• 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 root of all pregnancy

What does our Constitution have to say about Rights of the unborn?
Our laws spring from the constitution. While the constitution does not draw and distinctions between a person and one in the womb, our laws do infer rights to them. If you maliciously cause the death of an unborn child, you are charged with murder. How do you square that one?
 
Our laws spring from the constitution. While the constitution does not draw and distinctions between a person and one in the womb, our laws do infer rights to them. If you maliciously cause the death of an unborn child, you are charged with murder. How do you square that one?
What needs to be squared?
 
Could be done at birth, pretty much would eliminate the need for abortions.
Would pretty much eliminate the human race. We are too consumed to have the operation which was done at birth reversed. Some number of males, compelled to parenthood would do it. Most would not and before you know it, we would walk ourselves into extinction.

The point of the thread OP appears to be, states should not be engaged in making personal (PRIVATE) decisions for woman and their wombs and the fetus in some cases within them. Nor should states be engaged in making personal (PRIVATE) decisions for men and their ding-dongs.

I agree in both cases, for women and for men.
 
Maybe people ought to just be more responsible and take ownership for their actions? That would solve lots of problems.
You forgot to add this - but, in the meantime, a minority group of religious nutjobs would like to be in control of women's bodies.
 
What needs to be squared?
You can only murder a person right? If the law considers the unborn child a person then how is abortion not murder? Bear in mind I do not advocate for abortion to be made illegal. I am just wrestling with the issue in my own mind.
 
You can only murder a person right? If the law considers the unborn child a person then how is abortion not murder? Bear in mind I do not advocate for abortion to be made illegal. I am just wrestling with the issue in my own mind.
Does the law consider the unborn a person? Is the unborn you're talking about in another person, who is planning to give birth to a child?
 
Does the law consider the unborn a person? Is the unborn you're talking about in another person, who is planning to give birth to a child?
Again. Here is a senario, a pregnant woman is intentionally injured by another person. As a result, the baby in her dies. This is by the law murder. Someone has murdered a person. Regardless of whether the mother intends to give birth or not, it is considered murder.
 
Again. Here is a senario, a pregnant woman is intentionally injured by another person. As a result, the baby in her dies. This is by the law murder. Someone has murdered a person. Regardless of whether the mother intends to give birth or not, it is considered murder.
I accept that, even if she was at the door of the abortion clinic about to have an abortion.
Abortion is legal, murder is not.
 
Maybe people ought to just be more responsible and take ownership for their actions? That would solve lots of problems.

Of course we all know taking responsibility will do nothing to solve the problem.
 
You can only murder a person right? If the law considers the unborn child a person then how is abortion not murder? Bear in mind I do not advocate for abortion to be made illegal. I am just wrestling with the issue in my own mind.
I find some who do quite a good job of murdering the English language, leaving me to simply wonder what they wanted to say.
The reality is they should be more accurately charged with foeticide or feticide.
 
I accept that, even if she was at the door of the abortion clinic about to have an abortion.
Abortion is legal, murder is not.
So one minute its a person and the next minute its not a person. That makes zero sense and I think you know it makes zero sense.
 
So one minute its a person and the next minute its not a person. That makes zero sense and I think you know it makes zero sense.
In one instance it is feticide while in the other it is abortion.
 
That sounds like a reasonable compromise, though I find nothing in the Constitution that would support preventing a Woman from having an abortion at any time prior to birth.
Once you get appointed to SCOTUS, you can interpret the law that way.
 
Once you get appointed to SCOTUS, you can interpret the law that way.
I'm free to interpret the law any way I wish without being appointed to the SCOTUS, I simply cannot apply the law as I interpret it.
I'm unable to become pregnant, nor am I likely to get anyone pregnant at my age.
 
I'm free to interpret the law any way I wish without being appointed to the SCOTUS, I simply cannot apply the law as I interpret it.
I'm unable to become pregnant, nor am I likely to get anyone pregnant at my age.
That's what I meant, I just didn't phrase it right.
 
It would be easier and, perhaps, just as effective, to make a wide variety of contraceptives easily available to women.
 
The OP makes a salient point.

If men had a uterus, this would not even be a discussion.
 
In one instance it is feticide while in the other it is abortion.
Feticide is murder. Commit it and you get life enprisionment. So it's a person if you muder him or her. You cannot murder a cat. You cannot murder a horse. You can only murder a person.
 
Our laws spring from the constitution. While the constitution does not draw and distinctions between a person and one in the womb, our laws do infer rights to them. If you maliciously cause the death of an unborn child, you are charged with murder. How do you square that one?

A person in the womb is not a political entity.

This raises the question, if women are not legally considered a political entity, as shown by depriving them of the right to control their own bodies, why should they have the right to vote?
 

Mine wasn't reversible, but I still agree with you. You can get them so they are. Parents of boys might consider giving them reversible vasectomies. It's going to have zero effect on their lives except prevent them from causing unwanted pregnancies. I wish I could claim this as my idea but my therapist actually suggested it and I agree with her.
 
So if we do that, can we then restrict abortion? If that's the trade, I'll definitely take it.
Nope. Vasectomies are voluntary. Forced pregnancies are not. Nice try - you must be a Tucker watcher - he comes up with some cool catch-phrases, but he doesn't prepare you for defending the bullshit, does he? I can't help you.
 
LOL you offering yourself up or just others?
Specific members of this forum not being called out in my post here. This world might be a much better place if some folks were not allowed to prorate.
 
Maybe people ought to just be more responsible and take ownership for their actions? That would solve lots of problems.
Like all the Republicans trying to white-wash their actions on 1/6? I agree, absolutely!!!
 
Feticide is murder. Commit it and you get life enprisionment. So it's a person if you muder him or her. You cannot murder a cat. You cannot murder a horse. You can only murder a person.
Feticide is the killing of a fetus, can't really comment on what the sentence might be for conviction though. The point is that abortion is legal when chosen by the Woman containing the fetus. Her decision alone, like it or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom