ABORTION VERSION TWO |
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
ABORTION VERSION TWO |
Jul 15 2006, 10:44 PM
Post
#1
|
|
dripping destruction Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,282 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,929 |
yea, someone head to the other one and close it.
i'm going to lay down a few ground rules here. 1- i don't care what your stance is, and no one else does either 2- use logic and facts to try to convince us to believe something. it's called a debate not a disorganized rumble. 3- be civil. a lot of you seem to have problems with this. 4- no links, unless neccisary. no quoting outside sources over a paragraph. USE YOUR OWN WORDS. if i don't care what you think about it, why would i care what someone else thinks? and really. stop using other people's arguements. alright. and you know, keeping your posts short isn't a bad thing either. so, the set up: should abortion be made illegal in the united states |
|
|
Jul 16 2006, 04:24 AM
Post
#2
|
|
out to life... Group: Member Posts: 216 Joined: Jul 2006 Member No: 434,862 |
Like I said in the other thread: this is a dead horse that needs respite -- badly.
But to answer the question posed: no, abortion should not be outlawed, for two reasons: 1) Realism: abortions are necessary at times. I don't like the idea of terminating a potential human being, but I don't like the idea of a baby having a baby even worse. How successful is a newborn with a 15 year old mother from the slums expected to be? If you can justify forcibly ruining several lives for the sake of your beliefs (of which almost 100% derive from your religion), I've lost faith in this society's capacity to use common sense. 2) Litigation's sake: we have to uphold the validity of Supreme Court decisions at all costs. Sure, we review/question them all the time, but rarely do we overturn them. To do this would be to undermine the very foundation upon which our justice system resides. We can't compromise the power of the Supreme Court without titanium proof of its necessity (which we don't have). |
|
|
*kryogenix* |
Jul 23 2006, 06:38 PM
Post
#3
|
Guest |
Like I said in the other thread: this is a dead horse that needs respite -- badly. But to answer the question posed: no, abortion should not be outlawed, for two reasons: 1) Realism: abortions are necessary at times. I don't like the idea of terminating a potential human being, but I don't like the idea of a baby having a baby even worse. How successful is a newborn with a 15 year old mother from the slums expected to be? If you can justify forcibly ruining several lives for the sake of your beliefs (of which almost 100% derive from your religion), I've lost faith in this society's capacity to use common sense. 2) Litigation's sake: we have to uphold the validity of Supreme Court decisions at all costs. Sure, we review/question them all the time, but rarely do we overturn them. To do this would be to undermine the very foundation upon which our justice system resides. We can't compromise the power of the Supreme Court without titanium proof of its necessity (which we don't have). 1) Two wrongs do not make a right. Not having access isn't what ruins someone's life, it's having underage sex that does. 2) Saying "Well, if we overturn a Supreme Court decision, we'll look stupid" doesn't really fly. If a mistake was made, it must be fixed, not swept under the rug and ignored. |
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 02:11 AM
Post
#4
|
|
out to life... Group: Member Posts: 216 Joined: Jul 2006 Member No: 434,862 |
2) Saying "Well, if we overturn a Supreme Court decision, we'll look stupid" doesn't really fly. If a mistake was made, it must be fixed, not swept under the rug and ignored. And I quote: QUOTE We can't compromise the power of the Supreme Court without titanium proof of its necessity (which we don't have). If this debate is continuing to drone on and drone on, it is because neither side can really prove the other one wrong. Yet, in 1973, a group of justices who were much more qualified than you and I to decide, through logistics, legality, and experience whether legalizing abortions was plausible or not, decided (7-2) for us that it is the right of the woman to terminate a pregnancy. Who are we to say that they were wrong? Imminent jurists like Harry Blackmun, William O. Douglas... My favorite kicker is that it was decided well into the term of one of the more established conservatives the presidency has ever seen. So, I'll reiterate one more time: unless the sun sits at high noon on our doubt, the Supreme Court's decision must always stand. |
|
|