• 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!
  • 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.
I thought I made it clear that I was against late-term abortions. There should be a certain point when it should not be allowed. I guess that would go along with your "movement in the chicken egg" argument.
 
heyjoe,

Okay. Your statement about unborn babies not being life, though... Come on. Completely asinine. Or would you like to attempt to explain it?

I understand it may be hard to back up the statement with reason or science and maybe you're not willing to try because deep down inside, you know that true reason will eventually give way to acknowledging that an unborn baby is a person maybe say, at the very least, at the point brain waves are detectable and surely even pain can be felt. Did you know this happens before the 3rd month?

As I mentioned before, already half of all abortions take place before 8 weeks. I think it is reasonable for a woman to be responsible for knowing her body well enough to investigate when she might be pregnant and end the pregnancy before an innocent sentient person has to die.

We have the resources to encourage more responsible behavior and protect the unborn. All we need now is a refinement of a constitutionally unsound Supreme Court decision to reestablish a much needed traditional social policy of empathy and protection for all innocent life.
 
WKL815 said:
heyjoe,
As I mentioned before, already half of all abortions take place before 8 weeks. I think it is reasonable for a woman to be responsible for knowing her body well enough to investigate when she might be pregnant and end the pregnancy before an innocent sentient person has to die.
That's basically my point. That about sums up my entire argument.
 
Excellent!!!! I'm so glad to hear that you would advocate laws against abortion after 8 weeks or so unless a court order is obtained. Now I expect you to write your congressmen.

Now, let's discuss failure to comply...






(note: this post is tongue-in-cheek)
 
I think 3 months should be the cutoff. Only because I know miscarriages can happen in that time period. I think you're not supposed to tell anyone you're pregnant until after 3 months.

I don't know about charging them with Murder. That's pretty harsh. I don't know I'll have to think about that one.
 
Heyjoe,

You make me smile.

I would say that a misdemeanor with community service should be the going rate, and the doctor that plus fine. If they don't show up for community service or are found in violation more than three times, then jail time.
 
I think the community service should be done at a nursing home, or maybe an adoption agency. The irony might be a good guilt trip. ;-)
 
LOL, that is beautiful!

What happens if the mother to be doesn't realize she is pregnate until after 8 weeks?
 
Last edited:
Well, I guess in that case, that's what she gets for not paying attention to her body.
 
Sounds about right. There should be, however, some hearing from a judge to offically decide the length of community service or jail time if its a repeat case. I don't think a jury would be necessary.
 
If we're talking about community service, then why did Peterson get convicted of 2nd degree murder for killing his unborn son?

We've debated what a life is and what it isn't, but it appears to me that in our legal system, there is a touch of confusion. If the unborn child is nothing more than a genital wart, then having it removed shouldn't bring the possibility of 30 to life.

(Personally, I'm glad he got hit for it.)
 
I was following the case a little, the defense had equal proof that the child was born before death as the prosecution had of the young one suffocating in the womb.

They apparently believed that it was born before death.
 
LiberalFINGER said:
If we're talking about community service, then why did Peterson get convicted of 2nd degree murder for killing his unborn son?

*heavy sigh*

Please re-read my posts. Thanks.

Additionally,

Unborn Victims of Violence Act. California has one and now the Federal Govt does too. A wanted unborn baby killed in the process of a crime is protected under the law and the perp subject to the harshest penalty allowed.

Even if that weren't the case, my stance on the issue is that unborn babies over 2 months of gestational age, should not be aborted without court approval. If a baby has grown past the gestational age where his/her survival chances are better than poor, it *is* murder! Thankfully, we also have the Partial-birth abortion ban.
 
Last edited:
LiberalFINGER, get that finger out of your ear... and keep up.
:duel
 
Hey, that was a simple question, don't jump down his throat because he's more liberal than you :p.

(and too lazy to research it ;-))
 
MSR said:
Be careful... the argument needs to be in the center of the reality... very, very few abortions are obtained by rape victims and very, very few abortions are obtained by victims of incest. These are 10th of 1% arguments and will stop the debate cold.

White females ... middle class and upper middle class... get the vast majority of abortions and there are rarely medical reasons and rarely financial reasons. This is the sad reality.

As for Pres. Bush and abortion I think if you call Bush "anti-abortion" you are not dealing with the facts. Bush has never claimed to be against abortion... only against partial-birth abortion. He does however seem to support some limits on abortion as a birth control device.

As for recent legislation against partial-birth abortion... an activist judge has over-turned the law (against the will of the people) and I suspect it will be appealed.

I am sure that you lib's out there will be using this argument when Bush makes his next judicial nomination to the supreme court. But I will not be surprised if his next nomination is neutral on the topic of abortion.
Sadly, most times, abortion is used as a "way out". Like I said before we live in a world where you can escape the consequences of your actions.
 
We covered that. You cannot however blame "activist" judges. Talk about a way out...
 
heyjoeo said:
To me, that sounds like an inherant contridiction. How can someone who is unborn, be a life? That's like saying every sperm that is wasted was a potential life, because it has the possibility to become one. Miscarriages happen, people don't call that murder (or even manslaughter, people get convinced for manslaughter when they don't mean to kill or it was an accident).

As I've said before, I still don't think abortions should be used as a way out. Also, I think it is a good thing that most abortions happen in the first 8 weeks. It really is a tough issue, and America is very divided over it. I just don't think you can blanket the issue and be totally against it.
Miscarriages are "natural". Abortions are not.
 
heyjoeo said:
We covered that. You cannot however blame "activist" judges. Talk about a way out...
Yes, I know. Unfortunately, I'm trying to play catch-up.:D
So no more posts from me until I've read everything.:p
 
heyjoeo said:
We covered that. You cannot however blame "activist" judges. Talk about a way out...

heyjoe, you are so young. But I am too. Difference is I just spent the last month boning up on the reality of this issue. Activist judges gave us Roe V Wade. Look at the Roe v. Wade opinion. Blackmun used the 14th Amendment to invoke a woman’s broad right to privacy which he claims encompasses abortion, and the simultaneous dismissal of the portion of the 14th amendment that protects any person. He states that the Constitution does not define “person” in so many words, and that ‘in nearly all cases” previous use of the word “person” in the Constitution only had postnatal applications such as who could become a Senator. He then concludes that the word “person” does not “with any assurance” have prenatal applications.

I argue, however, that the framers of that amendment undoubtedly were aware of abortion laws on the books at that time they constructed and ratified the language of the 14th amendment. And they knowingly mandated that “any person” be given their constitutional rights unless offered due process of law. They could have used the term “citizen” again or the qualifier “born persons”, but they didn’t. It says “any person”.

And furthermore, in an example of completely unreasonable and false justification of an action, he claims that the action itself (of abortion) throughout the 19th century was proof that a fetus wasn’t a person and should therefore be allowed to continue in a freer wa. And then he further goes on to cite Jewish, Protestant and Renaissance Roman Catholic dogmas as further evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!! What happened to secular law!? What happened to science and reason. How is it that the progressive stance in the 1970s and now is dependent on going backwards in time when little was known about the prenatal experience and dependent on the antiquated religious views of when life begins?
 
Let me enlighten you on the checks and balances system. Judges come to conclusions, however they have no power to enforce the conclusions they make. They must rely on the other parts of government in order to function as "activists." All I'm saying is watch where you point the finger.
 
Judges are charged with interpreting law. When they do so in ways inconsistent with reason and not using the legislative guidelines, they are actively making new law. Thus the term Activist.

You are right in that it takes two to tango. And shame on the American public for not yet having elected officials to congress who would approve appointments to the Supreme Court who would see the error of the Roe v Wade judgment and overturn it.

But that fact does not absolve those activist judges in 1970 from their failure to apply constitutional law.

If you have another interpretation of "Activist" as it applies to judges, please let me know. I look forward to arguing semantics because it is the final step towards some type of agreement; either concurrence on the issue or the realization that no common ground can be found. At least at that point, both sides will have illuminated their position down to the very core.
 
However, you worked around my statement. Judges can make rulings, however the other parts of government are in charge of enforcing them. Rulings are just rulings and it is out of the judges hand after the ruling is made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom