• 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!

Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

SCotUS tends play a pretty big role in deciding what is lawful or not.

And then we see the President and Congress pass legislation that overrules the Court's determination of what is lawful or not (see Ledbetter).

This notion that the SCOTUS is the final determination of constitutional meaning or expositor of constitutionality is dangerous.

In fact, it's what led the SCOTUS, in the first place, to usurp the political processes in this country by ripping out abortion policy from public policy debate.
 
By the way, for those posters earlier in this thread that claimed that the embryonic stem cell lines that Bush restricted federal funding for were not viable or essentially worthless...please take care to note that this week's announcement of the first clinical trials derived from ESCR used stem cells from those lines.

So much for that argument...
 
I present Exhibit "A" --EXACTLY the same sort of reasoning used to enslave Americans is used to justify killing another segment of human beings. Dred Scott anyone?

What? Dred Scott wasn't about claiming that because a black man wasn't a person they could be enslaved. It was whether or not a black man who set foot in the North as a slave was free. But here. I'll school you a little :

Dred Scott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The case raised the issue of a black slave who lived in a free state. Congress had not asserted whether slaves were free once they set foot on Northern soil. The ruling arguably violated the Missouri Compromise because, based on the court's logic, a white slave owner could purchase slaves in a slave state and then bring his slaves to a state where slavery was illegal without losing rights to the slaves. This factor upset the Northern Republicans and further split Northern and Southern relations.

Scott traveled with his master Dr. John Emerson, who was in the army and often transferred. Scott's extended stay with his master in Illinois, a free state, gave him the legal standing to make a claim for freedom, as did his extended stay at Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was also prohibited. But Scott never made the claim while living in the free lands—perhaps because he was unaware of his rights at the time, or fearful of possible repercussions.
 
What? Dred Scott wasn't about claiming that because a black man wasn't a person they could be enslaved. It was whether or not a black man who set foot in the North as a slave was free. But here. I'll school you a little :

Dred Scott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
same wiki article
In effect, the Court ruled that slaves had no claim to freedom; they were property and not citizens; they could not bring suit in federal court; and because slaves were private property,


...and from the ruling...
We proceed to examine the case as presented by the pleadings.

The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them. Dred Scott v. Sandford

school's out.



Shame I have to school you of all people.
 
Last edited:
same wiki article



...and from the ruling...


school's out.



Shame I have to school you of all people.

You are definitely right but your overarching argument isn't anymore persuasive than PETA members claiming animals should be classified as "people" too.
 
You are definitely right but your overarching argument isn't anymore persuasive than PETA members claiming animals should be classified as "people" too.

Except...we're talking about human beings--and not sea kittens.:cool:
 
Except...we're talking about human beings--and not sea kittens.:cool:

And PETA is talking about living, breathing, feeling beings that have emotions and thoughts just like you and me.
:roll:
(Your dog wants steak)
 
In different areas of the country the majority holds different beliefs. The same beliefs are common all across the country, into every nook and cranny, the only difference is the majority. Minorities should be able to adhere to their own beliefs wherever they reside so long as their actions do not cause chaos in society. The entire Bill of Rights is essentially for the purpose of protecting minority's rights, as the majority needs no such protection. IOW, a majority that supports legalizing abortion should not be able to force women to have abortions.

OK, the jig is up. This is worded WAY too well. So come clean. Which founding father are you? :mrgreen:
 
Can you not answer a question directly?
The answer is I don't know. The reason why is because I have not thought through every possible circumstance, if such is even posible given our finite lives.

No, they are not obvious reasons and you simply cannot fairly dismiss any and all ethical and moral concerns because you think that ethical and moral arguments can only rely on religion.
Then please present me with an argument that doesn't.

I've done this many times and when you break the argument down its either a non sequitur or a religious conviction or plausible. I've yet to see an objectively true position. Try if you must.

I would agree wholeheartedly with #2 and #3. I'm not sure that enlightens the discussion, though.
It does because I still only have a vague idea on why you argue what you do.

My issue, as I am not "they" is that ESCR that relies on harvesting embryoes simply to conduct research is morally repugnant given that alternatives to harvesting such embryoes exist that avoid those ethical and moral problems.
Why is it morally repugnant? I see you discuss this below... finally.:2razz:

A human embryo is human life.
So what? A brain dead human is human life too. A skin cell is technically human life.

A human embryo is not just a collection of cells scraped off the inside of a nose. As a matter of basic biological fact human embryos are actual human beings in the earliest stages of their natural development.
Yea? and So is a sperm and an egg. And so is the molecules and proteins that will make sperm and eggs and so and so forth to an infinite regression. SO are the brain dead. So are the brain damaged. The list goes on...

Human embryos (or fetuses, or infants) do not differ in kind from mature human beings (as carrots or alligators differ from humans);
YES, they do differ, significantly. Fetuses are incapable of thought. Fetuses are incapable of independent life. Fetuses lack many if not all cognitive abilities. They are no different mentslly than a cricket, if not less for much of their development.

rather the difference between human embryos (fetuses, infants) and adults is a difference merely in stage or degree of development of precisely the same kind of being.
Exactly! Beings that possess self-awareness are what matter. That is, beings developed to the point of self awareness have rights imparted upon them due to their capability to comprehend and reciprocate.

But, again, I am not talking about banning ESCR altogether, but rather discussing my support for restricting federal government funding of ESCR. And that argument does not rest solely on a ethical/moral argument, but other factors.
Such as? EG, your belief it could be done by other means? Moral objections aside, why limit experts in the field from making this decision?

As well, I am not an advocate of banning abortion altogether, either. I just want Roe overtunred so that the issue will be returned to the proper political forum.
I haven't studied the case enough but from what I have I tend to agree.
 
Back
Top Bottom