• 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!

Pence: Abortion will end in U.S. 'in our time'

Celebrity said:
Can you comment on the ability of the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold Roe v. Wade?
Click to expand...

Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch can comment on it.

The Constitutional decision of Roe has held up 45 years.

It is settled precedent . Even a very conservative Supreme Court could not overturn Roe in Casey vs Planned Parenthood.


Roe has reaffirmed many times and is settled law according to Justice Gorsuch.


In plain English ...that's means right to privacy regarding abortion is law....That law is set in stone.
It will not be questioned.

From this Fox News article:

Judge Neil Gorsuch said Tuesday the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “precedent” and acknowledged the ruling had been reaffirmed “many times.”

Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Justice Antonin Scalia died, does not have much of a history ruling on abortion issues, and the contentious subject was one of the first topics broached during the question-and-answer session of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to question Gorsuch, immediately followed up, citing the importance of the issue since, she said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe.”

“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch told Feinstein, clarifying his position on precedent. “What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”
Click to expand...

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent' | Fox News
 
Last edited:
Celebrity said:
Can you comment on the ability of the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold Roe v. Wade?
Click to expand...

You’re talking apples and oranges between Roe v Wade and men’s reproductive rights.

In my opinion, blaming women’s right to abort isn’t a prudent legal argument to use to resolve the inequalities that men face. In fact, I see it as a Red Herring argument regarding several issues related to unwanted pregnancies, which lead to men being financially required to provide support for a genetically related child.

In other words, the argument, “She can legally abort so men should have the same right.”, will never encourage our judicial system to use as a valid criteria for the state to not force men to pay child support.

Why? A legal option to abort is just that, “an option”. Government will never be able to force women to abort. Why? Because women who won’t abort is 99% related to a “moral choice”. Can you see how attacks by government on women’s moral choice to reproduce will play out with society and our judicial system? Remember, most pregnancies are brought to full-term.

The only out for men is if women could be “legally ordered” to abort against her will. However, if a woman refuses and would rather be incarcerated and have the child rather than have an abortion. Then I see such a circumstance would force the state to incur all of the prenatal care, birthing, postnatal care costs and most likely the costs associated with raising the child for as long as a woman is incarcerated. In this instance, would women be forced to remain incarcerated while raising a child until legal adult age? Or would she be released and the child become a ward of the state and be placed for adoption. If adoption doesn’t happen then the child will be placed in foster care until they reach legal adult age? When the smoke clears - then come back and figure out the cost of incarceration in addition to costs incurred related to the birth of a child. Would this scenario work for you?

Most Pro-choice women won’t have an abortion themselves, but understand the various reasons why abortions should be legal.

Do you honestly believe that by overturning Roe v Wade that there would suddenly be a different set of arguments in support of men having more reproductive rights, including the right to opt out?
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Legal abortion may very well end in our time but if anyone thinks that will stem the number of abortions, they're only fooling themselves.
Several things will happen:

1. The wealthy will continue getting abortions the same as they always have.
2. Back alley abortions will commence shortly after abortion is once again criminalized.
3. Botched abortions will skyrocket.
4. Infanticide.
5. Authoritarian laws which grant rapists, pedophiles, incestuous siblings and parental sexual abusers greater rights than the mother.
Click to expand...

I agree with the consequences if abortion was made illegal. Those points have been regularly discussed in the abortion forum.

If abortion is made illegal it will undermine (significantly diminish or dismantle) women’s rights to Due Process, which includes, but not limited to the right to privacy and self-determination. This type of judicial/legislative action would remove women’s right to equal protection clause. It would negatively impact their Nineth Amendment rights. It would subject women to be forced into involuntary servitude. They would be denied procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. The list goes on.

In my opinion the more potentially damning consequence might lead to the yet to be born being granted personhood, which would wreak havoc on society in dozens of way.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Legal abortion may very well end in our time but if anyone thinks that will stem the number of abortions, they're only fooling themselves.
Several things will happen:

1. The wealthy will continue getting abortions the same as they always have.
2. Back alley abortions will commence shortly after abortion is once again criminalized.
3. Botched abortions will skyrocket.
4. Infanticide.
5. Authoritarian laws which grant rapists, pedophiles, incestuous siblings and parental sexual abusers greater rights than the mother.
Click to expand...

I will argue that abortions may actually increase. While there are "relatively" few abortion clinics....every state has a multitude of drug dealers. Currently there are many areas of this country with little access to abortion but better access to drug pushers. They will fill a void in short order. It may not be as safe as doctor supervised abortion, but it will be available.

The ignorance of thinking there will be drastic decrease in abortion is because they truly believe that most women abort because of simple inconvenience - most of this women are desperate - trivial inconveniences do not concern them.

If folks want to really see a drastic decrease in abortion...they need to be pragmatic. I see slut shaming and finger wagging...but little pragmatism from many pro-lifers.
 
Celebrity said:
How does this even require a source? Women who elect to have an abortion are not obligated to pay child support for a child which does not exist. Women who elect to have their biological child adopted do not pay child support if they choose not to notify the father and/or utilize safe haven adoption.

Those are objective facts. I can't believe you tried to call it a lie. There's no point in debating someone who can't tell the difference between the real and factual and fantasy, if that someone fantasizes about discriminating against men because of a prejudice.
Click to expand...

And if women dont have a kid or give it up for adoption...no father pays child support :doh

If the father OR mother has a kid, then both are equally responsible for child support and/or custody.

Men who use Safe Haven laws dont pay child support (and yes, single fathers have used it)

If men start getting pregnant, as it seems they are, everything I write about choice and responsibility applies to them equally as it does to women now, so there's no sexism at all.
 
Celebrity said:
Ah, ok grannie. Please explain how a man can choose at any time whether or not a woman possesses the quality 'pregnancy'.



Need I say more?
Click to expand...

Sigh. A man can choose at any or all times to deny a woman the possibility of pregnancy. It's his choice always. A woman is powerless to overcome that.
 
OKgrannie said:
Sigh. A man can choose at any or all times to deny a woman the possibility of pregnancy. It's his choice always. A woman is powerless to overcome that.
Click to expand...

Its hard to get pregnant if you keep your legs closed
 
gulfman said:
Its hard to get pregnant if you keep your legs closed
Click to expand...

Sigh. Biology or anatomy lesson: it is really not hard for a woman to have sex with her legs together.
 
How do them tadpoles get in there then?Do they jump around like fleas?
 
FutureIncoming said:
THERE IS MORE THAN ONE POSSIBLE POSITION FOR THE SEX ACT. And some of them work just fine with the woman's legs closed.
Click to expand...

True enough.:lamo

Some folks should do some homework.;)
 
FutureIncoming said:
Makes you wonder where they got their ignorance from. Publicly accessible information about sex positions has been available for literally thousands of years. See the Kama Sutra, for example.
Click to expand...

Probably on the book to be burned list..
 
OKgrannie said:
Sigh. A man can choose at any or all times to deny a woman the possibility of pregnancy. It's his choice always. A woman is powerless to overcome that.
Click to expand...

So a woman is raped any time she has sex? Come on Grannie. Use your brain.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Legal abortion may very well end in our time but if anyone thinks that will stem the number of abortions, they're only fooling themselves.
Several things will happen:

1. The wealthy will continue getting abortions the same as they always have.
2. Back alley abortions will commence shortly after abortion is once again criminalized.
3. Botched abortions will skyrocket.
4. Infanticide.
5. Authoritarian laws which grant rapists, pedophiles, incestuous siblings and parental sexual abusers greater rights than the mother.
Click to expand...
I agree that abortions are an important part of modern healthcare, and that an abortion can be an important service when it is provided to a woman in a safe environment. I should also add that abortions have become safer than ever in the US, and I see no reason to criminalize a medical abortion.

A medical abortion has an important effect on a woman's life that is not necessarily medical in nature. Because she chooses not to have a child, she is not forced to raise a nonexistant child which was never born. Therefore she has parental autonomy that men lack. Given that women have legal and medical access to abortions, even if they cannot afford it, why should we limit parental autonomy to only women?

Now, I must acknowledge that not all women have access to an abortion because they lack either the time or the money. Perhaps to reduce the number of abortions in the US, some strategy might include chipping away at legal or medical access to abortion without making it illegal. So I can understand why men and women want to expand and protect women's rights. But I do not agree that women deserve more rights than men because the number of abortions will increase if abortion becomes illegal. Obviously that list of things seems pretty plausible, and I wouldn't want some of those things to happen to women or children. But no man need suffer oppressive and discriminatory laws in order to prevent any of those things.

We should not allow fear to motivate us to capitulate our freedoms to tyrants - whether that tyrant is Donald Trump or a crazy, man-hating SJW.

Does anyone truly believe that the natural biological risks of pregnancy that women face are cause to oppress men and deny them the same autonomy that women have? I don't support enforcing some kind of abuse on men due to women being on their periods, but many men suffer those kinds of women anyway!


FutureIncoming said:
NONE OF WHAT YOU QUOTED ME SAYING WAS WHAT YOU SAID I SAID. So, try again!

FIRST, just to clarify something, before you try again, my comments about greedy conservatives, and greed in general, were intended to show how those folks fail to support others. You do realize that there are plenty other folks out there who are quite willing to help others?
Click to expand...

What I quoted you saying was exactly what I said you said even if you say I didn't quote you saying what I said you said.

I think there are helpful people out there, which is why safe haven laws exist for women who cannot afford to care for children.
 
soylentgreen said:
Celebrity said:
Please attempt to show where I demonised women or indicated in any way that women should be told what to do with their bodies.
Click to expand...

Easy enough

Celebrity said:
A woman who tricks a man by poking a hole in a condom does not deserve support from that man because her act is deceitful and subversive.
Click to expand...

These kind of remarks demonise women. If i was as silly i could make a remark that some men use date drugs and do not care if they get women pregnant.
And this again is demonising, or just plain whinging, it is sometimes hard to tell the difference.
Click to expand...

First of all, date rape is not silly at all. I take rape very seriously, and I don't think it's constructive at all for you to have so little regard for rape victims. I can discuss date rape and date rape drugs without being a silly person. If I say that men or women use date rape drugs, it is not a statement which implies I hate women or men. My statement that a woman who pokes a hole in a condom intentionally and subversively deceives an innocent man is as serious as a discussion about rape. We can have a discussion about crime without demonizing criminals.

If by using negative adjectives to describe illicit behavior by some women who act illicitly you think that I am demonizing the entire group of women, or indicating that women should be told what to do with their bodies then you are dead wrong.

Finally, I am incredibly disappointed in your flippant remark about "whinging" shortly after your comment about rape. Unfortunately, I suppose you think that rape victims are just "whinging," too. That is an incredibly terrible and distasteful oversimplification of the victimhood of male and female rape victims.
 
Removable Mind said:
You’re talking apples and oranges between Roe v Wade and men’s reproductive rights.

In my opinion, blaming women’s right to abort isn’t a prudent legal argument to use to resolve the inequalities that men face. In fact, I see it as a Red Herring argument regarding several issues related to unwanted pregnancies, which lead to men being financially required to provide support for a genetically related child.

In other words, the argument, “She can legally abort so men should have the same right.”, will never encourage our judicial system to use as a valid criteria for the state to not force men to pay child support.

Why? A legal option to abort is just that, “an option”. Government will never be able to force women to abort. Why? Because women who won’t abort is 99% related to a “moral choice”. Can you see how attacks by government on women’s moral choice to reproduce will play out with society and our judicial system? Remember, most pregnancies are brought to full-term.

