• 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.

Do you think Roe V Wade should be overturned?

Do you think Roe V wade should be overturned?

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 58.5%
  • No

    Votes: 17 41.5%

  • Total voters
    41
Stretch marks and emotions to justify for murder..

Deegan do you think it's ok for me to kill you because I have deep emotional desires to?

When there's an abortion, you talk like the baby is completely irrelevant, that protecting fetuses are enslaving woman..

Woman are no more special than men..

So outlawing abortions is enslaving woman, then outlawing murder and rape is enslaving us all, isn't it? And don't give me that crap about it's her body and the baby's dependent on her, the baby is a completely different being with different DNA etc, and assume that it does matter, does that justify Andrew Carnegie abusing his workers in the steel mills or childrne working in harsh factories in the late 19th century? They're totally dependent on the owners for money to survive...
 
Synch said:
Stretch marks and emotions to justify for murder..

Deegan do you think it's ok for me to kill you because I have deep emotional desires to?

When there's an abortion, you talk like the baby is completely irrelevant, that protecting fetuses are enslaving woman..

Woman are no more special than men..

So outlawing abortions is enslaving woman, then outlawing murder and rape is enslaving us all, isn't it? And don't give me that crap about it's her body and the baby's dependent on her, the baby is a completely different being with different DNA etc, and assume that it does matter, does that justify Andrew Carnegie abusing his workers in the steel mills or childrne working in harsh factories in the late 19th century? They're totally dependent on the owners for money to survive...
No, I wouldn't want to bother you with "that crap about it's her body" LOL, another ignorant man who thinks he has a clue, how very cute!:roll:
 
Deegan said:
I also hold my opinions on abortion, and to agree with reasonable law, this does not make me a baby killer, it makes me a compassionate soul, living in a world not of my choosing!

It makes you someone who approves of baby killing and I don't see the compassion in that.
 
Last edited:
talloulou said:
It makes you someone who approves baby killing and I don't see the compassion in that.

So it's finally come to this, so be it, call me what you would like. I will continue to support womens rights, I'm hardly alone in this fight, so don't think you can shame me in to your corner, that won't work here.:roll:
 
Deegan said:
So it's finally come to this, so be it, call me what you would like. I will continue to support womens rights, I'm hardly alone in this fight, so don't think you can shame me in to your corner, that won't work here.:roll:

How did I shame you? What part of the statement isn't true? I made no false accusations....I used no words that aren't true. You've accused me of wanting to "enslave" women which is completely ridiculous and in no way does that term even apply to this issue. Yet I make a completely true statement and you utter.."it's finally come to this..." That makes no sense.
 
Deegan said:
So it's finally come to this, so be it, call me what you would like. I will continue to support womens rights, I'm hardly alone in this fight, so don't think you can shame me in to your corner, that won't work here.:roll:

Why don't you have the same compassion for the baby that is being killed? This I will never understand........
 
talloulou said:
How did I shame you? What part of the statement isn't true? I made no false accusations....I used no words that aren't true. You've accused me of wanting to "enslave" women which is completely ridiculous and in no way does that term even apply to this issue. Yet I make a completely true statement and you utter.."it's finally come to this..." That makes no sense.

You didn't shame me, but you tried, not gonna work though, so give that up now. I also never said you enslaved anyone, I was speaking to the men who support the anti-abortion laws, even when rape or insest are to blame.
 
Navy Pride said:
Why don't you have the same compassion for the baby that is being killed? This I will never understand........

Because I don't see a baby at one week, or two, or even three or four. I don't believe in life at conception either, I believe there is a very small window in which to make a decision, and that is up to the woman to decide. I also have said that after a certain amount of time, it has ceased to become a procedure, and is in fact a crime. It's called being reasonable, some of you might try it sometime.;)
 
Deegan said:
Because I don't see a baby at one week, or two, or even three or four. I don't believe in life at conception either, I believe there is a very small window in which to make a decision, and that is up to the woman to decide. I also have said that after a certain amount of time, it has ceased to become a procedure, and is in fact a crime. It's called being reasonable, some of you might try it sometime.;)

That is a very reasonable position to argue....at the state level.

What is unreasonable is to remove this issue from the people and force an entire nation to adhere to it. To have it happen at the hands of untouchable and un-elected government officials makes it even more unreasonable.

It shouldn't shock anybody how polorizing this issue is. Women make up a majority of eligible voters in virtually every diistrict yet conservative states are overwhelmingly in favor of tougher restrictions on abortion. You should consider who's rights you are really fighting for IMO.
 
Navy Pride said:
Well it looks like we will soon be getting a challenge to Roe V Wade.......Your comments please:

Roe V wage should be over tunred.Murder innocent children should never be a right.Murderers should be tried in a court of law and executed,not supported or congradualated for exterminating a innocent human child as though he or she was toenail or cancer.

Roe realizes her mistake in the helping of making the murdering of inncent children legal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey
At a signing of her first book in 1994, McCorvey was confronted by pro-life activist Flip Benham. Within a year, McCorvey converted to Christianity in 1995. On August 8, she was baptized by Benham in a Dallas backyard swimming pool that was filmed for national television. On August 10 of that year, she announced that she had become an advocate of the pro-life movement (specifically, "Operation Rescue"), fighting to make abortion illegal.

In 1998, she released a statement that affirmed her entrance into the Roman Catholic Church, and she has been confirmed into the Church as a full member.
 
Deegan said:
No, I wouldn't want to bother you with "that crap about it's her body" LOL, another ignorant man who thinks he has a clue, how very cute!:roll:
..... so if it's her body she should be able to do anything within it's boundaries?

So you agree we should legalize suicides and prostitution? (equal right for men too!!!!)
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
Well it looks like we will soon be getting a challenge to Roe V Wade.......Your comments please:
I'm all for Roe-v-Wade section 9a. being fulfilled, because then abortion would be illegal.
 
Deegan said, "I can't believe I am saying this, but NO, I don't think we should revisit this ruling. It is indeed decided law, right or wrong, it would be irresponsible to pull the rug out from millions of women after 30 years of doing it this way! I support states rights, but womens rights trump that of the state, and this is why it was correct that the SCOTUS take this in to their competent hands, and end this debate once and for all. As I have said time and again, it's now time to decide when this is not a womens right, and I think after four months you have given up the right to decide, and the state should step in."

Did I miss something somewhere....I thought you were pro-life? Where did I get that idea? Womans rights trump the right to kill another human being?

I am so sick of people who claim to be pro-life and really are not.


You say the Supreme Court acted in a competant way? They believed the lies of a woman and her attorney and they legalized child dismemberment in the womb. First off abortions were only suppose to be done if the mothers life was in danger.............but these imbeciles worded it so that any child can be killed in the womb.

Those on the bench that voted in favor of abortion........they are the ones with blood on their hands. What goes around comes around.
 
doughgirl said:
Deegan said, "I can't believe I am saying this, but NO, I don't think we should revisit this ruling. It is indeed decided law, right or wrong, it would be irresponsible to pull the rug out from millions of women after 30 years of doing it this way! I support states rights, but womens rights trump that of the state, and this is why it was correct that the SCOTUS take this in to their competent hands, and end this debate once and for all. As I have said time and again, it's now time to decide when this is not a womens right, and I think after four months you have given up the right to decide, and the state should step in."

Did I miss something somewhere....I thought you were pro-life? Where did I get that idea? Womans rights trump the right to kill another human being?

I am so sick of people who claim to be pro-life and really are not.


You say the Supreme Court acted in a competant way? They believed the lies of a woman and her attorney and they legalized child dismemberment in the womb. First off abortions were only suppose to be done if the mothers life was in danger.............but these imbeciles worded it so that any child can be killed in the womb.

Those on the bench that voted in favor of abortion........they are the ones with blood on their hands. What goes around comes around.

The majority could care less what you find acceptable, they don't see an egg as anything other then that, an egg. I don't believe that a brain is formed at a few weeks, thus the fetus is not a child, but a fetus, that is why we have scientific terms for these stages. That said, I do believe there is a window for which to end this creation, and I need more data to make that determination, but this is what I am interested in changing, the time that is reasonable in which to make this life or death decision.
 
I must say I am very encouraged by the results of this poll so far..........15-8 in favor of Roe being overturned is and outstanding ratio..........
 
Kandahar said:
Yes, let the states decide the issue for themselves. Nowhere in the Constitution can a right to an abortion be reasonably interpreted.
This is the way it should have been in the first place.
Last I knew, several years ago, a majority (slim) of the people favored the status quo.
I do not think we have the quality of people yet, this may take years, maybe hundreds, for man to progress.
So I voted no, and yes, abortion is murder- if only I could convince others of this..
 
talloulou said:
In my opinion with condoms, birth control, and the morning after the pill there should be no need for surgical abortions. If you were irresponsible enough to miss all your chances at not procreating then you should just suffer the consequences, have the child, and put it up for adoption so it can be a gift to one of the many infertile couples who can't afford to buy a baby from another country. Obviously this wouldn't apply to women whose lives would be put in danger by carrying a child full term however I DO NOT consider the fact that a woman doesn't want a baby to be mental health endagerment of her life.

So you're cool with rape, right?
 
Polish Rob said:
So you're cool with rape, right?


Yeah.....'CAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID RIGHT?

A woman whose raped should go to the hospital, planned parenthood, or her physician and get the morning after pill. In most hospitals this is common practice. Even if the MAP is unavailable in her area her physician can advise her on how to take regular birth control to get the same affect.
 
talloulou said:
Yeah.....'CAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID RIGHT?

A woman whose raped should go to the hospital, planned parenthood, or her physician and get the morning after pill. In most hospitals this is common practice. Even if the MAP is unavailable in her area her physician can advise her on how to take regular birth control to get the same affect.

what if she's in a coma for a month and she wakes up 3 weeks pregnant? ever thought of that
 
Polish Rob said:
what if she's in a coma for a month and she wakes up 3 weeks pregnant? ever thought of that


hmmm actually I never did think of that. I wonder what the hospital would do in that situation. The MAP is commonly given to rape victims in most hospitals. Even our local christian hospital. I imagine they would talk to her family or anyone who was making decisions for her and decide what to do about that.
 
doughgirl said:
Those on the bench that voted in favor of abortion... they are the ones with blood on their hands. What goes around comes around.

Everyone has blood on their hands. You need to understand this.

Any time you support a policy decision, any time you support a candidate, any time you sign a petition or vote, the results of your support are going to end up hurting somebody. Their blood is on your hands, as it is on the hands of everyone who was on the winning side with you.

The only people with clean hands are those who've never won a battle in their lives. I think I would prefer the blood; then, at least, I don't have to worry about whose hands are covered in mine.
 
Deegan said, “The majority could care less what you find acceptable, they don't see an egg as anything other then that, an egg. I don't believe that a brain is formed at a few weeks, thus the fetus is not a child, but a fetus, that is why we have scientific terms for these stages. That said, I do believe there is a window for which to end this creation, and I need more data to make that determination, but this is what I am interested in changing, the time that is reasonable in which to make this life or death decision.’

How do you know that the majority could care less? What do you base your opinion on? Site a poll or statistic.

WE might have scientific terms for stages but …..the heart still beats and there are measurable brain waves sooner or later in the FIRST TRIMESTER. Abortion is really legal in all three trimesters. So…

Do tell us what that window is? As technology advances so does viablility of the unborn child.

“A fetus is defined as being viable if it has the ability to "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb [that is, can survive], albeit with artificial help.”
(Roe vs. Wade, U.S. Supreme Court, 1973, p. 45)

In the fifties viability was reached about thirty weeks after conception. Modern medical technology changed that to twenty-five weeks in the seventies. Now viability continues to be pushed further and further back in the pregnancy and is now as early as nineteen weeks.”
(National Department of Health and Human Services)

“Twenty-one and twenty-two week premature babies are now supported routinely, and have a good chance of survival. By twenty-four weeks after conception, premature babies have a 40% chance of reaching adulthood without any major complications.” (Ohio Department of Health)

By twenty-eight weeks, the chance is 90%. (National Department of Health and Human Services)


“By twenty-nine weeks, survival is almost definite. (Note: These percentages are from reports written during the late 1980s. Current survival rates are most likely much higher.)
About thirty-nine weeks after conception, the baby is born. Twenty weeks have elapsed since the baby first became viable and first gained the ability to live without its mother. Yet now for the first time it gains the legal right to life.”
(National Department of Health and Human Services)



Deegan why don’t you associate viability with heartbeat or brainwaves?

Let me ask you this.....what will happen when we are able to save lives at 15 weeks or less? Will all those children suddenly become human and worthy to live? Can we honestly believe that children at 21 weeks were not human 20 years ago, but are human now simply because of improved technology?

If you believe viability is based on the capacity to live without depending on other human beings then many people in our society Deegan are not viable. Premature babies the sick, the handicapped, people with Alzheimers... These humans have one thing in common, they all are dependent on others to live. What is the difference between these I just mentioned and the viable unborn child?
 
talloulou said:
hmmm actually I never did think of that. I wonder what the hospital would do in that situation. The MAP is commonly given to rape victims in most hospitals. Even our local christian hospital. I imagine they would talk to her family or anyone who was making decisions for her and decide what to do about that.

Can the morning after pill/effect be given intravenously? Thats the question.
 
Back
Top Bottom