• 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!

Trump Sneaks Dangerous Rights for Fetuses Into Executive Order

Argent said:
Here we go...fetuses have personhood. Bolding is mine.

"A flurry of executive orders that President Donald Trump signed into place Monday night included one that cemented language at the executive level to delegitimize transgender identities. But within the fold of that order, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” lay another damaging detail: the elevation of fetal personhood to the national stage.

“‘Female’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell,” the order reads in part. “‘Male’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”
By describing a fetus as a person from conception, Trump has legitimized fetal personhood. Pro-abortion activists have long warned that fetal personhood, an ideology that calls for providing equal human rights to a fetus (even if it’s a cluster of cells), will effectively strip pregnant people of their own rights. The legal language employed by fetal personhood also effectively categorizes any person receiving an abortion at any stage as a murderer."

newrepublic.com

Trump Sneaks Dangerous Rights for Fetuses Into Executive Order

Donald Trump slipped the anti-abortion language into an otherwise unrelated order.
newrepublic.com newrepublic.com
Click to expand...
Well, I agree with him on 1 thing: there is no such thing as being "transgender." There are only 2 genders period. You can't change biology. There is a mental health category that is called "gender dysphoria" and that can be treated 98% of the time once puberty is done. Otherwise, as adults, individuals can decide for themselves if they want to be mutilated & they can pay for it themselves or via insurance cuz apparently some insurances will pay for it. But taxpayers SHOULD NEVER BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MUTILATION OF PEOPLE. That's not a government responsibility at all.

And lastly, all I can say is that I resent this whole ideology being FORCED on me to accept this B.S. It's pretty much the same as being called a "racist" when I don't even consider the color of the person I'm talking or dealing with including my friends. Again, it's the "in your face" that pisses me off. If a man wants to dress up like a woman, go for it. Just don't expect me to accept that this is "natural" because it isn't.
 
Gordy327 said:
Where is a "right to life" enumerated? Rights belong to persons.
Click to expand...
"All men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights among these are life..."

Of course the so-called Progressive denys the Creator, making rights the playthings of tyrannical politicians and judges.
 
AZRWinger said:
"All men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights among these are life..."

Of course the so-called Progressive denys the Creator, making rights the playthings of tyrannical politicians and judges.
Click to expand...
That's the DoI, not the Constitution, which enumerates our rights and is the basis of our laws.
Prove there's a "Creator!"
 
Atreus21 said:
If we passed a law that stated black people weren't persons, would you oppose it?
Click to expand...
Still waiting for you to show where a "right to life" is enumerated!
 
Well, his EOs cannot override actual laws, so Arizona's constitutional amendment stands.
 
Atreus21 said:
Not by Gordy's logic they wouldn't.
Click to expand...
It seems all you have is a Strawman argument. Not surprising, following your earlier non-sequitur.
 
Atreus21 said:
It's enumerated in natural law. You don't agree?
Click to expand...
What is "natural law?" Define it! Cite where these "laws" are established and enumerated!
 
Gordy327 said:
It seems all you have is a Strawman argument. Not surprising, following your earlier non-sequitur.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what a strawman is. Now will you answer my question?

If we passed a law that stated black people weren't persons, would you oppose it?
 
Atreus21 said:
I don't think you know what a strawman is. Now will you answer my question?
Click to expand...
A fallacious argument which distorts or does not represent an opponents view. You're trying to make it look like I said something which I did not.
Atreus21 said:
If we passed a law that stated black people weren't persons, would you oppose it?
Click to expand...
A nonsequitur, in an attempt to deflect from my actual relevant question.
 
Argent said:
Here we go...fetuses have personhood. Bolding is mine.

"A flurry of executive orders that President Donald Trump signed into place Monday night included one that cemented language at the executive level to delegitimize transgender identities. But within the fold of that order, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” lay another damaging detail: the elevation of fetal personhood to the national stage.

“‘Female’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell,” the order reads in part. “‘Male’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”
By describing a fetus as a person from conception, Trump has legitimized fetal personhood. Pro-abortion activists have long warned that fetal personhood, an ideology that calls for providing equal human rights to a fetus (even if it’s a cluster of cells), will effectively strip pregnant people of their own rights. The legal language employed by fetal personhood also effectively categorizes any person receiving an abortion at any stage as a murderer."

newrepublic.com

Trump Sneaks Dangerous Rights for Fetuses Into Executive Order

Donald Trump slipped the anti-abortion language into an otherwise unrelated order.
newrepublic.com newrepublic.com
Click to expand...
This will be challenged and will be stopped.

Trump does not have the authority to do this.
 
Gordy327 said:
A fallacious argument which distorts or does not represent an opponents view. You're trying to make it look like I said something which I did not.
Click to expand...

No, I'm following the logic of your implication that a right that isn't explicitly enumerated isn't a right. No one actually believes that.

Gordy327 said:
A nonsequitur, in an attempt to deflect from my actual relevant question.
Click to expand...

Whether it's a non sequitur or irrelevant or a strawman, just give an answer.

If we passed a law such that blacks no longer had an enumerated right to life, would you support it? After all, the right would no longer be enumerated.
 
Atreus21 said:
No, I'm following the logic of your implication that a right that isn't explicitly enumerated isn't a right. No one actually believes that.
Click to expand...
Logic clearly eludes you then.
Atreus21 said:
Whether it's a non sequitur or irrelevant or a strawman, just give an answer.
Click to expand...
It is relevant as it shows you ha e no valid argument or point to make.
Atreus21 said:
If we passed a law such that blacks no longer had an enumerated right to life, would you support it? After all, the right would no longer be enumerated.
Click to expand...
The best you can do is a hypothetical? Weak! And you still haven't demonstrated where a "right to life" is enumerated. All you're doing is desperately trying to deflect, which is just intellectually dishonest and cowardly. Here's a legal fact for you: the unborn do not have any rights under the Constitution or federal law.
 
Gordy327 said:
Logic clearly eludes you then.

It is relevant as it shows you ha e no valid argument or point to make.

The best you can do is a hypothetical? Weak! And you still haven't demonstrated where a "right to life" is enumerated. All you're doing is desperately trying to deflect, which is just intellectually dishonest and cowardly. Here's a legal fact for you: the unborn do not have any rights under the Constitution or federal law.
Click to expand...

Right. Exactly. So. If blacks didn't either, would you support that?
 
j brown's body said:
I could be wrong, but I feel like we have usually heard the sex assigned at birth.

One of Trump's propaganda tricks is repetition. Perhaps they decided to change it to who they are at the time of conception here in an effort to get it in the everyday lexicon.

I just noticed they are red flagging the term "assigned at birth."

Click to expand...

Which is really weird as the term "assigned at birth" simply means that the child has either male genitalia or female genitalia as assigned by genetics (or nature if you prefer) and seen at the point of birth.

It actually has nothing to do with trans or gender, it is a simple, recorded statement of fact by the doctor on which genitalia the child was born with.

God, these ****ing people are so goddamn stupid.....
 
Atreus21 said:
Right. Exactly. So. If blacks didn't either, would you support that?
Click to expand...
Still a nonsensical hypothetical nonsequitur and deflection. Meanwhile, still waiting for you to show where the '"right to life" is enumerated.
 
Gordy327 said:
That's the DoI, not the Constitution, which enumerates our rights and is the basis of our laws.
Prove there's a "Creator!"
Click to expand...
Without the DoI there would be no Constitution. Without a Creator there are no unalienable rights. The rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are among the rights from the Creator not a total list.
 
AZRWinger said:
Without the DoI there would be no Constitution. Without a Creator there are no unalienable rights. The rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are among the rights from the Creator not a total list.
Click to expand...
Prove there's a "creator" first! Not that it's relevant, as the Constitution does acknowledge the separation of church and state. Besides, the DoI is worded in a way to appeal to the King of England as head of the Church, and only establishes our sovereignty as a nation and nothing more. Bottom line, the unborn do not have any rights per the constitution and federal law, no matter how much you want to disingenuously pretend otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom