• 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!

2246 preserved fetal remains found in abortionist's garage

Rickeroo said:
Of course it applies to women and their bodies. Not other's bodies though, so the 1973 decision, much like 1845 slave legality, is an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Who says? What authority? You? Sorry, even the current justices arent planning on overturning it.

Constitution aside though, abortion is a humanistic issue that transcends cultures and governments. Remember that poor retard that didn't want her kind to be aborted because of the new German retard test? Imagine the hubris of that retard - putting her desires above that of a Normal woman that doesn't want to be bothered by a retarded child.

I think the attitude towards abortion is reflective of society - life is a burden and doesn't mean much. Even after we abort left and right and have 'tons of free time' with less kids, we put the kids that do make it into day care centers to be raised by third parties as man and wife serve their corporate masters.

I think I'm coming from a different place, which is why I can't be on board.
Click to expand...

So, your opinion. That's fine. But you of course, have no right to force that opinion on women that dont believe the same way and you have not substantiated in any way why it should.

SCOTUS has decided that the Constitution applies only to persons. It has specifically ruled that the unborn are not persons. So of course, laws based on that Constitution should not allow violating women's rights...we are persons, remember? So even tho you said 'yes,' you really mean no, the Constitution should not apply to women...if you believe that the unborn should have rights that supersede ours.

And we have that Constitution to protect people so that when there are other people 'not on board' and would see our rights violated...they cant do so.
 
Lursa said:
Who says? What authority? You? Sorry, even the current justices arent planning on overturning it.



So, your opinion. That's fine. But you of course, have no right to force that opinion on women that dont believe the same way and you have not substantiated in any way why it should.

SCOTUS has decided that the Constitution applies only to persons. It has specifically ruled that the unborn are not persons. So of course, laws based on that Constitution should not allow violating women's rights...we are persons, remember? So even tho you said 'yes,' you really mean no, the Constitution should not apply to women...if you believe that the unborn should have rights that supersede ours.

And we have that Constitution to protect people so that when there are other people 'not on board' and would see our rights violated...they cant do so.
Click to expand...

I can not accept that I was not myself during the 9 months my mother was pregnant with me, or that I became myself at the point of viability as the SC seems to say in 1973. Perhaps I was granted rights by the government at various points (viability, 18, 21, 65 for social security, etc) but from conception to death I am a single entity, never to occur in the future again, and never having occurred in the past. Viability is an arbitrary point selected by government.



I can certainly understand that governments will
 
Rickeroo said:
I can not accept that I was not myself during the 9 months my mother was pregnant with me, or that I became myself at the point of viability as the SC seems to say in 1973. Perhaps I was granted rights by the government at various points (viability, 18, 21, 65 for social security, etc) but from conception to death I am a single entity, never to occur in the future again, and never having occurred in the past. Viability is an arbitrary point selected by government.

I can certainly understand that governments will
Click to expand...

We've been over this. It doesnt matter what you would have wanted or 'who you believed you were'...and I've provided the support of my opinion more than once that you cannot and certainly are not entitled to (nor the govt) to assume the same for others.
 
Lursa said:
Who says it's used for birth control? And what makes you think that the woman deciding to have the abortion doesnt have a crisis? Because of how you would judge her circumstances and her life? If that was someone's attitude, it's very unAmerican.

And there are/were not 60 million parents waiting to adopt them. That's just plain BS. There are over 100,000 children waiting to be adopted now...today, in the US. Where is the line to adopt them?
Click to expand...

You have no clue what is American and un-American. And, to deny abortion isn't used for birth control is idiotic. Most abortions are for the purpose of selfish sexual desires. 99% of them are for the ending of a life for the purpose of personal prideful convenience. And, yes. They would have been adopted.
 
minnie616 said:
No babies were killed.

Abortions have been taking place since early Greek days.
In fact in the early 1930s there were an estimated 800,000 abortions performed by doctors in the United States each year.
Click to expand...

Ah...the old it's okay because "everyone is doing it" crap. Yes, they are babies. And, just because another civilization or society approves of abortion doesn't make it right. It's really ironic how liberal Democrats want to take away guns to stop killing but are blood thirsty about killing babies. Big tough people...NOT!
 
Obscurity said:
Catholic Traditions also seem to include molestation and rape of children.

Why should I give a **** what they do?
Click to expand...

Because you are a human being. Oh, I forgot. You are a Democrat. That explains everything!
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Yeah, there’s no way that 9 highly intelligent and educated people could’ve possibly envisioned that women would exercise their Constitutional (and I’d say natural) right to choose what happens with their own bodies. :roll:
Click to expand...

Show me in the Constitution bill of rights that a woman has the right to choose abortion or what they do to their own bodies? This is why the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade and give it back to the States because abortion is not in the Constitution. And, the baby also has rights. The courts have also concluded that if a liberal kills a mother with child, they can be charged with 2 murders. So, what about the babies rights then? Should go back to each state.
 
Cougarbear said:
Show me in the Constitution bill of rights that a woman has the right to choose abortion or what they do to their own bodies? This is why the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade and give it back to the States because abortion is not in the Constitution. And, the baby also has rights. The courts have also concluded that if a liberal kills a mother with child, they can be charged with 2 murders. So, what about the babies rights then? Should go back to each state.
Click to expand...
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that continues to divide the nation to this day. In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
On this day, the Roe v. Wade decision - National Constitution Center

You don’t have to like it. You don’t even have to agree with it, but unless you are a Constitutional scholar you have no just argument against it.

There are many states that have laws against “fetal homicide”. That however, is something entirely different than a woman exercising her Constitutionally guaranteed right to control what happens with her body.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that continues to divide the nation to this day. In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
On this day, the Roe v. Wade decision - National Constitution Center

You don’t have to like it. You don’t even have to agree with it, but unless you are a Constitutional scholar you have no just argument against it.

There are many states that have laws against “fetal homicide”. That however, is something entirely different than a woman exercising her Constitutionally guaranteed right to control what happens with her body.
Click to expand...

Oh, and you are a Constitutional scholar? :2rofll: None of the bill of rights deals with abortions or a woman's rights to choose an abortion. Show me oh scholarly wizard where that is in the bill of rights? Anything not in the bill of rights or any other part of the Constitution falls in the jurisdiction of states rights. The Supreme Court is political and always has been. Do you think the justices providing backing of slavery were scholarly and correct?
 
Josie said:
You have no idea if he did or didn't do anything illegal.
You have no idea if all of the abortions he was part of were legal.
You have no idea if preserved fetal tissue legally or illegally.

That's why there's an ongoing investigation.

Do you think the investigation is silly? Unwarranted? Justified? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Abortions are legal.
There are no laws against preserving the remains of an abortion


Yes I think it's silly to cluck and shudder and act appalled over nothing. Save your energy for something that matters like all the kids separated from their parents, behind the bars of Trump's for profit incarceration centers and with limited basic services. How come there isn't any tsk-tsking over that? Oh, right Trump did it so its gotta be all good.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that continues to divide the nation to this day. In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
On this day, the Roe v. Wade decision - National Constitution Center

You don’t have to like it. You don’t even have to agree with it, but unless you are a Constitutional scholar you have no just argument against it.

There are many states that have laws against “fetal homicide”. That however, is something entirely different than a woman exercising her Constitutionally guaranteed right to control what happens with her body.
Click to expand...

No, no difference. The states with those laws have sane logical and reasonable human beings running the states.
 
weaver2 said:
Abortions are legal.
There are no laws against preserving the remains of an abortion


Yes I think it's silly to cluck and shudder and act appalled over nothing. Save your energy for something that matters like all the kids separated from their parents, behind the bars of Trump's for profit incarceration centers and with limited basic services. How come there isn't any tsk-tsking over that? Oh, right Trump did it so its gotta be all good.
Click to expand...

There is tsk-tsking by the liberal media, the arm of the Democrat Party over lawbreakers in jail. But, that's been going on since the Obama administration and Obama who constructed the incarceration centers with the cells and cement floors and put children in them.
It's illegal to cross the boarder into the U.S. without permission. There are laws preventing it. So, why do you approve of unlawful entry into the U.S.? Because it's the law to not allow illegal crossings, why are Democrats so upset and trying to open the boarders?
The 2nd Amendment of the bill of rights grants the rights of all Americans the right to keep and bear arms (guns). Why should we then ban any type of guns? It's Constitutional to own guns so why the attack on gun ownership? And act appalled over nothing. Save your energy for things that really matter instead of those things that 0.5% of guns are used in mass shootings.
 
weaver2 said:
Abortions are legal.
Click to expand...

Not all abortions are legal.

There are no laws against preserving the remains of an abortion
Click to expand...

There are laws against illegal abortions. Obviously.

Yes I think it's silly to cluck and shudder and act appalled over nothing.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. Pretty sad.

The rest of your post was irrelevant to the topic.
 
Cougarbear said:
Oh, and you are a Constitutional scholar? :2rofll: None of the bill of rights deals with abortions or a woman's rights to choose an abortion. Show me oh scholarly wizard where that is in the bill of rights? Anything not in the bill of rights or any other part of the Constitution falls in the jurisdiction of states rights. The Supreme Court is political and always has been. Do you think the justices providing backing of slavery were scholarly and correct?
Click to expand...



Only an idiot thinks the Constitution has to list every single right by name otherwise it is prohibited or up to the states to decide. I have the right to make wine in my basement but that isn't covered anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say how much wine so my Constitutional rights are being trampled upon by the ATF people. The Constitution says you can bear arms. But that doesn't mean any and every weapon available. Try bearing a Bazooka and see what happens.

Women can get abortions. States can't overturn that SC decision. Deal with it.
 
Josie said:
Not all abortions are legal.

There are laws against illegal abortions.
Click to expand...

So what are you going to do if, after a thorough investigation and a sufficient amount clucking you find illegal abortions were performed? Dig up Mr Klopher and send him to jail?:lamo
 
This abortion doctor knew a 10 year old had been raped by a relative and didn't report it to the police. Gross.
 
weaver2 said:
So what are you going to do if, after a thorough investigation and a sufficient amount clucking you find illegal abortions were performed? Dig up Mr Klopher and send him to jail?:lamo
Click to expand...

What would you do? I can probably guess so don't bother to respond.

I don't like speaking to people like you who speak so flippantly about something so serious. Ta ta.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
You just keep running in circles. Face it, you have no cogent argument. What you’re doing is arguing based on your beliefs and feelings, not facts.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. When did you become a human?
 
Fletch said:
Nonsense. When did you become a human?
Click to expand...

The moment he popped his lil head out of his mama --- ta da! --- magically turned into a human! ;)
 
Cougarbear said:
Oh, and you are a Constitutional scholar? :2rofll: None of the bill of rights deals with abortions or a woman's rights to choose an abortion. Show me oh scholarly wizard where that is in the bill of rights? Anything not in the bill of rights or any other part of the Constitution falls in the jurisdiction of states rights. The Supreme Court is political and always has been. Do you think the justices providing backing of slavery were scholarly and correct?
Click to expand...
You’re the one arguing that SCOTUS got it wrong. It’s up to you prove them wrong. And your argument that because the Constitution doesn’t specifically say anything about abortion makes it a state’s rights issue is crap. SCOTUS’ duty is to interpret the Constitution, and they said that banning abortions is a violation of the Constitution, so again, deal with it.
 
Cougarbear said:
No, no difference. The states with those laws have sane logical and reasonable human beings running the states.
Click to expand...
You can say no no no no no no no until you’re blue in the face, but that don’t change a thing.
 
Fletch said:
Nonsense. When did you become a human?
Click to expand...
Same as you, at birth.

The reason you can’t find any dictionary that includes fetuses in their definition of human is because there aren’t any because fetuses are not humans.
 
Cougarbear said:
You have no clue what is American and un-American. And, to deny abortion isn't used for birth control is idiotic. Most abortions are for the purpose of selfish sexual desires. 99% of them are for the ending of a life for the purpose of personal prideful convenience. And, yes. They would have been adopted.
Click to expand...

Feel free to prove your claims with links. % women using abortion for bc, % using abortion because of 'selfish desires/pride/convenience.'

And since there are factually over 100,000 kids waiting to be adopted now...my claim is not specualtion, it's fact. Yours is wishful and wrong thinking.
 
Cougarbear said:
Show me in the Constitution bill of rights that a woman has the right to choose abortion or what they do to their own bodies?
Click to expand...

Show me in the Constitution where women have the right to have children?

The 9th and 10th amendments deal with rights which are not enumerated (named, in case you need the translation), in the Const.

But there are amendments that do protect our right to have an abortion:

Constitutionally, women's rights to bodily sovereignty, self-determination, due process, privacy (reproductive/familial/medical), etc. are all protected.​
 
At the end of the day, threads like this give everyone the opportunity to play spot the Fundy.



Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom