• 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 People vs. Our Rights

Are the masses qualified to vote for or against abortion?

  • Yes, they are qualified.

  • No, they're not qualified.

Results are only viewable after voting.
Bear5131 said:
That's almost 3 months pregnant, who do women wait that long , I am curious?
Click to expand...

Some women dont know until they're in labor. Fact. Many women miss a few periods and it doesnt mean anything...until it does. Some women live in very large states with only 1 clinic and cant get appts in time. Others have to save up $$ and travel out of state...save $ for missed work time, motel, travel fare/gas, etc. Some women discover that the unborn have severe defects.

Which of these things is any of yours or the govt's business to inquire on and decide 'for them?'
 
Cordelier said:
Voting on whether or not to take away an individual's rights is tyranny of the masses.

I don't care if it's 99-1. If the "1" is asserting a legitimate right, then they should prevail.
Click to expand...

What about the typical “no right is absolute” argument?
 
Lursa said:
Some women dont know until they're in labor. Fact. Many women miss a few periods and it doesnt mean anything...until it does. Some women live in very large states with only 1 clinic and cant get appts in time. Others have to save up $$ and travel out of state...save $ for missed work time, motel, travel fare/gas, etc. Some women discover that the unborn have severe defects.

Which of these things is any of yours or the govt's business to inquire on and decide 'for them?'
Click to expand...
My basic answer civilized societies can't approve of murder, it sends the wrong message to children
 
Bear5131 said:
My basic answer civilized societies can't approve of murder, it sends the wrong message to children
Click to expand...

Since it's not murder, you're not providing very good guidance at all for any children. I hope you keep it to yourself.

For me, I choose to teach children not to intentionally impose pain and suffering on others. Such as women forced to remain pregnant against their will.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What about the typical “no right is absolute” argument?
Click to expand...

Well, that's a different case. It's more a governing than a political question. Then it becomes about strict scrutiny - establishing a compelling interest, narrowly tailoring a statute to fulfill that compelling interest, and demonstrating that the statute is the least restrictive means of accomplishing it.
 
Lursa said:
Since it's not murder, you're not providing very good guidance at all for any children. I hope you keep it to yourself.

For me, I choose to teach children not to intentionally impose pain and suffering on others. Such as women forced to remain pregnant against their will.
Click to expand...
Call it what you will, it sends a bad message to children and devalues human life
 
quip said:
On the eve of the destruction of Roe vs Wade many here on DP are eagerly awaiting our states' empowerment to place the abortion issue upon the ballot.
Click to expand...

What? Who is asking to place the abortion issue on the ballot?

I was arguing in favor of the Draft Decisions point that abortion should be left to State and Federal Legislatures by passage of laws, and not rest on SCOTUS "judge-made law."

It is the Courts purview to rule on cases based on the merits of the law and evidence, and otherwise on appeal to determine if a judgement is factually, as well as Constitutionally sound or not.

It is up to Legislatures to make law.

quip said:
In a likewise display of democracy I give our readers a vote as to whether the great unwashed masses, who (esp. within many of the states at contention with Roe) are neither well-heeled in jurisprudence nor philosophy, moreover carry an open disdain for any form of intellectualism whilst a strong regard for religiosity, be qualified (as a group) to decide the fate of a fundamental right for women?
Click to expand...

You start this question by slandering the voting population, (much like Ms. Clinton calling half the population a "basket of deplorables") before asking if everyone should be allowed to vote.

But it is not up to voters, it is up to their elected officials who make laws.

quip said:
Cast your vote.
Click to expand...

My position does not consider "qualified or not" as you seem to define it.

When it comes to voting on a topic my view is every citizen eligible to vote is automatically qualified to do so by law.
 
Cordelier said:
Well, that's a different case. It's more a governing than a political question. Then it becomes about strict scrutiny - establishing a compelling interest, narrowly tailoring a statute to fulfill that compelling interest, and demonstrating that the statute is the least restrictive means of accomplishing it.
Click to expand...

Yep, but somehow makes civil asset forfeiture laws and giving minority owned businesses contracting preference laws OK. We have to wait and see what the SCOTUS ruling says.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, but somehow makes civil asset forfeiture laws and giving minority owned businesses contracting preference laws OK. We have to wait and see what the SCOTUS ruling says.
Click to expand...

I can make an argument for or against either. Can't really say the same about the abortion case, though. There is no way the State laws pass strict scrutiny.... and a literal reading of the 10th Amendment gives the people just as much reserved power as it does to the States.
 
Cordelier said:
I can make an argument for or against either. Can't really say the same about the abortion case, though. There is no way the State laws pass strict scrutiny.... and a literal reading of the 10th Amendment gives the people just as much reserved power as it does to the States.
Click to expand...

What Constitutional right are you asserting currently allows abortion on demand or establishes “viability” as the point in fetal development when a ‘compelling state interest’ may be said to exist?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What Constitutional right are you asserting currently allows abortion on demand or establishes “viability” as the point in fetal development when a ‘compelling state interest’ may be said to exist?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the viability standard either.

The way I figure it, we can debate whether we have the right to privacy and domain over our own bodies or not... but once we decide "yea" or "nay" on that, that ought to be end of it.

The State can make it's compelling interest claim if it wants, but in my books, if they hold that "compelling interest" to cease at birth, then it doesn't really hold water. If the State is prepared to bear all of the expenses of every infant born up to the age of majority, well, then I'd say their compelling interest argument might hold water.

You're a Texan... surely you know the value of putting your money where your mouth is, walking the walk instead of talking the talk and all that... so why shouldn't your State do the same?
 
Cordelier said:
I don't agree with the viability standard either.

The way I figure it, we can debate whether we have the right to privacy and domain over our own bodies or not... but once we decide "yea" or "nay" on that, that ought to be end of it.
Click to expand...

Nope, that would be the beginning of it. What, exactly, does this “right to privacy over our bodies” entail? If I have a right to elective medical treatment then must insurance cover exercising that right? Does this “privacy right” allow one to buy, possess and use any recreational drug which they might desire? Can this “privacy right” be restricted based on age? Does it allow different dress codes based on sex/gender? Does it apply only to private places or does it apply to public places as well?

Cordelier said:
The State can make it's compelling interest claim if it wants, but in my books, if they hold that "compelling interest" to cease at birth, then it doesn't really hold water.
Click to expand...

Explain the validity of the following federal law:

en.wikipedia.org

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

It obviously applies to the unborn child and ends at birth.


Cordelier said:
If the State is prepared to bear all of the expenses of every infant born up to the age of majority, well, then I'd say their compelling interest argument might hold water.
Click to expand...

Nonsense - people not supported by the state don’t lose their rights.

Cordelier said:
You're a Texan... surely you know the value of putting your money where your mouth is, walking the walk instead of talking the talk and all that... so why shouldn't your State do the same?
Click to expand...

I favor allowing abortion on demand up until (about) 16 weeks after conception, previously described (in English common law) as “quickening” or detectable fetal movement. The method used to detect fetal movement (or stage of fetal development) needs to be formally defined.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, that would be the beginning of it. What, exactly, does this “right to privacy over our bodies” entail? If I have a right to elective medical treatment then must insurance cover exercising that right? Does this “privacy right” allow one to buy, possess and use any recreational drug which they might desire? Can this “privacy right” be restricted based on age? Does it allow different dress codes based on sex/gender? Does it apply only to private places or does it apply to public places as well?
Click to expand...

You have a right to receive the elective treatment. Whether or not the insurance company is obligated to cover it depends on your policy.

On recreational drugs, I assume it would depend on whether or not the drug itself was legal or not.

I think reasonable age restrictions on drug and alcohol use would easily fall under compelling state interest, wouldn't you?

Don't know where you're going on dress codes.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Explain the validity of the following federal law:

en.wikipedia.org

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

It obviously applies to the unborn child and ends at birth.
Click to expand...

I'd say a fetus only possesses whatever rights the mother chooses to give it as an extension of her own body. If she intends to carry it to term, and it becomes a victim of violence, then it is no different from any other child. If she chooses to terminate the pregnancy, then that is also her choice.

Either way, the decision should be her's and her's alone.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nonsense - people not supported by the state don’t lose their rights.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that they do. But if the State asserts it has a compelling interest in seeing to it that every fetus is carried to term, then why does that compelling interest end there? If the objective is population growth, then why doesn't that carry over into providing every incentive possible to encourage it - including full financial support? And if it doesn't, how compelling was the interest in the first place?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I favor allowing abortion on demand up until (about) 16 weeks after conception, previously described (in English common law) as “quickening” or detectable fetal movement. The method used to detect fetal movement (or stage of fetal development) needs to be formally defined.
Click to expand...

What's the compelling interest you base this on, though? Does Texas have a population shortage?
 
Cordelier said:
I don't agree with the viability standard either.

The way I figure it, we can debate whether we have the right to privacy and domain over our own bodies or not... but once we decide "yea" or "nay" on that, that ought to be end of it.

The State can make it's compelling interest claim if it wants, but in my books, if they hold that "compelling interest" to cease at birth, then it doesn't really hold water. If the State is prepared to bear all of the expenses of every infant born up to the age of majority, well, then I'd say their compelling interest argument might hold water.

You're a Texan... surely you know the value of putting your money where your mouth is, walking the walk instead of talking the talk and all that... so why shouldn't your State do the same?
Click to expand...

And there's this:

If it's for 'the states' interest,' that equates to slavery. To force the woman to maintain the pregnancy FOR the state.​
​
It would be govt use of force to demand women remain in a more risky and dangerous physical state without their consent...to serve society or the govt. Slavery.​
​
"Compelling state's interest?" compelling the woman without her consent, to serve the state's interest.​
​
13th Amendment:​
​
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."​
 
Cordelier said:
You have a right to receive the elective treatment. Whether or not the insurance company is obligated to cover it depends on your policy.

On recreational drugs, I assume it would depend on whether or not the drug itself was legal or not.

I think reasonable age restrictions on drug and alcohol use would easily fall under compelling state interest, wouldn't you?

Don't know where you're going on dress codes.
Click to expand...

He knows that the 'drugs' example fails. Drug laws were passed on the presumption that drugs are harmful to individuals.

RvW is based on not allowing the states to deny women a much safer medical procedure...much more safe than pregnancy/childbirth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom