• 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!

[W:#310]Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty'

So when you eat vegetables, you're participating in "murder" ?
I didn't say that. I said everything dies. Some fetuses die naturally. Murder requires an action on the part of a human being against another human being. Eating plants and animals applies to virtually all of nature. No eating no life. I find it hard to understand why you posted this unrelated nonsense.
 
I didn't say that. I said everything dies. Some fetuses die naturally. Murder requires an action on the part of a human being against another human being. Eating plants and animals applies to virtually all of nature. No eating no life. I find it hard to understand why you posted this unrelated nonsense.

So you DON'T equate the death of a vegetable to the death of a sentient being ?
Correct ?
 
So you DON'T equate the death of a vegetable to the death of a sentient being ?
Correct ?
I equated it earlier. Everything that lives eventually dies. No exceptions.
 
I equated it earlier. Everything that lives eventually dies. No exceptions.

So, if I understand you correctly
You see no difference between a person killing a plant (to say eat it) and a person killing another person ?
 
I honestly don't understand how civil asset forfeiture is even slightly legal.
We don't have anything similar in the UK.
Sure we can be fined but that's done by courts. The police can't just take stuff on the pretense that it may be involved in some unknown crime, thats blatant theft.

If I am not mistaken GB is similar in it's criminal code to Canada. And here WE DO seize any asset that was used in the crime. You have $100 million yacht and get nailed for a load of coke, the Yacht is now property of the Crown when the judge's gavel hits wood. And yes, you use a $200 million home to cook meth, we take the house too.
They cannot seize any items not directly involved in a crime. They can seize any contraband found, not necessarily the contraband they were seeking in the 1st place
 
This needs to be addressed by "right to privacy" advocates, because it's not going to go away.

Apparently progressives believe a pregnant 13 year old girl has a "right to privacy" from government intrusion, but a 40 year old woman putting politically incorrect drugs into her own body while inside of her own home does not.

Not only do progressives toss her "right to privacy" into the garbage, they also toss her right to bodily autonomy into the trash right along with it.

This is a staggering level of intellectual inconsistency, even for the political left.
You’re mixing up your political movements. The progressives I know are for legalizing most recreational drugs. Hell, the conservative platform doesn’t even want “hippy lettuce” legal. Guess they’re worried about all the chocolate chip cookie thieves. Oh wait, I just looked it up. They’re trying to limit competition in the “recreational” drug market which is currently dominated by alcohol.
 
You’re mixing up your political movements. The progressives I know are for legalizing most recreational drugs.

Name some prominent progressives who support legalizing "most" drugs.

Btw, what's the argument for "most"? A person either has the right to bodily autonomy or they don't.
Hell, the conservative platform doesn’t even want “hippy lettuce” legal.

The only people vocally supporting a free market in all drugs have been right wingers. Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley, Ayn Rand, the Libertarian Party, etc.

Name some left wingers who support legalizing all drugs.

Guess they’re worried about all the chocolate chip cookie thieves. Oh wait, I just looked it up. They’re trying to limit competition in the “recreational” drug market which is currently dominated by alcohol.
 
Name some prominent progressives who support legalizing "most" drugs.

Btw, what's the argument for "most"? A person either has the right to bodily autonomy or they don't.


The only people vocally supporting a free market in all drugs have been right wingers. Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley, Ayn Rand, the Libertarian Party, etc.

Name some left wingers who support legalizing all drugs.
So you misspoke when you said ‘progressives’ when what you meant to say was ‘politicians.’ Ok, I can dig that. Most progressives I know would vote to legalize all drugs. Biden isn’t progressive, but even he is looking to change the schedule on marijuana from class 1 or whatever. That’s how it starts.
 
So you misspoke when you said ‘progressives’ when what you meant to say was ‘politicians.’ Ok, I can dig that. Most progressives I know would vote to legalize all drugs.

Again, name some prominent progressives who support legalizing all drugs.

I can't think of a single one.

Biden isn’t progressive, but even he is looking to change the schedule on marijuana from class 1 or whatever. That’s how it starts.

No, he isn't. Just because a politician says something, doesn't mean he believes it. Biden has been a rabid drug warrior for 50 years.
 
Most progressives I know would vote to legalize all drugs. Biden isn’t progressive, but even he is looking to change the schedule on marijuana from class 1 or whatever. That’s how it starts.

Name one and cite a quote supporting your claim.
 
It remains to be seen if there's a public backlash against SCOTUS overturning the Wade Vs Roe ruling, in this months mid-terms.
 
Back
Top Bottom