they havent actually learned anything, then they continue to spew the wrong info.
Click to expand...

And they want to ban abortion. They want to control women's bodies. That is a form of slavery.
 
zyzygy said:
And they want to ban abortion. They want to control women's bodies. That is a form of slavery.
Click to expand...

Well the first sentence is mostly true and they admit that, but good luck getting them to ever admit to the last 2.
 
Lursa said:
Well the first sentence is mostly true and they admit that, but good luck getting them to ever admit to the last 2.
Click to expand...

It is obvious to the meanest intelligence that banning abortion is controlling women's bodies.
 
zyzygy said:
It is obvious to the meanest intelligence that banning abortion is controlling women's bodies.
Click to expand...

Yup.

But they dont care. Because they value the unborn more.
 
zyzygy said:
And they want to ban abortion. They want to control women's bodies. That is a form of slavery.
Click to expand...

Involuntary servitude can be imposed on any sex or age. Too bad the SC hasn't opined on abortion from the 13th Amendment perspective.
 
Removable Mind said:
Involuntary servitude can be imposed on any sex or age. Too bad the SC hasn't opined on abortion from the 13th Amendment perspective.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the last sentence means. We don't all live in the New World.
 
zyzygy said:
I have no idea what the last sentence means. We don't all live in the New World.
Click to expand...

Ah...the 13th Amendment of the Constitution made slavery illegal. And part of the language states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
 
Removable Mind said:
Ah...the 13th Amendment of the Constitution made slavery illegal. And part of the language states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Click to expand...

I see. Thank you. Getting pregnant is not a crime so women cannot be punished by banning abortion.
 
zyzygy said:
I see. Thank you. Getting pregnant is not a crime so women cannot be punished by banning abortion.
Click to expand...

To force a woman to gestate a pregnancy for 9 months, be responsible for all prenatal care costs, birthing costs, postnatal care costs, and raising a child to adulthood should be considered as a violation of the 13th Amendment. All of the aforementioned equates to "involuntary servitude".
 
Removable Mind said:
To force a woman to gestate a pregnancy for 9 months, be responsible for all prenatal care costs, birthing costs, postnatal care costs, and raising a child to adulthood should be considered as a violation of the 13th Amendment. All of the aforementioned equates to "involuntary servitude".
Click to expand...

Then the thread is over.
 
zyzygy said:
Then the thread is over.
Click to expand...

I wished it were that simple. The SC court would have to create an opinion on a cased based on the 13th Amendment and state that banning abortion is in effect a violation of the 13th Amendment as it relates to "involuntary servitude". But such a case and opinion has yet to go through the Supreme Court.

Roe v Wade (and subsequent cases), in my opinion, isn't nearly sufficient in protecting women's right to abort. I believe that the premise of "right to privacy" leans more to the patient/doctor relationship concerning tests, diagnosis, treatments, and medical procedures - than it does in clearly stating that women hold the Constitutional right to manage, in every capacity, their own reproductive roles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom