• 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:#4341]Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

multivita-man said:
So you're against even birth control then?
Click to expand...

Depends. If it's main function is to prevent fertilization, I'm fine with it. I'm with Hobby Lobby. :)
 
TrumpTalibanSteaks said:
It does not mention guns, bullets, AR-15's. It does not state how many you are allowed to own. LItearlly the only logical constitutional argument gun rights folks have in light of yesterday's ruling is "cause it says so neener neener".
Click to expand...

It is obvious that the keeping and bearing of arms includes ammunition. It says "shall not be infringed" so as to keep the state as far out of it as possible. Arms is a widely accepted definition of firearms. Again, the framers went as far as possible to be as clear as possible. That's a world apart from talking about medical procedures killing another human being. Do you think a woman should be able to terminate a 39 week healthy pregnancy with no complications?

TrumpTalibanSteaks said:
So were muskets. This is the problem: you keep picking and choosing when you want to revert to originalists and when you believe it's a living document that should fit modern definitions. Arms of course meant guns, right to privacy of course didn't mean women.
Click to expand...

Keep and bear ARMS. They never said keep and bear MUSKETS.
 
TrumpTalibanSteaks said:
As it is located inside her body, yes. That would be correct. You think you should have dominion over the bodies on death row. Your position is inconsistent with your morals, mine is embedded within them.
Click to expand...
Do you really believe the opposite -- i.e. arguing for life for convicted murderers and death to the unborn -- represents a more intellectually and morally consistent pair of opinions?
 
Josie said:
I haven't given my opinion on the death penalty here. What's yours?

Is abortion banned in NY today? << Why won't you answer this?
Click to expand...

Then give an opinion.

I won't answer your questions anymore because you don't engage other than to ask questions that are designed as ad homs more than conversation. It's obvious and boring. Make an argument.
 
bave said:
When something is not mentioned it means that isn't a clear right. When something is mentioned and spelled out, it is.

The 1A clearly spells out freedom of speech and religion etc. The 2nd amendment clearly spells out the right to keep and bear arms. etc.

There is no amendment granting the right to an abortion.

The death sentence isn't mentioned, unless you are talking about "cruel and unusual punishment" however executionw as a commonly accepted form of punishment when the constitution was drafted.
Click to expand...

Neither was slavery.

When are these radicals going to get to that.

Funny, after years of listening to right wing disc jockeys and their listeners opine about “Starry decisus” and ranting about “activist judges”, the same people seem cheer both when they’re getting what they want.

The United States is the only first world nation with a death penality, or anti abortion laws.
 
bave said:
This entire thing should never have been dumped on the SCOTUS honestly.

If the nation wants this, legislate it, period. It is not up to the court to grant newly found and created rights and protections. That''s what the legislatures are for.
Click to expand...
Ultimately it's the best way to protect that kind of right; on that I agree and why I thought the Roe vs. Wade ruling being safe just through securing SC justices who agreed with it setting the precedent it did as it relates to abortion rights was always a precarious strategy.
 
TrumpTalibanSteaks said:
Then give an opinion.

I won't answer your questions anymore because you don't engage other than to ask questions that are designed as ad homs more than conversation. It's obvious and boring. Make an argument.
Click to expand...

I've made arguments the entire time. You just dislike having your opinions dissected. :)
 
Josie said:
Depends. If it's main function is to prevent fertilization, I'm fine with it. I'm with Hobby Lobby. :)
Click to expand...

Question: why does everyone else have to adhere to your very arbitrary rules on birth control? Like what gives you that right?
 
multivita-man said:
Life is precious. Hell, every time a guy masturbates, they should be required to go to a sperm bank.
Click to expand...
:) Cute, but, I suspect you probably understand how sexual reproduction works.
 
cpwill said:
:) Cute, but, I suspect you probably understand how sexual reproduction works.
Click to expand...

Isn't it weird how so many people make this argument? I suspect most of them really don't understand...
 
NatMorton said:
Again, the Mississippi law in the Dobbs case is closer to what Americans want than was Roe.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, and that would be the starting point for what could be carved out as a national law. I don't think there will be abortion rights support for late term abortions, but that line as to how early is likely a moving target.

NatMorton said:
You're assuming that such an act by Congress will be found Constitutional. I'm not sure it will be.
Click to expand...
That remains to be seen, but getting to a point where Congress legislates on this is the first bridge to cross.
 
JasperL said:
No, I only think that because it's rational, common sense. Wealthy people part with their money to advance their own interests and in the vast majority of those cases, that interest is self serving and directly related to acquiring more wealth or keeping what they have now. I notice you don't even bother addressing this point, preferring straw men and misrepresenting my argument.

For example, you're not an idiot so you know you're missing the ENTIRE point by focusing on abortion. There aren't even a million Americans who know about those 79 other cases every year before SCOTUS involving issues important to donors that get no mention at all anywhere in the popular news. Abortion is the shiny object, not the purpose of the Federalist Society. It's why they spend money getting judges appointed at all the lower courts and state courts that have no authority over the hot button issues of our time.

Surely you cannot possibly be this naive.

Oh, right, that would make sense but the "big scary financial donors" to the Federalist society are anonymous. So we don't know who they are, so cannot possibly know what ?????? believe, or why ?????? part with $millions of their wealth every year to stack the court with conservatives

I'm sure they're just very religious and care about abortion and now that Roe is overturned they'll all pull back their anonymous $million donations because Mission Accomplished! 🥴 o_O 🤪
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the scary big donors who forced you to come to that conclusion are anonymous?

My goodness. That's scary indeed.

....Are they Jews, Jasper?
 
bave said:
When something is not mentioned it means that isn't a clear right. When something is mentioned and spelled out, it is.

The 1A clearly spells out freedom of speech and religion etc. The 2nd amendment clearly spells out the right to keep and bear arms. etc.

There is no amendment granting the right to an abortion.

The death sentence isn't mentioned, unless you are talking about "cruel and unusual punishment" however executionw as a commonly accepted form of punishment when the constitution was drafted.
Click to expand...
The first amendment is one sentence that begins, "Congress shall make no laws..." which means state govenments arent obliged to protect your free speech right.
Anyone who wants to get all literal about the constitution in this needs to be reminded that Roe vs. Wade was a decision from a different SCOTUS on a constitutional issue. Its all just a matter of opinion. Pretending otherwise is denying reality.
 
NatMorton said:
Do you really believe the opposite -- i.e. arguing for life for convicted murderers and death to the unborn -- represents a more intellectually and morally consistent pair of opinions?
Click to expand...

You're conflating morals and intellectual discussion again but okay, I'll answer: oh god yes. My moral and intellectual belief is that a person here is an individual, and worth more than a fetus. I make that value judgement in the same way we make value judgements about death row inmates. Pro lifers will insist we can't "kill" babies because they can prove when a heartbeat begins. They drop that argument when discussing death row inmates because their values judge those humans as deserving death. It's an inconsistent moral position, and disingenious when arguing abortion.
 
X Factor said:
Why would they “supersede” anyone’s? Having my religion inform my politics is no different than anyone else voting according to their own sense of morals/ethics.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of one's religious beliefs influencing one's opinion. It's a matter of attempting to codify morality on the basis of a religious belief and apply it to a general population, even moreso in a secular state.

It's the same as attempting to restrict the rights of same sex couples to marry or criminalize pre-marital sexual relationships because they're a violation of one's religious principles.
 
NatMorton said:
Not sure about that. At least 51% of the people in my state think it should be illegal to use three-week old puppies for target practice, and they’ve codified that morality.
Click to expand...

Interesting. What part of that is inspired by your religious doctrine?
 
cpwill said:
:) Cute, but, I suspect you probably understand how sexual reproduction works.
Click to expand...
Well, then there is the whole "immaculate conception" piece which kind of falls outside our understanding of how sexual reproduction works.
😜
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom