• 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 Know the Cure for Poverty: The Empowerment of Women

Iron_Merc said:
THANK YOU for articulating that, you get the point across and I see it clearly now. She was merely pushing back from the notion that some black clientele may incorrectly surmise that they (planned parenthood) wants to exterminate the black race.
Click to expand...

Excellent. Glad you see it now.



Eugenics were popular in her time, just like slavery was popular at one time. BTW, abortion is not eugenics.


I will include another quote. I am not trolling here I legitimately want to hear your honest opinion and your interpretation of the context:
Click to expand...

She saw the difficulties in having large families and how the children suffered, which is why she advocated so much for contraception.
 

That's fine but it doesn't explain the "what if" originally mused.
 

Yes...there are pro-choice Christian women. You thinking you are qualified to speak on behalf of your God and read other's hearts and minds ia non-biblical, and a sin ( sorcery), which per your holy text will send you on the bullet train to eternal hellfire and damnation, post mortem.
 

What makes you think I, or anyone else, needs your guidance on matters of religion ?
 

Living in houses and using computers is unnatural, too. So is cooking our food and wearing clothes.

Not all women want to have children. I am one of them. Most women will not place a child for adoption. I won't. Ever. If my contraceptive method fails, I will abort, which is my legal right. And I disagree about God. He seems to be pretty pro choice to me. Free will and all that. Not to mention all the children he has killed....
 

Yes, thank you for clearing that quote up. I do look at Mrs. Sanger in a better light now.

I understand that she thought she was being compassionate. And that her advocacy would help alleviate some problems in the family unit.

But this is thinking from purely a humanist perspective leaving no room for what God would want.

And abortion can be one method of a eugenics program, right? (Not saying it was, just a question)

What is your definition of abortion?
 
Logician Man said:
What makes you think I, or anyone else, needs your guidance on matters of religion ?
Click to expand...

It was never my intent to provide you "personal" guidance on matters of religion. Merely to show your how religion AND GOD fits in to our country and society and the world.
 
Iron_Merc said:
It was never my intent to provide you "personal" guidance on matters of religion. Merely to show your how religion AND GOD fits in to our country and society and the world.
Click to expand...

And just what compels you to believe that I need you to 'show' me about how the God concept fits into the world/society ?
 

I just think the procedure ITSELF is un-natural. Without any question of faith in God or even his existence, the miracle of birth is supposed to end with a live baby, not a dead one. Procreation of the species after all!

But I do respect your opinion and will not attack you for your beliefs. I appreciate you putting them out there!

You have the legal authority and EVERY RIGHT to make that decision.
 
WCH said:
We were using BC but, no we had not discussed abortion that I can recall.
Click to expand...

This is why couples should discuss what they would do in the event of unplanned pregnancy BEFORE getting into bed.
 
Logician Man said:
And just what compels you to believe that I need you to 'show' me about how the God concept fits into the the world/society ?
Click to expand...

Because liberal revisionists have re-written history to exclude God from nearly everything. And because we are talking about abortion. Which at its root is a moral question, in my opinion.
 

Births aren't 'miracles'. Births are 'natural.' Miracles deal with the super-natural.
 
Iron_Merc said:
Because liberal revisionists have re-written history to exclude God from nearly everything. And because we are talking about abortion. Which at its root is a moral question, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

What was the ratio of Conservative vs. Liberal Scotus members when Roe vs. Wade was ruled on ?....and what was the vote count ?
 
Last edited:

Abortion is termination of pregnancy.

Eugenics is selective breeding to produce the best qualities.
 
Iron_Merc said:
I just think the procedure ITSELF is un-natural. Without any question of faith in God or even his existence, the miracle of birth is supposed to end with a live baby, not a dead one. Procreation of the species after all!
Click to expand...

ALL surgery is unnatural.

There is nothing miraculous about birth. It happens a zillion times a day all over the world, among humans and most mammals.
 
bubbabgone said:
That's fine but it doesn't explain the "what if" originally mused.
Click to expand...

The only what if that matters is "What if you just minded your own ****ing business?"

Can we get to that, now?
 


There is no way to value the unborn as much as the born without taking the woman’s Constitutional rights away from her and making her a lesser citizen of the United States.

So you are intolerant of other religions who value the life of the woman over an unborn.

There are many Protestant Christian religions who are pro choice.

Also most Jewish Clergy and faithful are also pro choice as are many other religious groups.

Many of us Sincerely believe that the woman is a living soul and a moral agent, that spiritual life begins with the newborns first breath when they breath the breath of life. It is then that an infant becomes a living soul.

Evangelist used to be pro choice also.

Here is a snip from a 1968 Christianity Today article:


My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
 
Last edited:
Logician Man said:
What was the ratio of Conservative vs. Liberal Scotus members when Roe vs. Wade was ruled on ?....and what was the vote count ?
Click to expand...

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in favor of Roe that held that women in the United States have a fundamental right to choose whether or not to have abortions and therefore struck down Texas's abortion ban as unconstitutional. The decision was issued together with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, that involved a similar challenge to Georgia's abortion laws.

Though not often discussed, the Court's opinion first addressed the issues of standing and mootness. Under the traditional interpretation of these rules, Jane Roe's appeal was "moot" because she had already given birth to her child and thus would not be affected by the ruling; she also lacked "standing" to assert the rights of other pregnant women. As she did not present an "actual case or controversy" (a grievance and a demand for relief), any opinion issued by the Supreme Court would constitute an advisory opinion.

William Rehnquist and Byron White voted against Roe, both holding much more conservative views than the rest of judges on the supreme court.

The majority decision
In a 7-2 decision, the court held that a woman's right to an abortion was protected by her right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision allowed a woman to decide whether to keep or abort the fetus/unborn child during the first trimester. This affected the laws of 46 states. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion. “We … acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires.” — Justice Blackmun

Dissenting opinion
The dissenting opinion was written by Justice William Rehnquist. He objected to the majority decision giving several reasons.
He first pointed out there was no legitimate plaintiff in the case and that was a requirement to hear the case. A legitimate plaintiff would be a woman in her first trimester of her pregnancy at some point while the case was being tried. McCorvey (Jane Roe) did not fit that qualification and so the ruling had no application to the case.

The court recognized a woman's right to abortion under the general "right to privacy from previous cases. But he argued, "A transaction such as this is hardly 'private' in the ordinary usage of the word."
The majority opinion was vague on where exactly the right to privacy was located in the Constitution. Several amendments were mentioned, but none were specifically identified to contain the right to privacy. The word privacy is not found in the Constitution.
Additional problems include the court acting as a legislature in breaking pregnancy into three trimesters and outlining the permissible restrictions states may make. Rehnquist pointed out that 36 of the 37 states in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, had laws against abortion, including Texas. He wrote "...The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

Dissenting justices White and Rehnquist voiced their disgust, calling the court's decision an "exercise of raw judicial power . . .(with no Constitutional support). The court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers .

THOSE WHO RULED IN FAVOR OF ROE:
Warren Burger (appointed by Richard Nixon)
Throughout his law career, Burger had been a notable conservative. His stances included opposition to gay rights and a belief in checks and balances in the government. The most controversial ruling of the Burger court remains Roe v. Wade, when Burger, who had previously opposed abortion, voted to legalize abortion with the majority.

William O. Douglas (appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt)
He was appointed by the Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 1939, succeeding Louis Brandeis. Douglas championed for civil libertarianism, heavily advocating for the Bill of Rights and opposed the Vietnam War and government wiretapping. Douglas was also an advocate for the outdoors and an outspoken environmentalist. Being a liberal, William O. Douglas voted to legalize abortion.
 
Thurgood Marshall (appointed by Lyndon Johnson)
He began working for the Baltimore branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 1934, rising through the ranks to become the association’s chief counsel. Marshall reached national prominence for his pursuit of individual rights, in particular for minorities. He was appointed the first African-American Associate Justice to the Supreme Court in 1967 by President Lyndon Johnson. Marshall voted for the right to abortion in the Roe v. Wade decision.

Lewis Powell (appointed by Richard Nixon)
He continued to work as an attorney after the war and served as President of the American Bar Association, American Bar Foundation, and American College of Trial Lawyers. At 64 years of age, Powell was nominated as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 1972 by Richard Nixon. Although he had taken conservative stances such as upholding sodomy laws and the death penalty despite an apparent racial imbalance in the people executed, Powell voted to legalize abortion.

Potter Stewart (appointed by Dwight Eisenhower)
He joined private practice at Dinsmore and Shohl in Cincinnati, and was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in 1954. He was named an Associate Justice by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1958. Stewart became a notable centrist, approaching each case by merits rather than political ideologies. He is renowned for his criminal justice reform, and he voted for abortion as a right to privacy.

Harry Blackmun (appointed by Richard Nixon)
At the start of his tenure, Blackmun was conservative in his views, championing for the separation of the Church and State and upholding the death penalty. Over the years, however, he adopted a liberal approach and authored the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade. He increasingly advocated for affirmative action, immigrant’s rights and even opposed the death penalty towards the end of his tenure.

William Joseph Brennan, Jr. (appointed by Dwight Eisenhower)
Brennan was named an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1956 by President Dwight Eisenhower. Brennan was a huge believer in the fundamental rights of an individual, affirmative action, and gender equality and opposed the death penalty. A staunch Roman Catholic himself, Brennan supported the separation of the Church and the State. Before the Roe v. Wade decision, Brennan had assented to the Eisenstadt v. Baird decision, striking a law which made the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried women illegal. Being a liberal, Brennan voted to legalize abortion.

THOSE WHO RULED AGAINST ROE:
William Rehnquist (appointed by Richard Nixon)
He joined a private practice in 1953 in Arizona and became active in Republican politics. He served as Assistant Attorney General for the office of legal counsel from 1969 and was appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon in 1971. Rehnquist was a conservative, and he often voted parallel to his political and legal beliefs. He was against school desegregation and favored states’ rights, capital punishment, and the school prayer. In the Roe v. Wade decision, Rehnquist was against abortion, arguing by state power. He was appointed as Chief Justice in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan.

Byron White (appointed by John F. Kennedy)
He served in the U.S. Navy during World War II, where he met the future President John F. Kennedy. He worked as a law clerk and in private practice and later ran campaigns for John F. Kennedy. President Kennedy appointed him Deputy Attorney General and nominated him as Associate Justice to the Supreme Court in 1962. White was a notable conservative, and he dissented in the Roe v. Wade decision on what he viewed as disregard for potential life.
 
Logician Man said:
What was the ratio of Conservative vs. Liberal Scotus members when Roe vs. Wade was ruled on ?....and what was the vote count ?
Click to expand...

Iron_Merc said:
....
Click to expand...


Please post a link to the info you posted .

You took time to copy and paste you should also post the link to the info you posted.

By the way the simple answer was the Justices decided Roe 7 to 2

6 of 7 Justices who decided Roe were appointed by conservative presidents.

And one of the dissented votes was cast by a democratic appointee.
 
Last edited:

Very true. Not debating these points in the least. I will say, however, that this case, Roe Vs Wade, was the supreme litmus test for the true religious and or political convictions of these justices.
 
So, as I am one who stands with the dissenters on the ruling of Roe Vs Wade, I would ask proponents to show me exactly what and where in the constitution this "so called right to privacy" exists, ie. what specific language of the constitution was used to justify this ruling? Be explicit.
 

Now where do black Americans fall on the socio-economic scale? Probably comparable. High risks in those areas is what drives women to abort...the lists of reasons are very clear...there's no programs or initiative targeting any race or women, period. Women who dont feel they can safely support a child, or another child, must make the best decisions they can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…