• 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!

[W:155] Can someone support women’s rights and oppose abortion?

Crusader13 said:
Great, like I said we've found common ground. Unfortunately, the majority of those who support abortion and use the legalisation logic don't share your views. They'll gladly believe that legalising abortion will control the issue yet are firmly against ... other things that don't fit their agenda.

Case in point - constant efforts to force religious organisations to cater events that go against their beliefs, ...
Click to expand...


Churches are not being forced to cater events that go against beliefs.

If a business is open to the public then they cannot discriminate against people of other beliefs, lifestyles, sex , color etc.

Case in point an apartment owner cannot say whites only, or Christians only, or Muslims only , or no gays can apply.
 
Scorps2000 said:
"I am not on the left. Drugs should be legal. Murder harms nonconsenting human beings. Abortion does not".

I disagree totally, I was "harmed" when my girlfriend had an abortion. That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've read on this forum!
Click to expand...

No, this is one of the most idiotic and ridiculous statements I've read on this or any other forum:
I disagree totally, I was "harmed" when my girlfriend had an abortion.
Click to expand...

You had absolutely no standing in that decision. The idea that you'd think you'd have some kind of right in her decision to terminate that pregnancy tells us two things: what a vaunted and bizarre notion you have of your importance and how smart she was to leave you out of it. I hope she also had the good sense to dump you immediately after you suggested that you had some kind of right over her reproductive decision.
 
Scorps2000 said:
"I am not on the left. Drugs should be legal. Murder harms nonconsenting human beings. Abortion does not".

I disagree totally, I was "harmed" when my girlfriend had an abortion. That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've read on this forum!
Click to expand...

Were you using birth control when the unborn was conceived? Were you planning on having a child?
 
minnie616 said:
Churches are not being forced to cater events that go against beliefs.

If a business is open to the public then they cannot discriminate against people of other beliefs, lifestyles, sex , color etc.

Case in point an apartment owner cannot say whites only, or Christians only, or Muslims only , or no gays can apply.
Click to expand...

No, but the apartment owner can say no bachelor parties, no loud gatherings, no mass orgies, no Nazi meetings, no pet gatherings etc. In other words, the apartment owner can discriminate based on events he doesn't approve of. Therefore he can also say no gay weddings. While he must serve the gay couple as he would anyone else (which all institutions in such cases have done), he is free to set restrictions on how they use his service, just like YouTube and Facebook are notorious for doing.
 
Crusader13 said:
No, but the apartment owner can say no bachelor parties, no loud gatherings, no mass orgies, no Nazi meetings, no pet gatherings etc. In other words, the apartment owner can discriminate based on events he doesn't approve of. Therefore he can also say no gay weddings. While he must serve the gay couple as he would anyone else (which all institutions in such cases have done), he is free to set restrictions on how they use his service, just like YouTube and Facebook are notorious for doing.
Click to expand...

He could not say discriminate against gay weddings, or Nazi meetings...he can only limit the events to a small quiet gathering.

He cannot discriminate on events he does not approve of.
 
minnie616 said:
He could not say discriminate against gay weddings, or Nazi meetings...he can only limit the events to a small quiet gathering.

He cannot discriminate on events he does not approve of.
Click to expand...

So why should YouTube or Facebook be allowed to discriminate based on content they don't like? Do you see the double standard now?
 
Crusader13 said:
So why should YouTube or Facebook be allowed to discriminate based on content they don't like? Do you see the double standard now?
Click to expand...

No, I don’t since Facebook and YouTube should be regulated by the FFC ( they are not a public business ) for content just like radio stations.
 
Crusader13 said:
So why should YouTube or Facebook be allowed to discriminate based on content they don't like? Do you see the double standard now?
Click to expand...

minnie616 said:
No, I don’t since Facebook and YouTube should be regulated by the FFC ( they are not a public business ) for content just like radio stations.
Click to expand...

I want to clarify my statement.

Social media has, in many ways, taken on the role of the public sphere, but the online social spaces standing in for the public sphere are private ones, owned by billionaires and shareholders. Nevertheless, we treat them as public spaces. Individuals are not paying for the services of social media, nor are Facebook or You Tube are NOT Providing goods or services to the public.

And yes I feel the government should control porn and other content on social media just as the FFC controls content on radio stations.
 
digitusmedius said:
No, this is one of the most idiotic and ridiculous statements I've read on this or any other forum:


You had absolutely no standing in that decision. The idea that you'd think you'd have some kind of right in her decision to terminate that pregnancy tells us two things: what a vaunted and bizarre notion you have of your importance and how smart she was to leave you out of it. I hope she also had the good sense to dump you immediately after you suggested that you had some kind of right over her reproductive decision.
Click to expand...

You are being ridiculous, I did not say "I had some kind of right in her decision" All I said was "I was harmed" Again, please do not put words in my mouth!
 
Lursa said:
Were you using birth control when the unborn was conceived? Were you planning on having a child?
Click to expand...

That is none of your business, and even if it was that shouldn't matter.
 
Scorps2000 said:
You are being ridiculous, I did not say "I had some kind of right in her decision" All I said was "I was harmed" Again, please do not put words in my mouth!
Click to expand...

Let me make it clearer, then: YOU WERE NOT HARMED IN ANY WAY SINCE YOU HAD NO STANDING IN HER DECISION TO NOT HAVE YOUR SPAWN.
 
Crusader13 said:
In other words, the apartment owner can discriminate based on events he doesn't approve of. Therefore he can also say no gay weddings. While he must serve the gay couple as he would anyone else (which all institutions in such cases have done), he is free to set restrictions on how they use his service, just like YouTube and Facebook are notorious for doing.
Click to expand...

Redefining words to suit your prejudices probably seemed like a clever idea but it really just reveals how empty your argument is. Furthermore, outright lying ("which all institutions in such cases have done") ices the **** cake of phony excuses, false-equivalencies, patently ridiculous sophistry and good-ole nasty bigotry you've been baking.
 
digitusmedius said:
Let me make it clearer, then: YOU WERE NOT HARMED IN ANY WAY SINCE YOU HAD NO STANDING IN HER DECISION TO NOT HAVE YOUR SPAWN.
Click to expand...

What kind of cold-hearted B**** are you? How can you say that? Even if I had no decision I could still be hurt (harmed), this is the exact kind of thing that gives all the “Pro-Choice” group a bad name!!
 
Scorps2000 said:
That is none of your business, and even if it was that shouldn't matter.
Click to expand...

OF course it does. If you were, you had no reasonable expectation of a child from the union.

And if you know the laws in this country regarding her decisions, and still chose to have sex and take that risk (that she might consider abortion) then you knowingly chose to take that risk and have that accountability. You cant accept it just in order to have sex and then object when she exercises a right that you know she has.

You may not like it...and I can understand that...but you were not harmed because you had no reasonable expectation to have a kid.
 
Lursa said:
OF course it does. If you were, you had no reasonable expectation of a child from the union.

And if you know the laws in this country regarding her decisions, and still chose to have sex and take that risk (that she might consider abortion) then you knowingly chose to take that risk and have that accountability. You cant accept it just in order to have sex and then object when she exercises a right that you know she has.

You may not like it...and I can understand that...but you were not harmed because you had no reasonable expectation to have a kid.
Click to expand...

Okay, I can agree with that. But I can also say, she should have a reasonable expectation of getting pregnant if having unprotected sex.
 
Scorps2000 said:
"I am not on the left. Drugs should be legal. Murder harms nonconsenting human beings. Abortion does not".

I disagree totally, I was "harmed" when my girlfriend had an abortion. That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've read on this forum!
Click to expand...

Did you ejaculate inside her without a condom? You knew when you did so that she had the choice to terminate any resulting pregnancy.
 
Scorps2000 said:
Okay, I can agree with that. But I can also say, she should have a reasonable expectation of getting pregnant if having unprotected sex.
Click to expand...

Yes, and she can terminate any resulting pregnancy if she so chooses.
 
Scorps2000 said:
Okay, I can agree with that. But I can also say, she should have a reasonable expectation of getting pregnant if having unprotected sex.
Click to expand...

Yes of course. But she also knows that she has options if she does get pregnant. She has her own consequences.
 
minnie616 said:
I want to clarify my statement.

Social media has, in many ways, taken on the role of the public sphere, but the online social spaces standing in for the public sphere are private ones, owned by billionaires and shareholders. Nevertheless, we treat them as public spaces. Individuals are not paying for the services of social media, nor are Facebook or You Tube are NOT Providing goods or services to the public.

And yes I feel the government should control porn and other content on social media just as the FFC controls content on radio stations.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you're going with that. Is that attempt to pretend YouTube and Facebook, private companies, shouldn't be held liable for what they do to make money because "public sphere!"?

And yes, the public does pay to use these platforms. There is no monetary exchange (although they do have premium services which you can pay for), but the free aspect is provided to the public in exchange for their personal data. This is the contract and agreement between a user and platform.
 
digitusmedius said:
Redefining words to suit your prejudices probably seemed like a clever idea but it really just reveals how empty your argument is. Furthermore, outright lying ("which all institutions in such cases have done") ices the **** cake of phony excuses, false-equivalencies, patently ridiculous sophistry and good-ole nasty bigotry you've been baking.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the Masterpiece cake shop case, the most notable of such incidents which set modern precedence. In that case, the bakery did indeed serve gay couples multiple times in the past. They even offered to provide them a plain cake which they could then design themselves for a wedding. What they refused to do, and which they are fully entitled to, is be forced into coerced speech by using their artistic talents to write support for an event their religion prohibits them from practicing.

In other words, they were happy to provide the product or service to anyone without discrimination, but just like YouTube and Facebook they have the right to control how their products and services are used and for what purpose. If you can't come up with a valid reason as to why Leftist social media platforms should be allowed to do this but evil white male Christian bakeries can't, its clear that you're a deluded hypocrite who doesn't take equal rights and liberty with any bit of seriousness.
 
Crusader13 said:
Case in point - constant efforts to force religious organisations to cater events that go against their beliefs, trying to make "hate speech" (which they can't even define) a thing, and trying to take away guns from law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

That's a whole different discussion and comes under different topic heading.
 
Scorps2000 said:
What kind of cold-hearted B**** are you? How can you say that? Even if I had no decision I could still be hurt (harmed), this is the exact kind of thing that gives all the “Pro-Choice” group a bad name!!
Click to expand...

You're pathetic...no, beyond pathetic. No wonder your "girl friend" wanted to abort. Obviously, you were of no help or support and no doubt didn't pay for the abortion. I hope she dumped your pathetic ass in the process.
 
In other words, they were happy to provide the product or service to anyone without discrimination,......
Click to expand...

.....as long as they could control the message or decoration on the cake, according to your false version of the story, right?

In fact, the couple never got past the point when the baker (who is a consummate fake-christian hypocrite who's ignorant of his own religion is also typical as I'll demonstrate next) told them he would not sell them any cake indicating they were two men getting married.

Here's a passage from the SCOTUS ruling that ruled in that ****head baker's favor:
Jack Phillips is an expert baker who has owned and operated the shop for 24 years. Phillips is a devout Christian. He has explained that his “main goal in life is to be obedient to” Jesus Christ and Christ’s “teachings in all aspects of his life.” And he seeks to “honor God through his work at Masterpiece Cakeshop.”
One of Phillips’ religious beliefs is that “God’s intention for mar- riage from the beginning of history is that it is and should be the union of one man and one woman.” Id., at 149. To Phillips, creating a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding would be equivalent to participating in a celebration that is contrary to his own most deeply held beliefs.
Click to expand...

If one believes the gospels reflect the words and teachings of Jesus Christ, Jack Phillips would seem to be completely ignorant or deliberately ignoring. There is nothing in those gospels that even mentions homosexuality much less instructs the followers of Jesus to discriminate (read: hate) them. In fact, those teachings were exactly the opposite of what Jack Phillips "obeys," which, in reality, are his own personal bigotry covered with a patina of sanctimonious pseudo-Christian prating--a trait common to rightwing fundamentalism god-botherers in general.

Leaving all that aside, Jack Phillips's bluff has been called more recently with this case:
Masterpiece Cakeshop Faces Yet Another Legal Fight over Cakes – Reason.com

In short, without stating so, a trans-gender woman ordered a cake with pink interior and blue frosting. No problem, says pious Jack. Then the woman mentioned that the cake held special importance as being symbolic of her gender change. Pious Jack then refused to make it. No message was to be on the cake. So, now his bigotry strayed even further from marriage to gender identity matters and even further from having to do with anything Jesus ever taught. No, good-ole Pious Jack seems to make up his bigotry, just as his religion, on the fly as needed. He's a nasty PoS, he is.
 
digitusmedius said:
If one believes the gospels reflect the words and teachings of Jesus Christ, Jack Phillips would seem to be completely ignorant or deliberately ignoring. There is nothing in those gospels that even mentions homosexuality much less instructs the followers of Jesus to discriminate (read: hate) them.

personal bigotry covered with a patina of sanctimonious pseudo-Christian prating--a trait common to rightwing fundamentalism god-botherers in general.
Click to expand...

"personal bigotry covered with a patina of sanctimonious pseudo-Christian prating--a trait common to rightwing fundamentalism god-botherers". :lamo I especially like the term 'god-botherers' !!!!

Unfortunately Jack Phillips is using the phrase from Mark 5:17"“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." And the Old Testament law does say homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Unlike most of the commandments even those outside of the Decalogue it doesn't carry the punishment of stoning to death. In fact it doesn't list any punishment for homosexuality, just that it is an abomination.

So when Jack Phillips refuses to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding and quotes the biblical reason for doing so, he is correct, even though Jesus never mentioned anything about homosexuality. There is speculation that the Essene sect of Judaism to which Jesus may have belonged, may have been a gathering of homosexual.
 
weaver2 said:
"personal bigotry covered with a patina of sanctimonious pseudo-Christian prating--a trait common to rightwing fundamentalism god-botherers". :lamo I especially like the term 'god-botherers' !!!!

Unfortunately Jack Phillips is using the phrase from Mark 5:17"“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." And the Old Testament law does say homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Unlike most of the commandments even those outside of the Decalogue it doesn't carry the punishment of stoning to death. In fact it doesn't list any punishment for homosexuality, just that it is an abomination.

So when Jack Phillips refuses to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding and quotes the biblical reason for doing so, he is correct, even though Jesus never mentioned anything about homosexuality. There is speculation that the Essene sect of Judaism to which Jesus may have belonged, may have been a gathering of homosexual.
Click to expand...


On the other hand the world of love and caring that Jesus seemed to be envisioning was diametrically opposed to Jack Philip's world where he'd likely be at the head of the line flogging, denigrating and, banning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom