• 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!

Judge finds NC "Choose Life" plate unconstitutioonal

Grant said:
The pro abortion, pro life argument is that a young enough baby is not yet a person and therefore abortion is not causing any harm to anyone.

However murderers are adults responsible for their actions and therefore subject to the consequences.

I happen to be pro life, pro choice and pro the death penalty in some circumstances but am not a religious person. I don't think my situation is unique.
Click to expand...

You aren't technically "pro life" because you only value life under certain circumstances. If you were to put one innocent man to death for every hundred guilty murderers then that means you didn't value that innocent man's life. You valued the deaths of the murderers more than the life of the innocent man. You can't simultaneously be pro life and pro death. As such, you are just a religious person who values life under very specific circumstances, you don't value life in general and so you can't be said to be truly "Pro life".
 
Grant said:
Perhaps because the words Pro Choice are meaningless unless it explains further what choices you are discussing.

Are the Pro Choice people in the cases of abortion not Pro Life as well? They need not be mutually exclusive terms.
Click to expand...

It was the state of North Carolina that had the problem understanding that, not me. Re-read the OP and apply that logic.
 
Taylor said:
Here's one from the 6th:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0099p-06.pdf


Looks to eventually end up in the SC, but you never know. We do know that there are currently 26 or so states with "Choose Life" plates and something like 3 for "Respect Choice" - some of that may be due to court decisions (e.g. ACLU dropped its case in Ohio after the above ruling), some to low interest in a "Respect Choice" plate. I'd be surprised if there weren't a challenge in every single state where the ACLU/Planned Parenthood believes it has a case.
Click to expand...

You're right that the two cases conflict. They do so based on differing readings as to which precedent is most relevant, and how it should be interpreted. In my opinion, the 6th circuit case has misinterpreted Johanns and consequently is rejecting relevant information. I'm basing this reading partially on having access to information that that court did not have: the SCOTUS decision on Summum; because of course the 6th circuit case was decided before SCOTUS handled Summum. The analysis on this issue in the North Carolina case starts at page 13 of the decision. I find it persuasive. It'll be interesting to see how this develops in various appellate courts and probably SCOTUS, eventually.
 
Grant said:
That the pro choice people can't even accept something as innocuous as "Choose Life" makes their stridency appear too petty by far.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe that the pro choice people can't "accept" Choose Life? What does that mean, exactly?
 
CriticalThought said:
You aren't technically "pro life" because you only value life under certain circumstances. If you were to put one innocent man to death for every hundred guilty murderers then that means you didn't value that innocent man's life.
Click to expand...

There is a serious but here in that I have never put an innocent man to death nor have I ever advocated putting an innocent man to death. You're talking nonsense.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
Exactly what it says. Have you browsed through the thread?
Click to expand...

The statement is vague. Why don't you tell me what you're getting at? Because I suspect it has very little to do with the substance of this thread.
 
Grant said:
There is a serious but here in that I have never put an innocent man to death nor have I ever advocated putting an innocent man to death. You're talking nonsense.
Click to expand...

You support capital punishment laws that have led to the deaths of innocent men. Or are you so naive as to believe our justice system never convicts innocent men and sends them to death row? As long as you support those laws, you place the value of the deaths of the murderers over the lives of those innocent men who fall victim to being wrongly convicted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom