• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A simple Yes or No with a short explanation.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Repubteen said:
I want to ask a question to the Democrats. Think of it like this. If someone killed a Baby Bald Eagle or any endagered animal for that matter. He/ She would be locked up for a long time. But the Defendant would ask why is my client being locked up. Because he killed an endagered species. Well correct me if I'm wrong but isn't every child is endagered because, there will never be another like it.It's time for the Democrats to start caring more about the lives of humans and less about the animals.
In line with the foolishness you describe, a few years ago one of the US baseball teams was playing in Montreal. A US batter hit a fly ball that collided with a bird flying by. The batter was safe, but the bird was out (for good).

The batter was issued a summons for killing the bird. The next time he appeared in Montreal he also had to appear in court to answer the charge.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Repubteen said:
Yes, I do admire him. I think he was a great president. He was a much better president than Clinton
Reagan not only gave rise to the 'neo-con' movement that we are currently suffering from (preemptive war is great!), but also that horrible notion of Reaganomics. This is better than Clinton? Clinton was atleast moderate, rather than insane.
 
S

Sandy

Oh dear! This may bring on the rocks! I am unqualifiedly against the Government having any authority over the individual in America in any way. I, myself would never consider an abortion but that is my choice. I would give all women the same choice.

I lived during those years where abortions were illegal and they were performed anyway. However in those days it was a state issue and the federal government had no authority until those stupid women came up with Roe v Wade.

We were in the beginning of getting petitions to our Governor to have abortions be permitted legally in California when Roe v Wade took it out of our hands and gave it to the Federal Government. However our Governor was the first one to sign the law in California and most of us went to Sacramento and cheered Governor Reagan for his courage to be first.

You see, I knew Reagan when he was pro-choice and had respect for the women of California. Legislation like this becomes a killing field of legal actions and is no better than the illegal slaughter that we had before.

We tried on 3 separate occasions to stop the financing of the abortions and we went to Washington and presented the House of Representatives to stop wasting our money on this kind of thing. Congressman Sensenbrenner promised to see to it and the House simply put the cost in a different part of the budget. It turns out that the most active abortion clinic is right there in D.C.

But we have a new way to stop the abortions and had the over the counter morning after pill been available 700,000 abortions would have not been performed in 2004.
 

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
979
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
Ask Urethra for a confession. Any Brit would be too proud to deny it; most other Europeans wish they were Brits.

Many Brits are ashamed to admit it. Record numbers of them up-sticks to re-locate to France and Spain for the better quality of life. Most other Europeans do not wish they were British.

Are you another one that doesn't even have a passport?
 
S

Sandy

The question was asked: Should abortion be allowed? My question back to you is "By Whom"

Who do you want to issue your orders? the government or your own moral values?

Is there no one here who can say that they have their own code of ethics and live by them?

This is where we part company. You folks are looking for your own personal God to look over your shoulder under the guise of your government to set your rules and inflict your punishment. No need to locate your own code of ethics, as it will come with your government.

We are not animals living in a zoo, but human beings with supposedly developed rational brains. You want to be told what to do thereby giving up your own decision making in all your actions.

When your children begin to experiment with sex, will you try to give them the warning signs that they could hurt themselves and the family or will you simply call your local police and turn them in. There is something very weak and tragic by this forum. Individual freedom and personal responsibility has been turned over to your government and that is one hell of a step back for humanity.

I will leave you to your government plans for your future.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Naughty Nurse said:
How will reforming governments bring rain to countries that suffer long-term drought? How will reforming governments suddenly produce resources for countries that have none?

We do need to empower other countries to become independent, but independece is not an option when you are starving to death. We need to solve that one first.
There are two things, more than any others, that contribute to the ills of most third world countries.

One is an almost total lack of education.

The other is corrupt governments that divert, for their own benefit, foreign aid intended to relieve the suffering of their subjects.

Fixing these two 'defects' would significantly reduce the dimensions of the problem.
 

MeChMAN

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
109
Reaction score
1
Location
Florida
Sandy said:
Oh dear! This may bring on the rocks! I am unqualifiedly against the Government having any authority over the individual in America in any way. I, myself would never consider an abortion but that is my choice. I would give all women the same choice.

I lived during those years where abortions were illegal and they were performed anyway. However in those days it was a state issue and the federal government had no authority until those stupid women came up with Roe v Wade.

We were in the beginning of getting petitions to our Governor to have abortions be permitted legally in California when Roe v Wade took it out of our hands and gave it to the Federal Government. However our Governor was the first one to sign the law in California and most of us went to Sacramento and cheered Governor Reagan for his courage to be first.

You see, I knew Reagan when he was pro-choice and had respect for the women of California. Legislation like this becomes a killing field of legal actions and is no better than the illegal slaughter that we had before.

We tried on 3 separate occasions to stop the financing of the abortions and we went to Washington and presented the House of Representatives to stop wasting our money on this kind of thing. Congressman Sensenbrenner promised to see to it and the House simply put the cost in a different part of the budget. It turns out that the most active abortion clinic is right there in D.C.

But we have a new way to stop the abortions and had the over the counter morning after pill been available 700,000 abortions would have not been performed in 2004.

First I know that Sandy is no longer a part of this forum but I would still like to comment about her views on government. She says that she is against government, so dosen't that mean she is against her self? Aren't the people the "goverment"?

We need more Government and less Congress! The more the government stops voting and making decisions the more Congress steps in and makes decisions for the Government. Am I right?
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If only America was ruled by 'the people, for the people' still. With only a 50% turnout as presidential elections, and a two party electorate, we hardly exert any authority over this country anymore. Let's go the other way: more democratic (vote!) with more parties (crumble, two party electorate).
 

Batman

Active member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
407
Reaction score
7
Location
Fulton, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
anomaly said:
With only a 50% turnout as presidential elections, and a two party electorate, we hardly exert any authority over this country anymore.
The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate reported that more than 122 million people voted in the November election, a number that translates into the highest turnout -- 60.7 percent -- since 1968.

anomaly said:
If only America was ruled by 'the people, for the people' still.)
And if the people ruled through the power of their vote that abortion should be illegal with a few exceptions, would you still feel that way?
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Batman said:
The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate reported that more than 122 million people voted in the November election, a number that translates into the highest turnout -- 60.7 percent -- since 1968.


And if the people ruled through the power of their vote that abortion should be illegal with a few exceptions, would you still feel that way?
Frankly, and I know some may think this is 'wrong' or whatever, but I really don't care whether abortion is legal or illegal. I believe a woman has the right to choose, so I prefer it to be legal, but really, if it is deemed 'illegal' by the mighty court (or the american people), I wouldn't care or be 'outraged' in the least. The whole issue's just silly, as both sides are quite foolish with their arguments. But, as long as the supreme court has more power than the American people, Roe v. Wade will stand. Also, in any vote that you're talking about, I do hope people will see the effect making abortion illegal will have, backalley abortions will become common once again.
 
Last edited:

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
MeChMAN said:
First I know that Sandy is no longer a part of this forum but I would still like to comment about her views on government. She says that she is against government, so dosen't that mean she is against her self? Aren't the people the "goverment"?

We need more Government and less Congress! The more the government stops voting and making decisions the more Congress steps in and makes decisions for the Government. Am I right?
I think I need to understand what it is your trying to say better. Maybe I'm just tried, it's been a long day. I'm not sure I comprehend all of what you're stating. Could you clarify it some? Esp. the part about needing more government and less congress. I've always kind of found the more government we get the more screwed up we get. Or at times just the more screwed we get.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yes-The constitution garuntees the woman the right to control her body, and until it leaves the womb, the fetus is connected to the woman, and dependent on her for nourishment, otherwise it would die. While it is in her body, the woman has the power under the constitution to control it.

Whether or not I believe is not at issue, what is at issue is what is to be allowed.
 

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
979
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
One is an almost total lack of education..

Mississippi? Kentucky?
Fantasea said:
The other is corrupt governments that divert, for their own benefit, foreign aid intended to relieve the suffering of their subjects.

.
Texas? Florida?
 

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
Pac,

I think I need to understand what it is your trying to say better. Maybe I'm just tried, it's been a long day. I'm not sure I comprehend all of what you're stating. Could you clarify it some? Esp. the part about needing more government and less congress. I've always kind of found the more government we get the more screwed up we get. Or at times just the more screwed we get.

He meant that in a perfect America, the people ARE the government and that more people need to get off their arses. Hence, more government (citizen involvement) and less congress (elected official involvement.)

A little more clear?
 

Naughty Nurse

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Fantasea said:
There are two things, more than any others, that contribute to the ills of most third world countries.

One is an almost total lack of education.
Oh, silly me! So people who have no home, food, health care, future, are in that position because they didn't go to school? Really?


Fantasea said:
The other is corrupt governments that divert, for their own benefit, foreign aid intended to relieve the suffering of their subjects.
But as your beloved GWB is so keen on "liberating" other peoples, why is he not doing anything about this?

Fantasea said:
Fixing these two 'defects' would significantly reduce the dimensions of the problem.
Third world child: "Mummy, why haven't we had our spoonfull of rice today?"

Third world mother: "Because I'm saving up to send you to Yale so you can get educated and solve our country's problems."

Get real, Fantasea!
 
Last edited:

MeChMAN

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
109
Reaction score
1
Location
Florida
LiberalFINGER said:
Pac,




He meant that in a perfect America, the people ARE the government and that more people need to get off their arses. Hence, more government (citizen involvement) and less congress (elected official involvement.)

A little more clear?
Thank you your a gentleman and a scholar!
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
I do hope people will see the effect making abortion illegal will have, backalley abortions will become common once again.
What the people will see is this. Given the medical advances since Roe v. Wade, there will be few deaths as a result of 'back alley' abortions. On the positive side, each year, well over a million children, who now die, will live.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
ShamMol said:
Yes-The constitution garuntees the woman the right to control her body, and until it leaves the womb, the fetus is connected to the woman, and dependent on her for nourishment, otherwise it would die. While it is in her body, the woman has the power under the constitution to control it.

Whether or not I believe is not at issue, what is at issue is what is to be allowed.
The child, after it is born, is still dependent upon the woman for nourishment for quite a few years.

By your logic, shouldn't she have the power to control 'it', as you call the child, for a few years?
 

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
979
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
The child, after it is born, is still dependent upon the woman for nourishment for quite a few years.

By your logic, shouldn't she have the power to control 'it', as you call the child, for a few years?
Read previous posts. This has already been discussed. People are talking biologically and you know it. I'm dependant on my job for a salary to live. Doesn't mean my boss has the right to control me. I agree with ShamMol's terminology. A foetus is an 'it.' A baby would be referred to as 'he' or 'she' according to what you find between its legs. English really isn't your strong point is it?
 

Naughty Nurse

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Fantasea said:
The child, after it is born, is still dependent upon the woman for nourishment for quite a few years.
Fantasea, that's an incredibly sexist statement, if ever there was one!
 

freedom69714

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
211
Reaction score
2
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
YES what I find really iroic is most pro-lifer are only pro-life up untill birth but not after no free health care! no free child care !
We are the richest nation on EARTH and thats a shame

However I would like to find ways to LIMIT Abortion as much as possiable

POWER OF CHOICH
freedom69
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Urethra Franklin said:
Read previous posts. This has already been discussed. People are talking biologically and you know it. I'm dependant on my job for a salary to live. Doesn't mean my boss has the right to control me. I agree with ShamMol's terminology. A foetus is an 'it.' A baby would be referred to as 'he' or 'she' according to what you find between its legs. English really isn't your strong point is it?
It would seem that the pendulum may have begun to swing in the opposite direction.

The information contained in the following URL appears below it.

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C000-099/0010000205.HTM

Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 1
Laws in Force and Construction of Statutes
Section 1.205

August 28, 2004

Life begins at conception--unborn child, defined--failure to provide prenatal care, no cause of action for.
1.205. 1. The general assembly of this state finds that:

(1) The life of each human being begins at conception;

(2) Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being;

(3) The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.

2. Effective January 1, 1988, the laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court and specific provisions to the contrary in the statutes and constitution of this state.

3. As used in this section, the term "unborn children" or "unborn child" shall include all unborn child or children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.

4. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.

(L. 1986 H.B. 1596)
CROSS REFERENCE: Abortion regulations, Chap. 188, RSMo

(1989) Where section by its terms does not regulate abortions or any other aspect of appellees' medical practice, it can be read simply to express a value judgment. The extent to which the statute might be used to interpret other state statutes or regulations is something that only the courts of Missouri can definitely decide. U. S. Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the section unless the meaning of the section is applied to restrict the activities of a claimant in some concrete way. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S.Ct. 3040.

(1992) Definition of "person" in this section, which includes unborn children is applicable to other statutes and court concludes that it applies at least to the involuntary manslaughter statute, section 565.024, RSMo. State v. Knapp, 843 S.W.2d 345 (Mo. en banc).

(1995) Statute sets out a canon of interpretation enacted by general assembly directing that time of conception and not viability is the determinative point at which legally protectable rights, privileges and immunities of an unborn child should be deemed to begin. Statute further sets out the intention of the general assembly that courts should read all Missouri statutes in pari materia with this section. Connor v. Monkem Co., Inc., 898 S.W.2d 89 (Mo. en banc).

© Copyright

Missouri General Assembly
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Naughty Nurse said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
The child, after it is born, is still dependent upon the woman for nourishment for quite a few years.
Fantasea, that's an incredibly sexist statement, if ever there was one!
My, my, how politically correct can one get?

Kindly refute the following statement.

A mother initially suckles her child or feeds it formula from a bottle, later weans it to strained baby food, and eventually teaches it to eat table food. The child is, therefore, totally dependent upon its mother for nourishment for quite a few years after its birth.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Freedom69 said:
YES what I find really iroic is most pro-lifer are only pro-life up untill birth but not after no free health care! no free child care !
We are the richest nation on EARTH and thats a shame

However I would like to find ways to LIMIT Abortion as much as possiable

POWER OF CHOICH
freedom69
If this is what you truly believe, then you would be well advised to do a little research on the subject.

However, if you cannot do research with an open mind, then don't bother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom