• 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:913]Us pro-lifers have got to stop using the religious argument for being against this...

vegas giants said:
It's not possible.
Deny heart treatment to fat people
Deny cancer treatment to smokers
You would need a dictatorship to enact that
Its utterly laughable
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But with advances in the internet and remote monitoring technology it is real possibility. I saw a feature on the possibilities of future medicine on one of the educational channels. I presented a scenario where in the future everyone's insurance is tied to remote medical monitoring. Do something that your insurance policy declares dangerous and your insurance gets canceled or the rates rise dramatically. In the episode a guy goes out drinking the night before having an accident that damages his heart severely. This is detected and just before he needs life saving heart surgery his insurance is canceled.
 
Dayton3 said:
Perhaps. But with advances in the internet and remote monitoring technology it is real possibility. I saw a feature on the possibilities of future medicine on one of the educational channels. I presented a scenario where in the future everyone's insurance is tied to remote medical monitoring. Do something that your insurance policy declares dangerous and your insurance gets canceled or the rates rise dramatically. In the episode a guy goes out drinking the night before having an accident that damages his heart severely. This is detected and just before he needs life saving heart surgery his insurance is canceled.
Click to expand...
And then the state just pays for it.


Brillant plan. Lol
 
Dayton3 said:
Why? If women don't want to get pregnant why don't they use birth control reliably? And yeah, I know you're going to bring up pregnancies due to rape or birth control failure. We both know that the pregnancies due to those reasons are an extremely small number of the total numbers of abortions performed.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter to me how a pregnancy occurs, whether it's due to birth control failure, rape, or anything else. I think any reason for a woman to have an abortion is valid, including the most simple one: "I don't want a baby." And it doesn't matter to me if you agree with her reason(s) or not either.

Regarding the use of birth control, no birth control method for women has a 100% guarantee against unwanted pregnancy, so BC failures can and do happen, even when the woman is using it correctly and "reliably," whatever that (reliably) means. No woman who never wants pregnancy or children should have to remain celibate for life as punishment for choosing not to reproduce, no matter how many prolifers say she "should."
 
Dayton3 said:
Why? If women don't want to get pregnant why don't they use birth control reliably? And yeah, I know you're going to bring up pregnancies due to rape or birth control failure. We both know that the pregnancies due to those reasons are an extremely small number of the total numbers of abortions performed.
Click to expand...

You have been told, repeatedly, the failure rate of birth control methods and that failure of male controlled contraception is one of the major causes of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies. Yet you continue to state that women are irresponsible and failure of birth control is rare. Dishonesty and stupidity have never been helpful in getting a point across.

My question to you is: Why do you want to keep presenting yourself as an ignoramus to the intelligent well informed pro-choice posters on this site?
 
weaver2 said:
My question to you is: Why do you want to keep presenting yourself as an ignoramus to the intelligent well informed pro-choice posters on this site?
Click to expand...

"intelligent, well informed" pro choice posters do not exist. On this site or anywhere else.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Alright, alright, let's stop with the insults and general ass hatery. You will stick to the topic, and not the other posters in the thread. I don't want to see any of this little tit-for-tat crap continuing. Failure to abide by this warning may result in moderator action and/or thread banning.

All posts made prior to this warning are still subject to moderator review and action.
 
Dayton3 said:
Why? If it were possible, why not tie medical treatment to responsible conduct?
Click to expand...
So no more skiing, driving cars, riding motorcycles, swimming, riding horses, painting their houses on ladders, etc etc etc?

People should be punished for accidents? Just withhold treatment? "Teach 'em a lesson?" Including when birth control fails? Yes or no?
 
Lursa said:
So no more skiing, driving cars, riding motorcycles, swimming, riding horses, painting their houses on ladders, etc etc etc?

People should be punished for accidents? Just withhold treatment? "Teach 'em a lesson?" Including when birth control fails? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Yes. But we would have to establish some kind of risk assessment formula. Insurance companies would probably be useful in this regard. Thanks for the idea though.
 
Dayton3 said:
Yes. But we would have to establish some kind of risk assessment formula. Insurance companies would probably be useful in this regard. Thanks for the idea though.
Click to expand...
And what does that have to do with women that need abortions? How do they prove they were using birth control? How does an insurance co. prove they didnt?
 
Dayton3 said:
Why?.
Click to expand...
Because the woman's life and responsibilities and work and contributions to society are proven and she's already involved in people's lives...loving, sharing, supporting, fighting with, laughing with, and vice versa. The unborn? Might end up involved in life, may die or be born with severe defects.

Only the woman knows her needs and responsibilities in life and how much she can uphold and support thru a pregnancy and having a child. No one else can judge her need better than she.

When the unborn is born, it will receive the same rights and consideration.
 
GummyVitamins said:
The fetus is its own body. The debate isn't that a woman doesn't have a body or pregnancy. The debate is at what point does the human in the womb have rights? And which rights are granted to that human.
Click to expand...
That 'debate' has been settled, legally.
 
GummyVitamins said:
The "viability" decision was based on flaky legal reasoning. If the debate "has been settled, legally" we wouldn't have people freaking out about RBG's replacement.
Click to expand...
What is 'flakey' about it? Please be specific.

And just because people 'freak out' over something doesnt mean there's a legal basis to reverse or change the decision.

What legal basis do you believe SCOTUS should consider to change or reverse the decision. Remember, they interpret the Const, they dont rewrite it, nor create law. So you might want to check the first sentence, first section of the 14th Amendment and the 4th Amendment for starters.
 
Lursa said:
What is 'flakey' about it? Please be specific.
Click to expand...

There's incorrect history and interpretations of the law. But, the easiest to point out is that there is no reasinable logic in which the 14th amendment has anything to do with abortion. And, any flimsy logic that gets you there opens a huge can of worms for other interpretations that you wouldn't agree with.


And just because people 'freak out' over something doesnt mean there's a legal basis to reverse or change the decision.
Click to expand...
It shows a lack of faith in the original case. If the right to abortion were obviously apparent in the 14th Amendment people wouldn't be afraid of a textualist on the court.

What legal basis do you believe SCOTUS should consider to change or reverse the decision. Remember, they interpret the Const, they dont rewrite it, nor create law. So you might want to check the first sentence, first section of the 14th Amendment and the 4th Amendment for starters.
Click to expand...
I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend RvW was a strong legal decision. It's embarrassingly weak. And I've read the constitution and Bill of Rights. Point out with where they mention anything about abortion. You can't because it's not there.
 
GummyVitamins said:
There's incorrect history and interpretations of the law. But, the easiest to point out is that there is no reasinable logic in which the 14th amendment has anything to do with abortion. And, any flimsy logic that gets you there opens a huge can of worms for other interpretations that you wouldn't agree with.
Click to expand...

So, what incorrect history and interpretations?

And no, the 14th doenst deal with abortion specifically, I wrote that was what supported the decision, not that it recognized abortion. You seem uninformed. Abortion cannot be banned because to do so would require the govt to infringe on a multitude of women's rights....many of the relevant ones covered in the 14th and 4th.

Also, the 14th clearly shows the unborn have no rights, and there's no way to legislate at the state level for something with no rights to supersede the actual rights of women.

It shows a lack of faith in the original case. If the right to abortion were obviously apparent in the 14th Amendment people wouldn't be afraid of a textualist on the court.
Click to expand...

Where is the right to consensual sex 'obviously apparent?' Where is the right to have offspring 'obviously apparent?' Nowhere in the Const. They are covered in the 9th Amendment. Again...perhaps you should do more homework.


I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend RvW was a strong legal decision. It's embarrassingly weak. And I've read the constitution and Bill of Rights. Point out with where they mention anything about abortion. You can't because it's not there.
Click to expand...

I havent see thus far that you are informed enough to discern how 'strong' or not the legal decision in RvW was.

And see my comment above about 'enumerating' a right to abortion and the 9th.
 
Lursa said:
So, what incorrect history and interpretations?

And no, the 14th doenst deal with abortion specifically, I wrote that was what supported the decision, not that it recognized abortion. You seem uninformed. Abortion cannot be banned because to do so would require the govt to infringe on a multitude of women's rights....many of the relevant ones covered in the 14th and 4th.

Also, the 14th clearly shows the unborn have no rights, and there's no way to legislate at the state level for something with no rights to supersede the actual rights of women.



Where is the right to consensual sex 'obviously apparent?' Where is the right to have offspring 'obviously apparent?' Nowhere in the Const. They are covered in the 9th Amendment. Again...perhaps you should do more homework.




I havent see thus far that you are informed enough to discern how 'strong' or not the legal decision in RvW was.

And see my comment above about 'enumerating' a right to abortion and the 9th.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I havent see thus far that you are informed enough. Would you care to show me where the right to an abortion exists in the constitution and your logic behind that interpretation? Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom