• 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!

What rights are in the Constitution that apply strictly to women?

Robertinfremont said:
This video asks some of these important questions.

Women do not call them people's rights, women call them women's rights. At least Democrats do this trick.

So let's study a bit what makes them say women's rights as if women are a species and not merely human beings?
Click to expand...

Are you trying to prove that abortion should be illegal because you've found a video of a fetus is conducting an interview?

That was a joke about her age and maturity, not her appearance. I'm not a rude person.
 
ashurbanipal said:
You will what? Argue, or call me names?



Heck if I know.



In some circles...including the ones in which you seem to live and move and have your being.



I am not making you do anything. You're f*cking up all on your own.



By way of example: when Simon Stylites had spent about a year at the top of his pillar, a party of local Roman politicans came around and called him, among other things, Vermis--a worm. They intended it as an insult, and it was understood by other Romans to be an insult. For Simon, however, it was not--he was already committed to Vermis Sum ("I am a worm"). However, the fact that the Romans failed to wound him with their words does not change the fact that they were casting aspersions at him. The fact that your target may be bulletproof doesn't change the fact that you fired a bullet.

Your response to my initial post in this thread was to avoid arguing against any point that I had made, and instead to try to deduce something about me personally--which wouldn't be a good response unless I had said something about myself personally. Making a nice rhetorical flourish to the person after making an argument is fine. I do it all the time. But you skipped the most important part--you have to argue first, and your argument has to be good.
Click to expand...

Lecturing me and then doing what I am blamed for. We were never discussing Romans.

Typically what happens far too much is poster B does not like the answer that was given. So rather than discuss the matter, suddenly the party is under discussion. I do not recall making it personal about you. But I will go back to verify my belief. If you are offended, I apologize.
 
Mustachio said:
Are you trying to prove that abortion should be illegal because you've found a video of a fetus is conducting an interview?

That was a joke about her age and maturity, not her appearance. I'm not a rude person.
Click to expand...

No. ha ha to the joke. you are rare here if you are not rude. Pleased to chat with a person who is not rude.

This was and still is my actual question.

repeat

So let's study a bit what makes them say women's rights as if women are a species and not merely human beings?
 
Last edited:
Robertinfremont said:
Lecturing me and then doing what I am blamed for. We were never discussing Romans.
Click to expand...

We haven't yet discussed Romans. I was using an example that came to mind to answer your question.

Robertinfremont said:
Typically what happens far too much is poster B does not like the answer that was given. So rather than discuss the matter, suddenly the party is under discussion. I do not recall making it personal about you. But I will go back to verify my belief. If you are offended, I apologize.
Click to expand...

First, yes you did. Here's the link:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/abor...on-apply-strictly-women-8.html#post1071512634

Where I live and who I voted for is irrelevant to the point I made--which you did not answer.

I'm not offended by what you said. I'm more like flabbergasted that you didn't address my point directly.
 
Last edited:
Robertinfremont said:
No. ha ha to the joke. you are rare here if you are not rude. Pleased to chat with a person who is not rude.

This was and still is my actual question.

repeat

So let's study a bit what makes them say women's rights as if women are a species and not merely human beings?
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself but I'm baffled at the phrase "women are a species." Who is saying that? Or use the example of black people. They're not a species. I don't know how to "say" they are a species without just making things up. But both have constitutional protections that are specific to them. I don't think anybody would argue that black people weren't denied rights that white people had for most or all of the existence of our nation. So women don't have to be a separate species to march for their rights to be upheld, which is how I interpret such marches. I understand the issue of abortion and have my own stance on it (which is pretty moderate). I don't know what else you have in mind.

I did scroll one page back and you said something to the extent of "kaitlyn/whatever her name is asks people questions to make them think." That's not true. She was asked by an Ohio news affiliate in a 39 minute interview which can be found on youtube what her goal is when she interviews people. Her answer: "to expose them." I believe you were inspired to make a thread to "own libs." But if you want to call that "studying," I've heard that word used to justify much more lascivious behavior.
 
Robertinfremont said:
I took an online survey this AM and look at the stupid question on the survey.

I was asked what Gender do I identify with. What a dumb question.

I checked my Birth Certificate and it does not say the born prefer any gender.
Click to expand...
And transgenders can get their birth certificate changed in most states. So theirs would reflect what gender they identify as.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Robertinfremont said:
Maybe school has changed since I spent my days in school, but many of my teachers made use of film. Today it is video. And I work harder than you at posting salient and excellent thought provoking videos. My aim is to see how many here will begin to think and not spew hate.
Click to expand...

You think youtube is like school? You think you study on youtube?


