• 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 wasn't abortion and "women's reproductive rights" more important to voters?

So you don't understand what a question mark is.
...Annnd, here we go with the distractions and bail out attempts. LOL 🤭

When you want to address what I said regarding my point... let me know.
 
...Annnd, here we go with the distractions and bail out attempts. LOL 🤭

When you want to address what I said regarding my point... let me know.

Definitely has identified your pattern @Cosmo 😁 But but but..."It's not you, it's everybody else!" ;)

Why dont you tell us, cite it from federal law, federal court decisions, the Const, etc. who the federal govt recognizes rights for? Quote it specifically, since you wont accept anything from us.

Like my Aunt Etta always said, "either shit or get off the pot." Stop all the avoidance and obstructions and tell us. I've asked you enough...why wont you? Can you?
 
Definitely has identified your pattern @Cosmo 😁 But but but..."It's not you, it's everybody else!" ;)
"Everybody else?" Nah, just a few butthurt leftists that need to redact US law and don't understand what a question mark is.
 
"Everybody else?" Nah, just a few butthurt leftists that need to redact US law and don't understand what a question mark is.

Prove it 😄
Why dont you tell us, cite it from federal law, federal court decisions, the Const, etc. who the federal govt recognizes rights for? Quote it specifically, since you wont accept anything from us.

Like my Aunt Etta always said, "either shit or get off the pot." Stop all the avoidance and obstructions and tell us. I've asked you enough...why wont you? Can you?
 
Wrong. It says "slavery" and "involuntary servitude," not "indentured servitude." Why do you keep needing to revise the US Constitution to make your point?
I admit I'm not spending much time trying to refute you because you seem to be trolling, but the revision doesn't make any difference in this case.
I'm not twisting anything. I'm quoting directly the US Constitution. You have a problem with that, because your position is not Constitutionally sound.
It is your position that's not Constitutionally sound. That's why the SC didn't take the RI case of the two pregnant women and pro-life organizational person who sought to have the women's fetuses declared persons. The RISC and federal appeals court denied that the fetuses were persons and the USSC decided not to take the case but leave the federal court decision as is. They did that because the Constitution does not recognize the unborn as persons.
 
That's your problem. We have equipment that can detect embryos. What century are you from?
Again you misunderstand. Even though we have equipment that can detect embryos, pregnancy tests per se can't tell the actual number.

First, we can't wse pregnancy tests to tell the difference between actual pregnancies with embryos and molar pregnancies with only embryonic and placental tissue but no embryo.

Second, we can't possibly know how many embryos are formed until after gastrulation.

Third, sonograms do not have 100% accuracy regarding the number of fetuses.

In all these cases, chemical and sonic representations are used for the perception and count, not direct perception. But even if we willingly substitute the representation for the reality today, they weren't able to do so when they established the exact enumeration criterion for Census counting, so the original intent was not to substitute them.

And even if we ignored that fact, the 4th Amendment protects persons from unreasonable searches and seizures, and it is obvious that forcing a woman or girl to have a chemical pregnancy test or especially a sonogram is very intimately obtrusive on her person and medical records are largely off limits to the government unless it has good reason to suspect a person of a crime.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they have, like with self-defense laws.

WTF are you talking about? You can get investigated for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, for nothing at all, or for killing someone. There is no right for someone to not get observed by police in public for example.
Here you yourself note that we can be observed by the police IN PUBLIC. Results of pregnancy tests and sonograms as well as medical records are private, and the government forcing a woman to take a pregnancy test or sonogram is an intrusion on her person. NOT PUBLIC.
 
Not going to happen. Case closed. Restrictions existed even under Roe V Wade.
That doesn't explain why it shouldn't be a right or why there should be abortion restrictions. All Roe did was deem abortion bans unconstitutional and prevent states from imposing restrictions before within the 1st trimester.
 
That doesn't explain why it shouldn't be a right or why there should be abortion restrictions.
Well if no restrictions is what you seek, go the constitutional amendment avenue with that. I place your chances at getting it passed at "0".
 
So you're saying the only those people have a right to life, the exhaustive list of such people, is below, right?
Where is the "right to life" enumerated or established by the Constitution, federal law, Court precedents, ect.?
 
Well if no restrictions is what you seek, go the constitutional amendment avenue with that. I place your chances at getting it passed at "0".
Your rhetoric doesn't explain or legally justify why abortion should be restricted.
 
Unrestricted?

What restrictions do you recommend and what is the basis for the restriction, the reason?

For instance, RvW allowed states to restrict it at viability. It and Dobbs however, both allow/ed unrestricted abortion, right? And some states still have no restrictions.
 
Not going to happen. Case closed. Restrictions existed even under Roe V Wade.

Which ones? There is a federal ban on partial birth abortions, so on the medical procedure itself, but not on access to abortion.
 
What restrictions do you recommend and what is the basis for the restriction, the reason?

For instance, RvW allowed states to restrict it at viability. It and Dobbs however, both allow/ed unrestricted abortion, right? And some states still have no restrictions.
The point is that short of a consitutional amendment the issue belongs with the individual states. and that at least pust the laws in the hands of accountable state elected politicians rather then nine un-electice Justices in Washington DC. Your fight is not with me or dobbs. It's with the individual states.
 
Which ones? There is a federal ban on partial birth abortions, so on the medical procedure itself, but not on access to abortion.
Nope. There is a federal ban on unrestricted PBAs. If it's a matter of saving the mother's life, it's legal. Short of that there is no legitimate reason to murder a baby that close to birth.
 
The point is that short of a consitutional amendment the issue belongs with the individual states. and that at least pust the laws in the hands of accountable state elected politicians rather then nine un-electice Justices in Washington DC. Your fight is not with me or dobbs. It's with the individual states.
That's just an excuse, not an explanation. What is a rational and legal basis for any restrictions? "It's a state's issue" is not an answer. Even the states do not provide any explanation. At least, none which would not conflict with the Constitution in regards to bodily autonomy and rights.
Nope. There is a federal ban on unrestricted PBAs. If it's a matter of saving the mother's life, it's legal. Short of that there is no legitimate reason to murder a baby that close to birth.
There's no legitimate reason to restrict abortion and I have yet to hear any provided. Besides, there is no baby before birth and abortion is not murder. So even less reason for restrictions.
 
Which ones? There is a federal ban on partial birth abortions, so on the medical procedure itself, but not on access to abortion.

Nope. There is a federal ban on unrestricted PBAs. If it's a matter of saving the mother's life, it's legal. Short of that there is no legitimate reason to murder a baby that close to birth.

:rolleyes: Your knee-jerk reaction is "nope"...and wrong. I wrote that, do you even read???? PBA is a medical procedure, it's not about access. It's not a restriction on having an abortion.
 
Last edited:
The point is that short of a consitutional amendment the issue belongs with the individual states. and that at least pust the laws in the hands of accountable state elected politicians rather then nine un-electice Justices in Washington DC. Your fight is not with me or dobbs. It's with the individual states.

You made the statements, now please back them up. All of a sudden you dont want to commit?:

What restrictions do you recommend and what is the basis for the restriction, the reason?​
For instance, RvW allowed states to restrict it at viability. It and Dobbs however, both allow/ed unrestricted abortion, right? And some states still have no restrictions.​

Do you really believe that so many of the anti-choicers believe that "murdering baybees" is a state's rights issue? Do you? What's the difference in "murdering baybees" inside women and murdering babies 'outside' women? What are you or, if not you, "those" people thinking? Seems very hypocritical.
 
:rolleyes: Your knee-jerk reaction is "nope"...and wrong. I wrote that, do you even read???? PBA is a medical procedure, it's not about access. It's not a restriction on having an abortion.
Well that's just too bad. You cannot have an unrestricted or unregulated abortion.
 
What restrictions do you recommend and what is the basis for the restriction, the reason?
That's the point. I do not get to decide for everyone. The issue is relegated to the individual states. if you have an issue, your fight is with them, not me.
 
Well that's just too bad. You cannot have an unrestricted or unregulated abortion.

I never objected to PAB...you didnt read and wanted to jump in and "be right!" By writing the exact same thing I did. :rolleyes:

All medical procedures have regulations, that's different. However you have not shown any restrictions (the original question) on abortion. Some states dont have any, except maybe for minors/permission, which is also normal for medical procedures.
 
That's the point. I do not get to decide for everyone. The issue is relegated to the individual states. if you have an issue, your fight is with them, not me.

Why did you delete most of my post and avoid the rest? Yes, they are tough questions...it's a tough issue.

You made the statements, now please back them up. All of a sudden you dont want to commit?:​
What restrictions do you recommend and what is the basis for the restriction, the reason?​
For instance, RvW allowed states to restrict it at viability. It and Dobbs however, both allow/ed unrestricted abortion, right? And some states still have no restrictions.​
Do you really believe that so many of the anti-choicers believe that "murdering baybees" is a state's rights issue? Do you? What's the difference in "murdering baybees" inside women and murdering babies 'outside' women? What are you or, if not you, "those" people thinking? Seems very hypocritical.​
 
Back
Top Bottom