• 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!

Pope to US Speaker Pelosi: Reject abortion support

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
There are plenty of Sodomy laws still on the books. Do I need to show you up again? :lol:



Technically homosexual acts are illegal in some states. Texas is one I believe.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS struck down anti-sodomy laws for states as unconsitutional. It is not illegal in any state.
 
TheNextEra said:
The SCOTUS struck down anti-sodomy laws for states as unconsitutional. It is not illegal in any state.
Click to expand...

Yeah--cuz like, that document--you know, the constitution--doesn't really say anything much about states' rights and all.:doh
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You got me there, though that was what, 5 years ago?


Still is in the military though.
Click to expand...

Military isn't about states rights, nor is it about the constitution, we know that.

Freedom of speech doesn't exist in the military. What is the old saying? Something along the lines of, "Those in the military are there to protect Democracy, not to practice it within the unit".

Although I will have to say with pride the military HAPPILY, PROUDLY, and ACTIVELY practices the second amendment. Gotta love that one ;)

And you get to play with explosives in some cases. Not bad at all :lol:
 
Last edited:
Felicity said:
Yeah--cuz like, that document--you know, the constitution--doesn't really say anything much about states' rights and all.:doh
Click to expand...

Still means Sodomy isn't illegal, and it still means that just because something is LEGAL, doesn't mean that everyone supports that.

Pelosi has never had an abortion, nor encouraged others to have one. The fact you and others like to play God and condemn her as supporting abortion is fascinating to say the least.
 
TheNextEra said:
Still means Sodomy isn't illegal, and it still means that just because something is LEGAL, doesn't mean that everyone supports that.

Pelosi has never had an abortion, nor encouraged others to have one. The fact you and others like to play God and condemn her as supporting abortion is fascinating to say the least.
Click to expand...

The standard is "material support" of procuring abortion. Her being in a position of voting on such things that legitimize through legislation the killing of human beings is "material support" of abortion and other legislation that is against the sanctity of life. So what if she never had an abortion or drove anyone to a clinic?...she, by her direct actions, aided such occurrences--she directly participated, through her power as a legislator, in millions of abortions that were made possible, in part, by her vote. THAT is material support.
 
Felicity said:
The standard is "material support" of procuring abortion. Her being in a position of voting on such things that legitimize through legislation the killing of human beings is "material support" of abortion and other legislation that is against the sanctity of life. So what if she never had an abortion or drove anyone to a clinic?...she, by her direct actions, aided such occurrences--she directly participated, through her power as a legislator, in millions of abortions that were made possible, in part, by her vote. THAT is material support.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the voting for the use of taxpayer dollars that are used to assist women terminate their unborn children.
 
Felicity said:
The standard is "material support" of procuring abortion. Her being in a position of voting on such things that legitimize through legislation the killing of human beings is "material support" of abortion and other legislation that is against the sanctity of life. So what if she never had an abortion or drove anyone to a clinic?...she, by her direct actions, aided such occurrences--she directly participated, through her power as a legislator, in millions of abortions that were made possible, in part, by her vote. THAT is material support.
Click to expand...

Voting for something to be a choice, does not mean you support it. No way you can spin that one. Homosexuality is also LEGAL, so does that mean you support it?

It's despicable that the religious nutso right is trying to play this against her this way.

The religious right won't be happy until a theocracy comes about.
 
TheNextEra said:
Voting for something to be a choice, does not mean you support it.
Click to expand...
Voting "for" something doesn't mean you support it? Really?:confused::rofl

No way you can spin that one.
Click to expand...
If you don't think a vote is support for something I think YOUR head must be spinning...what is it if it is not voting in favor of something?

Homosexuality is also LEGAL, so does that mean you support it?
Click to expand...
Homosexuality is not legislated. ???? Nor should it be--it's a preference. By that standard, vanilla ice cream is legal also. So? It doesn't relate a whit to something that actually IS legislated.


It's despicable that the religious nutso right is trying to play this against her this way.

The religious right won't be happy until a theocracy comes about.
Click to expand...
If your issue is a prejudice against religion, then just admit it rather than trying to criticise a religion for upholding its beliefs and wanting those who claim to be of that religion to actually represent the beliefs appropriately rather than using it for political advantage while ****ting on the sacred tenets.
 
Last edited:
Felicity said:
Voting "for" something doesn't mean you support it? Really?:confused::rofl
Click to expand...

Voting for something to be a choice (something the religious nutsos hate) does not mean you yourself support doing that action.

Felicity said:
Homosexuality is not legislated. ???? Nor should it be--it's a preference. By that standard, vanilla ice cream is legal also. So? It doesn't relate a whit to something that actually IS legislated.
Click to expand...

But it is against your precious bible. So you support it if it is legal by your logic.

Felicity said:
If your issue is a prejudice against religion, then just admit it rather than trying to criticise a religion for upholding its beliefs and wanting those who claim to be of that religion to actually represent the beliefs appropriately rather than using it for political advantage while ****ting on the sacred tenets.
Click to expand...

No my prejudice is against people that want to turn this country into a theocracy and take away choices of people.

You hate people having a choice.
 
TheNextEra said:
Voting for something to be a choice (something the religious nutsos hate) does not mean you yourself support doing that action.



But it is against your precious bible. So you support it if it is legal by your logic.



No my prejudice is against people that want to turn this country into a theocracy and take away choices of people.

You hate people having a choice.
Click to expand...
If it is a choice, then where is my choice in the matter concerning such things as parental notification? Guess I DON'T have a choice there, now do I? So really it is not legislating "choice"--it is legislating legality of a particular action by particular people--and that action is the procurement of abortion.


Ludahai pointed out, in the matter of how abortion is funded, I also don't have a CHOICE whether or not my money goes to it. I am FORCED by such legislation to monetarily support that which I would not if I had the CHOICE.


The question you should ask yourself is:
"Choice" to do WHAT?


Finish the sentence: Choice to __________________________.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
Voting for something to be a choice, does not mean you support it. No way you can spin that one. Homosexuality is also LEGAL, so does that mean you support it?

It's despicable that the religious nutso right is trying to play this against her this way.

The religious right won't be happy until a theocracy comes about.
Click to expand...

The government has a duty to uphold basic rights. This is in no way religious so stop bashing religion.

My argument against abortion:

Of course, there is a bit of trouble when one's rights conflict another. Though, I thought this dilemma was solved with the end of slavery. The logic behind slavery, in my opinion, is comparable with abortion.(I hope me using slavery doesn't make me come across as insensitive,however, it is such a great comparison I must use it. )

Ironically, the Democrats continue to use the same logic with abortion today as they used with slavery in the mid 1800s.

Slavery argument: A man has a right to property. A slave is property. It is legally owned by it's master. It slave is not a human. A slave is not a person. It may be a human, but it doesn't look like me and is not as intelligent as I am. Henceforth, is not a person. Taking the slave away would impede on the it's owner's property rights and since slaves do not have rights since they are not people, the abolition of slavery is unjust.

Pro-choice argument: A woman as a right to all her bodily functions. A fetus is part of a woman's body. It is a parasite consuming her precious resources. A fetus may be a human, but it doesn't look like me and is not intelligent as me. Henceforth, is not a person. Forcing a fetus to continue to reside in a woman's body would impede on here rights to reproduction and since a fetuses do not have rights since they are not people, abolishing abortion is unjust.

Again, I apologize if you get offended by the slavery comparison. But the logic the logic is analogous to abortion.

Both arguments both are based on the same false premises.

1. A human is not necessarily a person.

2.One human(mother/slaveholder) is greater than the other(fetus/slave). And his/her rights are greater than the other even if it is not fundamental.

3. The right to property/reproduction is extremely important.
______________________________________________________________

My argument against these premises.

1. Person hood is a horribly arbitrary and unfair labeling. Society has always had a biased view towards individuals. From a few decades ago and back this view was against colored people(unfortunately it may still partly be the case). Now it is towards fetuses since they look like sacks of skin rather than cute laughing babies.

This bias is oppressive to anyone that seems different. However, all humans capable of reaching life is an individual being and I believe that calling them non-people based on your bias is wrong. Therefore, all humans should be people.

2. The preamble of the Declaration of Independence has two assertions,

a. Everyone is equal.

b. There are fundamental rights endowed by God.(God in a religious or non-religious interpretation) This includes life and liberty.

The a pro/anti slave/choice argument is:

Mother reproductive rights vs. Fetus's right to life
and
Master's property right vs. Slave's right to liberty.

If everyone is equal according to assertion (a.) then the who's right is it factor is eliminated giving:

Reproductive rights vs. Right to life
and
Property rights vs. Liberty

3. Now we have our two choices life or reproduction. Property or Liberty.
A have to insert some bias into my argument.

There are many rights. But which rights unalienable? According to assertion (b) to the Declaration, these are life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It should intuitively clear that some rights are more important than others.

Life is more fundamental than reproduction rights.

Liberty is more fundamental than property rights.



In conclusion, slavery and abortion are unjust by impeding on fundemental rights on equal humans and government has a duty to create and enforce their interdiction .
 
Pinu7 said:
There are many rights. But which rights unalienable? According to assertion (b) to the Declaration, these are life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It should intuitively clear that some rights are more important than others.

Life is more fundamental than reproduction rights.

Liberty is more fundamental than property rights.
.
Click to expand...

FORCING a woman to carry a baby to term is taking away liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the woman.

If pro-life people want to abolish abortion, find, pay, and support ways to remove the fetus from the mother safely without her having to carry the baby full term.
 
TheNextEra said:
FORCING a woman to carry a baby to term is taking away liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the woman.
Click to expand...
You forget the inherent right that is taken away in an abortion--the right to life. You skip the preeminent right because it applies to the child killed and focus on liberty and happiness instead! In case no one informed you of this in your schooling days, the FULL text of the quote to which you refer is

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Note the RIGHT listed first, and it is that RIGHT that is infringed upon when one is aborted.
 
Felicity said:
You forget the inherent right that is taken away in an abortion--the right to life. You skip the preeminent right because it applies to the child killed and focus on liberty and happiness instead! In case no one informed you of this in your schooling days, the FULL text of the quote to which you refer is

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Note the RIGHT listed first, and it is that RIGHT that is infringed upon when one is aborted.
Click to expand...

Much like children do not have full rights, neither does the fetus.

I will always side with a woman's right to choose not to carry full term if she doesn't want to.

FORCING her is taking away liberties as well.

As I said before, if you don't like it, spend the money to research other ways so she doesn't have to carry it to full term or DEAL WITH IT.
 
TheNextEra said:
Much like children do not have full rights, neither does the fetus.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute... Children don't have the right to life?

I hope you don't test that theory! ALL human beings have the right to life--that's what the DoI claims and considers "inalienable" and is listed FIRST among equals in the document.

I will always side with a woman's right to choose not to carry full term if she doesn't want to.
Click to expand...
Then you side with taking away the inalienable RIGHT of a certain class of human beings.

FORCING her is taking away liberties as well.
Click to expand...
Killing is taking away life--removing that one right, removes all other rights.
As I said before, if you don't like it, spend the money to research other ways so she doesn't have to carry it to full term or DEAL WITH IT.
Click to expand...
How very "pro-choice" of you. :roll: So to you it's not "pro-choice," it's "pro-agree-with-YOUR-choice."
 
TheNextEra said:
FORCING a woman to carry a baby to term is taking away liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the woman.

If pro-life people want to abolish abortion, find, pay, and support ways to remove the fetus from the mother safely without her having to carry the baby full term.
Click to expand...

Who forced the woman to engage in activity that she knew would have the potential to result in the presence of an unborn human being in her womb?
 
ludahai said:
Who forced the woman to engage in activity that she knew would have the potential to result in the presence of an unborn human being in her womb?
Click to expand...
oh...but even if she didn't consent, that wouldn't morally justify killing the unborn result of the crime. The human did not ask to be conceived, and is therefore completely a second victim! I would vote for a measure that had a rape caveat, but I still believe that morally it would be unjustified to kill a human being who's conception made her also a victim of her mother's rape.
 
The chances of getting pregnant from a rape are slim. The chances of getting pregnant from a rape if you were treated at a hospital for rape and given the MAP are even slimmer.

Personally I find the rape/abortion issue irrelevant.
 
talloulou said:
The chances of getting pregnant from a rape are slim. The chances of getting pregnant from a rape if you were treated at a hospital for rape and given the MAP are even slimmer.

Personally I find the rape/abortion issue irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It is very rare, but it's not irrelevant to the one who gets aborted as a result, nor is it irrelevant that it could be used as an excuse for a woman who simply changes her mind about a pregnancy in order to get an abortion. As I said--I would vote for such a law with that caveat just to start to lessen the killing.
 
Although I don't support abortion, I have to say that the Pope should keep his holy fingers out of the political world. It's called the separation of Church and State, but the obviously the Vatican hasn't heard of such heretical nonsense.
 
Felicity said:
oh...but even if she didn't consent, that wouldn't morally justify killing the unborn result of the crime. The human did not ask to be conceived, and is therefore completely a second victim! I would vote for a measure that had a rape caveat, but I still believe that morally it would be unjustified to kill a human being who's conception made her also a victim of her mother's rape.
Click to expand...

Felicity, and other Catholic pro-lifers, I'm curious how you feel about this case and the Church's reaction to it.

Brazil girl, alleged rape victim, aborts twins - Americas- msnbc.com

Vatican defends Brazil excommunication - Yahoo!7 News

Edit: Never mind! Just saw the other thread. :doh
 
Last edited:
Arcana XV said:
Felicity, and other Catholic pro-lifers, I'm curious how you feel about this case and the Church's reaction to it.

Brazil girl, alleged rape victim, aborts twins - Americas- msnbc.com

Vatican defends Brazil excommunication - Yahoo!7 News
Click to expand...

Now that's just sad. Well, personally, I think this abortion is justified because she'd die if she try to give birth to two babies, like the article said, her uterus isn't big enough. So instead of 3 lives being lost, only 2 are.

Either way, excommunication is way over the top here.
 
TheNextEra said:
Much like children do not have full rights, neither does the fetus.
Click to expand...
Full rights is not the issue. Remember from the preamble, that there are some intrinsic rights endowed by God to all humans. All children have these rights. Mentally retarded people have these rights.

The right to drink is not an inherent right, so it is not guaranteed. Fetus's(who I identify as persons) share the equal fundamental rights as adults.


As I said before, if you don't like it, spend the money to research other ways so she doesn't have to carry it to full term or DEAL WITH IT.
Click to expand...

How about abstinence education for women to find out the benefits avoiding sex until being in a stable position to take the risk of pregnancy(e.g. marriage.)? Are you happy now?

pwnage.

Felicity, and other Catholic pro-lifers, I'm curious how you feel about this case and the Church's reaction to it.

Brazil girl, alleged rape victim, aborts twins - Americas- msnbc.com

Vatican defends Brazil excommunication - Yahoo!7 News
Click to expand...

There was a thread on DP about this. I posted in support of the archbishop.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom