Abortion - Under what circumstances should it be allowed?

[Maedar]

So instead of fighting for their religious belief they should just give up, allow the Government to force them to do what they believe is wrong, bend to the Government's will right? Because at the end of the day the Government's will trumps personal religious belief, no matter what the law says.

Why continue a fight that has never been successful despite decades of trying?

Sure Lutz, it does sound romantic and thrilling, but come on, reality has to set in eventually and tell these people that this is a lost cause. The days are long past when La Resistance had any clout in this sort of thing. You cannot stand up to the United States government and hope to win.

 

[BigLutz]

Why continue a fight that has never been successful despite decades of trying?

There have been numerous individual successes but again I could point out this is religion, fighting for one's belief over decades is nothing.

Sure Lutz, it does sound romantic and thrilling, but come on, reality has to set in eventually and tell these people that this is a lost cause. The days are long past when La Resistance had any clout in this sort of thing. You cannot stand up to the United States government and hope to win.

How quite totalitarian, you know you keep saying conservatives this, and conservatives that, but there is a saying among conservatives that liberals view the Government as religion and God mixed into one.

 

[LDSman]

Lutz, I'm just saying that it all seems pretty foolish.

So now you are saying that no one is trying to create a theocracy? That you are exaggerating as usual?

They spent a fortune taking the government to court, and there are NOT going to win. They aren't going to get that money back.

People do win against the gov't.

Somewhere down the road, they're going have to cancel several plans that might have actually helped the poor because they don't have the budget for it, and they're going to wonder if the money they threw away for people to say they're on the wrong side of history was truly worth it.

News flash. ACA is already costing more than the gov't said it would. People also aren't going to care that a group of nuns didn't want to pay for people's birth control. Especially since it's readily available in any drugstore out there.

And they are. The reason people like Joan of Arc, St. Thomas Becket, Jerome of Prague, and Galileo are considered heroes today, even though they were condemned as criminals in their time, is because they were vindicated by history, so to speak.

Joan of Arc was considered a heretic for being on the wrong side of a war.

St Becket refused to follow the English king's demands (Sounds familar. A secular leader trying to tell a church what to do). Sounds like you picked a bad example on this one.

Jerome of Prague was another person accused of heresy. I don't know of any who consider him or hero or have even mentioned him.

Galileo's problems were that he couldn't prove some of his work and was a bit of a jerk about some of them. He got house arrest and was allowed visitors. Hardly how you treat a criminal.

Society changed, and so did ideas. But those ideas that vindicated them - civil rights, attitudes towards individual freedom, and less reliance on the church in government - never reversed or even slowed down. Ultra conservatives who insist on clinging to old ways trying to make society change are going to fail, and will not be vindicated by history or seen as martyrs, because society will not do a 180. They'd have to undo centuries of social progress.

No one is trying to undo "centuries of progress."

You might as well face facts. The Republicans have been trying and failing for decades to reverse Roe v. Wade. It's never going to happen.

And yet more states have added restrictions to abortions.

Ultra conservatives who don't get with the times just don't get it. Know how Santorum's "traditional" fairy tale movie did? It bombed. Like I predicted, modern audiences just don't like that stuff anymore. Victorian-era audiences might have loved it, but this is 2014.

Christmas movies always appeal to smaller crowds than most flicks. It also released in smaller areas than most movies. Most of the reviews seem positive.

There's an old proverb that says, "The tree that doesn't bend, breaks." If a tree can't bend in a strong wind, the wind is going to blow it over. People like these nuns resist progress, refusing to bend, and like I said, a tree that doesn’t bend, breaks.

And what does not paying for birth control have to do with progress?

Trees that bend for every little breeze are useless for lumber.

 

[miles0624]

Ok, like I always do, I just going to clarify something.

First, while it affected abortions, Roe v. Wade was actually about the scope of the right of personal privacy. Even the court said "Constitutional right of privacy is broad enough to encompass woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy, but the woman's right to terminate pregnancy is not absolute since state may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards and in protecting potential life." Basically, the court left an opening where they could separate abortions from personal privacy if the need ever came. This is also why the court said that the state could regulate abortions after the first trimester.

Second, when you bring up Roe v. Wade, you also must state the fact that part of that ruling has been overturned. The case as argued in 71 is not fully good law anymore. It also speaks of the fact that the supreme court allowed the case to be reargued in front of them that they don't fully agree with the ruling as well.

For anyone who wants to research, eight federal courts have declined to extend Roe v. Wade since 91 and it his been distinguished by plenty of cases and have actually created states creating many other rules to get around. (I.e. the under born alive rule, which goes against the courts interpretation of the fourteenth amendment when they said "Word “person” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn.").

Fact is, if you know how to work the law, you can get around Roe v. Wade for abortion purposes. I wouldn't throw out the case in a debate without actually using it in the correct context.

 

[Maedar]

Really Miles? So why is the GOP so determined to overturn it?

Tell me, what's the biggest subject on their minds whenever a new Supreme Court Justice is appointed?

Joan of Arc was considered a heretic for being on the wrong side of a war.

St Becket refused to follow the English king's demands (Sounds familar. A secular leader trying to tell a church what to do). Sounds like you picked a bad example on this one.

Jerome of Prague was another person accused of heresy. I don't know of any who consider him or hero or have even mentioned him.

Galileo's problems were that he couldn't prove some of his work and was a bit of a jerk about some of them. He got house arrest and was allowed visitors. Hardly how you treat a criminal.

Did I ever tell you about my dad the high school political science teacher? Political science covers history.

He'd give you an F. All those historical figures were condemned unfairly because the leaders at time hated them and wanted to quash the messages they were spreading.

Take Joan of Arc. Her "trial" (if you could call it that) was rigged. It was headed by Bishop Pierre Cauchon, who was on the payroll of both the English Earl of Warwick and the Duke of Burgundy, who also handpicked the judges himself from members of the University of Parism who also hated Joan's guts. Seriously, she never really stood a chance.

I suppose you thought the folks who tried and executed Marie Antoinette were justified too, huh?

 

[AbsolGijinka]

I think women should always have to choice, and may do with it what they please. From a personal standpoint I don't think the decision should be taken lightly though. This means I think people who do not want children at their current state/time of life should take as many precautions as necessary in order to prevent becoming pregnant. Human error and accidents happen though and I don't think people should be "punished" for wanting to have sex. Anyone who is being responsible as possible would know if they're pregnant early on, and although some may disagree I do believe aborting as early as possible is ethically and mentally better overall. A life is a life, yes, but if you cannot bring a baby into this world and take care of it then it's best making the right choice accordingly. A lot of people will state "Well just arrange for an adoption and give birth" but being pregnant is a huge responsibility as well and most people unable to care for a child are unable to care for themselves as a pregnant individual.

Overall it's a tough call, but I do not think you can tell someone they are doing the wrong thing for getting an abortion. I do think it's a bit of a shame if people are using no forms of protection and getting abortions as a result. It's completely unnecessary in that sense.

 

[LDSman]

Really Miles? So why is the GOP so determined to overturn it?

Tell me, what's the biggest subject on their minds whenever a new Supreme Court Justice is appointed?

Why don't you enlighten us as to what you think the GOP is concerned about.

Did I ever tell you about my dad the high school political science teacher? Political science covers history.

Political science is not history, It covers historical events and how they were affected by politics and is subject to bias based on the viewpoint of the person covering it. One man's rebel is another man's terrorist.

He'd give you an F. All those historical figures were condemned unfairly because the leaders at time hated them and wanted to quash the messages they were spreading.

Doesn't sound like a very good teacher, giving Fs when presented with facts. Why were they hated? Because Joan of Arc was on the wrong side of the war to the people who captured her, Becket refused to follow the king's demands, etc.

Take Joan of Arc. Her "trial" (if you could call it that) was rigged. It was headed by Bishop Pierre Cauchon, who was on the payroll of both the English Earl of Warwick and the Duke of Burgundy, who also handpicked the judges himself from members of the University of Parism who also hated Joan's guts. Seriously, she never really stood a chance.

Okay? No dispute here. The English captured a French leader and convicted her and then executed her.

I suppose you thought the folks who tried and executed Marie Antoinette were justified too, huh?

I've honestly never given it any thought, nor have I said that I considered any of the mentioned executions as justifed. I was merely pointing out context for your examples.

 

[Maedar]

Political science is not history, It covers historical events and how they were affected by politics and is subject to bias based on the viewpoint of the person covering it. One man's rebel is another man's terrorist.

Wrong on both points, and btw, that quote you just made is attributed to Attorney General Ramsey Clark, a Democrat who fiercely opposed the administration of President George H. W. Bush, along with Dan Quayle, James Baker, Richard Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf and "others to be named" of "crimes against peace, war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" for its conduct of the Gulf War against Iraq and the ensuing sanctions. He knew what a terrorist was, and wanted something the Republicans don't want: peace. You just took his quote way out of context.

I think the only time you ever heard it was from that James Bond movie Die Another Day. Well, the guy that 007 was referring to was a terrorist.

Doesn't sound like a very good teacher, giving Fs when presented with facts. Why were they hated? Because Joan of Arc was on the wrong side of the war to the people who captured her, Becket refused to follow the king's demands, etc.

So, you're siding with tyrants and corrupt churches?

Why don't you enlighten us as to what you think the GOP is concerned about.

Lining the pockets of the rich and making the United States a plutocracy, so that the rich can step on the poor and take advantage of them. They want to kill the ACA and the Food Stamp program, because they don't care if the poor starve. So long as the rich are happy, sacrificing the poor is a necessary loss to them.

Just ask your friend who admits that he approves Social Darwinism, a practice embraced by the most evil men in history.

 

[LDSman]

Wrong on both points,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science

Political science is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, nation, government, and politics and policies of government. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state.[1] It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics, and the analysis of political systems and political behavior, culture. Political scientists "see themselves engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions, and from these revelations they attempt to construct general principles about the way the world of politics works."[2] Political science intersects with other fields; including economics, law, sociology, history, anthropology, public administration, public policy, national politics, international relations, comparative politics, psychology, political organization, and political theory. Although it was codified in the 19th century, when all the social sciences were established, political science has ancient roots; indeed, it originated almost 2,500 years ago with the works of Plato and Aristotle.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History

History (from Greek ἱστορία, historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation")[2] is the study of the past, specifically how it relates to humans. It is an umbrella term that relates to past events as well as the discovery, collection, organization, and presentation of information about these events. The term includes cosmic, geologic, and organic history, but is often generically implied to mean human history. Scholars who write about history are called historians. Events occurring prior to written record are considered prehistory.

They look different to me.

and btw, that quote you just made is attributed to

I actually wasn't quoting anyone in particular and if you were to look it up, you'd find that he wasn't the first person to make that type of comment, just one of the more recent.

He knew what a terrorist was, and wanted something the Republicans don't want: peace. You just took his quote way out of context.

The tired mantra of "Republicans are evil" again? Again, it wasn't a quote but pointing out how one group is evil to one side and good to the other side. Pirates or privateers.

I think the only time you ever heard it was from that James Bond movie Die Another Day. Well, the guy that 007 was referring to was a terrorist.

You are the person who constantly references movies, TV shows, comic books. Not me. I read and watch plenty of things that aren't fiction.

Lining the pockets of the rich and making the United States a plutocracy, so that the rich can step on the poor and take advantage of them.

Some people do that, most don't that and aren't interested in it. Plenty of the ones doing that are dems too.

They want to kill the ACA

The ACA is a horrible program that even the Dems are backing away from.

and the Food Stamp program, because they don't care if the poor starve.

Bull. Not wishing to expand it to cover everybody is not the same trying to kill it. Recognizing that it's horribly abused and trying to fix it, is not the same as trying to kill it.

So long as the rich are happy, sacrificing the poor is a necessary loss to them.

http://www.science20.com/news_artic...crats_why_some_people_give_more_charity-90603

So why do Republicans give more to charitable groups than Dems?

Just ask your friend who admits that he approves Social Darwinism, a practice embraced by the most evil men in history.

One person's opinion does not reflect the whole group's opinion.

 

[BigLutz]

Just ask your friend who admits that he approves Social Darwinism, a practice embraced by the most evil men in history.

You mind, you know, posting some context about what we talked about FOUR months ago, or the fact that you have to yet provide a better plan?

Getting back on topic....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-of-state-abortion-restrictions-in-one-chart/

Abortion Restrictions have surged in the past few years, more so than even the past ten. I would think this alone shows that the debate of Roe vs Wade is FAR from over.

 

[Maedar]

The ACA is a horrible program that even the Dems are backing away from.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/obamacare-enrollment_n_4421797.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/obamacare-benefits_n_4538407.html?ref=topbar

You were saying?

 

[LDSman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/obamacare-enrollment_n_4421797.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/obamacare-benefits_n_4538407.html?ref=topbar

You were saying?

Amusing. Puff pieces. One is about how problems haven't happened "yet" but the enrollees haven't used the system yet and the other is about the supposed number of people who have signed up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...moderate-democrats-are-quitting-on-obamacare/

As I was saying.

 

[miles0624]

Really Miles? So why is the GOP so determined to overturn it?

Tell me, what's the biggest subject on their minds whenever a new Supreme Court Justice is appointed?

I think it is obvious from my post if you reread it. While the ruling is about personal privacy, the Supreme court did establish from the ruling that the personal privacy for abortions extended through the first trimester. It doesn't cover all of abortion. That is the specific part that the GOP wants overturned. Of course, when speaking to the general public, you're not going to say that because the majority of people won't understand it. So it is easier to scream "OVERTURN ROE V. WADE AND STOP ABORTIONS." I am not sure if that answers your question because I am not sure what you were really asking, or what part of my post you were calling into question.

Also, if your calling my post about how some court have refused to extend Roe. v. Wade to modern cases, or the fact it has been distinguished so many time from other cases, you can go on WestlawNext and use keycite and the first thirty cases (going from most recent) are all negative. You can do the same thing with Lexis and then sheperadize.

If you have any other questions, I am going to need you to do more than "ya, so this...." Thank you.

 

[Maedar]

Amusing. Puff pieces. One is about how problems haven't happened "yet" but the enrollees haven't used the system yet and the other is about the supposed number of people who have signed up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...moderate-democrats-are-quitting-on-obamacare/

As I was saying.

That link is dated July 23rd, a little over five months ago, before the shutdown. How long did you have to search the archives for it?

Mine were dated within the week.

 

[LDSman]

That link is dated July 23rd, a little over five months ago, before the shutdown. How long did you have to search the archives for it?

A few seconds.

Mine were dated within the week.

Don't care. They were puff pieces that are slanted to try and make the ACA look good.

 

[Maedar]

I thought Moogles said there was to be no complaining about personal opinions of sources?

 

[LDSman]

I thought Moogles said there was to be no complaining about personal opinions of sources?

You're amusing. Instead of addressing how the Dems are fleeing the support of Obamacare, you gripe about the age of the article and then try to redirect by claiming that I'm complaining about your source.

I wasn't complaining about the source. I was expressing an opinion of the article. One of your articles was literally, "There have not been any problems (Yet)." They are praising Obamacare while stating that people aren't using it and there maybe problems once people do start using it in large numbers. That's a slant to me. I also believe Moogles said something along the line of not spending pages complaining about where the link was coming from, which is what you were doing. Feel free to link to it if you like.

 

[Maedar]

http://www.serebiiforums.com/showth...-Mass-Effect-you-get-no-points-for-neutrality

Part II, Section 3, where he says:

The fact that I had to make this a written rule is nothing short of incredible. You can hate your opponent's position as much as you want, but to full out dismiss the sources that they use is incredibly rude. Any instance of people flat-out ignoring a source will be infracted immediately. Quite simply, it's bad forum and makes absolutely no sense because if the source is faulty you should be able to pick out the mistakes and add that to your debate.

You said:

Amusing. Puff pieces. One is about how problems haven't happened "yet" but the enrollees haven't used the system yet and the other is about the supposed number of people who have signed up.

Don't care. They were puff pieces that are slanted to try and make the ACA look good.

"Puff pieces". Yup. "Slanted". Right.

 

[BigLutz]

http://www.serebiiforums.com/showth...-Mass-Effect-you-get-no-points-for-neutrality

Part II, Section 3, where he says:

"Puff pieces". Yup. Right.

You are confusing attacking the article with attacking the source, attacking the source is what you do when you blanketly disregard anything on Hot Air, attacking the article and calling it a puff piece for which it is, is merely labeling what the article is.

 

[LDSman]

http://www.serebiiforums.com/showth...-Mass-Effect-you-get-no-points-for-neutrality

Part II, Section 3, where he says:

I didn't dismiss your source. I read the article and expressed my opinion of the ARTICLE, not the source. There is a difference between refusing to read a source(like you and hotair) and expressing an opinion over the article within that source.

Back to the nuns.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-groups-from-contraception/?intcmp=latestnews

This is the nun's belief.

The group of Catholic nuns argues that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates their religious beliefs. To get around the mandate, they claim they'd have to sign a "permission slip" authorizing others to provide contraceptives and "abortion drugs" -- or pay a fine.

Lawyers for the group made one more plea for emergency relief late Friday, filing a 17-page brief with the court saying the reprieve spared the nuns from having to choose between violating their faith and facing IRS penalties. The brief claimed the government is "simply blind to the religious exercise at issue: the Little Sisters and other Applicants cannot execute the form because they cannot deputize a third party to sin on their behalf."

They won't sign a form saying that they give permission to a third party to buy something they can't support.

It is not known when Sotomayor will respond.

edit:

because if the source is faulty you should be able to pick out the mistakes and add that to your debate.

I believe I pointed out why one of those articles was faulty.