• 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!

Question For Pro Lifers

The constitutional right to free speech comes with limitations. You can't give false testimony, shout fire in a crowded theatre, or call for violence.

Your right to live comes with limitations too. If you start to become a major threat to society or harm others, your life will be ended.

Your right to bear arms comes with limitations too. As soon as other people are in reasonable danger you can and will be forced to give up your guns in some places.

Like I said, every right we have comes with limitations. Nothing is unconditional. A right needs to be earned by taking on the responsibility of using it correctly. In the same way, women can choose what happens to their body, but once another life is being detrimented that right is restricted just like every other. Your rights end where someone's else's begin.

And removing a kidney is not akin to ending a human life. Frankly, if the government introduced legislations to force healthy and able people into giving blood or donating organs the outrage would be marginal. As long as you could forego it if there was a reasonable risk or you had a serious fear of needles I'm sure most people wouldn't mind being coerced into saving a life. Those that would be complaining most would likely be women again. The most over entitled group in history.
 
Last edited:
Crusader13 said:
The constitutional right to free speech comes with limitations. You can't give false testimony, shout fire in a crowded theatre, or call for violence.

Your right to live comes with limitations too. If you start to become a major threat to society or harm others, your life will be ended.

Your right to bear arms comes with limitations too. As soon as other people are in reasonable danger you can and will be forced to give up your guns in some places.

Like I said, every right we have comes with limitations. Nothing is unconditional. A right needs to be earned by taking on the responsibility of using it correctly. In the same way, women can choose what happens to their body, but once another life is being detrimented that right is restricted just like every other. Your rights end where someone's else's begin.

And removing a kidney is not akin to ending a human life. Frankly, if the government introduced legislations to force healthy and able people into giving blood or donating organs the outrage would be marginal. As long as you could forego it if there was a reasonable risk or you had a serious fear of needles I'm sure most people wouldn't mind being coerced into saving a life. Those that would be complaining most would likely be women again. The most over entitled group in history.
Click to expand...

False. An unborn is using the woman’s life’s resourses.
It is inside the woman and attached to her.
If she does not want to share her body with the unborn she may choose an abortion since she has a right to personal autonomy and due process.

The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.
Click to expand...

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws
 
Last edited:
Crusader13 said:
The constitutional right to free speech comes with limitations. You can't give false testimony, shout fire in a crowded theatre, or call for violence.

Your right to live comes with limitations too. If you start to become a major threat to society or harm others, your life will be ended.

Your right to bear arms comes with limitations too. As soon as other people are in reasonable danger you can and will be forced to give up your guns in some places.

Like I said, every right we have comes with limitations. Nothing is unconditional. A right needs to be earned by taking on the responsibility of using it correctly. In the same way, women can choose what happens to their body, but once another life is being detrimented that right is restricted just like every other. Your rights end where someone's else's begin.

And removing a kidney is not akin to ending a human life. Frankly, if the government introduced legislations to force healthy and able people into giving blood or donating organs the outrage would be marginal. As long as you could forego it if there was a reasonable risk or you had a serious fear of needles I'm sure most people wouldn't mind being coerced into saving a life. Those that would be complaining most would likely be women again. The most over entitled group in history.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no idea what a right is or how rights work.

There is no such thing as a right to life. You have at worst an ability to survive or at best a will to live. But no government and no god guarantees a right to life.

And again you fail to understand the argument given. Removing a kidney is not akin to ending a life. Refusing to donate a kidney while knowing that the receiver will die if they do not get a kidney is akin to ending a human life.

Your reply carries no worth as it is mere conjecture based more on a desire to appear right than being actually factual. The point is that the law stands that you have the right to choose what happens to your body while arguing women do not. Yet i see no real effort on the pro life to campaign for the government to force blood or kidney donations. Just an effort to control women.
 
Gage said:
I'm rather pro life, and the only time I am okay with abortion is if the mother is guaranteed to die if she goes through the birthing process. Other than that, I feel like it should be illegal.
Click to expand...

How convenient that you will never, ever be pregnant.....
 
Crusader13 said:
The constitutional right to free speech comes with limitations. You can't give false testimony, shout fire in a crowded theatre, or call for violence.

Your right to live comes with limitations too. If you start to become a major threat to society or harm others, your life will be ended.

Your right to bear arms comes with limitations too. As soon as other people are in reasonable danger you can and will be forced to give up your guns in some places.

Like I said, every right we have comes with limitations. Nothing is unconditional. A right needs to be earned by taking on the responsibility of using it correctly. In the same way, women can choose what happens to their body, but once another life is being detrimented that right is restricted just like every other. Your rights end where someone's else's begin.

And removing a kidney is not akin to ending a human life. Frankly, if the government introduced legislations to force healthy and able people into giving blood or donating organs the outrage would be marginal. As long as you could forego it if there was a reasonable risk or you had a serious fear of needles I'm sure most people wouldn't mind being coerced into saving a life. Those that would be complaining most would likely be women again. The most over entitled group in history.
Click to expand...

I would scream at the top of my lungs if my govt ever forced anyone to donate an organ. I bet you would, too, if your govt. did. Good grief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom