• 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!

Alabama Senate approves near-total ban on abortion; sends bill to the governor

vegas giants said:
So in the case of a rape....its not a baby?
Click to expand...

What sort of anal logic hole did you pull that out of? Certainly doesn't follow from my post in any same manner.
 
Gondwanaland said:
What sort of anal logic hole did you pull that out of? Certainly doesn't follow from my post in any same manner.
Click to expand...

Can you murder the baby if the mother was raped?

Yes or no
 
vegas giants said:
Can you murder the baby if the mother was raped?

Yes or no
Click to expand...

Anyone can murder anyone - happens every day. Your question makes no sense.

Are you trying to ask if I think that it should be legal to do so in the instance that there was a rape? If so, then no. The rapist should be punished and give restitution. The child is an innocent and should not be legally murdered because its father was a criminal piece of dog ****e.
 
Saladin4 said:
That old lady doing the bidding of Religious fanatics?.....Whoo Hoo
Click to expand...
white., that woman being adecenthuman being and caring about the lives of unborn human beings.
 
Gondwanaland said:
Anyone can murder anyone - happens every day. Your question makes no sense.

Are you trying to ask if I think that it should be legal to do so in the instance that there was a rape? If so, then no. The rapist should be punished and give restitution. The child is an innocent and should not be legally murdered because its father was a criminal piece of dog ****e.
Click to expand...

So the raped woman should be forced to give birth to her rapists baby while risking her life?
 
Flat out ban just seems wrong. I think women should be allowed 3 abortions then have to get their tubes tied. Those little babies still feel pain in the womb when the doctor shoves a needle into their head. It would be wrong to stick a needle in any humans head until they die so I think after 3 abortions tubes should be tied to prevent fetus torture. After 3 abortions/baby torture I think its proven that the woman is negligent with children. Just because the baby doesnt speak about its pain doesnt mean that it doesnt feel pain.
 
vegas giants said:
So the raped woman should be forced to give birth to her rapists baby while risking her life?
Click to expand...

No. Her doctor must simply face the consequences for murdering a human being should he choose to do so for her.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Flat out ban just seems wrong. I think women should be allowed 3 abortions then have to get their tubes tied. Those little babies still feel pain in the womb when the doctor shoves a needle into their head. It would be wrong to stick a needle in any humans head until they die so I think after 3 abortions tubes should be tied to prevent fetus torture. After 3 abortions/baby torture I think its proven that the woman is negligent with children. Just because the baby doesnt speak about its pain doesnt mean that it doesnt feel pain.
Click to expand...

What about the men?
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Flat out ban just seems wrong. I think women should be allowed 3 abortions then have to get their tubes tied. Those little babies still feel pain in the womb when the doctor shoves a needle into their head. It would be wrong to stick a needle in any humans head until they die so I think after 3 abortions tubes should be tied to prevent fetus torture. After 3 abortions/baby torture I think its proven that the woman is negligent with children. Just because the baby doesnt speak about its pain doesnt mean that it doesnt feel pain.
Click to expand...

Early abortions do not use a needle to the head or any other body part. Up to ten weeks it is a series of pills. then it is a pill and after the fetus is dead suction is used to remove it and the uterine lining.

It requires working neural pathways to feel pain, those aren't developed fully until after over 98% of abortions happen. Those few that are after that point are for medical reasons with the mother or the fetus.
 
Gondwanaland said:
It most certainly is not. Every year in JUST the uS there are over 600,000 abortions performed.

That's not rare, that's horrific. That's the equivalent of someone dropping a nuke on top of a city the size of Portland, Las Vegas, or Baltimore every single year and vaporizing the entire populace.
Click to expand...

no its still factually rare and its AMAZING, high numbers doesnt mean its not rare, its VERY rare . . .in the us approx less than .001% of sex results in abortion, thats rare.
if you would like to improve that awesome number then you should support things like better sex education, better access to BC, better technology for BC, better safety net programs for new and single family parents, total revamp of foster care and improved medical/health system.
 
AGENT J said:
no its still factually rare and its AMAZING, high numbers doesnt mean its not rare, its VERY rare . . .in the us approx less than .001% of sex results in abortion, thats rare.
if you would like to improve that awesome number then you should support things like better sex education, better access to BC, better technology for BC, better safety net programs for new and single family parents, total revamp of foster care and improved medical/health system.
Click to expand...

Sorry but 600,000 a year is the exact opposite of an "awesome number". Hell, only 10-15k a year die from gunviolence, and libnuts scream about how horrendous that number is.
 
Gondwanaland said:
1.) Sorry but 600,000 a year is the exact opposite of an "awesome number".
2.) Hell, only 10-15k a year die from gunviolence, and libnuts scream about how horrendous that number is.
Click to expand...

1.) Your feelings dont matter to facts, less than .001% is rare :shrug:
2.) meaningless to this discussion and facts
 
This law may very well cost the republicans the election. My belief is the government should but out on abortion. I'm a Christian. I'm against abortion, but that's my business. A woman, it's between her and God.
 
SmartCat said:
Abortion was legal in the United States when we had the same Constitution we have now. Nothing in the Constitution plus the amendments mentions the word "abortion." Consequently, the Constitution and the amendments do not protect abortion. The Roe vs Wade Decision was a judicial usurpation of legislative prerogatives.
Click to expand...

False.

From Live Science:

Constitutional rights

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.


The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:



No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.
Click to expand...

Read more :

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws
 
Last edited:
SmartCat said:
Abortion was legal in the United States when we had the same Constitution we have now. Nothing in the Constitution plus the amendments mentions the word "abortion." Consequently, the Constitution and the amendments do not protect abortion. The Roe vs Wade Decision was a judicial usurpation of legislative prerogatives.
Click to expand...

Abortion was legal in the 1700 and 1800s

States can protect their citizens from unsafe medical procedures and in the 1900s when states first started banning abortions. They were unsafe for the woman. By the 1970s abortions were safer for the woman than pregnancy and childbirth therefore states can no longer ban abortions for safety reasons.

You are mistaken the decision was not judicial usurpation of legislative prerogatives.

The Supreme Court Justice’s not only looked at the Constitution before deciding Roe they looked at the many precedents regarding privacy before Roe was decided.

In fact it would be extremely hard to overturn Roe without also striking down the precedents of right to privacy cases before Roe including cases regarding child rearing.

The following Surpreme Court decisions most likely would become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned and that just is not going to happen.


Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
But it is not an open-ended right and the Supreme Court did provide the States some latitude in its regulation.
Click to expand...

They allowed states to protect the woman’s health in the second trimester and to take a compelling interest in abortion at viability but not before.
 
vegas giants said:
If every issue belongs at the state level.....why have a federal government?
Click to expand...
The federal govt. role is quite clear in the constitution....Their powers are even enumerated...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom