• 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?

code1211 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The doi is not a legally binding document. It is OPINION and you know what they say about opinions....
 
code1211 said:
Not at all.

It means what it said. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Click to expand...

The only question you asked of me i have answered. Yours is the usual dishonesty of not wanting to deal with the answer and instead tell a lie that it was not answered.
 
code1211 said:
Morality has nothing to do with the legality of abortion.
Click to expand...

Morality has to do with the choice of women, it should always be legal to begin with as what a woman does with her uterus (within reason) is nobody's business but the woman).
 
Blue Donkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nobody needs liberty until it is taken from them.

Are you seriously asserting that there is NO moral justification to assume that the unborn are separate, living entities at any point in any pregnancy?
 
soylentgreen said:
The only question you asked of me i have answered. Yours is the usual dishonesty of not wanting to deal with the answer and instead tell a lie that it was not answered.
Click to expand...

Apparently, I missed it.

If your answer was important to you, please re-state it.

If is is as unimportant to you as it is to me, you are free to continue to not re-state it.

It's up to you.
 
Peter King said:
Morality has to do with the choice of women, it should always be legal to begin with as what a woman does with her uterus (within reason) is nobody's business but the woman).
Click to expand...

If a woman chooses to kill her unborn, her baby, her daughter or her mother, are all of these made moral because the woman made the choice?
 
code1211 said:
If a woman chooses to kill her unborn, her baby, her daughter or her mother, are all of these made moral because the woman made the choice?
Click to expand...

Why do pro-lifers are unable to discuss things honestly, because this response is utter tripe and lies.

Freedom of choice is about aborting your ZEF. Killing your baby is a crime. Killing your daughter or your mother is a crime.

40zgl9as.jpg
 
code1211 said:
Nobody needs liberty until it is taken from them.

Are you seriously asserting that there is NO moral justification to assume that the unborn are separate, living entities at any point in any pregnancy?
Click to expand...

There is no moral justification for forcing a woman to stay pregnant all nine months.
 
code1211 said:
Apparently, I missed it.

If your answer was important to you, please re-state it.

If is is as unimportant to you as it is to me, you are free to continue to not re-state it.

It's up to you.
Click to expand...



The only question you have asked me is in your post #1867. I answered in my next post to you #1870.

It took me less than a minute to do what you should have done. Dishonest and lazy you are being.
 
Peter King said:
Why do pro-lifers are unable to discuss things honestly, because this response is utter tripe and lies.

Freedom of choice is about aborting your ZEF. Killing your baby is a crime. Killing your daughter or your mother is a crime.

View attachment 67286980
Click to expand...

I have no issue with the legality.
 
soylentgreen said:
The only question you have asked me is in your post #1867. I answered in my next post to you #1870.

It took me less than a minute to do what you should have done. Dishonest and lazy you are being.
Click to expand...

It was up to you.
 
code1211 said:
It was up to you.
Click to expand...

Another fail on your part. I went to the not really much of a problem to find the posts and yet you still maintain the lie you were never answered. Keep it up if you like but really we do not need any more evidence of the dishonesty pro lifer use to back themselves.
 
soylentgreen said:
He is right there. It is made up crap. Any claim that starts with something is self evident is as always, not.
Click to expand...

Calling something that a poster quoted straight from the DOI itself "made-up" is lying. There is no other way to read it.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Calling something that a poster quoted straight from the DOI itself "made-up" is lying. There is no other way to read it.
Click to expand...

From what i could see prometeus was referring to content of what was said not its existence. That particular statement from the doi is crap. A pretend imaginary friend does not endow anything and rights are not unalienable and those sop called rights he speaks of are just generalisations about life and not actual legal rights.
 
soylentgreen said:
From what i could see prometeus was referring to content of what was said not its existence. That particular statement from the doi is crap. A pretend imaginary friend does not endow anything and rights are not unalienable and those sop called rights he speaks of are just generalisations about life and not actual legal rights.
Click to expand...

Of course they ARE unalienable rights and the total opposite of crap. "Life, liberty, and property" occurs three times in the U.S. Constitution.
 
soylentgreen said:
Another fail on your part. I went to the not really much of a problem to find the posts and yet you still maintain the lie you were never answered. Keep it up if you like but really we do not need any more evidence of the dishonesty pro lifer use to back themselves.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the bolded section.

I don't understand your entire premise, for that matter.

There is very little morality required for anything to be legal.

Driving on the correct side of the road, as an example is neither moral or immoral in and of itself. It is a part of cooperating within our society.

Same with abortion. It is needed in order for the society to operate and avoid predictable messiness.

It is closer to a good idea for housekeeping than morality.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Of course they ARE unalienable rights and the total opposite of crap. "Life, liberty, and property" occurs three times in the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...

No right is unalienable. Especially in a country that still practices the death sentence. The rights mentioned in the constitution are conditional, not unalienable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom