• 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!

Against/not against.

Are you against or not against the following?


  • Total voters
    45
Laws against abortion do not violate the 4th amendment or the 1st amendment.

No, according to the supreme court it violates the 14th Amendment until viability.
 
No, according to the supreme court it violates the 14th Amendment until viability.
There is nothing about abortion in the 14th amendment.

Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
 
Last edited:
This will be an open poll. That way we can just discard all anonymous votes.

One question, two subjects.

1: Are you against/not against TSA body scanners?

2: Are you against/not against abortion?

Why?

There will be no "other" option as quite frankly I don't care about "other" options. This thread is not about "other" options.

You should have made two polls. These subjects are worlds apart.

I guess I'm neutral on the scanners. They may serve a purpose. I'm not sure.

I believe abortion should be legal within the 1st trimester.
 
Since there is nothing in the constitution that says anything about abortion then the federal government can ban abortion.

The only way that it can is via an amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution which grants it the authority to dictate whether a person may have an abortion or not with normal federal laws.

In anycase lets get back to the privacy issue. Do you have a right to know whether a person 500 miles away is pregnant? How about a block away? Your neighbor? Or does the woman have the right to keep it private?
 
You should have made two polls. These subjects are worlds apart.

I guess I'm neutral on the scanners. They may serve a purpose. I'm not sure.

I believe abortion should be legal within the 1st trimester.

I didn't seperate them because I wanted to show how anti-abortion and anti-body scanners are contradictory when it comes to arguing privacy as a reason to not allow body scanners yet privacy is thrown out the window when it comes to abortion. (Roe vs Wade having been decided on privacy issues)
 
The only way that it can is via an amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution which grants it the authority to dictate whether a person may have an abortion or not with normal federal laws.

If its not in the constitution, then it is not unconstitutional to ban it.

In anycase lets get back to the privacy issue. Do you have a right to know whether a person 500 miles away is pregnant? How about a block away? Your neighbor? Or does the woman have the right to keep it private?

I do not see cops busting down doors of houses, taping phone lines or anything else to catch other criminals. Abortion would be no different and this has been address in multiple posts
 
If its not in the constitution, then it is not unconstitutional to ban it.

What part of the Constitution would give the government the authority to ban abortion? Remember, the Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government. Anythinig not listed is beyond thier scope to make federal laws on. As I stated earlier the only part that does is the Amendment process. Beyond that there is nothing.

I do not see cops busting down doors of houses, taping phone lines or anything else to catch other criminals. Abortion would be no different and this has been address in multiple posts

Really? Then whats all the hubbub over the Patriot Act? How is it that cops can bust down a door if two people are arguing and reported but doesn't answer when the cops first knock on the door, irregardless if there is an actual threat? Probable cause allows cops to do lots of things that could be argued as violating privacy. For example...TSA Body scanners.

In anycase equivocation is not an answer.
 
There is nothing about abortion in the 14th amendment.

As I said, the same as there's nothing about mouth flapping and making noise in the Constitution.
 
If its not in the constitution, then it is not unconstitutional to ban it.

There's nothing in the constitution about moving our mouth or lips either, does that mean the government can ban us from moving our mouth if enough people find something wrong with it?
 
In an intrusive society where law and order are given priority ahead of human rights there is not much sense in objecting to body scans. It just invites scrutiny by security organs.
 
What part of the Constitution would give the government the authority to ban abortion?

The fact that abortion is not a constitutional right gives the government full authority to ban it. It would be different if there was a right to abortion then the government would have to go through the amendment process.Just like there is no constitutional right to Marijuana and other substances so the government can ban it.



For example...TSA Body scanners.

There is no probably cause for TSA scanners.
 
The fact that abortion is not a constitutional right gives the government full authority to ban it. It would be different if there was a right to abortion then the government would have to go through the amendment process.Just like there is no constitutional right to Marijuana and other substances so the government can ban it.

I don't think that you understand just how the Constitution works. The federal government cannot act outside of the Constitution. For example: It cannot write a law stating how many cars you can have on your property. That is outside of its authority. Just because something is not a right according to the Constitution does not mean that the federal government can approve/ban it. It MUST fall within the powers given to it via the Constitution. Banning abortion does not fall within any part of the Constitution. And if you think that it does then SHOW me where in the Constitution it says that the federal government may pass laws on ANYthing that is not enumerated within the Constitution as a right. Before you go reading the whole thing then I would suggest looking up the 9th and the 10th Amendments. If you still insist on trying to find something within the Constution that supports your side then I will then refer you to the Article 1 Section 8:powers of Congress of the Constitution. The federal government cannot govern every aspect of the peoples lives. No matter how much you may wish it were so. The Constitution is in fact a LIMIT on the federal government. NOT a limit on The People.



There is no probably cause for TSA scanners.

Actually yes there is. 9/11 proved otherwise. Also past judgments about similiar (though different types of technology being used) said that you give your consent therefore it is legal.

In anycase you have yet to answer me directly. Do you have a right to know whether a woman is pregnant 500 miles from you? A block from you? Your neighbor? Or does the woman have a right to keep her pregnancy private?
 
I don't think that you understand just how the Constitution works. The federal government cannot act outside of the Constitution. For example: It cannot write a law stating how many cars you can have on your property. That is outside of its authority.

Abortion isn't even comparable to what would be zoning restrictions. You are grasping at straws with your miserable failed attempt to play gotcha games with people against abortion and virtual strip searches at the airport.


Just because something is not a right according to the Constitution does not mean that the federal government can approve/ban it.
It MUST fall within the powers given to it via the Constitution. Banning abortion does not fall within any part of the Constitution. And if you think that it does then SHOW me where in the Constitution it says that the federal government may pass laws on ANYthing that is not enumerated within the Constitution as a right.

Does the war on drugs ring a bell?

Before you go reading the whole thing then I would suggest looking up the 9th and the 10th Amendments. If you still insist on trying to find something within the Constution that supports your side then I will then refer you to the Article 1 Section 8:powers of Congress of the Constitution.

Which have nothing to do with abortion.

The federal government cannot govern every aspect of the peoples lives. No matter how much you may wish it were so. The Constitution is in fact a LIMIT on the federal government. NOT a limit on The People.

So you are saying that the government can not ban stealing, rape, murder and ect?
Actually yes there is. 9/11 proved otherwise. Also past judgments about similiar (though different types of technology being used) said that you give your consent therefore it is legal.

Citizens walking into airports is not probably cause to be virtually stripped search.Its like saying cops can search any one with long hair because hippies smoke pot and have long hair.

In anycase you have yet to answer me directly. Do you have a right to know whether a woman is pregnant 500 miles from you? A block from you? Your neighbor? Or does the woman have a right to keep her pregnancy private?

That has nothing to do with banning abortion.
 
Abortion isn't even comparable to what would be zoning restrictions. You are grasping at straws with your miserable failed attempt to play gotcha games with people against abortion and virtual strip searches at the airport.

You're right it doesn't. What it does have to do with is your insistence that the federal government can ban abortion without having to do it via an amendment. I used an example of why it cannot. Do you deny that the federal government can't dictate how many cars you keep on your property via a regular federal law?


Does the war on drugs ring a bell?

Does the commerce clause ring a bell?

Which have nothing to do with abortion.

Actually the 9th and 10th Amendments would apply if Roe vs Wade were overturned. As for Article 1 Section 8, this applies to your belief that the federal government can make any ole' law that they want without having to go through the amendment process. That whole section that you cherry picked was mainly about your insistence of that.

So you are saying that the government can not ban stealing, rape, murder and ect?

Nope. Read the Constitution, its history, and anything else related to the Constitution and how it works.

Citizens walking into airports is not probably cause to be virtually stripped search.Its like saying cops can search any one with long hair because hippies smoke pot and have long hair.

No but boarding terrorists is. You giving your consent allows them to use that scanner. If you don't like it...don't consent.

That has nothing to do with banning abortion.

Actually it has everything to do with abortion and you know it. Just answer the dang question...unless you're afraid because you know how it will end up if you do? If so then thats fine. Just say that you won't answer it. We can then go about our business knowing that you were not honest enough in your convictions to defend them utterly.
 
You're right it doesn't. What it does have to do with is your insistence that the federal government can ban abortion without having to do it via an amendment. I used an example of why it cannot. Do you deny that the federal government can't dictate how many cars you keep on your property via a regular federal law?




Does the commerce clause ring a bell?



Actually the 9th and 10th Amendments would apply if Roe vs Wade were overturned. As for Article 1 Section 8, this applies to your belief that the federal government can make any ole' law that they want without having to go through the amendment process. That whole section that you cherry picked was mainly about your insistence of that.



Nope. Read the Constitution, its history, and anything else related to the Constitution and how it works.



No but boarding terrorists is. You giving your consent allows them to use that scanner. If you don't like it...don't consent.



Actually it has everything to do with abortion and you know it. Just answer the dang question...unless you're afraid because you know how it will end up if you do? If so then thats fine. Just say that you won't answer it. We can then go about our business knowing that you were not honest enough in your convictions to defend them utterly.

You are grasping at straws with unrelated stuff in your failed attempt to compare banning abortion to being against virtual strip searches.
 
Actually it has everything to do with abortion and you know it. Just answer the dang question...unless you're afraid because you know how it will end up if you do? If so then thats fine. Just say that you won't answer it. We can then go about our business knowing that you were not honest enough in your convictions to defend them utterly.

You are grasping at straws with unrelated stuff in your failed attempt to compare banning abortion to being against virtual strip searches.

Non-ability to answer the question duly noted. Refer to bold part in my quote.
 
The wording is a little funny but I think I answered it properly but I explain my vote anyway.

I am FOR the right to abort, in the case of abortion its none of my business and its wrong to force women to carry a child to term.

The TSA policies dont really bother me.
I wonder if they are over the top
I wonder how effective they are
I wonder if the proper training is done
but other than that I dont worry about it to much since it is not a violation of the constitution no matte how bad people want it to be and I fly probably 6 times, 12-14 flights a year at least.
 
Non-ability to answer the question duly noted. Refer to bold part in my quote.

All you are doing is grasping at straws to play gotcha games with your little poll. The government can ban abortion just like they can marijuana,other drugs and so on. It doesn't require peeking into medical records without a warrant just like drug busts do not require busting down doors without a warrant. The fact that abortion is not in the constitution means that it can be banned or severely restricted.
 
All you are doing is grasping at straws to play gotcha games with your little poll. The government can ban abortion just like they can marijuana,other drugs and so on. It doesn't require peeking into medical records without a warrant just like drug busts do not require busting down doors without a warrant. The fact that abortion is not in the constitution means that it can be banned or severely restricted.

And all that you are doing is avoiding a very pointed question because you know that it would invalidate your position.
 
To a prolifer the lets keep abortion legal so it is safe for a mother to kill her children is a idiotic reason to keep abortion legal. Its like saying lets have tax payers provide bullet proof vests to potential violent criminals to keep them safe while robbing a home, trying to kill someone and etc.

Using deadly force against violent criminals is different... If you want to kill a woman before she has an abortion, the baby still dies. If she dies during an abortion, the baby still dies. You're advocating the kill 'em all, let god sort them out approach, which isn't how our current legal system works. We don't blow up a bank being robbed, to stop the robbery and punish the wrongdoer.

What you are saying is that you want to actually see these females die as punishment.... and NOT die after a trial, which is also different from executing a violent criminal after the fact.

You're not advocating ending abortion or life, you're just advocating punishment. You're also advocating intrusive government with the mandatory pregnancy tests, monitoring, vaginal ultra sounds, and investigations of miscarriages...

So really, I am not arguing let's make is safer for people to abort. I am arguing that isn't practical, logical, feasible, or cost effective to pursue your ideal prolife society.
 
What this all comes down to is that you see a woman who have abortion as "violent criminal", so you see nothing wrong with taking away their rights as we do to criminals. If you were honest (with yourself) you would realise there are rights invloved. The supreme court was right in that. Where you can argue is whether the state has enough interest in looking after the foetus to violate the rights of the women.

The state has no interest in feeding, clothing, sheltering, educating, or raising children... and I as a taxpayer, am not interested in doing it either. Call me selfish, IDK. I don't think raising a bunch of kids up in state orphanages, and tossing them out in the real word once they hit 18, is going to benefit society in the long run. In fact, it's proven to not benefit society at all...
 
A woman trying to kill her own child is pretty violent in my book.


There is nothing in the constitution that says abortion is a right. If you wish for abortion to be a right then petition your elected officials to go through the amendment process.

There is nothing in the constitution that says it's a violent crime either... but the constitution does say we have a right to due process, and that it's unconstitutional for the government to punish us by death without a trial.
 
The fact that abortion is not a constitutional right gives the government full authority to ban it. It would be different if there was a right to abortion then the government would have to go through the amendment process.Just like there is no constitutional right to Marijuana and other substances so the government can ban it.

There is no probably cause for TSA scanners.

So if something isn't a constitutional right the government can ban it? :shock:

Hopefully they fed won't ban internet access, reproducing, tanning, or motor vehicles soon... :(
 
All you are doing is grasping at straws to play gotcha games with your little poll. The government can ban abortion just like they can marijuana,other drugs and so on. It doesn't require peeking into medical records without a warrant just like drug busts do not require busting down doors without a warrant. The fact that abortion is not in the constitution means that it can be banned or severely restricted.

Where does it say in the constitution that marijuana and other drugs are banned?
 
but other than that I dont worry about it to much since it is not a violation of the constitution no matte how bad people want it to be...t.

Again, as in every thread, [citation needed]

You have been making that claim a lot, and have only backed it up with "it isn't because it isn't" - literally - and not substance... please for the love of god, PROVE IT. Given your certainty so far as your opinion goes, it shouldn't be difficult.
 
Back
Top Bottom