• 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!

Supreme Court effectively denies 10 year old rape victim an abortion

Jack2aTee said:
Read the descriptions, Einstein. Most were Caesarean. And a 6 foot tall 10 YO could probably pull it off. How about a 4-foot tall 10 YO?
Click to expand...
So, now you're saying she can carry the baby to term and have a c-section.

Funny how you keep moving the goal posts, that's not dishonest at all.
 
FurriesRock said:
That's a nice opinion, but it's morally bankrupt and false.
Click to expand...
Morally bankrupt and false?

You mean to say that a 10-year old child is able to make rational decisions on her own? That there are no laws that protect children from being legally responsible for doing something when under age 18?

Morally bankrupt? You don't consider rape a moral wrong? and even more so when it happens to a child?

Are you human or from another planet? an alien from space?
 
Luckyone said:
Morally bankrupt and false?

You mean to say that a 10-year old child is able to make rational decisions on her own? That there are no laws that protect children from being legally responsible for doing something when under age 18?

Morally bankrupt? You don't consider rape a moral wrong? and even more so when it happens to a child?

Are you human or from another planet? an alien from space?
Click to expand...
Nice word twisting and strawmaning,

You know I meant that abortion is morally bankrupt.

The real question is, why can't you debate honestly?
 
FurriesRock said:
There is no such thing as settled law.

Get over it, you lost.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as settled law? You have some explaining to do with that answer. You do not consider the Constitution established law? You don't consider the Supreme Court (which was done under the Constitution) as the Supreme decider of the law? If you do, then the Supreme Court ruling that was put into effect 52 years ago must be considered "established law".

The fact that it was changed, does suggest that we are now basically a lawless nation given that depending on who is on the Supreme Court from now on can make laws depending on their own personal views and not on what is in the Constitution.
 
Shrink726 said:
This is the kind of disgrace this horrific SCOTUS has left us with. I defy even the most fervent right to life advocates to justify this.

Click to expand...
Actually a right to life person always has a justification and a damn good one. It's a life!
Now, on the other hand and on the side of compromise and compassion, I who am very pro life, would not want to see this happen to my daughter and wouldn't expect it too. I think this is a case of bad application of the standard. Ive' written here before, Rape, Incest, danger to the life of mother, sever fetal deformity! These are the only cases I thing warrant an abortion, but would be the starting point in future conversations if I were the guy making the call. Protect every life when reasonably possible without costing another life.
 
FurriesRock said:
That's a nice opinion, but it's morally bankrupt and false.
Click to expand...

…..what.

How the hell is stating the fact that a ten year old rape victim shouldn’t be forced to have a child “morally bankrupt” in any way, shape or form?

Or “false” for that matter?
 
FurriesRock said:
That's a nice opinion, but it's morally bankrupt and false.
Click to expand...
Do you deny she was raped? If you don't, then why force her to gestate and give birth? If you do, what is your evidence that the story is a lie?
 
FurriesRock said:
There is no such thing as settled law.

Get over it, you lost.
Click to expand...
No, freedom and any woman (or family) facing an unwanted pregnancy lost.
Jack2aTee said:
And they really should be impeached and thrown off the bench for that deception. Why the Dems aren't taking steps I have no idea.
Click to expand...
Burned my hide for sure. Worst of all, they will be on the bench for many many years, being that it is nearly impossible to undo appointments of high ranking government officials, especially on the highest court in the land.

I do suspect that (eventually) the decision will collapse, but not until there is a quantifiable number of victims; hopefully the issue will be put to a vote, but not until republicans get out of the way or finally see the consequence in the wake of pushing this through; they knew what they were going to do from the start, and were just waiting for a case to hear that their decision could stick to.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Actually a right to life person always has a justification and a damn good one. It's a life!
Now, on the other hand and on the side of compromise and compassion, I who am very pro life, would not want to see this happen to my daughter and wouldn't expect it too. I think this is a case of bad application of the standard. Ive' written here before, Rape, Incest, danger to the life of mother, sever fetal deformity! These are the only cases I thing warrant an abortion, but would be the starting point in future conversations if I were the guy making the call. Protect every life when reasonably possible without costing another life.
Click to expand...
FurriesRock above seems to think your 10 YO daughter should have a Caesarean. How would you feel about that--saves the baby's life and maybe doesn't kill your daughter but it surely would traumatize the hell out of her?
 
Shrink726 said:
Check out the 14th Ammendment. It was a constitutionally protected right for 2 1/2 generations.
Click to expand...
The 14th is easy to check. Finding any point that supports your argument is less easy to find.

Are you claiming that the unborn are citizens?

Amendment XIV​
Section 1.​
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​
​
Section 2.​
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.​
​
Section 3.​
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.​
​
Section 4.​
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.​
​
Section 5.​
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.​
 
FurriesRock said:
Nice word twisting and strawmaning,

You know I meant that abortion is morally bankrupt.

The real question is, why can't you debate honestly?
Click to expand...
I debate with the same honesty that you show. I always go "down" to the level of my opponent as I do not like to take advantage of anyone.

Anyone that believes that a raped 10-year old child should carry the pregnancy to term is (in my opinion) morally bankrupt.

You evidently are not a father of a female child because if you were, you would feel totally protective of her and in rage at what someone else did to harm her. In my opinion, you are letting your balls and your penis do the thinking for you and when that happens, women take the role of being property and not equal human beings.

Your posts on this subject are plain sickening, appalling and totally repugnant. I would not be at all surprised to find out that you are actually a pedophile and a totally misogynistic person. Only someone like that would say what you say.
 
Jay59 said:
Are you claiming that the unborn are citizens?

Amendment XIV​
Section 1.​
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​
Click to expand...

Wanted to emphasize the born part just to make sure no one misses it.
 
Luckyone said:
There is no such thing as settled law? You have some explaining to do with that answer. You do not consider the Constitution established law? You don't consider the Supreme Court (which was done under the Constitution) as the Supreme decider of the law? If you do, then the Supreme Court ruling that was put into effect 52 years ago must be considered "established law".

The fact that it was changed, does suggest that we are now basically a lawless nation given that depending on who is on the Supreme Court from now on can make laws depending on their own personal views and not on what is in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The Constitution is like the Bible--it can be twisted any way you want to make it say whatever you want it to say.
 
FreeStorm84 said:
Who do you think we are talking about in this thread? Yes, the 10 yr old girl!!
Click to expand...
WHICH 10 year old girl?

So far, all that has been cited is 'media reports'.

Can you cite the actual case?
 
Ive read more on the Ohio legislation and I DO believe it needs to be stayed and corrected. While there are allowances for the health of the mother, there SHOULD be specific allowances made for rape and incest. After reading the theoritcal, a doctor could easily argue that the life of a 10 year old child is at risk being pregnant and carrying the baby to term.
 
Jack2aTee said:
The Constitution is like the Bible--it can be twisted any way you want to make it say whatever you want it to say.
Click to expand...
The Constitution is like the Bible--it can only be twisted so far to make a point. It will not say whatever you want it to say.
 
FurriesRock said:
1. Article is garbage. Barely talks about the 10 year old,and gives no context of her circumstances. Also, funny how there is no mention of the rapist. It's almost like it's a made up story!

2. She can carry the child to term, and put it up for adoption. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
What circumstances do you need? We know what rape is. We know the 10 year old, although early, is in her reproductive years. We know she is 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant. We don't need to look for excuses.
 
VanceMack said:
WHICH 10 year old girl?

So far, all that has been cited is 'media reports'.

Can you cite the actual case?
Click to expand...
This is a TEN year old girl!! You think it's possible for her to get pregnant without being raped?? Are we talking about an immaculate conception or something?
 
FreeStorm84 said:
This is a TEN year old girl!! You think it's possible for her to get pregnant without being raped?? Are we talking about an immaculate conception or something?
Click to expand...
Who is a ten year old girl?

You are bleating on about an article that literally cited another article that cited a 'media source'.

beyond that....

Supreme Court effectively denies 10 year old rape victim an abortion

How does a 10 YO child carry a g*ddamed baby to term?????? Just giving birth would split her in two. This list from Wikipedia says you're wrong. Womp womp...
debatepolitics.com debatepolitics.com
 
VanceMack said:
Who is a ten year old girl?

You are bleating on about an article that literally cited another article that cited a 'media source'.

beyond that....
Click to expand...
Do you suspect the story is fake news? Are you suggesting Newsweek didn't verify the accuracy of the story? I guess it's possible but I would want some kind of evidence for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom