• 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...

GummyVitamins said:
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.
Click to expand...
I already explained it. Did you not understand what was written? Perhaps you should refocus on the text of the 9th Amendment.

Anyway, as such, it's up to you to prove my statements were wrong. I asked you specific questions, please answer mine before offering your own.
 
Lursa said:
I already explained it. Did you not understand what was written? Perhaps you should refocus on the text of the 9th Amendment.

Anyway, as such, it's up to you to prove my statements were wrong. I asked you specific questions, please answer mine before offering your own.
Click to expand...
Here is the 9th Amendment:

Code: 
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Can you show me where it grants the right to have an abortion up to 24 weeks? It seems to be completely unrelated.
 
Dayton3 said:
So you reject the idea that some people (men AND women) believe that an unborn child at any stage of development is in fact a child and deserves protection?
Click to expand...

Why is that idea important to accept or reject? People are entitled to their opinions and to live as they choose. It’s not for me to judge anyone who does not wish to have abortions.
 
GummyVitamins said:
Here is the 9th Amendment:

Code: 
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Can you show me where it grants the right to have an abortion up to 24 weeks? It seems to be completely unrelated.
Click to expand...

:::whispers::: Fetuses aren’t people.
 
GummyVitamins said:
Here is the 9th Amendment:

Code: 
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Can you show me where it grants the right to have an abortion up to 24 weeks? It seems to be completely unrelated.
Click to expand...
Why do you claim it grants that?

To begin with, rights are not granted, they are recognized. THe govt cannot 'grant' rights. :rolleyes:

And if you understood what the 9th means, you'd understand that what you wrote does not have to be enumerated in the 9th or anywhere else. Do you know what 'enumerate' means? It means 'named.'

I gave you 2 very easy examples earlier. Please think on them again to see if you can connect the dots. Where is the right to have consensual sex enumerated? Where is the right to reproduce enumerated? Nowhere....unless otherwise considered in the Const, it is a right afforded to the people. The same applies to abortion...up to any length of time.

Is it your understanding that the RvW decision was based on the 9th? That would be incorrect. I already explained that it's mostly based on the 14th and 4th, altho others could be used. The precedents (at least 10 of them) they used were derived mostly from the 14th and 4th.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Actually, the point you're referring to is birth. Until then, fetuses don't have rights. The woman does, and those rights include the right to decide for herself whether to continue the pregnancy or not. Unless you are the woman who is pregnant, it isn't your decision.
 
Lursa said:
Why do you claim it grants that?

To begin with, rights are not granted, they are recognized. THe govt cannot 'grant' rights. :rolleyes:

And if you understood what the 9th means, you'd understand that what you wrote does not have to be enumerated in the 9th or anywhere else. Do you know what 'enumerate' means? It means 'named.'

I gave you 2 very easy examples earlier. Please think on them again to see if you can connect the dots. Where is the right to have consensual sex enumerated? Where is the right to reproduce enumerated? Nowhere....unless otherwise considered in the Const, it is a right afforded to the people. The same applies to abortion...up to any length of time.

Is it your understanding that the RvW decision was based on the 9th? That would be incorrect. I already explained that it's mostly based on the 14th and 4th, altho others could be used. The precedents (at least 10 of them) they used were derived mostly from the 14th and 4th.
Click to expand...
Your logic doesn't make sense. You can kill a human because the constitution doesn't mention abortion? What else can I do to another human that is not listed in the constitution?

I understand the 9th doesn't grant abortion. You're the one who brought it up, strangely. You won't find abortion covered by the 14th and the 4th either. If there's another amendment you would like to awkwardly cite we can play that game as well. It doesn't matter which amendment you want to bring up, none of them deal with anything close to being related to abortion. I assume you recognize that which is why you're shifting all over the place rather than giving a concise response.
 
OceanBlues1 said:
Actually, the point you're referring to is birth. Until then, fetuses don't have rights. The woman does, and those rights include the right to decide for herself whether to continue the pregnancy or not. Unless you are the woman who is pregnant, it isn't your decision.
Click to expand...
That is not true. States can and do provide rights to fetuses. One example is you can be charged with homicide for killing a fetus
 
GummyVitamins said:
Your logic doesn't make sense. You can kill a human because the constitution doesn't mention abortion? What else can I do to another human that is not listed in the constitution?

I understand the 9th doesn't grant abortion. You're the one who brought it up, strangely. You won't find abortion covered by the 14th and the 4th either. If there's another amendment you would like to awkwardly cite we can play that game as well. It doesn't matter which amendment you want to bring up, none of them deal with anything close to being related to abortion. I assume you recognize that which is why you're shifting all over the place rather than giving a concise response.
Click to expand...
Please answer my questions before asking your own. I see that you can only avoid mine and propose other nonsense (your questions seem silly but I'd happily examine them if you answer mine).

You are capable of copying the different amendments down, but it doesnt seem like you understand them, since seem to keep insisting that abortion be mentioned in the Const for it to be legal or illegal. You clearly dont understand the Const, our rights, the role of the judges, or the issue.

Please answer my questions and I'd be happy to continue. I've shifted nothing...you are doing so to pretend you understand. I have posted this exact information (I have things saved in OneNote) many times before and discussed it.
 
eman926 said:
We should include all people because not everybody is going to respond to religious arguments. Maybe use some scientific studies. Or even include sources like this one below...

Home | secularprolife
Click to expand...

My opposition to abortion has never been based in religion. It's a slippery slope when you define human life in terms of being "wanted" and therefore "human vs. "un-wanted" and therefore "okay for extermination". If you look at psychological statistics of children since Roe v. Wade - their emotional and mental health status, as evidenced by behavioral problems, is at an all time (and critical) low. They are engaged in harming others as well as self harm. Like it or not, children do know where babies come from. You tell them if they weren't wanted they could have been exterminated then any time they don't "feel" wanted they aren't going to "feel" very human. Suicide rates are the highest ever among young people. It's laughable how people are calling babies born after a miscarriage a "rainbow baby" - Pity the baby born after an abortion - they are looked upon as the sibling of an exterminated parasite. Not a very healthy atmosphere for a baby.
 
screenwriter said:
My opposition to abortion has never been based in religion. It's a slippery slope when you define human life in terms of being "wanted" and therefore "human vs. "un-wanted" and therefore "okay for extermination". If you look at psychological statistics of children since Roe v. Wade - their emotional and mental health status, as evidenced by behavioral problems, is at an all time (and critical) low. They are engaged in harming others as well as self harm. Like it or not, children do know where babies come from. You tell them if they weren't wanted they could have been exterminated then any time they don't "feel" wanted they aren't going to "feel" very human. Suicide rates are the highest ever among young people. It's laughable how people are calling babies born after a miscarriage a "rainbow baby" - Pity the baby born after an abortion - they are looked upon as the sibling of an exterminated parasite. Not a very healthy atmosphere for a baby.
Click to expand...


Correlation does not equal causation. And no children are exterminated. That would be illegal.
 
Lursa said:
And yet, if a woman cant afford or care for a child, why should she stay pregnant and go thru childbirth, which is so much MORE dangerous?

Abortion is 14 times safer than pregnancy


NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.

Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.

www.reuters.com

Abortion safer than giving birth: study

Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

Please note that I included a quote from the link that supports my position. I recommend this technique in discussions.
Click to expand...
eman926 said:
Abortion is not safe when at least half the patients die, and sometimes even the mother.
Click to expand...

Of course it's safer, I provided the link.

It's not supposed to be safe for the unborn, and you know that. You make a dishonest, deflective response.

Now...who says the unborn has a right to life? What authority? What authority that Americans are obligated to follow? I've asked you this most basic question in 3 of YOUR threads now and you havent answered.

You keep spouting your opinion about abortion, and yet...placed zero foundation beneath that opinion beyond your 'feelings.' Your belief.

So...why should women regard YOUR opinion or belief about THEIR health and lives as valid? "Who says?" (besides you)
 
screenwriter said:
My opposition to abortion has never been based in religion. It's a slippery slope when you define human life in terms of being "wanted" and therefore "human vs. "un-wanted" and therefore "okay for extermination". If you look at psychological statistics of children since Roe v. Wade - their emotional and mental health status, as evidenced by behavioral problems, is at an all time (and critical) low. They are engaged in harming others as well as self harm. Like it or not, children do know where babies come from. You tell them if they weren't wanted they could have been exterminated then any time they don't "feel" wanted they aren't going to "feel" very human. Suicide rates are the highest ever among young people. It's laughable how people are calling babies born after a miscarriage a "rainbow baby" - Pity the baby born after an abortion - they are looked upon as the sibling of an exterminated parasite. Not a very healthy atmosphere for a baby.
Click to expand...

Very few women consider abortion lightly and none think of the life they are carrying as a throw away fetus OK for extermination. Abortions happen because a woman and her family are putting off bringing a child into the world until a time that they can support the child with all the love it deserves. Abortions happen so that no child will suffer from being or feeling unwanted.

It makes sense to have legal abortion available to a women and their families when they say they cannot support a child at this time. The children of women denied an abortion have a bleak if not traumatic future. 60% of women that get abortions, have a child later when circumstances are such that the family can welcome and love a new child.

Unsupportable expresses the situation better than unwanted.
 
weaver2 said:
The children of women denied an abortion have a bleak if not traumatic future.
Click to expand...
You know that because...?
weaver2 said:
Very few women consider abortion lightly and none think of the life they are carrying as a throw away fetus OK for extermination.
Click to expand...
Except the ones who throw away the fetus that is OK for extermination.
weaver2 said:
Abortions happen because a woman and her family are putting off bringing a child into the world until a time that they can support the child with all the love it deserves.
Click to expand...
Of all the excuses that are given for abortion here, this is the worst. Simply pathetic. The "right time to have children" is a myth. It doesn't exist.
weaver2 said:
makes sense to have legal abortion available to a women and their families when they say they cannot support a child at this time
Click to expand...
external-content.duckduckgo.com(7).jpg
Should there be legal euthanasia for elderly people whose children say they cannot support an elderly person at this time?
weaver2 said:
60% of women that get abortions, have a child later when circumstances are such that the family can welcome and love a new child.
Click to expand...
The more excuses you make, the more reprehensible they become. I don't know about you, but I can welcome and love a baby at any time. I expect all of us humans have that ability.
 
I am pro-choice, but the abortion industry has always targeted blacks from day one.
 
joko104 said:
View attachment 67301437
But I understand that Joe Biden ordered you to never accept facts.
Click to expand...

The chart says that Blacks, Hispanics and Other have all experienced between a 40% to 44% reduction in numbers of abortions since 2000. Looks like they are all working harder than Whites who have reduced their numbers of abortions by only 17%.

Actually Biden ordered us (rolls eyes)not to accept any of your facts.

I'm curious, why are you so interested in what Blacks are doing about abortion?
 
Valery said:
Then how come abortion is not allowed late in pregnancy?
Click to expand...
It is. States can decide after 24 weeks for themselves. Several states and all of Canada have no such limits.

And guess what? No such late term abortions of "healthy" fetuses take place...in any states. (Unless possibly the mother's life is in danger, but even then, many women choose to take the risk).
 
Lursa said:
What a great downward trend in abortions is displayed! Thanks.

It's true, the number of abortions goes down every year.

The more we continue to improve socio-economic conditions for all Americans, the more that downward trend will continue. Goal=0
Click to expand...

I agree with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom