• 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!

Can either side give up something so that an intelligent discussion can take place?

VanceMack said:
"I have given my solution numerous times. There has to be a MASSIVE change in mindset starting with the whole left/right rep/dem, black white bull****. 1st and foremost...regardless of the reasons/excuses, people need to commit to the message that nothing justifies the violence. Throw out the excuses. If you commit violent crimes your ass should go to prison for a looooong long time. Need more prison space? Build more prisons. The fact is that while people make excuses and create a revolving door justice system the victims are predominantly minority. Stop favoring the violent thug over the victims. Then commit to real investment in those communities. Government...private sector...challenge celebrities to put their money where their mouth is. If I was doing it I would pick the communities hardest hit and start with a community center. Renovate an existing facility or build a new one, but build a center for health care (yep...free), childcare (free to those working, going to school, or seeking work) and employ caregivers from the community (with intense oversight). Drug treatment centers to help people break free of the drug addictions. Training centers to teach people skills and basic education skills. Start hiring crew to demolish condemned buildings...clear them out. Completely clear the communities of the garbage and the graffiti. Better community policing. Identify housing that can be renovated and salvaged and hire local community members to work on the crews. Give them home ownership incentives along with a paycheck. No gentrification...build pride from within. Entice private sector business to build in those communities. Hell...how many sports stars in Chicago commission jerseys and shoes made in sweatshops in Asia? Why not open a Starter plant and hire people locally. Then focus on the schools. Kick the ****heads out that are disrupting the education experiences for others. Focus on education. Restart trade programs. Those are just starters.

Expensive as ****...I know. Worth the investment. If we are going to go in debt anyway I would rather see the debt go to bringing about positive long term sustainable changes."

The intent is to change a culture. That thread was about gun control but it all is part of the same problem. Of course you incorporate family planning, birth control, etc into this. The reality is that there are fewer unplanned pregnancies and abortions in more affluent communities. The goal is to create communities that are affluent and self sustaining.
Click to expand...

The above is great.



The below is mindbogglingly insane, and totally negates how great the above post is.

VanceMack said:
Support the party that enslaved blacks and crated the ****holes.

No thanks.
Click to expand...
 
Dragonfly said:
The above is great.



The below is mindbogglingly insane, and totally negates how great the above post is.
Click to expand...
Consider the poster it was made in reply to.
 
weaver2 said:
Is it possible for pro-choice, and anti-abortion people to make compromises that might make possible an intelligent and realistic discussion with the possibility of creating workable laws about women's reproductive role? If so, what beliefs could each side give up?
Click to expand...



I think we compromised when abortions in the first trimester, 3 months of pregnancy, were allowed.

Now they want to abort babies in the last trimester, 6 to 9 months of pregnancy. An infant can live outside the womb at this stage. Will it cry once it's delivered? Will doctors kill it?

I'm not a fan of lat stage abortions.
 
Dragonfly said:
Ignoring people you detest wouldn't almost instantly detract from the wonderfully thought-provoking post you made earlier.

Food for thought.
Click to expand...
I usually do.
 
weaver2 said:
Neither side is logically consistent in what they believe and support. Do you want a productive conversation started between both sides? What are some of the most egregious beliefs each side holds that they might give up in order to make intelligent discussion possible?

Do phrases like "utilitarian evil to justify their degenerate lifestyles" foster intelligent discussion?
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with that. How is pro choice not "logically consistent"?
 
Tlrmln said:
Pigs, cows and chickens are "life" and they are certainly innocent. Do you eat pork, beef, or chicken?
Click to expand...

LOL is that the best you have?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
LOL is that the best you have?
Click to expand...

I had a 14 year old patient that was brutally raped and suffered a shattered pelvis among a whole host of other injuries including being HIV positive because of the rape. (she was 13 when it was happening and turned 14 in the hospital).

She also become pregnant as the result of the rape.

Carrying the baby, meant that she would die.. and in all likelihood.. the baby would never survive outside the womb for more than a two weeks.

Why would you force her to keep the baby and die? If you believe in protecting innocent life?

Please explain your position.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
No, one side is logically consistent in defending all innocent life and the other is beholden to utilitarian evil to justify their degenerate lifestyles
Click to expand...

Innocent people die everyday with no one to defend them. What makes the unborn so special as to warrant protection? If the mother doesn't want them, why should we?
 
jaeger19 said:
I had a 14 year old patient that was brutally raped and suffered a shattered pelvis among a whole host of other injuries including being HIV positive because of the rape. (she was 13 when it was happening and turned 14 in the hospital).

She also become pregnant as the result of the rape.

Carrying the baby, meant that she would die.. and in all likelihood.. the baby would never survive outside the womb for more than a two weeks.

Why would you force her to keep the baby and die? If you believe in protecting innocent life?

Please explain your position.
Click to expand...

Deliver the baby by c-section and provide medical support, if s/he dies then s/he dies.

However you cannot use abstract risk of death as justification for an intentional death, such a thing is immoral.

You also cannot create justification by “stacking” circumstances. You are trying to emotionally manipulate people, your case study is 13, and raped, and severely injured, and can’t survive, and the baby can’t survive. You know full well that’s not the normal profile of people who seek abortions.
 
VanceMack said:
If you arent liberal and arent of the 'safe legal and rare' crowd then obviously that doesnt apply to you.> I fully get that some people have completely devalued human life to the point where the slaughter of 800,000 to 1,000,000 unborn children is irrelevant to you. Obviously you arent of the group I was referencing.
Click to expand...

Not all human life is to be valued. For example, those convicted of certain crimes who are sentenced to death. Or those who are trying to kill or seriously harm another - killing them in self defense is allowed. Abortion is a form of self defense since every pregnancy will, at the very least, cause the woman great pain (childbirth) and discomfort (latter stages) and could cause a myriad of other issues, including, but not limited to, her death.
 
VanceMack said:
I just offered it. Stop politicizing abortion> Start offering real and legitimate 'choice' with full financial support. I'm all for effective reproductive counseling and contraceptives. My positions re a holistic approach to poverty stricken communities that would aid in fewer pregnancies in poverty stricken minority communities has been offered numerous times in the gun control discussions.

My comments have nothing to do with 'feelings'. When a woman becomes pregnant she is carrying human life. regardless of the stage of development that life is in, it is a developing human being. You dehumanize it to justify its slaughter. I dont blame you.
Click to expand...

Nobody is dehumanizing the zef. We all say it's human.

Perhaps anti-choicers are dehumanizing the pregnant woman by treating her like a gestation machine...
 
Scrabaholic said:
Not all human life is to be valued. For example, those convicted of certain crimes who are sentenced to death. Or those who are trying to kill or seriously harm another - killing them in self defense is allowed. Abortion is a form of self defense since every pregnancy will, at the very least, cause the woman great pain (childbirth) and discomfort (latter stages) and could cause a myriad of other issues, including, but not limited to, her death.
Click to expand...
Whatever helps you justify the unfettered slaughter of unborn children...
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Deliver the baby by c-section and provide medical support, if s/he dies then s/he dies.

However you cannot use abstract risk of death as justification for an intentional death, such a thing is immoral.

You also cannot create justification by “stacking” circumstances. You are trying to emotionally manipulate people, your case study is 13, and raped, and severely injured, and can’t survive, and the baby can’t survive. You know full well that’s not the normal profile of people who seek abortions.
Click to expand...

Advocating that a 14 year old rape victim be forced to carry a baby to viability so it can be delivered by c-section is disgustingly barbaric.

 
EMNofSeattle said:
Deliver the baby by c-section and provide medical support, if s/he dies then s/he dies.

However you cannot use abstract risk of death as justification for an intentional death, such a thing is immoral.

You also cannot create justification by “stacking” circumstances. You are trying to emotionally manipulate people, your case study is 13, and raped, and severely injured, and can’t survive, and the baby can’t survive. You know full well that’s not the normal profile of people who seek abortions.
Click to expand...

You of course will be safe in the waiting room
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom