• 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!

Pence: Abortion will end in U.S. 'in our time'

Reformedfindlay said:
That's fine but she clearly didn't care enough to read through the thread, that or she didn't care enough to make it apparent in her response to me.

I know who she is I'm not new to the forum nor to the common speakers on abortion threads. That being said, generally I appreciate her input.
Click to expand...

I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to Luftwaffe. Did you not read the quote in my post?
 
Scrabaholic said:
Doesn't an icon get put under the name when there's a name change?
Click to expand...

No idea but if you follow my conversations back with him, that's who they go back to.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Yes, but I think you have to pay to do it. I thought that an icon got put under the user's name indicating they had changed names.
Click to expand...

Its 10 bucks. I figured it was about time i donate to the cause anyhow.
 
Grand Mal said:
It's strange how conservatives who cite the ineffective drug laws as examples of how futile gun laws would be will say that making abortion illegal will end abortion.
Click to expand...
NOT STRANGE AT ALL. Simply because abortion opponents are, provably, hypocrites. Remember that we live in a society that generally expects folks to pay for what they want, but abortion opponents want others to pay for what abortion opponents want.
 
Reformedfindlay said:
The best argument I've seen for pro choice is the idea that a fetus isnt protected under the constitution as a "person." That actually has some value as an srgument if you ask me.
Click to expand...
CORRECT, SEE THE CENSUS. The Constitution mandates counting all persons every 10 years (except Indians not taxed). But see for yourself; unborn humans have never been counted as persons in any U.S. Census, including the very first one of 1790, where the Founding Fathers set the Legal Precedent.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Just wait until optical scanning tech gets a little farther. Scanners along the road to ID a woman as being "with child" one day and without the next, with no live birth to show for it could certainly enhance revenue for places that wanted to go that route. The slippery slopes this nonsense brings up boggle my mind.
Click to expand...
GULLIBILITY IS ALWAYS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. See, The Fact Is, about 50% of all conceptions Naturally fail to lead to implantation into the womb and thereby become confirm-able pregnancies (usually via hormones in the blood or urine). In this case "miscarriage" means that something no larger than an ovum (which is a single cell) exits the woman's body --and you expect to detect that optically?
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Yup, it's totally a 'thing.' And that's one reason I dont include it in my list of consequences of pregnancy for women...I dont want to add to that.
Click to expand...

According to the APA, on any average day, three or more women are murdered in the United States by their boyfriends or husbands. https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/us/domestic-intimate-partner-violence-fast-facts/index.html

We don't talk about this enough: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/domestic-violence-statistics_n_5959776.html
 
Reformedfindlay said:
With Gorsuch in place, perhaps one more SCOTUS opening and abortion can very well end.

...
Click to expand...

You are mistaken.

Justice Gorsuch agrees that Roe v Wade is prescedent.....
In plain English ...that's means right to privacy regarding abortion is law....That law is set in stone.
It will not be questioned.

From this Fox News article:
Judge Neil Gorsuch said Tuesday the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “precedent” and acknowledged the ruling had been reaffirmed “many times.”

Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Justice Antonin Scalia died, does not have much of a history ruling on abortion issues, and the contentious subject was one of the first topics broached during the question-and-answer session of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to question Gorsuch, immediately followed up, citing the importance of the issue since, she said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe.”

“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch told Feinstein, clarifying his position on precedent. “What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”
Click to expand...

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent' | Fox News
 
minnie616 said:
You are mistaken.

Justice Gorsuch agrees that Roe v Wade is prescedent.....
In plain English ...that's means right to privacy regarding abortion is law....That law is set in stone.
It will not be questioned.

From this Fox News article:


Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent' | Fox News
Click to expand...

Thanks Minnie. It's pretty obvious from the OP content and his comments in the other thread that he has experienced a bad outcome from the courts on child support and feels he had the "correct" interpretation of the law.
 
Celebrity said:
Women of the USA: why do you insist on entertaining the fantasy that forced motherhood is bad but forced fatherhood is good?

The Vice President of the United States is calling to take away rights which allow you to choose what to do with your body. This autonomy on a physical level is part of what makes us human. But it is also a choice of how to behave in society, and whether or not we should be parents.

It seems quite clear to me that men and women should both be allowed to have sex with one another without risking a prison sentence, if the other chooses to enforce non-custodial support.

Why do you suppose that women still want to financially abuse men in this way? Are women really so vindictive that they are willing to risk it all just to snub men? Or are they too meek and mild mannered to stand up for themselves?

I know how that feels. I once tried to present evidence in court of the unconstitutionality of forced fatherhood. The judge refused to admit it. It really hurts to go to a place where one expects to find honor, civility, respect, wisdom and justice, and find ignorance and obstinate discrimination in its place. But I feel my situation is slightly different. Whereas I presently am incapable of rightly exercising autonomy, woman can and do disavow motherhood. Therefore, advocacy I do is not in defense of an existing legal protection of men. Unfortunately, I believe women have grown smug and self righteous. They do not understand that their rights are at risk because of their egotistical complacency. If women stood up for what was right for all people, and not just all women, they could speak to a much wider audience.

Pence: Abortion will end in U.S. 'in our time' | TheHill
Click to expand...

Did you have your attorney to present evidence to the court that it was “unconstitutional” to force fatherhood - or did you?

After eons of failed attempts by men’s rights groups to make a constitutional case against forcing fatherhood - how is your evidence different?
 
Removable Mind said:
Did you have your attorney to present evidence to the court that it was “unconstitutional” to force fatherhood - or did you?

After eons of failed attempts by men’s rights groups to make a constitutional case against forcing fatherhood - how is your evidence different?
Click to expand...

He says it's "racist" :doh

(See the other thread for more on that, the one on Christian Abortion Hypocrisy...the last couple days.)
 
GDViking said:
That is an amazing statement proving that you know nothing about agriculture. They are paid very fairly for very hard work, work high school students used to do, however they have become so spoiled that the work is too hard for the 15 dollars an hour they would start at.

Now think about orchards and asparagus, tomato farms, etc... Who do you thinks picks that produce? Do you think santa and his elves do it in their off time.

Louisiana cracked down on undocumented workers a few years back, tomatoes rotted on the vines and many farms went bankrupt.

Try looking at tbe big picture and not just through your us and them goggles.
Click to expand...

They are hiring illegals therefore there is no guarantee that the wage will be fair. more often than not to is not a fair wage.
I well understand how agriculture and horticulture work and the idea that you need illegals to do the work speaks of something being very wrong with your systems. I live in a country where food is the main export of the country and dairy is one of our biggest industries. As well we have a minimum wage law and contract system that allows for the legal hire of overseas labour. That you claim farmers need to hire illegals only tells us how corrupt your systems are.

All your telling me here is that americans are idiots who crack down on illegals while doing nothing to ensure that workers are available. How stupid can louisiana be that they do such a dumb thing. The outcome of produce rotting was inevitable if all tthe morons could do is think to get rid of the workers.

My suggestion would be that louisiana gets its head out of its own arse and start looking at how other countries sensibly deal with the problem of needing workers and not having to hire illegals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom