• 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!

[W:#310]Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty'

Good lord, you are being pathetic. It's my thread. I've posted significant content. You have provided... nothing. Nothing at all. Sniping from the bleachers. Nothing of substance. Even the citations you have posted contradict your own assertions. If it weren't for your overweening ego, you should be embarrassed.

Now, I invite you to desist. But, don't worry, I won't notice.

I think you're being pathetic.
 
You can't contribute anything of value and call them pathetic?
Are we in the "rubber-glue" stage of the "debate" now?

I've invoked the cone of silence, so you'll have to let me know.

Fact check: Republican says contraception access isn't at risk

"Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., a co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus said: "In no way, shape, or form is access to contraception limited or at risk of being limited." PolitiFact checks her claim."
....
"Confusion about how some forms of contraception work has led to efforts in several states to ban certain types of birth control. The most frequently targeted form of birth control is the morning-after pill, which can prevent pregnancy if taken within a few days of unprotected sex but which cannot interrupt an established pregnancy. It is not the same as the abortion pill, a regimen of two other medications that do end a pregnancy up to 10 weeks of gestation.

And even if the birth control methods did prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus, that would not be an abortion, at least not according to the medical community. Although many religious groups and abortion opponents argue that human life begins when the egg is fertilized, there is a consensus among doctors, scientists, and legal experts that pregnancy begins at implantation. And, they point out, an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Roughly half of all fertilized eggs never implant."
...
It is true that, so far, no state has banned forms of contraception. But the threat appears very real. And the absolute nature of Cammack’s statement — saying there’s "no way, shape, or form" that access to contraception is at risk — is not accurate.

We rate the statement False."
 
You claim some expertise in human biology...a complicated subject
It’s not complicated.
Yet why do you know so little about washing machines ?
 
Great, so that must also include financial privacy as well, meaning the government has no business knowing how much money someone makes or how they made it.
I think the 16th Amendment took care of the financial privacy question.
 
So what’s the larger point here, assuming that’s true?

The point is that the filthy state has always violated our privacy, and people like you support such privacy violations, hence you are a hypocrite to argue that a woman has some sort of "right" to privacy from the state regarding abortion.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Enough off-topic sillines and personal sniping. Thread bans have been issued. More are on the way if this kind of foolishness continues.
 
The point is that the filthy state has always violated our privacy, and people like you support such privacy violations, hence you are a hypocrite to argue that a woman has some sort of "right" to privacy from the state regarding abortion.
There is a difference between information gathered for tax purposes, universally accepted around the world, and the state interfering in someone’s decisions about their body.
 
There is a difference between information gathered for tax purposes, universally accepted around the world,

Lol, monarchism and slavery were also once "universally accepted around the world".

and the state interfering in someone’s decisions about their body.

Do you support the prescription drug system? If yes, then you have no problem with the state interfering with someone's personal decisions about their body.
 
Lol, monarchism and slavery were also once "universally accepted around the world".
You sound wistful...
Do you support the prescription drug system? If yes, then you have no problem with the state interfering with someone's personal decisions about their body.
Again demonstrating a complete lack of intellectual vigor.
 
monarchism and slavery were also once "universally accepted around the world".
So you see a golden age where there are no taxes? What’s next, no death?
So you see


Do you support the prescription drug system? If yes, then you have no problem with the state interfering with someone's personal decisions about their body.
No, I have some problems in some areas, none in others, as we all do.
 
No, I have some problems in some areas, none in others, as we all do.

Therefore you do support "the state interfering in someone’s decisions about their body" for certain things. You are no different, in principle, from a pro-life person who wants "the state interfering in someone’s decisions about their body" when it comes to abortion. You and a pro-life person both agree the state should interfere, you just disagree about what.
 
Therefore you do support "the state interfering in someone’s decisions about their body" for certain things. You are no different, in principle, from a pro-life person who wants "the state interfering in someone’s decisions about their body" when it comes to abortion. You and a pro-life person both agree the state should interfere, you just disagree about what.
Correct. It’s the nature of the interference that matters. If I chose to use birth control, if when my wife and I chose to abort a fetus that would have been born dead, not the state’s business
 
Back
Top Bottom