• 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 the Founding Fatthers are rolling over in their graves due to Alito’s Dobbs decision

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while not in the constitution, it is in the mission statement (Declaration of Independence). No more important function of the government than protection of innocent. Dobbs sends the abortion issue back to legislatures elected not appointed. Voters have a say now. Before Dobbs they did not. The founders would be impressed that the constitution worked so well. The founders fully expected that citizens would have had to use the second ammendment long ago to overthrow a new tyranny. Harris has her sights on ending the 1st and 2cnd with censorship and gun confiscation. That would get 'em rolling.

So voters and legislatures had the “right” to establish segregated schools?
 
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while not in the constitution, it is in the mission statement (Declaration of Independence). No more important function of the government than protection of innocent. Dobbs sends the abortion issue back to legislatures elected not appointed. Voters have a say now. Before Dobbs they did not. The founders would be impressed that the constitution worked so well. The founders fully expected that citizens would have had to use the second ammendment long ago to overthrow a new tyranny. Harris has her sights on ending the 1st and 2cnd with censorship and gun confiscation. That would get 'em rolling.
The FF enumerated our rights in the Constitution. Rights was never supposed to up to popular vote. It's rather telling that some seem to think restricting or removing rights for no apparent legal reason or justification, especially those previously established, would be a good thing. I suspect the FF would take issue with it.
 
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while not in the constitution, it is in the mission statement (Declaration of Independence). No more important function of the government than protection of innocent.

So what is the justification for violating a woman's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in order to just turn around and give the exact same things to the unborn...which cannot exercise a single one of those? It's physiologically intertwined with the woman's systems...that is the greatest demonstration that it does not have "equal status" with men and women. The unborn may not even achieve the status of born...it may die in utero. It may also be severely defective. The woman is already here, contributing to society.

Dobbs sends the abortion issue back to legislatures elected not appointed. Voters have a say now. Before Dobbs they did not. The founders would be impressed that the constitution worked so well. The founders fully expected that citizens would have had to use the second ammendment long ago to overthrow a new tyranny. Harris has her sights on ending the 1st and 2cnd with censorship and gun confiscation. That would get 'em rolling.

Dobbs allows states to take life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from the unborn. And women. Which do you find acceptable?

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
 
That person is not me. You just accused me of breaking the law...that's against forum rules.

Now...what happened to your first examples to support your 1A comparison? The ones that needed a legal basis or foundation, and to be related to the abortion issue?

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
Go waste your own time.
 
You're welcome to try an answer the question posed by that hypothetical, but I think we both know it's too much you, too.
Funny how you cannot answer the question of what is the legal basis or justification for restricting abortion and the rights & autonomy of a person in favor of a non person without rights?
 
So what is the justification for violating a woman's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in order to just turn around and give the exact same things to the unborn...which cannot exercise a single one of those? It's physiologically intertwined with the woman's systems...that is the greatest demonstration that it does not have "equal status" with men and women. The unborn may not even achieve the status of born...it may die in utero. It may also be severely defective. The woman is already here, contributing to society.



Dobbs allows states to take life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from the unborn. And women. Which do you find acceptable?

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
It is a life not a tumor.
 
See, we both know that question is just too difficult (or rather, it’s not, and you know what an honest answer would mean.)

You’re done, just you won’t acknowledge it.

I pointed out clearly why it failed as a comparison. And then you made it about me...you had no counter argument.

☮️🇺🇸☮️
 
It is a life not a tumor.

Never said it was. Name one thing I wrote that is not factual?

As long as you believe that tho...you should be able to answer my questions. Why didnt you?

☮️🇺🇸☮️
 
It is a life not a tumor.
I see you've run up against the "living tumor" rejoinder. A tumor will not gestate for nine months, cry on expulsion from the host body, nor experience the staged potentiality of a thriving life from infancy to adulthood. Outside the question of medical necessity, among the entrenched abortionists there are only good fetal parasites and bad fetal parasites. Good if the host wishes to carry it to term and bad if she does not.

And the simplistic question of what is the legal justification in the United States for restricting abortions is answered with an equally simplistic answer. The justification is the state's interest in regulating healthcare and protecting life as expressed by the voters which elected their state legislature. That interest now varies in degree and reach by the several states and is vulnerable to change with every election, absent overriding federal judicial holdings.
 
I see you've run up against the "living tumor" rejoinder. A tumor will not gestate for nine months, cry on expulsion from the host body, nor experience the staged potentiality of a thriving life from infancy to adulthood. Outside the question of medical necessity, among the entrenched abortionists there are only good fetal parasites and bad fetal parasites. Good if the host wishes to carry it to term and bad if she does not.

Maybe he needs to quote who wrote "tumor?" Most of us have a pretty solid background in grammar school biology.

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
 
Depends on the state. In AL, the fetus is defined as a person, literally.
The notion that there is a person where no conscious human mind has ever been demonstrated is idiotic.
 
When do you believe consciousness develops, and why?

Google is your friend. Why would you accept her explanation...she's not a neonatologist? I have a bunch of links but what would you take from them? Only what you want to use? Why dont you present YOUR view?

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
 
When do you believe consciousness develops, and why?
First, the issue isn't when I believe consciousness develops. It is when we can all know that human consciousness has been objectively demonstrated. Belief is subjective. Know means when there is objective empirical evidence available to us. That happens at birth.
 
First, the issue isn't when I believe consciousness develops. It is when we can all know that human consciousness has been objectively demonstrated. Belief is subjective. Know means when there is objective empirical evidence available to us. That happens at birth.
So a right to life can only be granted by unanimous consent of the electorate? Since when is voter unanimity a threshold requirement for any law?
 
First, the issue isn't when I believe consciousness develops. It is when we can all know that human consciousness has been objectively demonstrated. Belief is subjective. Know means when there is objective empirical evidence available to us. That happens at birth.

And it's easy enough to cite actual research...but he cant be bothered. Why take laypeople's opinions when we just base ours ON that research?
It's not all in agreement either but it' solid enough to eliminate the unborn "if that's a criteria someone chooses" from having any rights recognized that supersede womens' rights to support their argument.

And so...he wont. He's just throwing crap out there to see what stick and baits someone.

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
 
So a right to life can only be granted by unanimous consent of the electorate? Since when is voter unanimity a threshold requirement for any law?
If you wish to impose a different definition for your personal purposes, go ahead, but a person with a right to life, liberty, and property has to be objectively acknowledged as existing by the government for the purpose of protecting those rights. Such a person has to have a name and address at least in order to have citizenship. Our founding fathers selected birth as a natural marker relevant for federal purposes.

If a state used a different marker, it could claim a larger population and use the population number to demand more representation, and no state should have the right to do that unless all states concur. I suspect that some states are using this fetal personhood angle to cheat the federal government out of more representation than they deserve - something that harks back to the days of slavery.

Today, we have precedence and cross-national comparison to draw upon. No one was deemed a person with a name and address until birth. That way, birthright citizenship was possible, and pregnant women married to foreigners could leave the US any time to go to the spouse's nation and there would be no problem. Since in most other nations, no one is a person or citizen before birth, we encounter no complications in international relationships and keep a common tradition going back millenia.

I know of nowhere in the Constitution of the US or any state up to 2020 that claimed the right to life was so different from the rights to liberty and property that the three rights had to be recognized at different ages. The three rights automatically were recognized at the birth of a person.
 
I know of nowhere in the Constitution of the US or any state up to 2020 that claimed the right to life was so different from the rights to liberty and property that the three rights had to be recognized at different ages.
Prior to 1920 you weren't guaranteed a right to vote. Precedence does not make right.

I'm not saying your definition is a bad one. I am saying states have a right to choose a different definition, and some have begun to do just that.
 
Back
Top Bottom