• 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!

The abortion issue paralyzing our country is easily solved.

ttwtt78640 said:
It’s amazing that most recent SCOTUS opinion is used to justify that SCOTUS opinion so long as you agree with it, but when SCOTUS opinion changes (as it appears to have) then SCOTUS opinion (which you disagree with) is no longer self-justifying.
Click to expand...

So then the medical treatment and technologies available today should not be considered? The reason for the decision is to protect women. Not the unborn. Abortions were not safe 'back then.' They are now. Using your reasoning, why would they be denied women just because that safer procedure wasnt available 'back then?'
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The 10A leaves that power up to the several states.
Click to expand...

Not in any way that would supersede federal precedent, law, rights, etc. With that in mind, please try again?

??? RvW ensured that states could not deny women a safer medical procedure than pregnancy/childbirth. And the precedents it used to support that decision almost all had to do with the court recognizing that there were areas of family and individual lives where the govt had no right to be involved.​
​
What does that have to do with when something in the pregnancy occurs? Can you explain what Constitutional amendment would apply to consideration of the unborn at all?​
 
Lursa said:
Not in any way that would supersede federal precedent, law, rights, etc. With that in mind, please try again?

??? RvW ensured that states could not deny women a safer medical procedure than pregnancy/childbirth. And the precedents it used to support that decision almost all had to do with the court recognizing that there were areas of family and individual lives where the govt had no right to be involved.​
​
What does that have to do with when something in the pregnancy occurs? Can you explain what Constitutional amendment would apply to consideration of the unborn at all?​
Click to expand...

Again, you are using the RvW opinion to justify the RvW opinion. You are also ignoring fetal homicide laws.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Again, you are using the RvW opinion to justify the RvW opinion. You are also ignoring fetal homicide laws.
Click to expand...
Fetal homicide laws are based around harm inflicted against the women, consequently and subsequently causing fetal harm by extension. But they are not centered around harm inflicted directly to a fetus. Such laws are also illogical and emotionally based.
 
Gordy327 said:
Fetal homicide laws are based around harm inflicted against the women, consequently and subsequently causing fetal harm by extension. But they are not centered around harm inflicted directly to a fetus. Such laws are also illogical and emotionally based.
Click to expand...

Hmm… is your “logic” that killing a pregnant woman counts as two homicides, but one of those homicides was not the killing of a human being?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Again, you are using the RvW opinion to justify the RvW opinion. You are also ignoring fetal homicide laws.
Click to expand...

WHere did I justify anything? I explained what the decision...the legal challenge was. Then I said *the precedents* provided support for it. Wow...wht do you lie?

And every single fetal homicide law I've ever seen explicitly excludes abortion. And none recognize any rights for the unborn. :rolleyes: And why would you come up with fetal homicide laws when I clearly rferred to the Const? :rolleyes:

Basically you provided zero valid response or argument in your post. 🤷
 
Gordy327 said:
But there is no logical reason to make abortion illegal after the 1st trimester. The SCOTUS abandoned the original trimester framework in favor of viability.
Click to expand...
There's no logical reason to approve of any abortion on demand due to inconvenience for the mother. The SCOTUS isn't doing this for viability of the Fetus. They are doing this because Ginsberg said it should have never been done in the first place. They are therefore doing this to restore abortion rights to the States where it belongs. I agree about deciding of viability. The fact is, a baby that is born will not be able to take care of him/her self for years. Russia did cruel studies on newborns and even older babies 6 months old in which they would feed the babies but never give the babies any love or contact. They all ended up dying rather quickly.
The logical reason is based on public acceptance as a recent poll shows that 65% of the people now believe abortion should be illegal after the 1st trimester. 80% believe it should be illegal after the 2nd trimester. The only objection is if the mother's life is at risk, rape or incest.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm… is your “logic” that killing a pregnant woman counts as two homicides, but one of those homicides was not the killing of a human being?
Click to expand...
No, killing a pregnant woman should only count as 1 homicide. Since a fetus isn't legally a person, then the only person killed is the pregnant woman.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm… is your “logic” that killing a pregnant woman counts as two homicides, but one of those homicides was not the killing of a human being?
Click to expand...

Charges for killing someone's pet is 'killing a pet' but that doesnt give the pet any new legal status.
 
Gordy327 said:
No, killing a pregnant woman should only count as 1 homicide. Since a fetus isn't legally a person, then the only person killed is the pregnant woman.
Click to expand...

Yet we have fetal homicide laws and we have civil asset forfeiture laws. The idea that we have laws which we should not have does not stop them from being either passed or enforced.
 
Grasshopper121212 said:
There's no logical reason to approve of any abortion on demand due to inconvenience for the mother. The SCOTUS isn't doing this for viability of the Fetus. They are doing this because Ginsberg said it should have never been done in the first place. They are therefore doing this to restore abortion rights to the States where it belongs. I agree about deciding of viability. The fact is, a baby that is born will not be able to take care of him/her self for years. Russia did cruel studies on newborns and even older babies 6 months old in which they would feed the babies but never give the babies any love or contact. They all ended up dying rather quickly.
The logical reason is based on public acceptance as a recent poll shows that 65% of the people now believe abortion should be illegal after the 1st trimester. 80% believe it should be illegal after the 2nd trimester. The only objection is if the mother's life is at risk, rape or incest.
Click to expand...
Public belief or opinion is not a logical reason for anything. An objective reasoning is better. Viability fits that bill, not just for the reasons I mentioned earlier, but also it is a practical middle ground (metaphorically and almost literally). If abortion is allowed, then why shouldn't it be "on demand?" Viability is the cutoff for elective abortions. So whether an abortion occurs earlier in gestation, either naturally or otherwise, the end result is the same.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is not a homicide law.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be? It's about a law conferring a different legal status.

Dont disingenuously pretend you dont understand the point of the post. That's just piling on dishonesty.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yet we have fetal homicide laws and we have civil asset forfeiture laws. The idea that we have laws which we should not have does not stop them from being either passed or enforced.
Click to expand...
As I said, fetal homicide laws are illogical. I know they exist, depending on the state. But they're still illogical. Stupid laws probably get passed all the time. They simply need to be challenged in court. Although, I suspect challenging a fetal homicide law might prove unpopular.
 
Gordy327 said:
Public belief or opinion is not a logical reason for anything. An objective reasoning is better. Viability fits that bill, not just for the reasons I mentioned earlier, but also it is a practical middle ground (metaphorically and almost literally). If abortion is allowed, then why shouldn't it be "on demand?" Viability is the cutoff for elective abortions. So whether an abortion occurs earlier in gestation, either naturally or otherwise, the end result is the same.
Click to expand...

Keeping a campaign promise (pledge to the electorate?) is one of the most important ‘compelling state interest’ factors in doing so - some have even referred to that (entirely political) reason as “having a mandate”. What use is having a representative democracy if that is not the case?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Keeping a campaign promise (pledge to the electorate?) is one of the most important ‘compelling state interest’ factors in doing so - some have even referred to that (entirely political) reason as “having a mandate”. What use is having a representative democracy if that is not the case?
Click to expand...
Anyone who thinks a candidate will actually keep a campaign promise is delusional. Campaign promises are meant to appeal to the electorate and secure votes, first and foremost.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Keeping a campaign promise (pledge to the electorate?) is one of the most important ‘compelling state interest’ factors in doing so - some have even referred to that (entirely political) reason as “having a mandate”. What use is having a representative democracy if that is not the case?
Click to expand...
So Mexico will pay for the wall?
 
Gordy327 said:
Public belief or opinion is not a logical reason for anything. An objective reasoning is better. Viability fits that bill, not just for the reasons I mentioned earlier, but also it is a practical middle ground (metaphorically and almost literally). If abortion is allowed, then why shouldn't it be "on demand?" Viability is the cutoff for elective abortions. So whether an abortion occurs earlier in gestation, either naturally or otherwise, the end result is the same.
Click to expand...
If public belief or opinion is not logical, does that mean elections should be done away with? Of course public opinion is important.
As I explained, viability doesn't fit. There is no point during pregnancy and for years after birth that the baby is viable. So, does this mean you agree with after birth abortions to about the year of age 12? There is no viable method to decide on when abortions should be legal except when the mother's health is at risk, rape or incest. So, with what SCOTUS is doing with the Mississippi Law where they agree to 15 weeks into the pregnancy (a woman should know by then) is completely a viable reason if there is going to be one except for the mother's health, rape or incest.
The Declaration of Independence says that we are all created with equal God given unalienable rights of life. The baby from creation (conception) and the mother have equal rights to life. The baby is a separate individual needing support from mom before birth and after birth. It's not another permanent part of her innards like a kidney. The baby needs nourishment before birth and after birth. A kidney isn't born and will turn into a person with self-sufficiency.
 
Grasshopper121212 said:
If public belief or opinion is not logical, does that mean elections should be done away with? Of course public opinion is important.
As I explained, viability doesn't fit. There is no point during pregnancy and for years after birth that the baby is viable. So, does this mean you agree with after birth abortions to about the year of age 12? There is no viable method to decide on when abortions should be legal except when the mother's health is at risk, rape or incest. So, with what SCOTUS is doing with the Mississippi Law where they agree to 15 weeks into the pregnancy (a woman should know by then) is completely a viable reason if there is going to be one except for the mother's health, rape or incest.
The Declaration of Independence says that we are all created with equal God given unalienable rights of life. The baby from creation (conception) and the mother have equal rights to life. The baby is a separate individual needing support from mom before birth and after birth. It's not another permanent part of her innards like a kidney. The baby needs nourishment before birth and after birth. A kidney isn't born and will turn into a person with self-sufficiency.
Click to expand...
Why rape or incest? Is it not still a baby?
 
Grasshopper121212 said:
If public belief or opinion is not logical, does that mean elections should be done away with? Of course public opinion is important.
As I explained, viability doesn't fit. There is no point during pregnancy and for years after birth that the baby is viable. So, does this mean you agree with after birth abortions to about the year of age 12? There is no viable method to decide on when abortions should be legal except when the mother's health is at risk, rape or incest. So, with what SCOTUS is doing with the Mississippi Law where they agree to 15 weeks into the pregnancy (a woman should know by then) is completely a viable reason if there is going to be one except for the mother's health, rape or incest.
The Declaration of Independence says that we are all created with equal God given unalienable rights of life. The baby from creation (conception) and the mother have equal rights to life. The baby is a separate individual needing support from mom before birth and after birth. It's not another permanent part of her innards like a kidney. The baby needs nourishment before birth and after birth. A kidney isn't born and will turn into a person with self-sufficiency.
Click to expand...
Viability in pregnancy is when the fetus can potentially survive outside the womb. Before viability, it cannot. So why isn't viability a reasonable point? Support your argument. If birth occurs, abortion becomes a moot point and is otherwise irrelevant. The DoI has nothing to do with our laws and theistic based arguments ate entirely subjective and not applicable to all, especially where the law is concerned. So I hope you can provide a better, more rational argument than that.
 
Gordy327 said:
All the more reason to not use "human life" as a qualifier. It's a large umbrella that's too vague.
Click to expand...
Um, in your last post you said it should be up to the woman to define human life in cases where she’s the mother. One reply later suddenly human life shouldn’t be used by anyone connected to matters concerning abortion.

Why the sudden change and what would you propose as a replacement term?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom