• 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!

We Know the Cure for Poverty: The Empowerment of Women

Rickeroo said:
Are you saying that I wasn't unborn during those 9 months because the US government didn't consider me a person yet? The government has no say in what a biological constant is. The government can certainly declare me worthless and disposable, as governments have done to various demographics in the past, but they can not change the fact that I was me since conception. Aborting me at 2 months gestation would have destroyed "me". Or am I not me because I was too young to realize I was me, or I wasn't me because I depended on a womb to sustain "me"?
Click to expand...

If you read the US Code I posted, nowhere did it deny there are unborn...it just clarifies exactly when the govt legally recognizes the unborn as persons.

If I've cleared that up for you now, you can take your rant somewhere else. Your response is barely comprehensible. I'm here to debate an issue.
 
minnie616 said:

The point is ...why do seem to fantasize so much about the unborn?

I value the unborn but they are only maybes and are aware.
I value the born more , they are aware, they are already a part of society.
They have friends, and family and loved ones who know they exist.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Really run off the rails here.

Very emotionally driven.

But I'm thinking it's because he really has not made any progress with his arguments.

I really like the red, btw...but you meant 'unaware' there, right?
 
Obscurity said:
Wrong. I can consent to smoking, and not consent to getting cancer. Your logic is stupid. I consent to driving, not to an accident. I accept the risk of those things but retain the authority to not consent to them happening.

A libertarian cannot be against abortion, fyi. It is illogical and counter to your ideology.
Click to expand...

This is the most ridicules post I have ever read! It is not an "accident" if you smoke and get cancer. Good grief!!
 
Jay59 said:
Tolerated is the correct word. No none applauds it.


You are being ridiculous. Again, no one considers it a good thing. At best it is neutral
Click to expand...

No one likes abortion that I'm aware of.

That doesnt make it a vice. We have to make alot of tough decisions in life, that doesnt make them wrong. Divorce is one of the most stressful of those, yet people make that decision in the belief of a better future for themselves and their families.

Divorce is not a vice...and neither is abortion.

And it seems you concede that there are no negative effects of abortion on society.
 
Scorps2000 said:
This is the most ridicules post I have ever read! It is not an "accident" if you smoke and get cancer. Good grief!!
Click to expand...

What's ridiculous is insisting people are consenting to getting cancer by having a cigarette.
 
jonny5 said:
Hell yes they do. Cancer is a likely consequence of smoking. If you smoke, youre choosing to to accept that risk. That doesnt mean you can try to get rid of cancer, but it also doesnt absolve your moral responsibility in engaging in a behavior which led to your condition. Which is the implication in your OP, that women who cant have an abortion have no power.
Click to expand...

True, and a woman knows that if she gets pregnant, she cannot escape consequences.

There are only 4 scenarios:

--she has a kid
--she miscarries
--she has an abortion
--she dies during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die during the first 3 too. If people dont like the fact that they cant choose which consequence she deals with...that's too bad.

And abortion can be a very moral, responsible decision. There are no negative effects of abortion on society.
 
Lursa said:
Agreed. Really run off the rails here.

Very emotionally driven.

But I'm thinking it's because he really has not made any progress with his arguments.

I really like the red, btw...but you meant 'unaware' there, right?
Click to expand...

Oops

I did mean unaware, my mistake. My dyslexia is showing again.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
 
minnie616 said:
Oops

I did mean unaware, my mistake. My dyslexia is showing again.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
Click to expand...

I just wanted people to understand and appreciate it like I did.
 
americanwoman said:
Abortion does not let women become godless murdering whores.

Statistics show men are much much more likely to be godless murdering whores. What kind of restrictions should we then pass so men are not let to be the godless murdering whores they are? If you are so concerned about people (or just women?) being let to become godless murdering whores and all.
Click to expand...

Since Roe v Wade American society has made killing your offspring legal and socially OK. Men and women didn't have to toss their morals in the garbage but, many have... resulting in the deaths of millions of potentially valuable and productive citizens.
 
Lursa said:
And abortion can be a very moral, responsible decision. There are no negative effects of abortion on society.
Click to expand...

1) Tell me how abortion can be a very moral, responsible decision. (Im interested in your usage of the world moral, doesn't that imply that there is a God?)

2) Are you sure there are no negative effects from abortion? (Relative to society) For example, couldn't a women have regret over ending the life of her unborn baby? Couldn't this regret spiral into depression, guilt and shame? Couldn't this scenario have an effect on society as a while?

EDIT: Your signature takes up half the page. You might consider shortening it up.
 
WCH said:
Since Roe v Wade American society has made killing your offspring legal and socially OK. Men and women didn't have to toss their morals in the garbage but, many have... resulting in the deaths of millions of potentially valuable and productive citizens.
Click to expand...

Yes think about that! R v W has made KILLING YOUR OFFSPRING LEGAL. Eugenics seems okay when you lack a moral compass. This goes without saying for most of the left.

You do admit, abortion proponents, that by its very nature abortion must involve the killing of a fetus, right?
 
Iron_Merc said:
Yes think about that! R v W has made KILLING YOUR OFFSPRING LEGAL. Eugenics seems okay when you lack a moral compass. This goes without saying for most of the left.

You do admit, abortion proponents, that by its very nature abortion must involve the killing of a fetus, right?
Click to expand...

They've expanded into third trimester [and later] killing. Always looking for a new reasoning.
 
Lursa said:
No one likes abortion that I'm aware of.
Click to expand...
Meh.

That doesnt make it a vice. We have to make alot of tough decisions in life, that doesnt make them wrong. Divorce is one of the most stressful of those, yet people make that decision in the belief of a better future for themselves and their families. Divorce is not a vice...and neither is abortion. And it seems you concede that there are no negative effects of abortion on society.
Click to expand...
Divorce is a vice. Specifically, it is the breaking of an oath. These are quibbles. Neither divorce nor abortion are good things. If you do not choose call them vices, sobeit. The point is that at best they are tolerated not encouraged. Therapists would say harsher things about both.
 
Jay59 said:
Meh.


Divorce is a vice. Specifically, it is the breaking of an oath. These are quibbles. Neither divorce nor abortion are good things. If you do not choose call them vices, sobeit. The point is that at best they are tolerated not encouraged. Therapists would say harsher things about both.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion. And not all marriages are religiously based. If you believe that decisions made in the best interests of a family's future are 'vices,' there's something wrong with you, not those that choose a better life. Marriages can be abusive, harmful, and lead to the same for children and enable a cycle of similar behavior.

Therapists would never agree that people should stay in negative, abusive, coercive, etc etc marriages. I no longer even remotely believe your wife is some kind of sociology professional at all.

Divorce is frequently provably good for those that undertake it, as well as abortion for the women that choose it. You are not even making coherent arguments, you are only voicing highly repressive and unfounded personal opinion.

And 'meh' is no argument either so I'll accept it that you concede that most people do not 'like' abortion.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
If you read the US Code I posted, nowhere did it deny there are unborn...it just clarifies exactly when the govt legally recognizes the unborn as persons.

If I've cleared that up for you now, you can take your rant somewhere else. Your response is barely comprehensible. I'm here to debate an issue.
Click to expand...

Indeed, US Code (a government entity) gets to decide who is trash and who isn't. My position is that just because "they" say I'm trash doesn't make me trash.
 
Rickeroo said:
Indeed, US Code (a government entity) gets to decide who is trash and who isn't. My position is that just because "they" say I'm trash doesn't make me trash.
Click to expand...

LMAO, if you believe anyone that tells you that, that's your own self-esteem issue.

To believe that the unborn have any capacity to do so is insane.

And to believe that laws protecting women mean that the govt and the American people consider the unborn as trash, well that's just you just projecting your own view. And failing to actually make your arguments in this thread.

Valuing women more than the unborn does not mean the unborn are trash...it just means they are not yet equal.
 
Iron_Merc said:
1) Tell me how abortion can be a very moral, responsible decision. (Im interested in your usage of the world moral, doesn't that imply that there is a God?)

2) Are you sure there are no negative effects from abortion? (Relative to society) For example, couldn't a women have regret over ending the life of her unborn baby? Couldn't this regret spiral into depression, guilt and shame? Couldn't this scenario have an effect on society as a while?

EDIT: Your signature takes up half the page. You might consider shortening it up.
Click to expand...

I've covered all this before. I gave you a list. Acting responsibly IS acting in a moral manner. The opposite would be for society to use govt force to make women remain pregnant against our will...which is completely immoral.

And I cant prove there something that doesnt exist. Since my claim is there are no negative effects on society from abortion...you have to provide them and prove me wrong. I said *society* not individual women. I wrote that every single time. If you want to dispute it...prove it.

And I read your comments on my signature the first time you wrote them. Reduce your screen resolution.
 
WCH said:
Since Roe v Wade American society has made killing your offspring legal and socially OK. Men and women didn't have to toss their morals in the garbage but, many have... resulting in the deaths of millions of potentially valuable and productive citizens.
Click to expand...

The reason for making abortion legal in the first place was to save lives and allow the government to regulate it. To make it illegal now would be to criminalize an entire class of innocent people and overwhelm an already overburdened justice system.

Today, abortion is at it's lowest point in history and yet, you want to roll it back to the days of back alleys and coat hanger abortions? Why? Why are your abstract "feelings" about fetuses more important than a woman's right to choose what's right for her and her family...as well as control over her own body and to privacy and free will?

Btw...the government doesn't grant rights...it protects them. Which means that the right to abortion will still exist whether the government protects it or not. It's just going to be a lot more bloody and deadly than it needs to be, if they don't.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
That is your opinion. And not all marriages are religiously based. If you believe that decisions made in the best interests of a family's future are 'vices,' there's something wrong with you, not those that choose a better life. Marriages can be abusive, harmful, and lead to the same for children and enable a cycle of similar behavior.

Therapists would never agree that people should stay in negative, abusive, coercive, etc etc marriages. I no longer even remotely believe your wife is some kind of sociology professional at all.

Divorce is frequently provably good for those that undertake it, as well as abortion for the women that choose it. You are not even making coherent arguments, you are only voicing highly repressive and unfounded personal opinion.

And 'meh' is no argument either so I'll accept it that you concede that most people do not 'like' abortion.
Click to expand...
What has religion to do with any of this?
 
Moot said:
The reason for making abortion legal in the first place was to save lives and allow the government to regulate it. To make it illegal now would be to criminalize an entire class of innocent people and overwhelm an already overburdened justice system.

Today, abortion is at it's lowest point in history and yet, you want to roll it back to the days of back alleys and coat hanger abortions? Why? Why are your abstract "feelings" about fetuses more important than a woman's right to choose what's right for her and her family...as well as control over her own body and to privacy and free will?

Btw...the government doesn't grant rights...it protects them. Which means that the right to abortion will still exist whether the government protects it or not. It's just going to be a lot more bloody and deadly than it needs to be, if they don't.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about Blacks, it's been near genocide for them.

Regardless I stand by my statement.

Why Roe v. Wade is a travesty of constitutional law
 
Last edited:
Jay59 said:
What has religion to do with any of this?
Click to expand...

Your reference to an oath, it seemed implied. Marriage is a legal contract in America, as is divorce. Both can be ended by consent.

And I see you really just avoided the rest of my response. Once again, I'll just believe that you really cannot refute it.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Valuing women more than the unborn does not mean the unborn are trash...it just means they are not yet equal.
Click to expand...

If we value a woman's 'feelings' over the unborn's life, then the unborn is trash; disposable on a whim. The law upholds this sentiment.
 
Rickeroo said:
If we value a woman's 'feelings' over the unborn's life, then the unborn is trash; disposable on a whim. The law upholds this sentiment.
Click to expand...

"If we value your feelings over women's lives, then we consider women trash. "

How does that sound? :roll:


That's still just your personal opinion. Unfounded. And the implication that the 'law' agrees is ludicrous as well.

Nowhere in the lists of reasons why women get abortions do women claim 'on a whim.' That you devalue the entirety of women's' lives enough to consider their decisions as whimsical is a reflection of your grave disrespect for women.

Do you have anything besides your unsupported opinion to offer or are you done with the discussion?
 
Rickeroo said:
If we value a woman's 'feelings' over the unborn's life, then the unborn is trash; disposable on a whim. The law upholds this sentiment.
Click to expand...

You put "" around the word feelings, as if you "felt" the mother's opinion counted for nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom