• 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!

We all agree that all men (women too) are created equal, right? (1 Viewer)

Grasshopper121212

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 27, 2021
Messages
1,583
Reaction score
331
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So, how about we discuss this aspect of abortion that I've never seen before. See if we can be civil with our comments and actually debate this. Here goes:

"As the first legal document proclaimed (Declaration of Independence) All men are CREATED EQUAL with certain unalienable rights. Created......not born. Creation begins at conception. Life is not defined by breeching the magical female vagina."

Based on this statement, whether a woman has a right to choose or that a child might be born into poverty or any other reason that abortion supporters may have, how does this statement hit you? It did me. Right between the eyes. Whether 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester makes no difference. The child in the womb has rights to be born and protected. Not because it hasn't taken a breath to be equal with everyone who breathes. But, because they are created at conception and have rights.
 
So, how about we discuss this aspect of abortion that I've never seen before. See if we can be civil with our comments and actually debate this. Here goes:

"As the first legal document proclaimed (Declaration of Independence) All men are CREATED EQUAL with certain unalienable rights. Created......not born. Creation begins at conception. Life is not defined by breeching the magical female vagina."

Based on this statement, whether a woman has a right to choose or that a child might be born into poverty or any other reason that abortion supporters may have, how does this statement hit you? It did me. Right between the eyes. Whether 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester makes no difference. The child in the womb has rights to be born and protected. Not because it hasn't taken a breath to be equal with everyone who breathes. But, because they are created at conception and have rights.

If the fetus has rights from conception, then why can't a woman claim a fetus, that was miscarried, as a dependent for taxes? If that fetus has rights from conception, than it would legally be a person able to be a dependent. It isn't, so your whole premise is INCORRECT with the law.
 
If the fetus has rights from conception, then why can't a woman claim a fetus, that was miscarried, as a dependent for taxes? If that fetus has rights from conception, than it would legally be a person able to be a dependent. It isn't, so your whole premise is INCORRECT with the law.
Thanks for your response. It's one with logic and reason and not emotions. That's what I'm looking for. Won't last long I'm sure.
I would respond that because there are no laws today that would cover taxes doesn't mean that in the future this could be made a tax law. So, the premise would still be correct. Also, the rights debated in the abortion issue have nothing to do with tax law but with the Bill of Rights and the right to live. Looking forward to your response.
 
So, how about we discuss this aspect of abortion that I've never seen before. See if we can be civil with our comments and actually debate this. Here goes:

"As the first legal document proclaimed (Declaration of Independence) All men are CREATED EQUAL with certain unalienable rights. Created......not born. Creation begins at conception. Life is not defined by breeching the magical female vagina."

Based on this statement, whether a woman has a right to choose or that a child might be born into poverty or any other reason that abortion supporters may have, how does this statement hit you? It did me. Right between the eyes. Whether 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester makes no difference. The child in the womb has rights to be born and protected. Not because it hasn't taken a breath to be equal with everyone who breathes. But, because they are created at conception and have rights.
Equal under the law
 
Thanks for your response. It's one with logic and reason and not emotions. That's what I'm looking for. Won't last long I'm sure.
I would respond that because there are no laws today that would cover taxes doesn't mean that in the future this could be made a tax law. So, the premise would still be correct. Also, the rights debated in the abortion issue have nothing to do with tax law but with the Bill of Rights and the right to live. Looking forward to your response.

The phrase "All men are created equal" sure didn't apply to blacks and women did it?
 
All men are CREATED EQUAL with certain unalienable rights.
Did you forget about the women's rights movement, 1848-1917? As originally written only male fetuses had those unalienable rights.
 
The declaration of independence is not a governing document.
So you agree that not all men (women) are created equal?
I would also disagree that it has no governing significance.
 
Did you forget about the women's rights movement, 1848-1917? As originally written only male fetuses had those unalienable rights.
And, that was taken care of, wasn't it. So, we can also take care of the unborn now. It's never too late as the women's movement showed.
 
So, how about we discuss this aspect of abortion that I've never seen before. See if we can be civil with our comments and actually debate this. Here goes:

"As the first legal document proclaimed (Declaration of Independence) All men are CREATED EQUAL with certain unalienable rights. Created......not born. Creation begins at conception. Life is not defined by breeching the magical female vagina."

Based on this statement, whether a woman has a right to choose or that a child might be born into poverty or any other reason that abortion supporters may have, how does this statement hit you? It did me. Right between the eyes. Whether 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester makes no difference. The child in the womb has rights to be born and protected. Not because it hasn't taken a breath to be equal with everyone who breathes. But, because they are created at conception and have rights.
Your post makes me wonder what is being taught in schools today.
No man has a sovereign right to rule over another or others, or sovereignty begins with each individual, is more or less how I was taught the meaning of the Declaration of Independence nearly 75 years ago by an elderly Woman teacher who had only recently gained some equality with her male counterparts.
But if you wish to go down that path, the second paragraph, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...", which the Woman performs the role of "Creator" should be seen as the source from which said "Rights" are "endowed", or NOT.
 
The phrase "All men are created equal" sure didn't apply to blacks and women did it?
And, that was eventually taken care of by a constitutional amendment and congressional laws. So, giving the unborn equality to have a right to life can now be written into law. Instead, Chucky (the killer) wants to not give them any rights even though creation begins at conception if all are equal.
 
One good byproduct of this SCOTUS leak is we have WOMEN again. Not just "they" or "birthing person". That's progress.
 
One good byproduct of this SCOTUS leak is we have WOMEN again. Not just "they" or "birthing person". That's progress.
I see you've stopped by Twitter.
 
Your post makes me wonder what is being taught in schools today.
No man has a sovereign right to rule over another or others, or sovereignty begins with each individual, is more or less how I was taught the meaning of the Declaration of Independence nearly 75 years ago by an elderly Woman teacher who had only recently gained some equality with her male counterparts.
But if you wish to go down that path, the second paragraph, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...", which the Woman performs the role of "Creator" should be seen as the source from which said "Rights" are "endowed", or NOT.
Women are Co-Creators, not the Creator mentioned in the D of I. All men and women are created equal is the key to when life begins. The creation of an individual is at conception. Therefore, at that point of creation is where rights begin. The right to protection of their lives by the government.
 
No. Because women are still fighting for autonomy of their bodies.
They don't have the right to the autonomy of the created within them. Creation is at conception where the rights of the created begin. Women have autonomy of their bodies up to the time of creation of their baby. Creation has nothing to do with when the baby takes its first breath. This is what is so intreguing about this statement I posted. Women give up autonomy by their sexual actions. So, the answer is Yes.
 
Women are Co-Creators, not the Creator mentioned in the D of I. All men and women are created equal is the key to when life begins. The creation of an individual is at conception. Therefore, at that point of creation is where rights begin. The right to protection of their lives by the government.
Explain, then, why some states have written trigger laws preventing abortion with no exceptions which means even to save the life of the mother. If both have equal rights why can the state mandate that the mother can die in order to allow the child to be born. And since, with the exception of trans men, no men are capable of having a child, they have even greater rights than either the woman or the child since they have no chance of dying due to a life-threatening pregnancy or difficult delivery.
 
They don't have the right to the autonomy of the created within them. Creation is at conception where the rights of the created begin. Women have autonomy of their bodies up to the time of creation of their baby. Creation has nothing to do with when the baby takes its first breath. This is what is so intreguing about this statement I posted. Women give up autonomy by their sexual actions. So, the answer is Yes.

Nope.
 
Women are Co-Creators, not the Creator mentioned in the D of I. All men and women are created equal is the key to when life begins. The creation of an individual is at conception. Therefore, at that point of creation is where rights begin. The right to protection of their lives by the government.
Men make a contribution to the creation which is then carried to term by the Woman. I don't believe the D of I refers to any one creator. Creation begins at conception, with a live sperm and a live egg, and an individual life begins post birth, at which time the new born citizen becomes entitled to government protection Rights.
Steel workers do not create automobiles.
 
Last edited:
Explain, then, why some states have written trigger laws preventing abortion with no exceptions which means even to save the life of the mother. If both have equal rights why can the state mandate that the mother can die in order to allow the child to be born. And since, with the exception of trans men, no men are capable of having a child, they have even greater rights than either the woman or the child since they have no chance of dying due to a life-threatening pregnancy or difficult delivery.
Trans men or not do not have the ability to become pregnant. They can put an object inside the surgically that is an embryo. But, that is not becoming pregnant. To get the baby out, they have to do a C-section and never will be able to deliver naturally. Leave this out of the abortion question because abortion activists are only concerned with women's rights to abortion. You are trying to convolute the debate for your pleasure. So, back to the important part of your question:
Why did the SCOTUS in 1973 write a law by overreaching their constitutional right as a court that women can have abortions at all? Even then, the SC said that they believed it would be done in very rare cases when they wrote it. So, what has changed. Casey's Court decision opened abortion up to 2nd and 3rd trimester possibilities. States then began writing laws to limit this grotesque murdering of innocent unborn children. Some have gone beyond that and as you pointed out not allowing abortion for any reason including rape, incest and the health of the mother. But, that isn't the issue that pro choice advocates have used. They have used other tests to decide when abortion should be legal such as is the heart beating, are their brain waves, does the child feel pain and so on. None of these reasons solves the problem of when an unborn has their unalienable rights as the Declaration of Independence says so. If you believe that ALL mankind is created with equal rights, the key is the word "created" whether this is a Creator God or not. So, I ask, when is a person created? The simple answer is at conception. Therefore logically our unalienable rights begin at conception of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Consideration of both the mother and newly created life at conception have to be considered if you believe we are all created equal. The laws then should consider both the child and mother. Pro life advocates have attempted over time to only consider the mother and never the child. The mother has a right to life as well as the child. They both should have the right to liberty as well. And, the pursuit of happiness both have this right too. If you believe in democracy then the courts aren't the answer as Ruth Ginsberg also stated before her death. Roe v Wade should have been sent back to the states where the decision should be the people of the states.
I know I'm getting long here and I don't like those who write forever posts. But, I believe I've logically concluded that it is up to the rights of the states within the United States of America by it's founding documents and the Constitution. Personally, I don't agree with not allowing abortions in cases of the health of the mother because she also has a right to life. And, if rape or incest is involved, the mother has a right to not being subject to raising a child knowing who the father is and the child's right to not have a rapist, brother, uncle or father for a father. But, the inconvenience reason I reject because the child still has the right to life regardless if it's an inconvenience to the mother. Give the child up for adoption or let the grandparents raise the child if they want to. Or, maybe even the father of the child. I watched the girlfriend of a friend of mine kill the unborn child when he wanted to raise the child with his mother's support. All because the girlfriend's mother didn't like him because he had negro blood in him. Horrible! She was Korean. Horrible!
By the way, I'm not against contraception either. Just let the teenagers parents know and make the decisions with their child and not keep it a secret with the schools. Schools have become too powerful over the parents recently. This has to stop.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom