• 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!

Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

Do Men Have the Right to Control Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?


  • Total voters
    41
get sick, spend time in one system, then report back just as ignorant as before because you are only privy to a single system.

Then I guess everyone's efforts to compare and size up are pointless. . . based on incomplete and thin statistics and nothing more.
 
Just curious, katie....are you also an advocate of after-birth abortions?

There is no such procedure as an "after-birth abortion."

Your post was out of line to katie and really quite ridiculous.
 
What rights and liberties have been protected by our involvement in Iraq? We lost rights and liberties since Iraq and Afghanistan.

I made it a point to say that I disagree with how the military is used today. You are just preaching to someone that agrees with you.

I don't want to get off on the war argument here, though I will be happy to on a separate thread. My morals, part of which I derive from my faith, do not support the US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US military was sent for reason other than a direct defense of the U.S. and in doing so over 100,000 people have died so far - and my money helped pay for those deaths. So there is a direct correlation with the argument in this thread.

Agreed, but to be against the military in general, my point, is simply being against how it meant to be used and how it is not.

US citizens gained no rights or liberties as a result of Iraq or Afghanistan. We have lost right and liberties since our invasion of those countries. Our presence there is morally wrong, but I pay my taxes to support what I am morally opposed to.

Indeed.

Oh, and those people in the military? They get free birth control - and you're paying for it.

And did I agreed with that? Nope.
 
Then I guess everyone's efforts to compare and size up are pointless. . . based on incomplete and thin statistics and nothing more.

but if someones opinion is that a single national system is too inflexible and not a good way to figure out the best method.....
 
but if someones opinion is that a single national system is too inflexible and not a good way to figure out the best method.....

I think the best approach is a mix which enables people to be selective as to where they get tehir coverage and how much . . .and if they want to spend a lot more money they get a lot more coverage, but everyone should have some type of access to the same level.

My opposition to our govenrment's ruling at present is that it's making it illegal to not have it: I've known some people who prefer not to have ti - they save money every month and that money goes towards routine appointments, etc. . . contrast to the cost of insurance (copays, monthly routine amounts): it can be more affordable that way without cutting into your income.

If the government was just offering low-cost insurance coverage we wouldn't be having this problem at present. Or it they just altered or expanded what is *already* in place -that, too, would be great . . . and satisfy the purpose.
 
Last edited:
Again, there is no such prodedure in place. It was only a discussion of the "ethics."

Yes; when discussing ethics usually extreme and unfounded scenarios are presented to touch on the extreme results of said ethical (or unethical) views and make people think.

It doesn't mean that said indiviudals are actually arguing for the 'ability' to perform said activity.
 
Yes; when discussing ethics usually extreme and unfounded scenarios are presented to touch on the extreme results of said ethical (or unethical) views and make people think.

It doesn't mean that said indiviudals are actually arguing for the 'ability' to perform said activity.

These people were arguing in favor of it.

Again, there is no such procedure in place. It was only a discussion of the "ethics."

(I fixed your spelling error for you! You're welcome! :) )

There is such a procedure, it's just not legal. It's what we'd call "murder". The discussion was an argument in favor of accepting after-birth abortions as ethical.
 
What if a majority of women were pro-life? Would they be allowed to have their opinion validated on the issue in the minds of those who think men should have limited voting rights?
 
Back
Top Bottom