:lol:


Posting idiot bait from youtube and looking for a reaction is pathetic. Just use their comment section and spare us.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Maybe school has changed since I spent my days in school, but many of my teachers made use of film. Today it is video. And I work harder than you at posting salient and excellent thought provoking videos. My aim is to see how many here will begin to think and not spew hate.
Click to expand...

We're just waiting for you to say something intelligent for us to think about.
 
Robertinfremont said:
This video asks some of these important questions.

Women do not call them people's rights, women call them women's rights. At least Democrats do this trick.

So let's study a bit what makes them say women's rights as if women are a species and not merely human beings?
Click to expand...

I would say that women still having to put up with your ridiculous notion of species is a good argument for womens rights.

You are either ignorant of your own american history and the treatment of women or simply just ignorant of the constitution itself.

Try studying the history of equal rights and what that means.

In 2019, women's rights are still not explicitly recognized in US Constitution

Over nine decades, efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution to recognize women’s rights have faced major challenges.

Congress finally passed such legislation, known as the Equal Rights Amendment, in 1972. The amendment would recognize women’s equal rights to men under the law.

Despite concerted campaigns by women’s rights groups, it fell short of the 38 states that needed to ratify it in order for it to become part of the Constitution. The original deadline for states to ratify was 1979. Congress extended the deadline to 1982, but even then it still fell three states short of passage.

Since 2017, two more states – Nevada and Illinois – have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. Supporters are now rallying support in Virginia, hoping it will the next and final state to ratify it in 2019.

At the same time, for a number of reasons, Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, South Dakota and Kentucky rescinded their ERA ratifications between 1972 and 1982. Some state legislators argued that the amendment was too controversial given its potential to upend traditional gender roles and legalize what they called “abortion on demand.”
Click to expand...

Even after all these years women still need to fight for the same rights men enjoy. And why? Because some idiot men still want to believe women are their property.
 
ecofarm said:
You think youtube is like school? You think you study on youtube?


:lol:


Posting idiot bait from youtube and looking for a reaction is pathetic. Just use their comment section and spare us.
Click to expand...

I do not understand you on this at all. Is this about what I think about school? If it is, I simply want kids in school to learn the fundamentals of setting goals and doing it about money as well as other matters such as improving all grades. You tube does have some excellent video on this.

This is one by a man I have personally attended his discussions in the past.

 
soylentgreen said:
I would say that women still having to put up with your ridiculous notion of species is a good argument for womens rights.

You are either ignorant of your own american history and the treatment of women or simply just ignorant of the constitution itself.

Try studying the history of equal rights and what that means.

In 2019, women's rights are still not explicitly recognized in US Constitution



Even after all these years women still need to fight for the same rights men enjoy. And why? Because some idiot men still want to believe women are their property.
Click to expand...

That is not remotely a discussion. It amounts to fakery claims.

A major problem for the lag of women's rights has to be that the general population believed women as humans have the same rights as men.

As to locally voting, the married woman was presumed to agree with her husband. And I believe the single women who owned property voted her interest. Anyway the general public simply did not think it was needed to single out women.
 
roguenuke said:
And transgenders can get their birth certificate changed in most states. So theirs would reflect what gender they identify as.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

WOW, tampering with an official document to escape the verdict of the doctor.
 
Mustachio said:
I can only speak for myself but I'm baffled at the phrase "women are a species." Who is saying that? Or use the example of black people. They're not a species. I don't know how to "say" they are a species without just making things up. But both have constitutional protections that are specific to them. I don't think anybody would argue that black people weren't denied rights that white people had for most or all of the existence of our nation. So women don't have to be a separate species to march for their rights to be upheld, which is how I interpret such marches. I understand the issue of abortion and have my own stance on it (which is pretty moderate). I don't know what else you have in mind.

I did scroll one page back and you said something to the extent of "kaitlyn/whatever her name is asks people questions to make them think." That's not true. She was asked by an Ohio news affiliate in a 39 minute interview which can be found on youtube what her goal is when she interviews people. Her answer: "to expose them." I believe you were inspired to make a thread to "own libs." But if you want to call that "studying," I've heard that word used to justify much more lascivious behavior.
Click to expand...

Out of context jibes at Kaitlin does none of us any good.

I do not believe women are a particular species other than human beings. But I was trying to ferret out who and why others see them as needing to be designated as different than men on rights. "It puzzles me unless they show examples where women for being women simply do not have my own rights.
 
ashurbanipal said:
We haven't yet discussed Romans. I was using an example that came to mind to answer your question.



First, yes you did. Here's the link:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/abor...on-apply-strictly-women-8.html#post1071512634

Where I live and who I voted for is irrelevant to the point I made--which you did not answer.

I'm not offended by what you said. I'm more like flabbergasted that you didn't address my point directly.
Click to expand...

Your link was about a different poster and not you.
 
Lursa said:
This was my original response in the OP...can you answer that basic question?
Click to expand...

Women voting is what I was thinking about. That is a unique and special case amendment.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Argue if you can. Call me names, make assumptions, cast aspersions if you cannot.
Click to expand...

I frequently argue though in the instance of Kaitlin Bennett, (she married this Saturday so need to learn her new name) I presented her video to see what others think.

But no thanks to your argument.
 
roguenuke said:
It isnt. Is the person with AIS male or female? By what standard?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I do not plan to dance this dance. It would assume I am far more expert on this topic you present than I am. I do not believe I am the poster who knows about your topic.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Out of context jibes at Kaitlin does none of us any good.

I do not believe women are a particular species other than human beings. But I was trying to ferret out who and why others see them as needing to be designated as different than men on rights. "It puzzles me unless they show examples where women for being women simply do not have my own rights.
Click to expand...

Well, the original post contains a video by somebody who makes a living provoking liberals so I think that's fair game.

Women should have equal rights. By "rights," I - and most people who speak and march about this issue - am speaking about ethics. It's unethical for women to be viewed as inferior political candidates because they're "too emotional." Interestingly enough, gun girl believes that women are too emotional and therefore shouldn't vote. Millions of people agree. Millions of people think women are inferior, too emotional, you've surely heard the term feminazi which was coined by Rush Limbaugh. Women should ethically have the right to be viewed as equal to men in every respect. After all, it was Trump who used emotion ("lock her up!") to rally his base and win the last Presidential election. If you're speaking about legal rights, it's going to go back to abortion every time. If you're speaking about ethical rights, it goes from holding office to equal pay to freedom of speech and sadly enough even the right to vote. I didn't watch the video so I don't know if I'm on the same page as the interview subjects but I think I'm on the same page as the women who march for equality.
 
Mustachio said:
Well, the original post contains a video by somebody who makes a living provoking liberals so I think that's fair game.

Women should have equal rights. By "rights," I - and most people who speak and march about this issue - am speaking about ethics. It's unethical for women to be viewed as inferior political candidates because they're "too emotional." Interestingly enough, gun girl believes that women are too emotional and therefore shouldn't vote. Millions of people agree. Millions of people think women are inferior, too emotional, you've surely heard the term feminazi which was coined by Rush Limbaugh. Women should ethically have the right to be viewed as equal to men in every respect. After all, it was Trump who used emotion ("lock her up!") to rally his base and win the last Presidential election. If you're speaking about legal rights, it's going to go back to abortion every time. If you're speaking about ethical rights, it goes from holding office to equal pay to freedom of speech and sadly enough even the right to vote. I didn't watch the video so I don't know if I'm on the same page as the interview subjects but I think I'm on the same page as the women who march for equality.
Click to expand...

I note how it is only Democrats who believe women lack all rights. I do not classify women as inferior. I classify them as all equal to other humans. Human behavior should be left to the church rather than the government so long as the human is not breaking laws. I do not see abortion as a right for women nor voting. I call those contained in all of us having the same bundle of rights and it includes women.
 
Lursa said:
Which Constitutional rights are exclusive to women only? You seem to be making an assumption, can you please be more specific?

So please at least show your OP is based on a valid premise.

People's talking points dont make something valid or partisan..I mean even Republican women support a woman's right to vote that was enabled in the Const, right?
Click to expand...
Robertinfremont said:
Women voting is what I was thinking about. That is a unique and special case amendment.
Click to expand...

And voting is wrong, it doesnt work. Because voting is a Constitutional right for men too, it's not exclusive to women.

Do you have any other examples?
 
Robertinfremont said:
I note how it is only Democrats who believe women lack all rights. I do not classify women as inferior. I classify them as all equal to other humans. Human behavior should be left to the church rather than the government so long as the human is not breaking laws. I do not see abortion as a right for women nor voting. I call those contained in all of us having the same bundle of rights and it includes women.
Click to expand...

I think most of that is great. But why, then, would you post a video made by a woman... a woman who is conducting the interviews... who publicly said women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they're inherently too emotional? And human behavior should be left to the church... ok. I think I'm fine with that as long as you don't think we should be a theocracy. Abortion is actually a right according to the Supreme Court, in turn according to the constitution. But I think it's nice that you support equity. You should e-mail Kaitlin and tell her that she's wrong to believe women shouldn't have equal rights. Perhaps she thinks women are a different species.

I say good day, sir
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom