• 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!

Why do Anti-abortion advocates ignore statistics.

Bodi said:
Agreed. I am trying to take one point at a time to simplify it and reduce the chances he will create a Fallacious argument.

.
Click to expand...
That might end up being an exercise in futility.
 
Know your history,what they don't tell you is that Dobbs was a societal compromise,No one wants babies to be killed inhumainly,see the only people that benefit from abortions being illegal,is Discrased Doctors who lost there medical license popping up in unsanitary Basements,women so desperate to end it using copper coat hangers inserted inside them.Babies found in dumpsters,Dobbs was a compromise. Ruled on by a Democratic Supreme court. The Evangelical right has been trying to stop abortions for 50 yrs. The fact is we're here because the Democrats left it witherling as a court Decision instead of making it law. Obama was the last Democrat president to have all the Branches of Government,that's how we got Obama care, Kamala said it in her last address before election,if the American people give me the white house and I have a Senate and the house,the send me a abortion bill I'll sign it into law day 1. They had the Votes in 2009 and did nothing.
 

Since when are SCOTUS decisions interpreting the Constitution supposed to be societal "compromises?" Dobbs returned the decision to the states.

I couldnt really understand much afte that, your post is a garbled mess.
 
Lursa said:
Since when are SCOTUS decisions interpreting the Constitution supposed to be societal "compromises?" Dobbs returned the decision to the states.

I couldnt really understand much afte that, your post is a garbled mess.il
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Since when are SCOTUS decisions interpreting the Constitution supposed to be societal "compromises?" Dobbs returned the decision to the states.

I couldnt really understand much afte that, your post is a garbled mess.
Click to expand...
My fault, not Dobbs ,Roe vs. Wade, was a court ruling by a Democrat SCOTUS, there would be no Dobbs decision if the Democrats would've made it law when they had all three branches of government under Obama's 1st term, the Republicans have never supported the ruling,and have worked hard for 50yrs. To change the makeup of SCOTUS,only Congress can make law, only Congress can abolish law.
 
TMK, the Supreme Court that held in Roe v. Wade was mostly appointed by Republican presidents. That's easy enough to look up. Unless you want to argue that they were no true Scotsmen? (See https://marketrealist.com/p/1973-supreme-court-justices/):

"What were the political affiliations of the 1973 Supreme Court?​

"Though many people believe a "liberal" court decided Roe, four of the justices on Burger's court, including Burger himself, were nominated by Richard Nixon. Of those four, one wrote the majority opinion, two concurred, and one dissented. Of the nine justices on the court at the time, three were nominated by Democrats and 6 by Republicans."

(My emphasis.)

So it's apparently a natural mistake, to think that Roe was decided by political liberals.
 
Truckdriver1319 said:
My fault, not Dobbs ,Roe vs. Wade, was a court ruling by a Democrat SCOTUS,
Click to expand...
The Roe court was mostly Republican/conservative with a 7-2 decision.
Truckdriver1319 said:
there would be no Dobbs decision if the Democrats would've made it law when they had all three branches of government under Obama's 1st term, the Republicans have never supported the ruling,and have worked hard for 50yrs.
Click to expand...
Since Roe/Casey was still in effect, why would a new law be needed?
Truckdriver1319 said:
To change the makeup of SCOTUS,only Congress can make law,
Click to expand...
The makeup of the SCOTUS is determined by affirmation of a Justice to an open seat on the court.
Truckdriver1319 said:
only Congress can abolish law.
Click to expand...
That is false. The courts, especially the SCOTUS can uphold or strike down laws. This is basic civics.
 
Truckdriver1319 said:
My fault, not Dobbs ,Roe vs. Wade, was a court ruling by a Democrat SCOTUS,
Click to expand...

This is wrong. The RvW decision was 7-2 with a mostly conservative bench.


What's your point? This isnt an argument.
 
Roe v Wade was a 7-2 opinion of a court with seven Republicans and two Democrats. Only one Democrat joined the majority opinion - six Republicans joined it.

The Republicans and Democrats pretty equally supported the opinion until the late 1970s. Here's why:

In about 1978, when almost all Southern Evangelicals were still pro-choice, someone in the RNC (I've forgotten his name, as I don't vote Republican) broached the issue of the need to draw more voters. Nixon had successfully drawn the Southern segregationist and racially prejudiced vote for Republicans after the Democrats Party committed to the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. In the late 1970s, they had to try something else.

Anyway, it was proposed that the RNC commit the party to a partly anti-choice vote, moving away from libertarianism, which at that time was strongly pro-choice, to pick up the blue collar Catholic vote. This stand on abortion - exceptions only for rape, incest, and the life of the woman - could also serve the Southern religious but racially prejudiced vote in the South, where many people wanted free education at religious schools or wanted church founded segregated private schools to be tax free and people to get school vouchers for their kids to go there.

The Republican stand on abortion became an indirect sign for the vouchers thing under Reagan and beyond.

The Moral Majority or whatever the equivalent was back in the day, promised the Republican Party that it would get out the vote for them if they took the anti-abortion stand. This became an ongoing pact between whatever the Christo-political anti-abortion movement was called at the time and the RNC.

I'll give you a link if you want, but this explanation has been provided in very large numbers of articles that back up their claim with much more detail. I still remember an article no longer findable called "God was pro-choice in 1978." For most Evangelicals back then, this title was true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.