• 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!

pro-life[W:1119]

caritas said:
Of course I can see why people would disagree with me. I would say since there is so much disagreement the voters should be empowered to have a say.
Click to expand...

Voters do indirectly 'have a say' in that they can vote for candidates that represent their views on the subject. But I would say that since there is so much disagreement, let each individual decide the matter for themselves, based on their own morality, faith, etc. It's no one else's damned business.
 
FutureIncoming said:
I CAN EASILY SEE a lot of educationally defective people, It simply means they are wrong. Better to let them be educationally corrected than to let them vote wrong.
Click to expand...

That's wins the award for Bizarre Response of the Day. Please explain--in detail--why you think you're right and everyone else either wrong or 'educationally defective'.
 
jamesrodom said:
That's wins the award for Bizarre Response of the Day. Please explain--in detail--why you think you're right and everyone else either wrong or 'educationally defective'.
Click to expand...

No kidding. He literally wrote that the unborn 'choose' to excrete chemicals to change the mother's behavior. :doh As if they have any conscious thought or control over that at all. :roll:

FutureIncoming said:
The fetus has and does exercise choice, by drugging the pregnant woman with progesterone and oxytocin . You and equivalent idiots seem to think that women are supposed to be drugged into acceptance of any pregnancy; I and like-minded folks think otherwise, that a pregnant woman can choose to be drugged or not.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jamesrodom said:
Please explain--in detail--why you think you're right and everyone else either wrong or 'educationally defective'.
Click to expand...

EVERYONE who opposes abortion does so for some reason that does not withstand Factual Scrutiny. That automatically makes them educationally defective.
 
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ABORTION IN THIS DAY-AND-AGE. Simple! In a different day-and-age, in which the total human population was so small as to be threatened with extinction from a too-small gene pool, under those circumstances it could be Objectively sensible to ban abortion. But no such circumstance applies, in this day-and-age.
Click to expand...

Interesting to read the punchline first.
 
Shmuel Wyckoff said:
The only question up for debate when discussing abortion is whether a fetus is a human life.
Click to expand...
Even if it is, it's still her right to end it.

That being said, it's not. It's not even a 'potential life' legally until viability.
 
FutureIncoming said:
EVERYONE who opposes abortion does so for some reason that does not withstand Factual Scrutiny. That automatically makes them educationally defective.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Most people who oppose abortion do so because they sincerely believe that fetuses and embryos are human beings (AKA 'persons') from the moment of conception, deserving of all the rights and privileges normally accorded to post-born 'persons'. While I strongly disagree, I realize that the underlying question of personhood, and when it begins, lies within the realm of morality, ethics, religion, and/or philosophy........NOT science or education.

That is precisely why the issue needs to be left to the individual woman to decide after consultation with her own conscience, faith, family, etc.
 
Last edited:
jamesrodom said:
I disagree.

Most people who oppose abortion do so because they sincerely believe that fetuses and embryos are human beings (AKA 'persons') from the moment of conception, deserving of all the rights and privileges normally accorded to post-born 'persons'. While I strongly disagree, I realize that the underlying question of personhood, and when it begins, lies within the realm of morality, ethics, religion, and/or philosophy........NOT science or education.

That is precisely why the issue needs to be left to the individual woman to decide after consultation with her own conscience, faith, family, etc.
Click to expand...

Of course it's wrong. Moral and ethical and religious reasons dont need facts. They take into consideration many subjective criteria that are just as valid in their own way...and as he has found, are also often stronger motivators than his facts. No matter what the facts are, you cannot force people to accept them because they dont necessarily change the subjective reasons.

That's why his long (huge long, footnoted and linked...and mostly unread) 'treatise' on the issue is mostly a failure and does not convince those with objections based in religion or other moral reasons.
 
jamesrodom said:
Voters do indirectly 'have a say' in that they can vote for candidates that represent their views on the subject. But I would say that since there is so much disagreement, let each individual decide the matter for themselves, based on their own morality, faith, etc. It's no one else's damned business.
Click to expand...

What you said is not factually accurate. Right now the voters do not have a say. It doesn't matter if a pro-life abortion ban passes either by a state's representatives or directly through a ballot initiative. The law will not stand. So the voters clearly have no say. Also By ban I mean someone ewanting to get an abortion and not being able to. There is a partial birth abortion ban but it doesn't legally stop anyone from getting an abortion.
 
Last edited:
caritas said:
What you said is not factually accurate. Right now the voters do not have a say. It doesn't matter if a pro-life abortion ban passes either by a state's representatives or directly through a ballot initiative. The law will not stand. So the voters clearly have no say.
Click to expand...

Why should voters have a say in someone's private medical decisions?
 
caritas said:
What you said is not factually accurate. Right now the voters do not have a say. It doesn't matter if a pro-life abortion ban passes either by a state's representatives or directly through a ballot initiative. The law will not stand. So the voters clearly have no say. Also By ban I mean someone ewanting to get an abortion and not being able to. There is a partial birth abortion ban but it doesn't legally stop anyone from getting an abortion.
Click to expand...

Why didnt you address this?
Lursa said:
Can you explain why you believe that the voters have the right to decide to violate women's Constitutional rights? Well, things are purposely structured so that 'the tyranny of the majority may not" do so, and the majority may not vote away the rights of the minority. Hence we were able to end segregation and Jim Crow laws in the South (for example).

So no, the voters cant decide to vote for the government to force women to remain pregnant against their will but I would certainly like to read your legal justification for that. What legal reasons would you be basing that on?
Click to expand...

It explains why you are wrong about the people being able to vote on other people's Constitutional rights. Even if you disagree with it, it's true and so then you are just posting irrelevant (incorrect) personal opinion to him.
 
caritas said:
What you said is not factually accurate. Right now the voters do not have a say. It doesn't matter if a pro-life abortion ban passes either by a state's representatives or directly through a ballot initiative. The law will not stand. So the voters clearly have no say. Also By ban I mean someone ewanting to get an abortion and not being able to. There is a partial birth abortion ban but it doesn't legally stop anyone from getting an abortion.
Click to expand...

You are simply incorrect. Voters do have a say; that doesn't mean they can simply cast a vote directly on the subject of abortion, since the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade that abortion, under most circumstances, is a constitutional right. But since the Seventies, the main objective of abortion opponents is to get the ruling overturned. That's an example of "having a say"........voting for presidents and senators that would appoint justices likely to overturn the ruling.

"Partial Birth Abortion"? Sorry, there's no such thing. On rare occasions, there are late-term abortions, almost always performed because a woman discovers late in her pregnancy some serious health problem with the fetus that would mean a serious birth defect or, usually, that the baby wouldn't live very long. These are tragic and extremely rare occurrences. And by the way: under Roe v. Wade states have the right to ban abortion outright during the third trimester, so long as exceptions are made for the life/health of the pregnant woman.

"Partial Birth" Abortion is simply an invented term on the part of the pro-life movement to demagogue the issue. If you disagree, I'd challenge you to provide evidence that medical science recognizes the notion of a "partial birth....".......well, ANYTHING.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Why should voters have a say in someone's private medical decisions?
Click to expand...

We all know why pro lifers are raising objections to abortion Scrabaholic. It has nothing to do with ''private medical decisions.''
 
Scrabaholic said:
Why should voters have a say in someone's private medical decisions?
Click to expand...

We all know why pro lifers are raising objections to abortion Scrabaholic. It has nothing to do with ''private medical decisions.''
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
I was at one point, and I was my own person then as I am now
Click to expand...

The question was not "were you", I asked "Are you" meaning are you right now inside of and attached to someone's body.

Why did you resurrect a long dead thread?
 
Re: pro-life

Scrabaholic said:
The question was not "were you", I asked "Are you" meaning are you right now inside of and attached to someone's body.

Why did you resurrect a long dead thread?
Click to expand...

Good catch.

I am also curious why he resurrected a dead thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom