• 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!

Forced pregnancy is enslavement.[W:607]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

This is a bald-faced lie. I have given you reason after reason after reason, and time and again you simply dismiss them with no meaningful answer.

It's just more subjective moral opinion. Abortion isn't an opinion, it's a medical procedure.
Click to expand...
A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

It's a legal medical procedure.
Click to expand...
And, just like murder, it should be illegal.

And if it isn't a legal medical procedure then all who seek an abortion won't be deterred by radical people who are obsessed with control other peoples lives no reasons that they can't back up.
Click to expand...
People break the law all the time.

You reason so far...punish women who have sex is their crime IN YOUR COURT. That's it. And your sentence is a unwanted kid that if she can't care for, or abuses, or neglects, or WE THE TAXPAYERS often have to pay for.
Click to expand...
My court? I didn't know I was so fortunate to own one. I have repeatedly stated that I don't care what women do sexually. Here, I'll say this: Voluntary sex is a good thing. People should have as much sex as they want to, as long as no one gets killed. Your lies are unbecoming, RM.

-AJF
 
Lursa said:
Good...what would those compelling interests be? What are some possibilities? What do you see as justifiable as "compelling?"
Click to expand...

The state has interest in its citizens. Unborn are organisms that will become its citizens if they don't die. Therefore the state has an interest in ensuring that unborn don't die.

-AJF
 

Sorry, I am abandoning this analogy due to lack of clarity, unless someone can clearly and precisely lay out what everything in the car wreck side stands for in the sex/birth control/pregnancy side.

To be exact, how do:
* Driving
* Riding in the car without driving
* Seatbelts
* Air bags
* A collision
* Seatbelt failure
* Injury
* Death

relate to:
* Sexual intercourse
* The man
* The woman
* Birth control
* Birth control failure
* Pregnancy
* The unborn child
* Abortion
* Childbirth

Thank you.

-AJF
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

WCH said:
the ending of a life by the hand of another person....murder.
Click to expand...

Nope....self-defense is not murder. Soldiers killing in war, not murder. Assisted suicide in Oregon, not murder.

You have alot of problems distinguishing fact from fiction, dont you?
 

Ha ha, of course you're "abandoning it" (Just picture 'finger quotes' instead of typed quotes, lololol)
 
applejuicefool said:
The Constitution can be amended, if necessary. That is a legal option. As I said, I have the right to work within the legal system as it exists to change it.

-AJF
Click to expand...

But the overall majority of the public does not want to see Roe v. Wade appealed.

And maybe one day we will learn pigs to fly, but it does not mean that the constitution on this will be amended in this day and age.

For one, you need a 2/3 majority in both house and senate on this issue and whereas the house might go the way of the republicans, the US senate will most likely not.

And even then, it is just as proposal, 75% of the states must ratify it to be become an actual amended constitution and with

Hawaii
Vermont
Rhode Island
New York
New Jersey
Massachusetts
Maryland
Illinois
Delaware
Connecticut
California
Oregon

never going to agree to such an amendment and

Colorado
Washington
New Mexico

slowly or quickly going the same blue way (in statehood) there are not enough red states to make that amendment stick.

But that is all a moot point because with democrats holding 44 seats in the senate and 2 polling with the democrats, this issue is never even going to get to ratification status.
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

WCH said:
It's only legal because of Leftist
progressivism's attempt at population control.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Seriously????

Five of the seven justices that ruled in favour were appointed by Republican presidents.
 
applejuicefool said:
The state has interest in its citizens. Unborn are organisms that will become its citizens if they don't die. Therefore the state has an interest in ensuring that unborn don't die.

-AJF
Click to expand...

The "state," the Supreme Court, knew that when it made it's decision. WHy would it reconsider...based on what? What are the compelling reasons? They CLEARLY did establish a time period after which they DID say the state COULD consider it in their best interests (and that varies from state to state). Why would the federal govt reconsider THAT? What would compel it to do so?
 
I believe the word I used was "if". I used this example to point out the ludicrous nature of "born" as the criteria for personhood.

No, we grow after birth. We do not start developing lungs at age 10, we do not start having higher brainwaves at age 35. Growing is a lot different than going from a zygote to a fetus.
Click to expand...
We develop after birth. Our skull closes. Our eyesight improves. We get teeth. We lose teeth and get other teeth. We go through puberty. The way we learn new things changes - it's different for a young child and an adult. Men grow facial and body hair. Their voices change and deepen. Women begin to menstruate, then later in life they stop menstruating. Late in life, many men and fewer women begin to lose their hair. Sexual libido varies greatly over a human's lifetime. These are all examples of human *development*, not just growth, that happen over a lifetime after birth.

And it does not change the fact that abortion is legal and that a fetus is not a person.
Click to expand...
You say these two things as if they have something to do with one another.

Here is a human trait that all zygotes possess: The tendency to develop into a more mature human.

Something with no functioning higher brain functions/something with only a brain stem does not have a "soul" (for lack of a better word for it), it is like a robot going through the motions. It looks like the lights are on but nobody is home.
Click to expand...
I asked you to show that adult humans have more of a soul than does an unborn human. You're attempting to show that an unborn has no soul; okay, that's one step. Now go ahead and show that an adult human *does*.

Why is this important? We know there *will* be if the unborn survives, because of that very human trait - development.

It is called higher brain birth (as the opposite of brain death). Without brain birth there is not possibility of brain death.
Click to expand...
But there is the possibility of just good old, *actual* death. Which is what happens with every abortion. Here's a question for you, Peter: Of these two options, which do you find more objectionable?: 1. You will die, or 2. You will never have existed.

-AJF
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

applejuicefool said:
Irrelevant. Is what I said true or untrue? Is 9 months a long time or a short time, relative to an average human lifespan?

-AJF
Click to expand...

It can be an eternity for the woman who is pregnant.
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

OKgrannie said:
Especially when you add recovery time, that pushes the time sacrifice to well over a year.
Click to expand...

They like to forget all the things in their lives affected by sickness, exhaustion...like dropping out of high school, not getting into college, getting fired from a job, never advancing from a 'job' to a 'career' because of opportunities missed. And these things are exacerbated and extended when they try to raise the kid.

There are opportunities in life you can never get back. Quality of life...not quantity.

It's not up to strangers to tell women how to justify what's important in their lives. At least the govt recognizes this, even if disturbingly disrespectful pro-life advocates dont.
 
Yes, yes, we all know about human development. A baby has many capabilities that a zygote does not have. A toddler has capabilities that a newborn baby doesn't. An adolescent has capabilities that a toddler doesn't. An adult has capabilities that an adolescent doesn't. It's how humans operate.

Sorry, but having genetics alone does not make something alive or unique.
Click to expand...
A zygote has qualities other than genetics, as I have pointed out.

No, that is now how the law or reality works. A zygote is not a human being, it is an organism of human dna but it does not possess the qualities that make a human truly unique, independent and capable of life.
Click to expand...
Yes it does: It possesses a quality that will allow it to develop into a more mature human with those qualities.

Just imagine if for some defect there is no brain matter at all in a fetus, one cannot seriously state it possesses life like the mother possesses life? A zygote does also not possess the basic human attributes that a woman has.
Click to expand...
Yeah, now you're switching apples and oranges. Just imagine if that no-brain-matter fetus was born alive. Legally it is a person with all the rights thereof. And yet, as you point out, "one cannot seriously state that it possesses life like the mother possesses life." Play fair, Peter. Of course defects can occur for both unborn and born humans. That's not the point and you know it.

Why should they be reserved for persons, and not for all humans?

Again, why is that the magical cutoff line? Why should *personhood* be required, and not simply developing humanity? I think your true answer, whether you will admit it or not, is that you want women to have a window during which they can take a mulligan. A loophole to escape their responsibilities, even if it makes no logical sense. We don't knowingly and legally kill innocent humans in any other context.

-AJF
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?


Are you trying to tell me that I have to believe that either *all* the law is good and just and proper, or *none* of it is? How does that make any sense?

-AJF
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?


Men are 50% responsible for the creation of that kid, and are responsible for child support if it is born, and yet have 0% say in whether or not it gets aborted.

-AJF
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

Yes, a doctor can advise a woman about all kinds of things. As the law stands now - *which you support* - a woman has the right to iterate through a conception-pregnancy-abortion cycle *as many times as she wants to* with no repercussions whatsoever, despite any such doctor's advice. For *whatever* reason. Whether it be a stunning lack of caring or something more sinister, it's all perfectly okay and you support and condone it.

-AJF
 
Lursa said:
Ha ha, of course you're "abandoning it" (Just picture 'finger quotes' instead of typed quotes, lololol)
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're trying to say here. The analogy is messed up. Unless someone can clarify it, there is no reason to continue talking about it.

-AJF
 
Peter King said:
But the overall majority of the public does not want to see Roe v. Wade appealed.

And maybe one day we will learn pigs to fly, but it does not mean that the constitution on this will be amended in this day and age.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not, but it is still my right to work toward that end.

Yes. I know how it works, but thank you for the unnecessary lesson nonetheless. Time moves on. The makeup of the house and senate and court and Oval Office *change*.

-AJF
 
applejuicefool said:
Not sure what you're trying to say here. The analogy is messed up. Unless someone can clarify it, there is no reason to continue talking about it.

-AJF
Click to expand...

Here, more clearly stated: you cant dispute it so it's easier to feign 'confusion.' You are very confused...you just stated that shooting someone in the head was a 'medical procedure.'

Your credibility is plunging sharply.
 

Based on the way the system works, a new case with different justices than presided in Roe.

-AJF
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?


There are no repercussions because she is doing nothing wrong.

Not legally, and in the minds of many people, not morally either. She does not deserve to be 'punished' just because you, a stranger, feel she has no justification in her decision. You are not remotely qualified to judge her life.

Your opinion is certainly not enough to force a change in laws. And you have come up with no compelling reasons to do so (since your opinion is not enough).
 
applejuicefool said:
Based on the way the system works, a new case with different justices than presided in Roe.

-AJF
Click to expand...

And what compelling reasons have changed that they would base different opinions on?
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

OKgrannie said:
Especially when you add recovery time, that pushes the time sacrifice to well over a year.
Click to expand...

Sorry, missed this somehow.

Life expectancy for US women is 81.

-AJF
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…