• 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!

I've noticed something has changed about the abortion debate on DP

LittleNipper said:
Medical and spiritual for a CHRISTIAN go hand in hand. I know of no physician who would say that prayer is unhelpful under any circumstances. And a person who must make tough choices needs all the prayer they can get. Such a decision should have counseling.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with this. If one isn't a Christian, one doesn't need Christian counseling. If one isn't a member of a religious church, synagogue, mosque, temple, shrine, etc., one doesn't need religious counseling.
 
Individual said:
A Woman's Rights should vary from State to State?
And we're still awaiting an explanation of the "compelling interest" a State government has in an individual Woman's pregnancy.
Click to expand...
I think state"interest" and state "compelling interest" are rot, but I also think they are fairly straightforward concepts. The state has an interest in the potential increase in population of the state. It also has an interest in how that increase will affect that state. The pro-life people don't attend to the latter idea.

Suppose all abortions were of seriously disabled and deformed fetuses that would never become productive citizens and would instead cost an exorbitant amount of money. Suppose the parents couldn't possibly pay and no one were willing to adopt them and pay. The state would have to pay, and then it would have to increase taxes for that purpose. A state might have an interest in women not continuing those pregnancies.

I think state "interest" is very dangerous as a concept for both sides of the issue. The state could force women to continue pregnancies. Then it could force women to end pregnancies. Then it could end up micromanaging pregnancies.

Sex, ugh! No wonder some people think it's dirty if it can result in that.
 
choiceone said:
You seem to have misunderstood democracy completely and to have misunderstood what shoving beliefs onto others actually means.

If the law is pro-choice, if you are against abortion, you don't have to have one. Nothing in such a law shoves anyone else's beliefs onto other persons bodies.

If the law is anti-abortion, if you are pro-choice, you still can't have an abortion because the law controls your internal bodily organs as well as your mind in such a way that others' beliefs are literally forcing you to continue a pregnancy unless you commit suicide.

Democracy is when you can restrain yourself from trying to control other people, including their bodies.

If you vote for anti-abortion laws, you're a rapist, pure and simple.
Click to expand...
I agree.

If state laws ban or severely restrict abortions they are not infringing on our first amendment, and some religious tenets of other religions.

Many Christian faiths and other religious groups hold beliefs that reproductive choice including access to birth control and legal abortion is a part of our religious tenet.

We sincerely believe that "Each person and each community of believers has the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, without compulsion from authoritative structures. "

Here is a <SNIP> from an article about soul competency.

From a Huffington Post article:

Our faith tradition teaches soul competency, a Baptist principle that is violated in restricting the right to choose an abortion.

Our forebears suffered greatly, even to the point of death, to express their conviction that no one stands between the individual and God.

Furthermore, it is a it is God-given right to hold your own belief and to reject state-sponsored religion.
This is the core Baptist principle of soul competency -- belief in the ability of each person to "rightly divide the word of God" (2 Timothy 2: 15) and act accordingly. Each person and each community of believers has the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, without compulsion from authoritative structures.

Therefore, current legislation restricting women's reproductive choice also restricts moral choice.
Click to expand...

Most Women Under 40 Haven't Heard the Pro-choice Moral Argument | HuffPost
 
quip said:
Yes, indifference seems to be a popular contagion within certain sectors of our country.

Other than that, I hope you're painfully disappointed in this regard.
Click to expand...
That whooshing sound was the joke going over your head.
 
Individual said:
A Woman's Rights should vary from State to State?
And we're still awaiting an explanation of the "compelling interest" a State government has in an individual Woman's pregnancy.
Click to expand...
How many more times do you need to be told the state's compelling interest can be the life the fetus, 10? 100? 1,000?

It's an interesting, if clumsily obtuse, brand of logic you're attempting to push. You and others here argue that a state somehow isn't allowed to have such a compelling interest, and then you play dumb by complaining no one has told you what their compelling interest might be. Whom do you expect to be fooled by this?
 
choiceone said:
If the law is pro-choice, if you are against abortion, you don't have to have one. Nothing in such a law shoves anyone else's beliefs onto other persons bodies.
Click to expand...
If you're against semi-automatic rifles, then you don't have to have one, right?
 
choiceone said:
The Constitution guarantees persons rights to life, liberty, and property. Life, liberty, and property are not defined as beginning at any time. It is persons who begin, and when they do, those are their rights, thus guaranteed. You are attempting to define something that never had to be defined in the whole of US history. What is defined is a person. Person doesn't include embryo or fetus. That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...
In federal law, yes; in state law, not always,.
 
NatMorton said:
How many more times do you need to be told the state's compelling interest can be the life the fetus, 10? 100? 1,000?

It's an interesting, if clumsily obtuse, brand of logic you're attempting to push. You and others here argue that a state somehow isn't allowed to have such a compelling interest, and then you play dumb by complaining no one has told you what their compelling interest might be. Whom do you expect to be fooled by this?
Click to expand...
You still have not answered the question; What compelling interest does a State have in the life of the (a) fetus?
 
NatMorton said:
How many more times do you need to be told the state's compelling interest can be the life the fetus, 10? 100? 1,000?

It's an interesting, if clumsily obtuse, brand of logic you're attempting to push. You and others here argue that a state somehow isn't allowed to have such a compelling interest, and then you play dumb by complaining no one has told you what their compelling interest might be. Whom do you expect to be fooled by this?
Click to expand...
A woman's compelling interest in her own liberty outweighs the states interest in the contents of her uterus. If she wants to end her pregnancy before it comes to term, there is nothing that the state or anyone else can do to stop her. All they have is punishment. They can make women suffer, for that is ultimately their goal.
 
Irredentist said:
A woman's compelling interest in her own liberty outweighs the states interest in the contents of her uterus.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion, and that's fine, but what you're saying is that the woman's compelling interest outweighs the state's compelling interest. You're not saying the state lacks a compelling interest. You might want to try and explain your reasoning to @Individual as I'm not having much luck at it. He seems to think interests he doesn't agree with don't exist.
 
NatMorton said:
How many more times do you need to be told the state's compelling interest can be the life the fetus, 10? 100? 1,000?

It's an interesting, if clumsily obtuse, brand of logic you're attempting to push. You and others here argue that a state somehow isn't allowed to have such a compelling interest, and then you play dumb by complaining no one has told you what their compelling interest might be. Whom do you expect to be fooled by this?
Click to expand...
How many more times do you have to told:
Lursa said:
As you well know, that doesnt mean they recognize rights for the unborn.

States protect the lives of wildlife, livestock, forests...doesnt mean they recognize any rights for other animals or trees.
Click to expand...
 
NatMorton said:
The authority to create a legal framework for what is and what is not human life is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, thus it is beyond the scope of the Federal government, including SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

No, letting the individual states decide what is or is not human life would be an insane decision and legal nightmare.
 
iguanaman said:
There is no need to persuade others that a woman has the right to control her own body. That goes without saying. How would you like the State to tell you what doctor you may see and what medical procedures you can have? I think all men who are against the right of a women to control her own body should be forcibly sterilized by the State so they can see what a horror they are putting women through. If that sounds extreme just think how destitute women feel when they are forced to bear a child they cannot afford. Nearly 50% of abortions are by women below the poverty line.

Nearly half of women who have abortions live below the federal poverty level​

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/n...below-in-the-federal-poverty-level-2019-05-17
Click to expand...
People who can't afford a baby should not be having sex at all.
 
There are plenty of women who hate abortion, and in particular those unable to have even one baby of their own...
 
LittleNipper said:
There are plenty of women who hate abortion, and in particular those unable to have even one baby of their own...
Click to expand...
So? Don't like abortion, then don't have one. It's that simple.
 
NatMorton said:
None. That argument is gibberish, and it's not going to improve through repetition.
Click to expand...

How is it gibberish when you have been unable to prove otherwise? If it's "gibberish," quote the laws where they recognize rights for the unborn.

LOLOL...you cant. In months and months, thread after thread...you have failed to do so. You should be able to prove it's wrong...let's see it.

OTOH, I've provided sources proving you wrong many times. Explicit, exact wording. It seems you need a dictionary for 'gibberish.'
 
Last edited:
NatMorton said:
That is your opinion, and that's fine, but what you're saying is that the woman's compelling interest outweighs the state's compelling interest. You're not saying the state lacks a compelling interest. You might want to try and explain your reasoning to @Individual as I'm not having much luck at it. He seems to think interests he doesn't agree with don't exist.
Click to expand...
I would suggest your lack of luck is due to the fact that you have only said the state has a right to a compelling interest in a fetus. A nice sentiment, but how does it work in practice?

A state may have a compelling interest in a fetus. But a compelling interest in a right to life philosophy is an entirely different matter. You seem to assume the two must go together.

I find it ironic that you are concerned another thinks that the state does not have compelling interest. When you appear to dismiss women's compelling interests as if they do not exist.
 
NatMorton said:
That whooshing sound was the joke going over your head.
Click to expand...
Joke? Interesting. Keep your day job.

The state's compelling interest may not force me to sustain another's life at the cost of my own autonomy nor well-being. As such, forcing me to give blood or organs in an effort to save another's life. How may the state justify denying such autonomy in the cases concerning women who're with child?
 
Last edited:
Dayton3 said:
People who can't afford a baby should not be having sex at all.
Click to expand...
And that bit of a well thought out statement was based on the fact that there is no evidence in all of history to connect poverty and a reason why some women became prostitutes.
 
quip said:
Joke? Interesting. Keep your day job.

The state's compelling interest may not force me to sustain another's life at the cost of my own autonomy nor well-being. As such, forcing me to give blood or organs in an effort to save another's life. How may the state justify denying privacy and autonomy in the cases concerning women who're with child?
Click to expand...

Yes, if it's for 'the states' interest,' that equates to slavery. To force the woman to maintain the pregnancy FOR the state.

"Compelling state's interest?" Compelling the woman without her consent, to serve the state's interest. Sure sounds like slavery. Seems like we can use the 13th Amendment to protect women from that 'state's interest' in future court challenges.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Section 1. 13th Amendment​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom