• 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 big lie: Pro-life women carry every pregnancy to term.

weaver2 said:
Guttmacher's demographics of women who get abortions.
38% of women who get abortions list no religious affiliation
24% of women that get abortions consider themselves to be Catholic
17% of women say they are Main-line Protestant (Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, etc)
13% of women who get abortions say they belong to an Evangelical church
8% list other religions.
So pro-life people, what do you have to say about pro-life women "killing their babies"? And while we're at it let's discuss why the pro-life movement thinks it can keep pro-choice women from getting abortions when they can't even stop their own women from aborting.
Click to expand...

Not all Catholics are pro-life. The church is, but many Catholics are personally very liberal in their beliefs. Many Main-line Protestant denominations are pro-choice.
 
Indlib said:
Thank goodness we have the constitutional right of abortion.
Click to expand...
It's not constitutional. It's based on a court decision. If you want to make sure it can't be removed you probably got to start working on making it a constitutional right.
 
CLAX1911 said:
It's not constitutional. It's based on a court decision. If you want to make sure it can't be removed you probably got to start working on making it a constitutional right.
Click to expand...
It is a constitutional right. A 7 conservitive 2 liberal court SCOTUS decided that in Roe v Wade.

If it isn't a constitutional right then why do red states pass total abortion bans that get overturned by the courts?
 
Indlib said:
It is a constitutional right. A 7 conservitive 2 liberal court SCOTUS decided that in Roe v Wade.
Click to expand...
Supreme Court justices do not make amendments to the Constitution. That is a legislative process not a judicial one
If it isn't a constitutional right then why do red states pass total abortion bans that get overturned by the courts?
Click to expand...
because roe v Wade found that what goes on between a woman and her doctor is private. They can pass a total ban on it just wouldn't do any good they wouldn't be able to determine who had an abortion or not.

I suggest you look into Roe v Wade it was an interesting case.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Supreme Court justices do not make amendments to the Constitution. That is a legislative process not a judicial one
because roe v Wade found that what goes on between a woman and her doctor is private. They can pass a total ban on it just wouldn't do any good they wouldn't be able to determine who had an abortion or not.

I suggest you look into Roe v Wade it was an interesting case.
Click to expand...
You are saying they "could" pass a total ban but didn't because it wouldn't do any good? Really? Ok, never mind that.

No amendment was made. Just like no amendment was made when the courts ruled the right travel, the right to marry, and presumption of innocence, we're all constitutional rights.

Do you want the states to have control over those rights?

If you do, then people like you would be the reason James Madison spearheaded the 9th amendment.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Don't take my word for it. Here is what James Madison had to say.

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

Thus, the 9th amendment was born to provide constitutional interpretation of what are considered unenumerated rights.

You should should review this because not only is it interesting, but it is imperitive to understand these rights to inhibit an over reaching government.
 
Indlib said:
You are saying they "could" pass a total ban but didn't because it wouldn't do any good? Really? Ok, never mind that.
Click to expand...
Roe v Wade was about privacy not abortion rights.
No amendment was made. Just like no amendment was made when the courts ruled the right travel, the right to marry, and presumption of innocence, we're all constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
Courts don't make amendments the legislature does. There is no right to marry.
Do you want the states to have control over those rights?
Click to expand...
there's no right to marry I don't know where you got that from. Right the freedom of travel wasn't in the amendment because it was already in the Constitution you don't need to amend when it's already there abortion isn't.
 
Roe v Wade was about privacy not abortion rights.
Click to expand...
Yes. That is what makes abortion an unenumerated right and not an enumerated right. Great example. Thank you.

Courts don't make amendments the legislature does. There is no right to marry.there's no right to marry I don't know where you got that from.
Click to expand...

www.law.cornell.edu

family-relationships

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

Right the freedom of travel wasn't in the amendment because it was already in the Constitution you don't need to amend when it's already there abortion isn't.
Click to expand...

Please point out where the right to travel is enumerated in the constitution.
 
lwf said:
I don't think you know what it means. You seem to think it means "a woman who has never had an abortion." But this is not the definition of pro-life.

You don't have to be pro-choice to find yourself having to resort to aborting a pregnancy. Pro-life women have abortions America. Some pro-life women became pro-life after their abortions, in fact. You are welcome to personally refuse to recognize them as being truly pro-life by your own arbitrary definition, but this is just an appeal to purity.
Click to expand...

I dunno I can see the validity to that argument. If my daughter were impregnated and I counseled her to get an abortion despite all my previously-stated hatred for the practice, I don't think I could consider myself pro-life anymore.

It would turn out that my principles were only a house of cards, blown away at the first real test.
 
Atreus21 said:
I dunno I can see the validity to that argument. If my daughter were impregnated and I counseled her to get an abortion despite all my previously-stated hatred for the practice, I don't think I could consider myself pro-life anymore.

It would turn out that my principles were only a house of cards, blown away at the first real test.
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with being pro-life, then suddenly being thrown into situation where getting an abortion is a legitimate solution and doing so. What is wrong is getting an abortion then pretending that it never happened, denying the that the reason was legitimate and going back to denigrating those who get abortions as sinful or evil women.

When your 15 year old daughter is pregnant, it doesn't matter how anti-abortion the family has been previously, she will encounter significant medical health issues if the pregnancy is continued and abortion is the right decision. There should not be any guilt attached. The fact that she is having sex at 15 without contraceptives is a whole other issue that needs to be dealt with after the abortion.
 
Last edited:
Atreus21 said:
I dunno I can see the validity to that argument. If my daughter were impregnated and I counseled her to get an abortion despite all my previously-stated hatred for the practice, I don't think I could consider myself pro-life anymore.

It would turn out that my principles were only a house of cards, blown away at the first real test.
Click to expand...
Of course it's pro-life. It 's the life of your daughter you are promoting not the life of the fetus that will destroy her life.
 
Atreus21 said:
I dunno I can see the validity to that argument. If my daughter were impregnated and I counseled her to get an abortion despite all my previously-stated hatred for the practice, I don't think I could consider myself pro-life anymore.

It would turn out that my principles were only a house of cards, blown away at the first real test.
Click to expand...

That would be your own personal choice. Some people can consider themselves pro-life after having abortions. Who are you to tell them that they are not? What about people who become pro-life after experiencing the trauma of abortion? Are they forever cut off from this label if they acted in a contradictory way in the past? If so, why wouldn't this apply to a gay man who once had sexual contact with a woman? Is he no longer allowed to call himself gay? Are you justified in refusing to recognize his sexuality on a technicality?
 
lwf said:
That would be your own personal choice. Some people can consider themselves pro-life after having abortions. Who are you to tell them that they are not? What about people who become pro-life after experiencing the trauma of abortion? Are they forever cut off from this label if they acted in a contradictory way in the past? If so, why wouldn't this apply to a gay man who once had sexual contact with a woman? Is he no longer allowed to call himself gay? Are you justified in refusing to recognize his sexuality on a technicality?
Click to expand...

I'm giving one example. If your present actions contradict your stated beliefs, then it's reasonable to conclude that your stated beliefs and actual beliefs are not the same thing.

If a woman had an abortion and then claimed she was pro-life as a result of seeing the ultrasound or some other reason, I would honestly believe her. But if she then had another abortion I would say I was wrong to believe her, and probably wouldn't be fooled again.

This applies to any stated principles. I call myself Catholic though I'm too lazy and weak to practice it like I ought to. It's dishonest therefore for me to claim the title of Catholic (ie, the benefits of it) if I'm not practicing it (ie, not paying the price). So when I speak to people about it, I call myself a lapsed Catholic, which is true and accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom