• 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!

Should People Be Punished For Opposing Abortion?

lefty louie said:
Well I'm not about to go though every poster here but if you think there are no bots that's fine, you win again. I happen to know otherwise. Try being a mod of a site and you'll soon find out how prevalent something's are.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

I won. That is what matters.
 
ecofarm said:
Clearly. The threat is "abort or suffer financial ruin because society does not hold me responsible for my actions". It's a very real time-pressure threat and it's an existential threat in lauding horribly unjust patriarchy.
Click to expand...

Exactly. "Manipulate," "coerce," "influence," "incentivize," etc.

All in an attempt to convince women to act as the men would want...since the men know they cant use open or legal force when the decision is completely up to the woman....so the hope is to use coercion instead.
 
ecofarm said:
How gracious of you.
Click to expand...

And how disappointed he'll be.

There's no ethical reason and no law that would make a woman that's raised the child, investing her time, effort, and $, to do so.
 
Lursa said:
And how disappointed he'll be.

There's no ethical reason and no law that would make a woman that's raised the child, investing her time, effort, and $, to do so.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Exactly. "Manipulate," "coerce," "influence," "incentivize," etc.

All in an attempt to convince women to act as the men would want...since the men know they cant use open or legal force when the decision is completely up to the woman....so the hope is to use coercion instead.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Heh, at least someone here has a basic understanding of the English language.
Click to expand...

Lots of unfortunate people turn passive aggressive once they have clearly been defeated in a debate but do not understand how or why... your posts are a classic example. The really sad part is when that defeated person attempts to use the victors argument against him. Pathetic actually.
 
Pizmo said:
1. The Roe v Wade argument in a nutshell

....

B.) The U.S. Constitution offers no protection of "human rights". The constitution only protects the rights of a "person". The word human is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

This argument does hold true within the confines of the United States. However, as I stated before; there are several English speaking countries in the world that allow one form of abortion or another, and that have governing doctrines that specifically use the term "human rights".
Click to expand...

Just pointing out that the UN agrees that having access to abortions is a human right.

The Religious Coaliation for Reproductive Choice which is Coaliation including the vast majority of Jewish people , a large segment of Protestant religionsand other religious groups sincerely believe that Access to birth control and access to abortion is not only a human rights issue it is at the very core of our US religious liberty.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Exactly. "Manipulate," "coerce," "influence," "incentivize," etc.

All in an attempt to convince women to act as the men would want...since the men know they cant use open or legal force when the decision is completely up to the woman....so the hope is to use coercion instead.
Click to expand...

Opt Out and Repay arguments are a complete waste of typing energy. How such arguments have gone beyond a short-lived thread is beyond me.

It doesn’t matter who believes there is genuine legal/Constitutional merit regarding the opt out premise. That an opt out remedy already exists within current Judicial framework. The repay premise “will never” reach the argument stage at any judicial level - and such an attempt to legislate a law would be political suicide.

There’s no Constitutional components for Supreme Court Justices to use to examine and render a decision regarding inequalities in reproductive rights between women and men. Equality in the 14th Amendment is luring some people in and creating a delusion in their minds that equality is concrete. It’s not. In fact equality is inherently abstract.

The 14th Amendment has been a constant reference by Men’s Rights Groups and has consistently failed. “They know what’s missing”. And they continue to push various rights within the 14th Amendment with the hopes that missing link will be recognized in Congress and set off a chain of events that will be the impetus for ratification of a new amendment, which will level the reproductive rights playing field.

At that point cases that have never gotten past the various Circuit Courts of Appeal will get their day in the US Supreme Court. It would then be possible to get domestic relationship cases to be heard.

Currently if a father takes flight and goes from one state to another in order to avoid child support. After a give time, it becomes a Federal case. It will be heard and tried in a Federal Court. I don’t think any related Federal case regarding child support has ever been escalated to a higher court under the guise of discrimination under the Equality Protection Clause.

State governments Family Code laws will remain the same unless changes in the US Constitution force them to be changed.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Lots of unfortunate people turn passive aggressive once they have clearly been defeated in a debate but do not understand how or why... your posts are a classic example. The really sad part is when that defeated person attempts to use the victors argument against him. Pathetic actually.
Click to expand...

And yet...I see no ability to refute a single thing I've written. All of which I have written in direct response to you in the past...also unrefuted.

This was a good example of your misuse of...or misunderstanding of....the word manipulation. It applies to your intent just as I've written...other people understood that.

You havent 'won' your point yet on the 'opt out' idea. It's not equal and it's not a civil right. There's been no legal foundation provided for either.
 
Lursa said:
And yet...I see no ability to refute a single thing I've written. All of which I have written in direct response to you in the past...also unrefuted.

This was a good example of your misuse of...or misunderstanding of....the word manipulation. It applies to your intent just as I've written...other people understood that.

You havent 'won' your point yet on the 'opt out' idea. It's not equal and it's not a civil right. There's been no legal foundation provided for either.
Click to expand...

This is strange abortion topic. But what’s really strange is that it’s been highjacked by Opt Out proponents.
 
Removable Mind said:
This is strange abortion topic. But what’s really strange is that it’s been highjacked by Opt Out proponents.
Click to expand...

IMO Everything related to Child Support and 'opting out,' etc belongs in Law and Order...it's all about "proposing a new civil right" and changing family court laws.

And Bod has clearly stated it's NOT about abortion or biology.

It would also get more and/or different posters there...more exposure to different views.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
IMO Everything related to Child Support and 'opting out,' etc belongs in Law and Order...it's all about "proposing a new civil right" and changing family court laws.

And Bod has clearly stated it's NOT about abortion or biology.

It would also get more and/or different posters there...more exposure to different views.
Click to expand...

I agree 100000000%. :thumbs:
 
Lursa said:
IMO Everything related to Child Support and 'opting out,' etc belongs in Law and Order...it's all about "proposing a new civil right" and changing family court laws.

And Bod has clearly stated it's NOT about abortion or biology.

It would also get more and/or different posters there...more exposure to different views.
Click to expand...
I would love a men’s rights subforum - it would help with the highjackings
 
AustralianuS said:
I am not talking about "freedom of speech", I am talking more about people and groups being punished for opposing abortion. Should people be denied a position or government funding because they oppose abortion? Is opposing abortion as "bad" as being a white supremacist.

I will give some recent examples:

Proposed new Secretary of State (apparently) opposes abortion and several senators think that should disqualify him from being Secretary of State: Senator Jeanne Shaheen



Kamala Harris and other Dems have expressed similar concerns.

Controversial Writer Kevin Williamson was fired by the Atlantic for making anti-abortion comments. Kevin has many issues though it was not until he made these anti-abortion comments that he was fired: Kevin Williamson Explains What Happened at the Atlantic

In Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau (or his puppet masters) requires every group who gets funding for a summer jobs program sign an attestation which says they support abortion: Editorial | The Trudeau government is over-reaching on abortion and summer jobs


I myself support abortion, though I realize it is a complex issue. I do not think people should be punished for opposing it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The thing that might have justified their opposition in their view might be whatever influence or jurisdiction the DOS has on family planning programs
 
AustralianuS said:
I am not talking about "freedom of speech", I am talking more about people and groups being punished for opposing abortion. Should people be denied a position or government funding because they oppose abortion? Is opposing abortion as "bad" as being a white supremacist.

I will give some recent examples:

Proposed new Secretary of State (apparently) opposes abortion and several senators think that should disqualify him from being Secretary of State: Senator Jeanne Shaheen



Kamala Harris and other Dems have expressed similar concerns.

Controversial Writer Kevin Williamson was fired by the Atlantic for making anti-abortion comments. Kevin has many issues though it was not until he made these anti-abortion comments that he was fired: Kevin Williamson Explains What Happened at the Atlantic

In Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau (or his puppet masters) requires every group who gets funding for a summer jobs program sign an attestation which says they support abortion: Editorial | The Trudeau government is over-reaching on abortion and summer jobs


I myself support abortion, though I realize it is a complex issue. I do not think people should be punished for opposing it.
Click to expand...

It all depends on how they oppose it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom