• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

What's wrong with everybody choosing what is best for their situation.

So? Are they being forced to have abortions or are they choosing to have them?
Depends on how you view the "counseling" that is going on. PP is against parental notification. Why? Because it's good business?
 
Depends on how you view the "counseling" that is going on. PP is against parental notification. Why? Because it's good business?
Counseling is not forcing. The woman is still free to make the final decision herself.
 
So? Are they being forced to have abortions or are they choosing to have them?

They are choosing to have them, which pleases white liberals very much. Sanger's "Negro Project" didn't force black women to use birth control, but it pleased her very much when they did.
 
I never understood this argument. It's like citing Dred Scott to an abolitionist.
No , Roe v Wade cannot be compared to the Dred Scott decision.

Actually , there were several right to privacy precedents before Roe v Wade.

Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

[/B] Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) [/B]
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.
 
Last edited:
Right. Which gives up the whole game. Even if we had perfect sex ed and contraception, most pro-choicers would still argue that abortion needs to remain legal.
Because it does.

It would just be used exponentially less often.

What is your goal?

Reducing abortion numbers or punishing and controlling?

If you're goal is dramatically less abortions sex ed and contraception will achieve that. Making it illegal will not.
 
Counseling is not forcing. The woman is still free to make the final decision herself.
Aren't you just so clever? Yeah we haven't coerced, anyone by they can omit options other than abortion, can't they. I'll bet they never mention abstinence.
 
Aren't you just so clever? Yeah we haven't coerced, anyone by they can omit options other than abortion, can't they. I'll bet they never mention abstinence.
Is that an accusation? Do you have any proof? Or are you just spewing propaganda?
 
They are choosing to have them, which pleases white liberals very much. Sanger's "Negro Project" didn't force black women to use birth control, but it pleased her very much when they did.
As long as they have the choice, that's all that matters. The rest of your rhetoric is meaningless and a sweeping generalization.
 
Cool beans....good luck with your immoral choice...since the unborn suffer nothing, while women would.

You're telling me that an unborn child at 24 weeks would suffer nothing from being torn to pieces?

It will be interesting to see how that play out...with the unborn persons paying no taxes and the women no longer of equal status to men and the unborn. Seems like sci-fi to me.

On the contrary. Women would now be returned to an equal status to men. Men aren't, and shouldn't, be allowed to kill people either.

And yet, no one recognizes any rights for the unborn...what makes you think they will? If that was done, it would mean women would be 2nd class citizens and no longer contributing to society and the economy as much. Why would SCOTUS or Congress to in that direction?

What? They've been moving in that direction for decades. States have passed laws. A furious effort has been undertaken to get SCOTUS justices appointed who are hostile to Roe and Casey, and a case on exactly that subject is even now before them.
 
You have provided zero legal justification to do so. Free blacks were already recognized as persons. "Slaves" was a legal status. That legal status was done away with and no one else's rights were violated in doing so.

I know. I know that the unborn have no legal rights. They should have legal rights, because they're human beings.

That's much different than recognizing rights for something inside a person who already has rights :rolleyes:

Refuted above.

Whose rights do gay marriage violate?

Not the point. The point is that we if we can read hidden constitutional entitlements to gay marriage, we can certainly read the plain text of the constitution which protects people from being killed.

No, that's your fantasy that isnt founded in any legal reality.

I. KNOW. It's not legal reality. We want to make changes which bring it to legal reality.

I can write, "I want unicorns to have rights"...should anyone find that valid? Of course not. That's how ridiculous your 'arguments' come across...they ignore the Const and the legal foundations of our laws.

If unicorns existed, they'd probably have more rights now than the unborn do. Cruelty to animals is at least a criminal act. An abortionist can tear an unborn child to pieces and nothing will happen.
 
Of course abortion needs to remain legal, no matter how much unwanted pregnancies decrease or not. No method of contraception is perfect.

What justifies the deliberate killing of an innocent human being?
 
No , Roe v Wade cannot be compared to the Dred Scott decision.

Actually , there were several right to privacy precedents before Roe v Wade.

What's your point?
 
Because it does.

It would just be used exponentially less often.

Murder should remain illegal even if it hardly happens at all. Even if it doesn't happen at all.

What is your goal?

The near-complete banning of abortion.

Reducing abortion numbers or punishing and controlling?

Both. Murder happens whether it is legal or not. It should be illegal. Laws punish criminals for acts like murder, and doctors who kill the unborn should be similarly liable.

If you're goal is dramatically less abortions sex ed and contraception will achieve that. Making it illegal will not.

Nonsense. You're claiming essentially that laws have no deterrent effect. Frankly, even if they don't, certain things should be illegal regardless. People should be be punished for murder, even if that punishment fails to deter murderers.
 

Attachments

  • 1647965927784.webp
    1647965927784.webp
    43.5 KB · Views: 0
What justifies the deliberate killing of an innocent human being?
The fact that an unborn is not a person, unlike the pregnant woman. The fact that abortion is a valid, legal medical procedure. The fact that abortion is legal and is a woman's legal right to choose to utilize. The fact that the woman's established rights supercede the nonexistent "rights" of a fetus. Shall I go on?
 
Note how "unborn" is not included in those definitions.

Young human below the age of puberty.

The descendants of a family or people.

How do those not apply?
 
The near-complete banning of abortion.
I don't want to put words in your mouth but it seems you are saying it is more important to ban abortion than it is to drastically reduce its numbers?

Is that correct?
 
Young human below the age of puberty.

The descendants of a family or people.

How do those not apply?
Because a child's age is counted from birth, not before.
 
Well that would be bad because it should remain legal

I'm confused. You said we kill innocent human beings every day, but object to my shooting a 3 year old in the head because it's illegal. But if it abortion were similarly illegal, you'd object to that.

That seems inconsistent. Is legality your guide or not?
 
Back
Top Bottom