• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why I think abortion should be legal.

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
First off, please understand that I do have a huge moral problem with abortion. I think it is killing and I think it is morally wrong.

That being said, there are many other things in our society that are legal. Swearing, gambling, pornography, and alchohol are just a few, so why are they legal? One word: Minorities. The Bill of Rights are constitutional amendments instead of normal statutes because of minorities. The majority can already use the power of the vote to push a regular bill through Congress. That's why the Founding Fathers did not include the Bill of Rights in the original transcript of the Constitution. Federalists argued that they were not necessary because the We the People clause alone stated that the people forfeited nothing. It wasn't until minorities were brought up that Federalists promised the Bill of Rights to be added, or so says my son's history textbook.

So after the case of Maybury vs. Madison, establishing judicial review, the Supreme Court took it upon themselvs over the years to extend civil rights to minorities. Every declaration of a law to be unconstitutional helps the Bill of Rights change and grow. Some rulings against popular laws, such as Scott vs. United States, legalizing slavery nationwide until the 13th Amendment was added, may be controversial rulings, but they all have one good thing in common: They make the Bill of Rights stronger.

My conclusion: While abortion is greatly wrong in my opinion, I feel obligated to support Roe vs. Wade simply because it is an extension of minority rights, and for that reason alone. Over and out.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
dstebbins said:
.

My conclusion: While abortion is greatly wrong in my opinion, I feel obligated to support Roe vs. Wade simply because it is an extension of minority rights, and for that reason alone. Over and out.

Who's the minority? Probably embryos are the greatest minority on earth at any one time. They are not being extended any "rights" in abortion.

Does "over and out" mean you're not gonna come back and 'splain?
 

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
"over and out" meant I was done for the time being.

I do believe in the rights of the unborn child, but I believe in the rights of the born person more. Besides, embryos are not as much of a minority as you think. Population in the United States is skyrocketing, and a great deal of that is due to new births. Also, it is estimated that one out of every three teenage girls will get pregnant before they start a career. That's a lot of pregnancies considering how many teens there are in the world. Embryos are not the "the biggest minority of them all."
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I do believe in the rights of the unborn child, but I believe in the rights of the born person more.
Why--what's your rationale?

Besides, embryos are not as much of a minority as you think. Population in the United States is skyrocketing, and a great deal of that is due to new births. Also, it is estimated that one out of every three teenage girls will get pregnant before they start a career. That's a lot of pregnancies considering how many teens there are in the world. Embryos are not the "the biggest minority of them all."
I meant if you gathered all the pregnant woman in the world (or in any one geographical area) the number would be a minority--and then, once born, they would join another demographic group.
 

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
Why--what's your rationale?
First a little background. Children are inferior creatures who are the scum of the earth. They're young, stupid, and mindless. I'm glad I only had to be one for eighteen years of my life.

Seriously, think about it: ANY right that applies to children as well as adults, their parents can take away. They can take away their right to speech, press (like let's say a school newspaper article. Their parents could forbid the school to let them publish an offensive article), religion (they can force their children to go to church whether they want to or not), and trial (I don't know about you, but it's a city law where I live that a parent who thinks their child committed a juvenile offense can confess for them.). You could be seventeen years and 364 days old, and you're still a baby, because you're a mindless moron.

My conclusion: Civil rights only apply to adults. It's up to the parent if they want to give their child rights, but kids are not garenteed rights by the Constitution.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
dstebbins said:
First a little background. Children are inferior creatures who are the scum of the earth. They're young, stupid, and mindless. I'm glad I only had to be one for eighteen years of my life.

Seriously, think about it: ANY right that applies to children as well as adults, their parents can take away. They can take away their right to speech, press (like let's say a school newspaper article. Their parents could forbid the school to let them publish an offensive article), religion (they can force their children to go to church whether they want to or not), and trial (I don't know about you, but it's a city law where I live that a parent who thinks their child committed a juvenile offense can confess for them.). You could be seventeen years and 364 days old, and you're still a baby, because you're a mindless moron.

My conclusion: Civil rights only apply to adults. It's up to the parent if they want to give their child rights, but kids are not garenteed rights by the Constitution.
They can't kill their born children.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
dstebbins said:
yeah. What's your point?
Mostly my point is you're not making any sense.:confused:
 

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Maybe if you were to go into more detail as to what you're confused about, I could explain it to you.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
dstebbins said:
My conclusion: Civil rights only apply to adults. It's up to the parent if they want to give their child rights, but kids are not garenteed rights by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court would like to have a word with you.
 

Red-Phase

New member
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
dstebbins said:
First off, please understand that I do have a huge moral problem with abortion. I think it is killing and I think it is morally wrong.

That being said, there are many other things in our society that are legal. Swearing, gambling, pornography, and alchohol are just a few, so why are they legal? One word: Minorities. The Bill of Rights are constitutional amendments instead of normal statutes because of minorities. The majority can already use the power of the vote to push a regular bill through Congress. That's why the Founding Fathers did not include the Bill of Rights in the original transcript of the Constitution. Federalists argued that they were not necessary because the We the People clause alone stated that the people forfeited nothing. It wasn't until minorities were brought up that Federalists promised the Bill of Rights to be added, or so says my son's history textbook.

So after the case of Maybury vs. Madison, establishing judicial review, the Supreme Court took it upon themselvs over the years to extend civil rights to minorities. Every declaration of a law to be unconstitutional helps the Bill of Rights change and grow. Some rulings against popular laws, such as Scott vs. United States, legalizing slavery nationwide until the 13th Amendment was added, may be controversial rulings, but they all have one good thing in common: They make the Bill of Rights stronger.

My conclusion: While abortion is greatly wrong in my opinion, I feel obligated to support Roe vs. Wade simply because it is an extension of minority rights, and for that reason alone. Over and out.
its murder.PERIOD!
 

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Engimo said:
The Supreme Court would like to have a word with you.
I'm aware of that. However, think about it for a minute: ANY "right" that a kid supposedly has can be taken away from them by their parents. The Supreme Courts ruled that authorities who were not the parent, such as their principal or teacher, could not impair their rights, but how often do you hear of a person under the age of 18 filing a lawsuit against their parents or legal guardian for infringement of rights? You don't, because if a parent decides that the child doesn't have rights, then they don't have rights, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it until their 18th birthday.

A parent can tell the principal to go ahead and suspend the child for any reason whatsoever, and there's nothing the child can do about it until he's eightteen because if he tries to sue, his parents tell the court to ignore the lawsuit and again, there's nothing the child can do.

What I'm trying to say when I said that civil rights only apply to adults is this: While children may have "rights," it takes nothing more than a talk with the person who is supposed to honor them to make sure they are not honored.
 

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Red-Phase said:
its murder.PERIOD!
Again, there are other reasons why I support abortion other than the thought that it's not murder. If you can't see that, go back to butt****ing your mother.

And here's an idea: If you hate abortion so much, why don't you write your Congressman and suggest a constitutional amendment that would overturn Roe v Wade? Hmmmmmmm?
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
dstebbins said:
I'm aware of that. However, think about it for a minute: ANY "right" that a kid supposedly has can be taken away from them by their parents. The Supreme Courts ruled that authorities who were not the parent, such as their principal or teacher, could not impair their rights, but how often do you hear of a person under the age of 18 filing a lawsuit against their parents or legal guardian for infringement of rights? You don't, because if a parent decides that the child doesn't have rights, then they don't have rights, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it until their 18th birthday.
That is not true, at all. Children can call Child Protective Services and have themselves removed from an abusive environment if they want. While the speech of children may be de facto restricted, there are certain rights that may not be broken - children cannot be killed by their parents, they cannot be forced into hard labor. There are many things that cannot be done to children.
 

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Engimo said:
That is not true, at all. Children can call Child Protective Services and have themselves removed from an abusive environment if they want.
Yet as long as the parent does not beat the child like my father did to me, they're under complete obligation to their parents.

While the speech of children may be de facto restricted, there are certain rights that may not be broken - children cannot be killed by their parents,
Obviously they can, because abortion is legal. While living children cannot be killed by their parents, parents can take whatever disciplinary action they see fit as long as it's not something like ramming their head against the wall. This is why I support the abolishment of the 8th amendment and dealing out harsher punishments to those convicted of committing crimes, because my father beat the hell out of me as a child, and I soon learned to obey him out of mere intimidation.

they cannot be forced into hard labor.
And what, exactly, is the definition of "hard labor?" Adults cannot be forced into any kind of labor except as punishment for a crime, so why aren't children granted the same right? I'll tell you: They're rights are nonexistant.

There are many things that cannot be done to children.
can you name some more?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
dstebbins said:
I'm aware of that. However, think about it for a minute: ANY "right" that a kid supposedly has can be taken away from them by their parents. The Supreme Courts ruled that authorities who were not the parent, such as their principal or teacher, could not impair their rights, but how often do you hear of a person under the age of 18 filing a lawsuit against their parents or legal guardian for infringement of rights?
You would be surprised how many kids file for emancipastion from their parents.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
dstebbins said:
Obviously they can, because abortion is legal.
Abortion does not involve children, your revisionist lingyistic hyperbole none withstanding.
While living children cannot be killed by their parents, parents can take whatever disciplinary action they see fit as long as it's not something like ramming their head against the wall.
ALSO false.
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hey Steen, I though abortion had everything to do with children? After all, it is the systematic murder of children, and in general black children.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Axismaster said:
Hey Steen, I though abortion had everything to do with children?
Nope.
After all, it is the systematic murder of children, and in general black children.
No it isn't, your deceptive, revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding.
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
steen said:
Nope.
No it isn't, your deceptive, revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding.
So you don't think a fetus is a full human? :confused:
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Axismaster said:
So you don't think a fetus is a full human?
Your question does not make sense! The issue was about "children," a developmental stage that begins after birth. You seem to not be quite sure what you are actually talking about?:confused:
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
steen said:
Your question does not make sense! The issue was about "children," a developmental stage that begins after birth. You seem to not be quite sure what you are actually talking about?:confused:
Sorry about that. :doh Okay, let me reword it. You don't believe a fetus is human life do you?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Axismaster said:
Sorry about that. :doh Okay, let me reword it.
No problem. I ppst weird stuff sometimes as well :3oops:
You don't believe a fetus is human life do you?
It is life, and it is of the human species, so yes I do.
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
steen said:
No problem. I ppst weird stuff sometimes as well :3oops:
It is life, and it is of the human species, so yes I do.
How then, could you condone the government that condones abortion?
 
Top Bottom