• 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!

By Whose Authority:

You can claim that but in reality you can't be both.
Actually, I can. I'm anti-death penalty, and would never take another life except in self-defense or in the defense of another. I have no control over the actions of others, and I have no authority over anyone's actions but my own. I respect their individual right to make their own choices concerning themselves, even if I don't agree with those choices.
 
You can claim that but in reality you can't be both.

Yes you can. You can hold a pro life position and not want to impose it upon others. This is especially true if your objection is religious based and your recognize that others' religion don't necessarily match yours
 
Yes you can. You can hold a pro life position and not want to impose it upon others. This is especially true if your objection is religious based and your recognize that others' religion don't necessarily match yours
My objection is not religious based. It is based upon the Declaration of Independence and one of the founding principles of this nation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I'm not just pro-life, I'm also pro-liberty, and pro-pursuit of happiness, for the same reason. I value the other two founding principles equally.

In my opinion, if you are anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti-pursuit of happiness, like the Democratic Party has been and continues to be, then you are anti-American.
 
My objection is not religious based. It is based upon the Declaration of Independence and one of the founding principles of this nation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I'm not just pro-life, I'm also pro-liberty, and pro-pursuit of happiness, for the same reason. I value the other two founding principles equally.

In my opinion, if you are anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti-pursuit of happiness, like the Democratic Party has been and continues to be, then you are anti-American.
So then you support the stance that if I need a kidney to live it's perfectly American to take one of yours, assuming it's a match, whether you want to give me one or not?
 
So then you support the stance that if I need a kidney to live it's perfectly American to take one of yours, assuming it's a match, whether you want to give me one or not?
Why would you even ask such a nonsensical question?

Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That includes me. Clearly you are unfamiliar with the concept of individual sovereignty to ask such a stupid question.
 
Why would you even ask such a nonsensical question?

Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That includes me. Clearly you are unfamiliar with the concept of individual sovereignty to ask such a stupid question.
Actually you would seem to be the one unfamiliar with that concept, since you are the one that wants to take the individual sovereignty from women. Unless I am misreading your post and you support a woman's bodily autonomy right to end the use of her bodily resources
 
Actually you would seem to be the one unfamiliar with that concept, since you are the one that wants to take the individual sovereignty from women. Unless I am misreading your post and you support a woman's bodily autonomy right to end the use of her bodily resources
You clearly have serious issues with your ability to comprehend what people post. Where did I say anything about taking away the individual sovereignty from anyone? You apparently just like to make things up out of thin air and are so utterly clueless that you apply your imagined insanity to others.
 
You clearly have serious issues with your ability to comprehend what people post. Where did I say anything about taking away the individual sovereignty from anyone? You apparently just like to make things up out of thin air and are so utterly clueless that you apply your imagined insanity to others.
With this line:
In my opinion, if you are anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti-pursuit of happiness, like the Democratic Party has been and continues to be, then you are anti-American.

You seem to indicate an opposition to abortion not only on a personal level, but a legal level. Which is why I wrote:

Unless I am misreading your post and you support a woman's bodily autonomy right to end the use of her bodily resources

However, if I am not misreading, then in the effort to deny an abortion to women, you violate her individual sovereignty.
 
Why ?

That's how Roe made it to case law to begin with.

Source, quote the parts of the decision that support your claim.

Btw, it was a 7-2 decision by a mostly conservative bench. But heh...let's see you prove your claim...the decision is still available to quote.
 
That's how Roe made it to case law to begin with.
Roe v Wade is not an example of "it's so if we say it is so". The decision was made with a thorough review of the medical, ethical, social, economic and psychological aspects of abortion and the Constitution.

On the other hand the Robert's Court never made a case for overturning Roe. Essentially they said, "We don't think women should be allowed to abort, but we don't have any good reason to ban it federally so the states can do it"
 
Roe v Wade is not an example of "it's so if we say it is so". The decision was made with a thorough review of the medical, ethical, social, economic and psychological aspects of abortion and the Constitution.

On the other hand the Robert's Court never made a case for overturning Roe. Essentially they said, "We don't think women should be allowed to abort, but we don't have any good reason to ban it federally so the states can do it"

Tranlation....

1973 ==> Ignore Constitution

2022 == > Follow Constitution

Gorsuch, Kavennaugh, Barrett.....Yeah, Baby.
 
Back
Top Bottom