• 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!

Is This Going Too Far?

Are These Additional Restrictions on Abortion Funding Going Too Far?

  • Total voters
    24
X Factor said:
Do you actually know anyone like this? Most firearm phobics do want to take guns away from everybody.
Click to expand...

Well I don't think I personally know anyone who thinks that way to begin with, since if they do they probably live in la-la land. But if they have a modicum of intelligence they'd realize that banning and having a black market for guns would be much worse.
 
X Factor said:
Do you actually know anyone like this? Most firearm phobics do want to take guns away from everybody.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't like guns but believe that it is a right in this country. There are in fact many of us like that.
 
jamesrage said:
Which makes her pro-abortion.If your pro-gay marriage does not mean you have to run out and engage in same sex relations? Does being pro-2nd amendment mean that you have to run out and buy a gun? Does owning a gun mean that you are pro-2nd amendment? You can be a proponent of something and not have to partake in what you are a proponent of.




Which has nothing to do with the definition of pro-abortion.



She is the one trying to ignore the reality that she is pro-abortion.
Click to expand...

You can call her whatever you want to. Pro-Abortion, pro-choice, whatever. She believes that the name does not adequately apply to her beliefs. That is her prerogative. In the end this all just about what u want to call or name something and nothing to do with reality. It's a stupid argument that won't get resolved. Debate her position, not what she wants to call it.
 
X Factor said:
What about standing up for what you think is right?
Click to expand...

What I think is right, and what I think is best for society are not necessarily the same thing. When it comes to issues regarding society I will stand up for what I think is best for society, and when it comes to issues that are personal I will stand up for what I think is right personally.
 
I vote yes, it is going too far. The government should stay out of a woman's uterus
 
Redress said:
Only because you have not looked at it closely enough. I don't have to like something to think it should be legal. If asked, I would advise in most cases against having an abortion. However, I think that since it is a moral issue that the country is divided on, that it is best left up to the individual to make the ultimate choice.

Her position is actually quite consistent.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as a moral issue at all. I think there are profound consequences for any society to kill off 50 million of it's inhabitants.
 
jamesrage said:
You can be a proponent of something and not have to partake in what you are a proponent of.
Click to expand...

She is not a proponent of abortion. She is a proponent of having the right to have an abortion. This is better though, you actually almost addressed what some one said.
 
StillBallin75 said:
You can call her whatever you want to. Pro-Abortion, pro-choice, whatever. She believes that the name does not adequately apply to her beliefs. That is her prerogative. In the end this all just about what u want to call or name something and nothing to do with reality. It's a stupid argument that won't get resolved. Debate her position, not what she wants to call it.
Click to expand...

Her position is; she supports abortion.
 
Dutch said:
yeah, we might end up with more black and poor white folk wandering around.
Click to expand...

No, we will just have less women killed and maimed because of back ally abortions. And that is a good thing.
 
X Factor said:
See, SB, I think the "people are going to do it anyway" argument is a terrible one. People will continue to drive drunk too, so should we just make it legal?
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's a high degree of utilitarian analysis to such issues. I believe that legalizing drugs, and taxing them, would be a much more effective way of regulating and decreasing their use. The same goes with guns. Your analogy doesn't really hold, however because there's no evidence to suggest that legalizing drunk driving would actually decrease the rate of drunk driving, whereas there is plenty of evidence to support the position that the legalization of drugs will actually put more controls on their use. My personal opinions regarding abortion are different from Your Star's, but I don't think her beliefs are unreasonable even if she personally thinks the act of abortion is wrong.
 
StillBallin75 said:
You can call her whatever you want to. Pro-Abortion, pro-choice, whatever. She believes that the name does not adequately apply to her beliefs. That is her prerogative. In the end this all just about what u want to call or name something and nothing to do with reality. It's a stupid argument that won't get resolved. Debate her position, not what she wants to call it.
Click to expand...

What is stupid to sit there and say you are are pro-choice but not pro-abortion. It makes as much sense as sayingl I have glock 19 but I do not own a hand gun.
 
Redress said:
She is not a proponent of abortion. She is a proponent of having the right to have an abortion. This is better though, you actually almost addressed what some one said.
Click to expand...

It amounts to the same position.
 
Redress said:
She is not a proponent of abortion. She is a proponent of having the right to have an abortion. This is better though, you actually almost addressed what some one said.
Click to expand...

She is a proponent of legalize abortion which makes her pro-abortion. That is the definition of pro-abortion.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Yeah, there's a high degree of utilitarian analysis to such issues. I believe that legalizing drugs, and taxing them, would be a much more effective way of regulating and decreasing their use. The same goes with guns. Your analogy doesn't really hold, however because there's no evidence to suggest that legalizing drunk driving would actually decrease the rate of drunk driving, whereas there is plenty of evidence to support the position that the legalization of drugs will actually put more controls on their use. My personal opinions regarding abortion are different from Your Star's, but I don't think her beliefs are unreasonable even if she personally thinks the act of abortion is wrong.
Click to expand...

So....just when did she say that?
 
jamesrage said:
She is a proponent of legalize abortion which makes her pro-abortion.
Click to expand...

And once again you go back to labeling instead of debating. Are you interested in actually talking about the issues in this thread?
 
Dutch said:
It amounts to the same position.
Click to expand...

No, Dutch, it really isn't. I told you before, that I am not a proponent of more gun rights, nor do I support such activities such as hunting or fishing for sport. But I DO believe that everyone has the right to such things and it is not my place to dictate to you how I think you should live. It is entirely different. I happen to love wildlife and wild animals. I don't like it when they are killed for fun. But hunting is a right in this country (though regulated) and I do not support completely taking it away from you.
 
Last edited:
Dutch said:
It amounts to the same position.
Click to expand...

jamesrage said:
She is a proponent of legalize abortion which makes her pro-abortion. That is the definition of pro-abortion.
Click to expand...

Then I guess the two of you would agree that folks can all those who are "pro-lifers", "No-choicers", right? It is, essentially the same position, since it is an accurate description.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Then I guess the two of you would agree that folks can all those who are "pro-lifers", "No-choicers", right? It is, essentially the same position, since it is an accurate description.
Click to expand...

Pro-life actually is the same as pro-death, since many women would die from back alley abortions. I think they should embrace the term.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Yeah, there's a high degree of utilitarian analysis to such issues. I believe that legalizing drugs, and taxing them, would be a much more effective way of regulating and decreasing their use. The same goes with guns. Your analogy doesn't really hold, however because there's no evidence to suggest that legalizing drunk driving would actually decrease the rate of drunk driving,
Click to expand...
Who's talking about reducing the rate of drunk driving. We're not talking about reducing the rate of abortion right? Isn't the argument that people should make their own moral choices?

whereas there is plenty of evidence to support the position that the legalization of drugs will actually put more controls on their use.
Click to expand...
Sorry, SB, I just don't buy this. Making drugs legal would make them more readily available, not less.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Actually, I don't like guns but believe that it is a right in this country. There are in fact many of us like that.
Click to expand...

You mean living in a country whose government doesn't represent your values? I know the feeling.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
What is stupid to sit there and say you are are pro-choice but not pro-abortion. It makes as much sense as sayingl I have glock 19 but I do not own a hand gun.
Click to expand...

I think her argument makes sense to me. But you are entitled to your opinion and she is entitled to hers, and it sounds to me like this point neither of you is going to change the others' mind so why don't you debate her position rather than what to call it.
 
Your Star said:
No, we will just have less women killed and maimed because of back ally abortions. And that is a good thing.
Click to expand...

That is a retarded argument for wanting abortion to be legal from a pro-life/anti-abortion perspective. Do you know why it is a retarded argument from a pro-life/anti-abortion perspective. Its because of the fact we as pro-lifers/anti-abortionist think the child the woman is carrying is equal to one outside the womb and deserves legal protection and that abortion should be treated just like murder. So the idea a woman should be legally allowed to kill her own child in order for it to be as safe as possible for her to kill her own child is laughable and idiotic.
 
X Factor said:
StillBallin75 said:
Yeah, there's a high degree of utilitarian analysis to such issues. I believe that legalizing drugs, and taxing them, would be a much more effective way of regulating and decreasing their use. The same goes with guns. Your analogy doesn't really hold, however because there's no evidence to suggest that legalizing drunk driving would actually decrease the rate of drunk driving,[/I]Who's talking about reducing the rate of drunk driving. We're not talking about reducing the rate of abortion right? Isn't the argument that people should make their own moral choices?

Sorry, SB, I just don't buy this. Making drugs legal would make them more readily available, not less.
Click to expand...

Okay, granted. The same argument could be applied to prohibition and alcohol though, and the effects of that are well-documented.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom