• 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

quip said:
So, "overreach" is your artful rendition... specifically alleged where Roe "overreached" by declaring the unborn a right to life at the stage of viability?

Ain't seeing it.
Click to expand...
The words are literally in front of your face:

1656103115728.webp


For context:

1656103071796.webp



Separation of powers, quip. Separation of powers.
 
Lisa said:
A fetus is not yet a person and has no rights. Keep digging. Women do not lose the right of body autonomy when they are pregnant, especially by rape or incest or when the pregnancy is not viable.


You are (supposedly) a guy and abortion will never concern you so keep your opinions out of the medical decisions of those whose lives are concern with reproductive issues of abortion. Nobody is asking for your approved or that of your church of their medical decisions and the US has never been a democracy, so you dont get a say into the intimate decisions of another person. Unless I get to vote on your decisions when informed by your Dr or aren't we supposed to notice another instance of conservative hypocrisy?

A white nationalist claiming to be pro-life is highly amusing, or is this only for white babies.
Click to expand...

I wish there was a German word to describe how I'm feeling just now.
 
NatMorton said:
I wish there was a German word to describe how I'm feeling just now.
Click to expand...
Other then Mein Kampf or Seig Heil? I doubt you could pronounce it.


This decion by the SCOTUS will go down as one of their worst, on the level with Korematsu, Plessey, Lochner, Citizens United and Dred Scott.
 
NatMorton said:
@Lursa and @Lisa, I believe something like this is now the law of the land in Missouri, is it not?

View attachment 67398402
Click to expand...
God is not the author of life. That is a scientific lie and a violation of the religious clauses of the 1st amendment.

What happened to small government and pro-freedom conservatives?

When do conservatives plan to defend the life of the born, especially when they are poor, sick, homeless hungry or in the vicinity of a firearm? That start would be refreshing
 
Lisa said:
God is not the author of life. That is a scientific lie and a violation of the religious clauses of the 1st amendment.

What happened to small government and pro-freedom conservatives?

When do conservatives plan to defend the life of the born, especially when they are poor, sick, homeless hungry or in the vicinity of a firearm? That start would be refreshing
Click to expand...
Sour grapes, Lisa.
 
NatMorton said:
@Lursa and @Lisa, I believe something like this is now the law of the land in Missouri, is it not?

View attachment 67398402
Click to expand...

If enacted, that's so. "Now"

It was never part of or implied in RvW...so you were always wrong previously.

And now we'll see if such new laws stand challenges in federal court.
 
Lursa said:
If enacted, that's so. "Now"

It was never part of or implied in RvW...so you were always wrong previously.

And now we'll see if such new laws stand challenges in federal court.
Click to expand...
IMO, a more permanent solution to the issue would be an Amendment XXVIII to our Constitution, eliminating government at any level, Federal, State, or local, to make laws relative to the unborn. Such would allow those who have religious beliefs about life to apply their beliefs within their own lives without imposing such beliefs on others, and vice versa. I would settle for nothing less than this to eliminate government(s) having any future ability to become involved in a Woman's pregnancy, regardless of the viability of a fetus until post birth.
I see no evidence of Women waiting until late in a pregnancy deciding to have an abortion without having very rational reasoning to do so.
 
NatMorton said:
Hypothetically, what would be an acceptable answer to you?
Click to expand...
I can't think of a single one, though in the very distant past when wars were fought hand to hand there may have been a time when a State had such a compelling interest, which is why I asked those have made such a claim to present one, or more.
 
NatMorton said:
Oh, now that is funny.

The highlighting is mine:

View attachment 67398391

They likened Roe to Plessy, widely regarded as among the worst decisions in the history of the Court. They called Roe "egregiously wrong." They likened Roe to a legislative act: which is a violation of the separation of powers, i.e. overreach.

The Doobs decision is a total victory for my argument, quip. You're just going to have to deal with that.
Click to expand...
Gotta laugh. Alito ignored several historical facts:

Women were clearly considered persons when they were as yet unmarried adults and widows, and in cases where the husband chose to make them legally "feme sole," going back to the 1300s.
There were many such women in post-Revolutionary America because a lot of guys died.
Even married women were counted as persons in every Census going back to 1790, so it is clear that women were always considered persons.

Though there were many Census Acts in which Congress altered the census and could have included embryos and fetuses, they never did so, not even when they included month of birth and day of birth for infants not yet a year old. Probably because they could not be subject to "actual Enumeration," if a census taker could only use indirect evidence of them. So they were never considered persons.

The 14th Amendment certainly applied to women as persons. If not married women, at least single women.
And FYI, if the purpose was to ensure that ex-slaves' rights were secure, what about female ex-slaves? One of the duties of female slaves was to breed more slaves for slave owners. The state should not make it the duty of female ex-slaves to breed more ex-slaves for the state.

Meanwhile, women in various colonies remedied "suppression of the courses," non-appearance of a woman's menstrual period, with herbs, as an early abortion, a common remedy in Tanner's popular Every Man His Own Doctor, which Ben Franklin included in a popular math text he published in the 1760s. Alito didn't even know this and other common expressions by which people referred to pregnancy termination in the 1700s and 1800s!

So the idea that there was no "deep-rooted history" of early abortion in the 1700s and early 1800s is ignorant. The idea that everybody cared so deeply about "unborn life" is ridiculous. There were women who had in some cases 15 kids, and many who died in childbirth.

They cared about illegal premarital intercourse, for which the punishment wasn't pregnancy, but a whipping or a short jail stay and a monetary fine. Pregnancy is way more dangerous and inconvenient, and we wouldn't accept the physical punishment as anything but cruel and unusual punishment. Ask any woman today if she wouldn't rather have an abortion and a $3000 fine to be paid as a percentage of her income over time than a pregnancy.

Alito is an idiot.
 
Individual said:
I can't think of a single one, though in the very distant past when wars were fought hand to hand there may have been a time when a State had such a compelling interest, which is why I asked those have made such a claim to present one, or more.
Click to expand...
Okay, then let’s try another. Hypothetically, what would a state’s compelling interest be in protecting your life?
 
Mr Person said:
The people who want to shove their religion down everyone's throats think it's everyone else who has the weak argument?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, ok. And we all know what comes next. An endless litany of bad-faith questions. You'll note he hasn't made any argument himself.
Click to expand...
Bans on abortion are not religious law, those are secular law.
 
NatMorton said:
Okay, then let’s try another. Hypothetically, what would a state’s compelling interest be in protecting your life?
Click to expand...
Hypothetically speaking, the possibility that I might sue if they don't provide protections my tax dollars pay for.
 
NatMorton said:
Okay, then let’s try another. Hypothetically, what would a state’s compelling interest be in protecting your life?
Click to expand...
As a born person, I'm a contributing member of society and the Constitution says that I have rights. While there are certain points in my life where I wasn't contributing and the same for others, I also am not living off of someone else's body.

In reality, that is what it comes down to. No matter what else, the unborn are living off of a person's body without their permission. The state cannot take custody of the unborn until it is born without taking freedom from the person gestating without due process.

The state recognizes me, counts me. The state does not count the unborn in its numbers. It is illegal to count an unborn in the Census.
 
roguenuke said:
As a born person, I'm a contributing member of society and the Constitution says that I have rights. While there are certain points in my life where I wasn't contributing and the same for others, I also am not living off of someone else's body.
Click to expand...
You were not a contributing member of society as a three week old baby, yet your state had a compelling interest in protecting your life.

roguenuke said:
In reality, that is what it comes down to. No matter what else, the unborn are living off of a person's body without their permission. The state cannot take custody of the unborn until it is born without taking freedom from the person gestating without due process.
Click to expand...
That wasn’t true even under Roe.

roguenuke said:
The state recognizes me, counts me. The state does not count the unborn in its numbers. It is illegal to count an unborn in the Census.
Click to expand...
Also false. Many states are now recognizing the unborn, even if they aren’t counting them (BTW, it’s the federal government that counts fo the census, not the state).
 
NatMorton said:
How do you sue if you’re already dead?
Click to expand...
Hypothetically speaking, I survived, but if not my immediate family, parents, spouse, children could possibly sue.
 
NatMorton said:
You were not a contributing member of society as a three week old baby, yet your state had a compelling interest in protecting your life.


That wasn’t true even under Roe.


Also false. Many states are now recognizing the unborn, even if they aren’t counting them (BTW, it’s the federal government that counts fo the census, not the state).
Click to expand...
The state does not recognize the unborn as a person except in very limited laws. It does not count them or recognize them in services or money. There is no "birth certificate" until birth.

State representation, populations are based off of the federal census.

And the part of Roe that was wrong was that it put any limit, claimed any state interest at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom