• 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!

Pro-life or anti-choice?

Dacke said:
So, why do you want government to replace God as the moral authority? If a woman has an abortion, it should be up to God, and to Government, to judge her, yes?
Click to expand...

It’s not either or. Non repentance for murder will result in condemnation in the next life, it doesn’t mean that we need to condone it in this one. By that measure no criminal law at all is needed because one will be judged in next life
 
EMNofSeattle said:
It’s not either or. Non repentance for murder will result in condemnation in the next life, it doesn’t mean that we need to condone it in this one. By that measure no criminal law at all is needed because one will be judged in next life
Click to expand...
Abortion is no more murder than taking a shower is. If you are going to ascribe all living organisms the same moral value as human beings, you cannot even touch your keyboard without committing murder. It is absolute nonsense to regard abortion as murder.

It is better to fight for healthier relationships and a view of sexuality that minimises unwanted pregnancies as much as possible,
 
Peter King said:
You stated:



To which I wrote:



Quite straight forward really, you commented that I decided about the the moral right and I wrote that it was purely down to the women.

And no, morality exists on the human plane and it is women who get to decide that.
Click to expand...

My response to your post in which you sprinkled references to morality addressed your judgements upon which living entity had the moral authority to decide life and death considerations for others.

You said:

"Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
What moral right? In the early part of the pregnancy (far before viability is even closely an issue) the only person who has moral rights is the mother. And the only person involved in an abortion is the mother so that isn't that strange that only she has moral rights."

You created the point of reference. I merely observed your thoughts and commented on them.

Morality considers things which are right or wrong, good or bad. Again, we humans have not shown a reliable tack record of establishing things that are right and good or wrong and bad.

We do better with legal and illegal. Legality and morality intersect only by chance and usually depart from one another quickly.
 
weaver2 said:
Conservative Christians insist that the fetus has a right to be born and become a legal person. Their concern is the birth only. "Life" is the responsibility of the family. They are responsible for providing the necessities that promote the life of that child.

So when you warp the Declaration of Independence into resolving your abortion issue the word 'life' to you means "birth"; ie, "Among these rights are birth, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Do you really believe the men who wrote those words with the intention of creating a new nation, by engaging in war if necessary and setting up a new government were really thinking about a fetus?

Quoting the "life, liberty and pursuit" phrase is a ridiculous defense of the pro-life movement. Using it means one is completely ignorant of not only the history, the men, the political philosophy, and the intent, of the Declaration but also the social mores of the time about women and pregnancy.
Click to expand...

The resolution of the abortion issue for me is that it is legal.

It is legal for the reasons that you define.

Convenience and expedience.

The poster asked a particular question. The question was in regard to the source of rights. I don't think it concerned the legality of abortion. Did it?
 
Scrabaholic said:
There are no "unalienable" rights. Rights are given by society, and can be taken away. The COVID crisis is a prime example.
Click to expand...

This in only your opinion.

The Framers were attempting to define "rights" as being awarded from a divine source.

By their assertion, they deprive government of the power to award rights. Government can only protect them. Or not...

The Founders did this to avoid this kind of a misconception that might rise in the minds of those that would follow.

Jefferson, under the guidance and mentoring of Franklin, could have referenced a "just and equitable government" as the source of individual rights, but chose instead to state, with crystal clarity, that rights are ENDOWED by "their Creator".

There is no mistaking the understanding that they held and upon which they founded all else.

There are little issues with slaves, children, women and those that own no land, but the idea is not cloudy. Rights are endowed by their creator.
 
soylentgreen said:
Put the question to me again because i have answered what i thought was your question.
Click to expand...

I don't have enough interest in this to track back to whatever it is you seek.
 
Dacke said:
So, why do you want government to replace God as the moral authority? If a woman has an abortion, it should be up to God, and to Government, to judge her, yes?
Click to expand...

I have no idea how you could draw that conclusion from what I posted.
 
code1211 said:
My response to your post in which you sprinkled references to morality addressed your judgements upon which living entity had the moral authority to decide life and death considerations for others.

You said:

"Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
What moral right? In the early part of the pregnancy (far before viability is even closely an issue) the only person who has moral rights is the mother. And the only person involved in an abortion is the mother so that isn't that strange that only she has moral rights."

You created the point of reference. I merely observed your thoughts and commented on them.

Morality considers things which are right or wrong, good or bad. Again, we humans have not shown a reliable tack record of establishing things that are right and good or wrong and bad.

We do better with legal and illegal. Legality and morality intersect only by chance and usually depart from one another quickly.
Click to expand...

And your point would be? You accused me of determining morality when from the get go I said it is the woman who has to make the decision about morality, not me. And again, not my judgements, the woman's judgement. I explained that twice that I do not have a say in the morality of abortion as I cannot have an abortion.

The point of reference is me saying women have the right to make up their own minds whether or not it is moral.

And we cannot decide the morality of individual women as we do not know their personal situation. Thus I think and state that it is both the legal and moral right of women to make their own minds up.
 
Peter King said:
............... women have the right to make up their own minds whether or not it is moral. And we cannot decide the morality of individual women as we do not know their personal situation. Thus I think and state that it is both the legal and moral right of women to make their own minds up.
Click to expand...

Yet for some reason the Christian Right and the righteous conservatives think that their God and the Declaration of Independence have given them the moral and legal right to punish women by banning abortions and denying them the right to make personal decisions.

Any group that has the political power and the will to deny 50% of the population the right to personal decision has the power to deny many other rights to many other people.
 
code1211 said:
I don't have enough interest in this to track back to whatever it is you seek.
Click to expand...

meaning of course that i have answered your question and not being able to dispute that answer you dishonestly tried the trick of pretending it was not answered.
 
code1211 said:
This in only your opinion.

The Framers were attempting to define "rights" as being awarded from a divine source.

By their assertion, they deprive government of the power to award rights. Government can only protect them. Or not...

The Founders did this to avoid this kind of a misconception that might rise in the minds of those that would follow.

Jefferson, under the guidance and mentoring of Franklin, could have referenced a "just and equitable government" as the source of individual rights, but chose instead to state, with crystal clarity, that rights are ENDOWED by "their Creator".

There is no mistaking the understanding that they held and upon which they founded all else.

There are little issues with slaves, children, women and those that own no land, but the idea is not cloudy. Rights are endowed by their creator.
Click to expand...

Just because they said it doesn't make it true.

Separation of church and state.
 
prometeus said:
How does that change what it is? Have some high school student explain that to you or take a remedial civics class.
Click to expand...

Because you called the most familiar part of the DOI made-up crap, you also need a remedial government class.
 
prometeus said:
How does that change what it is? Have some high school student explain that to you or take a remedial civics class.
Click to expand...

Many years ago I was involved in training high school graduates to do entry level work for my employer.

I doubt that about 60% of those graduates could explain the Declaration to me. May of them would be challenged by the attempt to just read the words with comprehension.

My estimate of our educational system was severely eroded during that period.

Declaration author: Jefferson. He was also one of the Framers. Connect the dots.
 
Peter King said:
And your point would be? You accused me of determining morality when from the get go I said it is the woman who has to make the decision about morality, not me. And again, not my judgements, the woman's judgement. I explained that twice that I do not have a say in the morality of abortion as I cannot have an abortion.

The point of reference is me saying women have the right to make up their own minds whether or not it is moral.

And we cannot decide the morality of individual women as we do not know their personal situation. Thus I think and state that it is both the legal and moral right of women to make their own minds up.
Click to expand...

Morality has nothing to do with the legality of abortion.
 
soylentgreen said:
meaning of course that i have answered your question and not being able to dispute that answer you dishonestly tried the trick of pretending it was not answered.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

It means what it said. Nothing more. Nothing less.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Just because they said it doesn't make it true.

Separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

Truth and beliefs and assertions are all separate issues.

The Founders believed that the rights they specified and asserted in the Declaration were endowed by their Creator. There were about 50 signers.

There's not a lot of room in this for debate.

However, if you can find a statement made by a majority of the Founders showing they did NOT believe that the rights mentioned in the Declaration were endowed by their Creator as they wrote the Constitution, that would be a good thing to reference.

You are free to proceed.
 
code1211 said:
Morality has nothing to do with the legality of abortion.
Click to expand...

Actually it does. The legality of abortion comes from the most important word that America was founded on: LIBERTY. When girls and women are forced to stay pregnant against their will, liberty is what they lose. The unborn, of course, do not need liberty until it is time to come out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom