• 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 wins over notre dame

Who? The lame in the back of the crowd who wouldn't STFU when his President was talking?

Hopefully the secret service gave him a good beat down.

Great speech, Chuck, too bad you missed it.:2wave:

Welcome to the First Amendment.

Naturally, those on the left are demanding the government thugs beat people who use it.
 
Will you say explicitly that abortion as a form of birth control is a morally wrong choice? Answer yes or no.

That's a very limited hypothetical: How did the woman/girl become pregnant? What are her current circumstances? Why specifically does she not believe she is able to carry to term?
 
I deleted my post due to Capt. warning. But it is racist to call him a white man because you are trying to take away the FACT that he is part black. It disgust me when racist do this:(

Sorry, the majority of his DNA came from Europe, not Africa.

The majority of his life's experiences came from his white relatives, not his black ones.

The MOST important thing to note 'bout 'bama is that he DID NOT live his formative years as an impressionable young mulatto in the United States in the 1960's. He DOES NOT share the American black "experience".

He's got a permanent tan. That's the only thing "black" about him.
 
That's a very limited hypothetical: How did the woman/girl become pregnant? What are her current circumstances? Why specifically does she not believe she is able to carry to term?
I believe the question was asked in the context of consentual sex resulting in an unplanned pregnancy that the mother simply doesnt want to be bothered with.

I might be worng, but probably not.
 
I believe the question was asked in the context of consentual sex resulting in an unplanned pregnancy that the mother simply doesnt want to be bothered with.

I might be worng, but probably not.

We have an approved medical procedure that can alleviate that unwanted medical condition: abortion.
 
That's a very limited hypothetical: How did the woman/girl become pregnant? What are her current circumstances? Why specifically does she not believe she is able to carry to term?
Will you say explicitly that abortion as a form of birth control is a morally wrong choice? Answer yes or no.
 
Staying on topic--what I got out of the speech is finding common ground starts with not demonizing the other side. I may have been guilty of that on another thread in my criticism of Keyes and Terry.

On these passionate issues, it is difficult to take a step back and listen.

What's the common ground?

Common sense and science says that human life begins at conception.

People promoting abortion deny this. They're out of touch with reality and until they acknowlege basic biological facts, it's not possible to find common ground with them. Now....explain why The Messian has to give a pro-abortion commencement address at a Catholic university if his alleged desire is to establish common ground and not divisiveness?
 
Will you say explicitly that abortion as a form of birth control is a morally wrong choice? Answer yes or no.

Um...

:confused:


That's a very limited hypothetical: How did the woman/girl become pregnant? What are her current circumstances? Why specifically does she not believe she is able to carry to term?
 
What's the common ground?
Common sense and science says that human life begins at conception.
So does Catholic dogma. There can be no common ground here.

The Obama essentially told them that "I know you disagree, but I don't really care."
 
Um...

:confused:


That's a very limited hypothetical: How did the woman/girl become pregnant? What are her current circumstances? Why specifically does she not believe she is able to carry to term?
Any particular reason you keep trying to dodge the question? A simple question with a simple answer. Why are you afraid to give that answer?
 
The original question asked about the -morality- of the issue.

Which was an irrelevant framing of the question, which I pointed out. Morally isn't the issue here. Medical ethics are the issue.

EDIT: And if you had bothered to read further, you would have noted that I also answered the question how it was framed, also.

If I must repeat again for our less shining students, morally it is acceptable too because it is a morally neutral situation.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the First Amendment.

Naturally, those on the left are demanding the government thugs beat people who use it.

Yeah we all know how much you conservatives LOVE the 1st amendment like when those wearing T-shirts against Bush were escorted away from him and the responses were along the lines of "Well that is the right of Bush".

****ing hypocrites.
 
Which was an irrelevant framing of the question, which I pointed out.
You can argue that iof you want, but the fact of the matter is the person who asked the question wanted to know about the -morality- of the issue. Addressing the question in any other context avoids that question.

EDIT: And if you had bothered to read further, you would have noted that I also answered the question how it was framed, also.
Yes you did. I did not harp on you to answer the question.
 
You can argue that iof you want, but the fact of the matter is the person who asked the question wanted to know about the -morality- of the issue. Addressing the question in any other context avoids that question.


Yes you did. I did not harp on you to answer the question.

Okay, but in answer to the morality of the issue, my answer is that it is a morally neutral situation, under certain constraints.
 
Okay, but in answer to the morality of the issue, my answer is that it is a morally neutral situation, under certain constraints.
That's fine. My point was simply that the moral question was indeed relevant because that's the issue the person who asked the question wanted addressed.
 
Really? This is the first time anyone has defended the use of it with me. Is it a case where Democrats have called themselves the Democrat party? Or is it the opposition that has called them the Democrat party for over a century?. Because I assumed common sense dictates that people, corporations, and political parties can name themselves...and expect to be refered to as such by people who are older than middle school age kids.

At any rate...they want to be called the Democratic Party now, is that too much to ask?
The Democratic Party

Also, The "Democrat" Party is a plot hatched by childish Conservatives. "Democratic Party" is a proper noun and any other such term is wrong

Democrat Party (phrase) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Shouldn't the bolded be "Democratics"? I mean, members of the Republican party are called Republicans, so shouldn't members of the Democratic party be called Democratics?
 
Any particular reason you keep trying to dodge the question? A simple question with a simple answer. Why are you afraid to give that answer?

I asked for some clarification to your hypothetical, details that would be relevant to my answer. I asked this twice. You did not answer. Who is dodging what?

Will you say explicitly that abortion as a form of birth control is a morally wrong choice? Answer yes or no.

Depends. What are the cirmcumstances that brought the woman/girl to have to make this choice?
 
I asked for some clarification to your hypothetical, details that would be relevant to my answer. I asked this twice. You did not answer. Who is dodging what?
You are. Attempting to rework/re-word the hypothetical to move it into your rather diminutive comfort zone is a dodge.

You want to morph the hypothetical, you answer the question first and then move into the evolutions you find preferable. That is the order of things.

Depends. What are the cirmcumstances that brought the woman/girl to have to make this choice?
She got pregnant. Assume it was not an immaculate conception.
 
Shouldn't the bolded be "Democratics"? I mean, members of the Republican party are called Republicans, so shouldn't members of the Democratic party be called Democratics?
How about Democraticans? But I think the party prefers Democrat-singular, Democrats-plural, and Democratic Party.

Thats the one thing Republics don't understand. You get to name yourself. Notice how nobody complains about my renaming on the Republic party? they think it's okay.
 
So does Catholic dogma. There can be no common ground here.

The Obama essentially told them that "I know you disagree, but I don't really care."


Right. The Messiah PRONOUNCED FROM ON HIGH that the great money making machine fed by dead babies will continue to be run unchecked, and the DNC will profit thereby.
 
Back
Top Bottom