Time to Get Down to Brass Tacks Posted: 12-15-04 14:51pm
The insults stops here! It's time for
debate.. Only serious debate.. If
something irritates you.. Scream into a
pillow (i will try to do the same) or if
you can't help it.. Pm that person to
insult them but don't do it here. I have
been guilty of insulting.. Most of us
have but now we will stop!
Now.. We will start from square one..
Who wants to post something first that
they want to debate about? I don't care
if it's prolife, prochoice.. On the
fence..Don't care.. Anyone who wants an
answer about an issue from either
side..Post it here or make another topic..
Don't matter to me!
No eye rolling posts please.. Don't have
anything to say don't say it.. And I will
follow that as well because I have been
guilty of it too. Also no bringing up
another posters past forum life or their
life period.. Who cares??
Let the debating begin!!!!
|
bd1012
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 1998
Posted: 12-15-04 22:48pm
Ok.. I leave and go to work and come back
and still nothing after a 6 hour shift..
Whatever..
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Re: Time to Get Down to Brass Tacks Posted: 12-16-04 01:52am
bd1012
wrote:
let the debating
begin!!!!
hmm, the idea is good,
but can the other side resist the
temptation to post lies?
|
Moira
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 21 Nov 2004 Posts: 302 Location: somewhere where it rains a lot
Re: Time to Get Down to Brass Tacks Posted: 12-16-04 04:58am
steen
wrote:
bd1012
wrote:
let the debating
begin!!!!
hmm, the idea is good,
but can the other side resist the
temptation to post
lies?
i'll put a twenty on the answer being no.
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 12-16-04 05:17am
There is no debate - how can we debate if
we cant agree on what subject to
debtate?
You argue entirely upon the rights of
women... And as the vote seems to be
going dont regard the fetus as a human
being so what would be the problem of
terminating a pregnancy?
None what so ever!
But we pro lifers argue both the rights of
the woman but also the rights of the
unborn which we accept as human beings...
What is wrong with killing an unborn
baby....
Eveything!
We are debating from two entirely
different points of view and never the
twain shall meet ..... So what debate is
there?
|
bd1012
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 1998
Posted: 12-16-04 09:59am
Ok.. Fine.. Let's start with why
prochoicers believe that the woman has the
ultimate say over her body and why the zef
does not have rights above her... I'll
start
i believe that the woman has ultimate say
over whether or not the fetus stays in her
body because the fetus is part of her that
does her body more harm than good in the 9
months it is in the uterus. It causes
wear and tear on the womans organs that
may never function normally again. It
can damage some people's liver and may
cause the liver to shut down completly.
There may be some cases where the woman
might have to take in something that she
is allergic to in order to sustain a
healthy pregnancy so remaing pregant could
either kill her or harm her unless she
wants to risk the health of the fetus.
The zef does not even know of it's
sorrounding at the time abortion is legal.
It is just a bunch of cells forming
into what will one day be a person. It
is not a person yet.. That is what
pregnancy is.. The forming of a person.
If it's not formed yet.. Than you are
simply just stopping the process of it
turning into a person and doing no harm..
It can not feel or understand what is
happening in abortion. If you think
about the time that you spent in the womb,
you might as well been non existant
because you had no clue of your existance
until either viability (some claim to
remember stuff in the womb..Not sure if
this is possible or true) or birth.
|
bd1012
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 1998
Posted: 12-16-04 15:19pm
Sigh.. Why do I even bother??
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 12-16-04 17:47pm
Thats exactly what I am saying!
|
sandyallen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4580
Posted: 12-16-04 18:10pm
Zing, right over his head!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 12-16-04 21:52pm
izzy
wrote:
but we pro lifers argue both
the rights of the woman but also the
rights of the unborn which we accept as
human
beings...
the "unborn" cannot be bestowed with
rights. Too often the "rights" of the
"unborn" would conflict with the certain
rights of the woman. An example: a
woman is pregnant but finds out that
there's something wrong with the fetus.
If the fetus has rights, then the woman
might be forced to undergo dangerous or
risky surgery which would conflict with a
woman's right to bodily autonomy. Whose
rights would be respected in that
situation? Does the woman get to decide
that she will not risk her life and
undergo surgery or does the fetus'
"rights" outweigh the woman's? Also,
should you give fetus' "rights" or
personhood, women would effectively become
prisoners. All sorts of laws could be
passed to keep women "in their place" when
they're pregnant. Laws prohibiting
travel, working, and even what the woman
can eat and drink. Not only would this
be incredibly wrong but it would also be
unconstitutional.
You cannot bestow personhood onto a fetus
without amending the constitution and
convincing a good number of women that
they should be enslaved by their bodies
during pregnancy.
The 14th amendment to the constitution
states: "all persons *.Born* or
naturalized in the united states, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the united states and of the
state wherein they reside. No state shall
make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the united states; nor shall
any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws."
a person is clearly defined in this
amendment as those who are *born*. Born
persons are conferred rights, the "unborn"
are not.
I am afraid that you cannot bestow rights
upon the "unborn" when they are physically
attached to a rights holding woman and
when carrying it presents unique threats
and risks to the woman's life and health.
Too often the "rights" of the "unborn"
and the actual rights of the woman would
conflict with one another and a judgement
would have to be made as to who's rights
garnered more respect. I fear for women
if that day ever arrives given the
nation's track record where we are
concerned, especially in the rights and
respect department.
