• 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 Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Most abortions now illegal in Utah

I didn’t say most women want this, I said most pro-choice women most likely live in states where this decision won’t make a bit of difference.


Utah’s law includes an exception for the life of the mother.
It's gonna kill women.

That's not how you base rights
 
I think you're right. Wendover is only two hours from SLC.

But then, the abortion pill is still legal and has a shelf life of 2 to 5 years.
I'll be curious to see how they stop people from getting the pill.
Opening their mail is illegal and monitoring what they buy is a gross over reach of power
 
I didn’t say most women want this, I said most pro-choice women most likely live in states where this decision won’t make a bit of difference.
Please provide a factual basis for that assertion.
 
What's your point about that? Are you unaware that people are discussing those whom it would impact?
I was responding to this:

More generally: we will all note that the anti-choice people have been trying to assauge us with reassurances that the sky won't fall and is not falling. Ask yourself how many of their reassurances about the future and their behavior in it have proven true?

So no, for most pro-choice women the sky is not falling--their "right" to kill their babies will not be impacted at all, because they live in states where access to abortion services will, if anything, be enhanced.
 
I was responding to this:


So no, for most pro-choice women sky is not falling--their "right" to kill their babies will not be impacted at all, because they live in states where access to abortion services will, if anything, be enhanced.
Your comment is disingenuous. @Mr Person is not discussing whether women in pro-choice states are impacted; you shoehorned that in.

What are "enhanced" abortion services?
 
I'll be curious to see how they stop people from getting the pill.
Opening their mail is illegal and monitoring what they buy is a gross over reach of power
I recommended to the White House to issue these pills from military bases and federal lands.
 
I'll be curious to see how they stop people from getting the pill.
Opening their mail is illegal and monitoring what they buy is a gross over reach of power
I would say no knock search warrants based on reasonable suspicion.
 
Raising_Hell_Small20220625063203.jpg


Your comment is disingenuous. @Mr Person is not discussing whether women in pro-choice states are impacted; you shoehorned that in.
And just who else would be most worried about the sky falling than pro-choice women?

What are "enhanced" abortion services?
Things like abortion being legal for any or no reason up to the point that the baby draws their first breath.
 
And just who else would be most worried about the sky falling than pro-choice women?


Things like abortion being legal for any or no reason up to the point that the baby draws their first breath.
You're not good at this.
 
From the pro-life side? It hits the bullseye.
If that were true, then they would be ok with providing prenatal care, better health care for children, wic, and all those programs so many of the people who claim to be pro-life object to.
 
If that were true, then they would be ok with providing prenatal care, better health care for children, wic, and all those programs so many of the people who claim to be pro-life object to.
Religious Conservatives are to most charitable segment of the US population (though Religious Liberals aren't far behind).
 
Religious Conservatives are to most charitable segment of the US population (though Religious Liberals aren't far behind).
That is the claim. HOWEVER, one thing I noticed is that part of the thing they call 'charitiable' is tithing to the church. Now, while some of that money might go to the poor, a quite substantial amount goes to running the chuch, which they benefit from, paying for religious education for the members children, which they benefit from. In other words, they directly benefit from the money they give the church, which they are counting as 'charity' but it's services they basically are providing to themselves.

While there certainly isn't anything wrong with that, it does make the claim 'the most chartiable segment of the U.S. population to be a bit skewed.
 
That is the claim. HOWEVER, one thing I noticed is that part of the thing they call 'charitiable' is tithing to the church. Now, while some of that money might go to the poor, a quite substantial amount goes to running the chuch, which they benefit from, paying for religious education for the members children, which they benefit from. In other words, they directly benefit from the money they give the church, which they are counting as 'charity' but it's services they basically are providing to themselves.

While there certainly isn't anything wrong with that, it does make the claim 'the most chartiable segment of the U.S. population to be a bit skewed.
Yes, I've heard that argument before. The problem with it is that the Religious--of either side of the political spectrum--don't just give to religious organizations, and their charitable giving so outpaces that of Seculars that they give more per capita to secular organizations as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom