• 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!

States Want to Ban Abortions Beyond Their Borders.

code1211 said:
I disagree with the practice, think it is rude and will not respond to those who go to the extra effort of editing away the context to change the thought of my post.
Click to expand...
I can almost guarantee you that not many here are heartbroken.
 
Scrabaholic said:
I can almost guarantee you that not many here are heartbroken.
Click to expand...

He also does so when he's been confronted too many times with arguments he cant refute. I always respond away anyway, if he cant come back and counter it, his posts stand refuted. I mean...other people can still read them, right? Besides, esp. in this forum I try very hard to provide facts and constructive information.
 
Gordy327 said:
I did no such thing. I simply addressed the point made.

That's your problem then. There's nothing wrong with responding to specific points within a statement or post.
Click to expand...

Disingenuous editing is what it is.

You practice it. I disagree with it.
 
code1211 said:
Disingenuous editing is what it is.

You practice it. I disagree with it.
Click to expand...
Seems petty to many, but you sure seem upset.
Sorry it hurts so much.

Perhaps you have better luck debating on another sub forum of the DP.
 
minnie616 said:
Seems petty to many, but you sure seem upset.
Sorry it hurts so much.

Perhaps you have better luck debating on another sub forum of the DP.
Click to expand...

Not upset at all.

Simply refusing to engage with those who employ this practice.
 
neil said:
Show us where it says this in the constitution.
Click to expand...
It's protected under the 9th Amendment. There needs to be some reason(s) to ban something. If there are no legitimate reasons to ban something or restrict it, it's recognized for the people. SCOTUS referred to the 9th in RvW.

It's the same as this, for example:

--people have a right to consensual sex
--people have a right to reproduce
--people have a right to travel throughout the country
 
Lursa said:
It's protected under the 9th Amendment. There needs to be some reason(s) to ban something. If there are no legitimate reasons to ban something or restrict it, it's recognized for the people. SCOTUS referred to the 9th in RvW.

It's the same as this, for example:

--people have a right to consensual sex
--people have a right to reproduce
--people have a right to travel throughout the country
Click to expand...

Other rights include…..

The right to choose a religion.
Or the right not to be religious.

Parents may decide to let their child/children learn foreign language.
Parents may chose to send their child/children to a private school instead of public school.
 
Scrabaholic said:
In my country, banning abortion would interfere w/ our right to "security of the person".
Click to expand...

Here as well. But they barely even discussed that, from our 4th Amendment, in RvW. I dont know why...IMO it was a mistake, perhaps deliberate, cowardly. Because it's pretty darn definite.

And we have similar decisions, like I've posted before, where that right protects the govt from compelling anyone to use their body/their systems to save the life of another. Like McFail vs Shimp. That one's about bone marrow. But they also couldnt compel someone to donate a kidney to directly save someone's life, for another example.

And those would be to save other persons. The unborn dont even have that status. What it really comes down to is...who says that abortion is wrong? It's not apparently, since RvW recognized that right...so then why can there be ANY restrictions on it before viability?
 
Lursa said:
Here as well. But they barely even discussed that, from our 4th Amendment, in RvW. I dont know why...IMO it was a mistake, perhaps deliberate, cowardly. Because it's pretty darn definite.

And we have similar decisions, like I've posted before, where that right protects the govt from compelling anyone to use their body/their systems to save the life of another. Like McFail vs Shimp. That one's about bone marrow. But they also couldnt compel someone to donate a kidney to directly save someone's life, for another example.

And those would be to save other persons. The unborn dont even have that status. What it really comes down to is...who says that abortion is wrong? It's not apparently, since RvW recognized that right...so then why can there be ANY restrictions on it before viability?
Click to expand...
The issue of the 4th Amendment in RvW IS noted. However, the thrust of the 4th Amendment is that of protection from unreasonable searches and seizures of person and papers. So this is about the right of the woman being protected from the state demanding to search
her person to find out if she is pregnant, i.e., forcing administration of a pregnancy test,
and her medical records for the same purpose, i.e., demanding that a doctor show them to the state.

It is only one of the various reasons the Texas anti-abortion law was unconstitutional.
 
code1211 said:
You are arguing that your opinion, that I say is your opinion is a fact?

Interesting self delusion you are employing in this.
Click to expand...
I'm not the one being delusional about it.
 
Keoka632 said:
Abortion is already a right under the constitution.
Click to expand...

Abortion is legal. It is not right.

At best it is an expedient measure to act as a convenient way for our society to avoid making a good solution.
 
choiceone said:
The issue of the 4th Amendment in RvW IS noted. However, the thrust of the 4th Amendment is that of protection from unreasonable searches and seizures of person and papers. So this is about the right of the woman being protected from the state demanding to search
her person to find out if she is pregnant, i.e., forcing administration of a pregnancy test,
and her medical records for the same purpose, i.e., demanding that a doctor show them to the state.

It is only one of the various reasons the Texas anti-abortion law was unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

The 4th also covers 'security of the person', bodily autonomy, and that's what I was referring to in my post and what the McFail v Shimp decision is about.
 
code1211 said:
Abortion is legal. It is not right.

At best it is an expedient measure to act as a convenient way for our society to avoid making a good solution.
Click to expand...

RvW recognized that women have a right to abortion. To a safer medical procedure.

It's no different than recognizing that we have a right to consensual sex. That people have a right to reproduce. That people have a right to travel the country. Etc.

They just clarified that recognition and showed how the Const protected that right thru several different amendments, like the 4th, the 9th, and the 14th.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom