• 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:#325]Alito's Abortion Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to the 9th Amendment

And recently the Supreme Court has said that you are.
The SCOTUS is wrong too. But regardless, privacy is within the Constitution and multiple SCOTUS precedents besides Roe.
 
It's a debate. You cannot support your position at all. This is how discussions work...and you are the one that wants it black and white...not me. That's the science part you keep desperately clinging to..."all or nothing" if it's Homo sapiens, it has rights. Sorry...that's not the case.

I didnt make 'demands,' I asked you to answer questions and refute or counter my arguments or claims. And now that I'm directly sticking to the debate, you found you dont have any answers. Is it a shock to you to see there's a whole other side to this issue? LOL it all seems brand new to you, being confronted with 'the other side.'
No, you keep asking about current legality and fairness etc., not the concept as presented. Face facts, regardless of your views on the myriad of issues, my premise is logical and rational, you simply don't like it because you don't agree with it.
 
The SCOTUS is wrong too. But regardless, privacy is within the Constitution and multiple SCOTUS precedents besides Roe.

Precedents are traditional but not constitutionally binding.
 
When one disagrees, one usually offer an explanation. Thats how a discussion works. Lursa explained why she disagrees and why she's right. It's you who is whining about it.
A rational analysis as I presented need not be explained to a rational thinking person, you and she simply don't like the premise and seek to deflect.
 
Precedents are traditional but not constitutionally binding.
Yes they are, until overturned by new precedent. Or do you also think SCOTUS rulings carry no weight?
 
Yes they are, until overturned by new precedent. Or do you also think SCOTUS rulings carry no weight?
Still avoiding the issue as presented, how unsurprising.
 
A rational analysis as I presented need not be explained to a rational thinking person, you and she simply don't like the premise and seek to deflect.
No, you've simply made no rational argument except in your own mind. Lursa's replies demonstrates that perfectly.
 
Yes they are, until overturned by new precedent. Or do you also think SCOTUS rulings carry no weight?
Of course they carry weight. Which is why they are a big deal.

Do you think Supreme Court rulings carry no weight when they are ones you disagree with?
 
No, just simple legal fact! It seems you are avoiding those.
It was never presented as current law, that's the point you seem to be either missing or avoiding.
 
Of course they carry weight. Which is why they are a big deal.
So it's rather silly to say they are not constitutionally binding.
Do you think Supreme Court rulings carry no weight when they are ones you disagree with?
Not at all. Neither did I imply that.
 
It was never presented as current law, that's the point you seem to be either missing or avoiding.
Current law has already been explained. You seem to be avoiding that.
 
Current law has already been explained. You seem to be avoiding that.
For the last time, I never addressed or presented it as being or representing current law.
 
Then your argument is moot.
No, it's not, laws change all the time for various reasons, try reading Montesquieu's "The Spirit of Laws" sometime for a little enlightenment on the subject.
 
No, you keep asking about current legality and fairness etc., not the concept as presented. Face facts, regardless of your views on the myriad of issues, my premise is logical and rational, you simply don't like it because you don't agree with it.

Your concept has not been argued. All you write is..but but but...it has human DNA so it should have rights.

I presented a number of arguments and asked you a number of questions where I pointed out why that's not the case...and you have been unable to counter or argue any of them. This is now your argument: "but we could do it!" and nothing based in the law to support it. You could not answer my questions directly.

It's not about me not agreeing, It's about me proving your view is wrong and you not being able to come back with any viable counter-arguments. See posts 405, 433,, 445, 458...you cant directly counter any of that.
 
A rational analysis as I presented need not be explained to a rational thinking person, you and she simply don't like the premise and seek to deflect.

If it were rational, maybe...but it seems it's not. This is a discussion forum. You have demonstrated nothing but your personal opinion...the definition you provided does not apply to the law. If you think it should...when are you going to articulate how?
 
For the last time, I never addressed or presented it as being or representing current law.

We know that. You object to current law...correct? When are you going to articulate an argument, based in the law, that shows any reasoning or logic that we should change current law? And your scientific definition of human being doesnt work...since science recognizes NO rights or legal status for any species.
 
Your concept has not been argued. All you write is..but but but...it has human DNA so it should have rights.

I presented a number of arguments and asked you a number of questions where I pointed out why that's not the case...and you have been unable to counter or argue any of them. This is now your argument: "but we could do it!" and nothing based in the law to support it. You could not answer my questions directly.

It's not about me not agreeing, It's about me proving your view is wrong and you not being able to come back with any viable counter-arguments. See posts 405, 433,, 445, 458...you cant directly counter any of that.
No, that's your own biased interpretation of the issue, I presented a logical case with scientific and Constitutional justification. In response you've deflected to anything you imagine to support your views, regardless how irrelevant it may be to the premise as presented.
 
If it were rational, maybe...but it seems it's not. This is a discussion forum. You have demonstrated nothing but your personal opinion...the definition you provided does not apply to the law. If you think it should...when are you going to articulate how?
I already did, you simply refused to accept it like a petulant child.
 
No, that's your own biased interpretation of the issue, I presented a logical case with scientific and Constitutional justification. In response you've deflected to anything you imagine to support your views, regardless how irrelevant it may be to the premise as presented.

Nope...since the law doesnt recognize the scientific classification/definition for human being and explicitly calls it out in the US Code I provided...the 5th A doesnt apply.

Also, since the 14th A also says someone has to be born to be a person or have rights recognized...the 5th ALSO does not apply. You are attempting to use the Const to argue against the Const :rolleyes: You have made no argument why the US should recognize the unborn as human beings with rights. None. All you do is point to a (irrelevant) scientific definition and try to link it to the 5th A...which the 14th A clearly dismisses.

So thus far, the argument you made failed and you've failed to come up with anything else.
 
I already did, you simply refused to accept it like a petulant child.

Nope, see post 499...I back everything up...I just pointed out (again) your circular logic fail.
 
Back
Top Bottom