The only out for men is if women could be “legally ordered” to abort against her will. However, if a woman refuses and would rather be incarcerated and have the child rather than have an abortion. Then I see such a circumstance would force the state to incur all of the prenatal care, birthing, postnatal care costs and most likely the costs associated with raising the child for as long as a woman is incarcerated. In this instance, would women be forced to remain incarcerated while raising a child until legal adult age? Or would she be released and the child become a ward of the state and be placed for adoption. If adoption doesn’t happen then the child will be placed in foster care until they reach legal adult age? When the smoke clears - then come back and figure out the cost of incarceration in addition to costs incurred related to the birth of a child. Would this scenario work for you?

Most Pro-choice women won’t have an abortion themselves, but understand the various reasons why abortions should be legal.

Do you honestly believe that by overturning Roe v Wade that there would suddenly be a different set of arguments in support of men having more reproductive rights, including the right to opt out?
Click to expand...

I'm not blaming a women's right to abort. Obviously the argument "women have the right to abort so men should have the same right" does not blame women or women's rights. It's not blaming anyone but a discriminatory judicial system which oppresses men and judges men on different terms than it judges women.

Then you go on a rant about ordering women to do something against their will which is not really my point. I don't know why you think it's constructive to imagine that women might possibly, sort of lack some right at some potential future time when men really, in reality, actually lack rights.

Right now men lack rights. If men and women are to be treated equally by blind justice which does not discriminate on the basis of gender, then men and women should have the same access to parental autonomy whether or not women have access to medical abortion.

If women have access to parental autonomy, men should also have that opportunity.

If men do not have access to parental autonomy, neither should women have that opportunity. So if you think that means women should, could or would be forced to do something, then I must simply point out that men are sent to jail for not complying with the law. Women can be sent to jail too. I don't see why men should be sent to jail instead of women.
 
Celebrity said:
First of all, date rape is not silly at all. I take rape very seriously, and I don't think it's constructive at all for you to have so little regard for rape victims. I can discuss date rape and date rape drugs without being a silly person. If I say that men or women use date rape drugs, it is not a statement which implies I hate women or men. My statement that a woman who pokes a hole in a condom intentionally and subversively deceives an innocent man is as serious as a discussion about rape. We can have a discussion about crime without demonizing criminals.
Click to expand...
No it is not. It is nothing more than trying to demonise women. It is nowhere as serious as the discussion of rape because that happens quite a lot but i doubt that women tricking men into getting them pregnant and then telling them they have to pay for the child happens very much at all. It is just a scurrilous tale.
If by using negative adjectives to describe illicit behavior by some women who act illicitly you think that I am demonizing the entire group of women, or indicating that women should be told what to do with their bodies then you are dead wrong.
Click to expand...



Finally, I am incredibly disappointed in your flippant remark about "whinging" shortly after your comment about rape. Unfortunately, I suppose you think that rape victims are just "whinging," too. That is an incredibly terrible and distasteful oversimplification of the victimhood of male and female rape victims.
Click to expand...

The only purpose of the rape analogy was to point out how bad your remark was against women. Trying to turn it into a serious attack against rape shows either a lack of comprehension or an attempt to weasel out of your demonising women.
 
soylentgreen said:
No it is not. It is nothing more than trying to demonise women. It is nowhere as serious as the discussion of rape because that happens quite a lot but i doubt that women tricking men into getting them pregnant and then telling them they have to pay for the child happens very much at all. It is just a scurrilous tale.


The only purpose of the rape analogy was to point out how bad your remark was against women. Trying to turn it into a serious attack against rape shows either a lack of comprehension or an attempt to weasel out of your demonising women.
Click to expand...

You know it's funny how you accuse me (falsely) of attempting to weasel out of demonising women, when you are attempting to weasel your way out of being a rape apologist. That's ****ed up dude.

Lursa said:
If the father OR mother has a kid, then both are equally responsible for child support and/or custody.
Click to expand...

Are you daft? Men do not make children. Only the mother can decide to have a kid. That's not equal. Men should not be equally responsible for something that only women do.

Let me explain it in gynocentric terms for you to understand me:

If a woman or her sister has a kid, then both are equally responsible for child support and/or custody.

Does the preceding statement make sense? No, it does not make sense. But why? You will probably complain that if one of the sisters has a child, then the child lacks the DNA of her sister. Well, why does that matter? I wouldn't say that the sisters are in any kind of romantic relationship, or that they are married, but don't sisters sometimes help one another to raise children?

The idea that someone can be forced against their will to support a child which they did not choose to create is flawed, because it does not allow equal autonomy across the board.

The idea that someone who is forced against their will to support a child is equally responsible is not necessarily untrue, however it makes no difference whether or not they are biologically related to the child, or to what degree. Therefore anyone can be held equally responsible for supporting a child whether they like it or not, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do, and you have yet to show why being a biological parent ought to imply responsibility (or even custody, for that matter) for the upbringing of a child.
 
Celebrity said:
I agree that abortions are an important part of modern healthcare, and that an abortion can be an important service when it is provided to a woman in a safe environment. I should also add that abortions have become safer than ever in the US, and I see no reason to criminalize a medical abortion.
Click to expand...

I know that this will not sit well with anti-abortion people but were safe and legal abortion services easily available, and not subject to the stigma and harassment factors, the overwhelming number of them would be performed somewhere at less than six to eight weeks.
When they are performed later, it may be due to stigma, or denial of the mother to admit to the issue, or inability to make a prompt decision. Other instances are purely medical, which is the reason for the overwhelming majority of late term abortions. Rape and incest or molestation victims are often hesitant to make a fully informed decision on pregancy termination.
Doctors are LOATHE to perform a late term abortion.

If the mother's life could be in danger, if the infant has one or more profound birth defects, if there is certainty that the infant will not survive to full term and is guaranteed to be stillborn, these are reasons why many late term abortions wind up happening.
A fully informed patient is much more likely to choose termination in the very early term.
And no rational person PREFERS to have an abortion.

Increased availability of morning after pills would drastically reduce the number of abortions, as does increased availability of ALL types of contraception methods.

The trouble is, many on the other side see morning after pills and contraception itself as being just as bad as an abortion.
 
Celebrity said:
I'm not blaming a women's right to abort. Obviously the argument "women have the right to abort so men should have the same right" does not blame women or women's rights. It's not blaming anyone but a discriminatory judicial system which oppresses men and judges men on different terms than it judges women.

Then you go on a rant about ordering women to do something against their will which is not really my point. I don't know why you think it's constructive to imagine that women might possibly, sort of lack some right at some potential future time when men really, in reality, actually lack rights.

Right now men lack rights. If men and women are to be treated equally by blind justice which does not discriminate on the basis of gender, then men and women should have the same access to parental autonomy whether or not women have access to medical abortion.

If women have access to parental autonomy, men should also have that opportunity.

If men do not have access to parental autonomy, neither should women have that opportunity. So if you think that means women should, could or would be forced to do something, then I must simply point out that men are sent to jail for not complying with the law. Women can be sent to jail too. I don't see why men should be sent to jail instead of women.
Click to expand...

I’m not the problem. I’m not you adversary. Take it up with the Supreme Court. Take it up with your US Congressional members. Take it up with your State Legislators.

That’s how you can start to fix the inequalities...along with every Men’s Rights Groups who made your same arguments for the last 50 years.

All that has to be done is change to US Constitution. If you want to deny that’s the problem then all I can say is: If you can’t define the problem then you’ll never have an opportunity to create the solution.

Ya dig?

Good luck, sincerely.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I know that this will not sit well with anti-abortion people but were safe and legal abortion services easily available, and not subject to the stigma and harassment factors, the overwhelming number of them would be performed somewhere at less than six to eight weeks.
When they are performed later, it may be due to stigma, or denial of the mother to admit to the issue, or inability to make a prompt decision. Other instances are purely medical, which is the reason for the overwhelming majority of late term abortions. Rape and incest or molestation victims are often hesitant to make a fully informed decision on pregancy termination.
Doctors are LOATHE to perform a late term abortion.

If the mother's life could be in danger, if the infant has one or more profound birth defects, if there is certainty that the infant will not survive to full term and is guaranteed to be stillborn, these are reasons why many late term abortions wind up happening.
A fully informed patient is much more likely to choose termination in the very early term.
And no rational person PREFERS to have an abortion.

Increased availability of morning after pills would drastically reduce the number of abortions, as does increased availability of ALL types of contraception methods.

The trouble is, many on the other side see morning after pills and contraception itself as being just as bad as an abortion.
Click to expand...

Do you think that single payer healthcare is the best route for protecting access to medical care and "morning after" pharmaceuticals? It would certainly make access more broadly available, since poverty wouldn't be as much of a deterrent. But I'm not sure if it can fully cover for the legislative failure to protect women's rights or men's rights. If legal precedent is the only thing between us and forcing men and women to become parents, then I'm afraid we aren't doing enough. Even a decision by the Supreme Court can be overturned.
 
Removable Mind said:
I’m not the problem. I’m not you adversary. Take it up with the Supreme Court. Take it up with your US Congressional members. Take it up with your State Legislators.

That’s how you can start to fix the inequalities...along with every Men’s Rights Groups who made your same arguments for the last 50 years.

All that has to be done is change to US Constitution. If you want to deny that’s the problem then all I can say is: If you can’t define the problem then you’ll never have an opportunity to create the solution.

Ya dig?

Good luck, sincerely.
Click to expand...

I've already defined the problem and declared certain risks associated with it. Women's rights are at risk, they are not an obstacle to men's rights.
 
Celebrity said:
You know it's funny how you accuse me (falsely) of attempting to weasel out of demonising women, when you are attempting to weasel your way out of being a rape apologist. That's ****ed up dude.
Click to expand...

Reread the analogy on rape. it was pointing out how silly your comment on women forcing pregnancy is. that you the try to turn it into a claim about rape is just weaseling out on your part.
Are you daft? Men do not make children. Only the mother can decide to have a kid. That's not equal. Men should not be equally responsible for something that only women do.
Click to expand...
It is men who get women pregnant. Trying to pretend they have no part in it ridiculous. That a woman decides to have the child has nothing to do with the fact that a man is still responsible for his actions.

Let me explain it in gynocentric terms for you to understand me:
If a woman or her sister has a kid, then both are equally responsible for child support and/or custody.

Does the preceding statement make sense? No, it does not make sense. But why? You will probably complain that if one of the sisters has a child, then the child lacks the DNA of her sister. Well, why does that matter? I wouldn't say that the sisters are in any kind of romantic relationship, or that they are married, but don't sisters sometimes help one another to raise children?

The idea that someone can be forced against their will to support a child which they did not choose to create is flawed, because it does not allow equal autonomy across the board.
Click to expand...
This is again a ridiculous example. It completely ignores that a male gets a woman pregnant. The raising of the child is not something a man is being forced to do.
The idea that someone who is forced against their will to support a child is equally responsible is not necessarily untrue, however it makes no difference whether or not they are biologically related to the child, or to what degree. Therefore anyone can be held equally responsible for supporting a child whether they like it or not, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do, and you have yet to show why being a biological parent ought to imply responsibility (or even custody, for that matter) for the upbringing of a child.
Click to expand...

Your kidding really? You cannot come up with a reason why someone who chooses to have a child should not be responsible for that child?

You also think that anyone can be held responsible for the actions of others. Two people create a child and the man can not walk away from that. If he has sex and later a child comes along that is his problem to deal with.

All you are doing here is distorting how a chils is created with the after effects of how the child it is raised.It is i a weak argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom