CDZ Can policies be agreed on by prochoice and prolife to reduce and prevent abortion

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by emilynghiem, Oct 23, 2017.

  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,820
    Thanks Received:
    2,330
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,790
    OK let's try to carry a "clean debate" on points that prochoice and prolife advocates
    might actually agree on for reducing or preventing abortion.

    to argue and prove such a point or principles exist, simply use this thread to post proposed
    arguments, ideas, policies, or principles.

    If someone with another bias rejects that point/principle as against their beliefs
    where they would NOT agree to such a policy endorsed through govt, that proves it is struck down (unless it is a legal or logistic problem causing the objection that can be fixed)

    If two people from opposite biases actually agree on an approach,
    if someone else disagrees then explain what is the logistical problem with
    that argument or proposal so that it can be corrected. (just saying that idea
    won't work still leaves it open to proving it might work if it were presented
    and tried first) Either that person objecting convinces the other two people such approach will not work, or they agree to revise it to address and correct the cause of rejection,
    or they might agree to propose the argument to see if it does resolve conflicts
    and empower more people to collaborate on better legislation or approaches to abortion policy.


    Can this approach of addressing and resolving points of objection
    be used to show that people of opposing beliefs concerning abortion policy
    can agree to respect each other's beliefs and stick to points of agreement?

    Post arguments about problems or solutions regarding abortion
    laws and policies, and let's see if we can find points of agreement
    that respect beliefs on the different sides and issues of this debate.

    1. here is Chuz Life's Signature statement:


    2. Here are my two replies copied from a previous thread:

    a.
    b.

    3. please post your statement or argument as to what is
    going to work Constitutionally to defend prolife beliefs
    while also respecting prochoice political beliefs so neither is compromised.

    For a "clean" debate: please try to stick to pointing out where
    someone's statement or proposed law/idea introduces or imposes
    a "faith-based bias in belief" that violates your beliefs and is thus
    argued as unconstitutional to endorse enforce or pass by govt.

    You don't have to prove or disprove, or explain "why" you agree or disagree
    with the actual CONTENT. If you don't believe in either that belief, or that the proposal will work, that's enough to show a faith based BIAS so that govt cannot IMPOSE that against consent of the people if it hasn't been proven to them to be worth trying by agreement.
    (The objections would still have to be resolved if it is going to be approved by people through govt, but just not necessary to show a bias in belief "exists.")

    However, if there is misinformation or misperception that can be corrected,
    of course, that is different from a subjective belief and corrections are constructive responses.

    This is not to argue for one belief OVER another but to identify where
    these beliefs exist, and to seek solutions that accommodate them and don't violate them on either side.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2017
  2. ScienceRocks
    Offline

    ScienceRocks Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    57,323
    Thanks Received:
    5,641
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    The Good insane United states of America
    Ratings:
    +22,641
    The worse thing to do if the goal is to reduce Abortion is to limit birth control. Trump appears to be doing exactly that and we should expect more back alley abortions to occur.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. frigidweirdo
    Offline

    frigidweirdo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2014
    Messages:
    23,118
    Thanks Received:
    2,335
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,068
    You want to reduce abortions.

    The first thing you need is effective education. The right doesn't like kids learning about their bodies, because the right can't cope with this. So, as long as this partisan politics continues, nothing much will change on this front. It's sad, but mostly true.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    42,669
    Thanks Received:
    9,246
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +25,509
    If someone believes abortion is ‘wrong’ he’s at complete liberty to express that opinion, no one is seeking to prevent anyone from expressing his opinion concerning abortion.

    Private persons in the context of private society are free to debate the issue of abortion absent interference from the government.

    From a Constitutional standpoint, the issue concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, where the right to privacy prohibits government from acting to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

    Lawmakers hostile to privacy rights are likewise at liberty to express their opposition to abortion, but they may not seek to enact measures which result in an undue burden to the right to privacy; and if they do, they should expect those measures to be invalidated by the courts pursuant to privacy rights jurisprudence.

    The right to privacy safeguards not only the right of a woman to decide whether to have a child or not, it protects the right of Americans to decide the issue for themselves in accordance with their own good faith and good conscience, where it is not within the purview of government to make such determinations concerning matters both personal and private.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,820
    Thanks Received:
    2,330
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,790
    Thanks ScienceRocks so here is a point of contention or conflict to be resolved.

    the problem is that opponents don't believe in funding such birth control through federal govt and through taxpayers money who don't agree with such policies because of their beliefs.

    so a solution would be to allow separation of funding, so people who do believe in promoting and funding birth control can do so effectively WITHOUT relying on imposing taxation or regulations on people who DON'T believe in doing this through federal govt.

    Question: do we set up programs by state govt instead of federal will that help? or can we set up health and reproductive care programs through PARTY structure and distribution from precinct/district level to state to national.

    How can we agree to separate the funding so people can have the policy they believe in supporting?

    Do we give taxpayers a choice of
    funding through city or county govt, state or federal
    funding through a party based collective membership policy

    What would most effectively prevent imposing unwanted or conflicting beliefs on taxpayers who don't agree to fund either birth control, abortion or health care through federal govt.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,820
    Thanks Received:
    2,330
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,790
    Well Stated C_Clayton_Jones thank you.
    now what about the flip side of this.
    what if someone like Chuz Life does not want govt to endorse Planned Parenthood beliefs in counseling women to use birth control or abortion.

    how can we most effectively separate federal govt from funding or endorsing an opposed policy or program that violates beliefs of dissenting citizens, similar to conscientious objection.

    This arguemnt may best be made in the parallel context
    of defunding executions for similar reasons that the left objects.

    If both arguments were presented to gether as in a joint agreement,
    that both sides agree to allow taxpayers free choice in funding
    these or defunding them, woudl that open the door to agreed solutions?
     
  7. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    17,820
    Thanks Received:
    2,330
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +5,790
    Dear frigidweirdo last I checked
    the conservative and prolife also argued for more effective education.

    isn't the problem that both sides would push their own biases
    in school curricula and programs? is the solution to allow
    communities to decide their own curricula democratically
    which best represents the standards they want for themselves?

    Could we agree to let federal and state funding go pay for
    facilities, to maintain public schools and education.

    but where taxpayers and districts don't agree on one curricula
    or approach for all, can the local communities have a system
    of democratically deciding the faculty and programs they
    want run through their local school sites.

    Can we agree to keep federal govt and funding neutral
    where it pays for the flat costs of operating school sites
    in each district, while letting states or local communities
    work out their own internal programs and mgmt decisions.

    Also how can we prevent political hijacking?
    currently even the democratic system we have of electing
    school boards and trustees gets biased toward govt
    bureaucracy, so that NEITHER right or left leaning advocates
    get what they want, but both complain it doesn't represent the
    people and best interests of students.

    What would allow both sides to correct these similar
    complaints that the public school system gets sidetracked
    ro bogged down in politics, andno longer provides
    cost effective education how do we resolve those
    problems and conflicts? with conflict resolution
    and mediation in the schools? How do we
    ensure community representation so the
    schools are running responsibly and not just warehousing
    kids so govt contractors have stable jobs and budgets.
     
  8. ScienceRocks
    Offline

    ScienceRocks Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    57,323
    Thanks Received:
    5,641
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    The Good insane United states of America
    Ratings:
    +22,641

    I'd agree with giving the tax payers a whole range of choices on many issues including the issue of birth control. I think we should set up a federal funding program in which people can choose what is funded and what is not with their dollars.

    Want to fund the military? List what percentage of your dollars go to that.
    Want to fund science? List what percentage of your dollars go to that.
    Want to fund abortion and birth control for woman?? List what percentage of your dollars go to that.
    Want to fund infrastructure?
    Want to fund education?

    We have the technology in order to do it. Maybe even make up a webpage with hundreds of choices within an interactive interface that the tax payer could choose to pay towards. A few exception would be is Defense, infrastructure and economic stability programs always being at least 1% of the dollar amount of federal taxes, but everything else should be a choice.

    The same could be done at the local and state level in taxes. Of course, at the state level police should be the area always given the certain amount.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. frigidweirdo
    Offline

    frigidweirdo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2014
    Messages:
    23,118
    Thanks Received:
    2,335
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,068
    I'm not sure what "education" you are thinking about for the pro-life people. Usually it's education that goes against the reality of the situation. They teach abstinence. This isn't education much. This is more trying to force them to think in a certain way.

    The problem I have with communities deciding, is that you end up with people pushing their agenda much more and getting what they want. Shouldn't ALL KIDS in the US end up learning certain things? If the whole country is in on a debate then surely it would more likely be what is required, not too much, not too little.

    Again, this is based on the US changing the way government works, because right now it hardly works.

    The biggest problem is that politics has been hijacked and people are being force fed ideas in order for the rich to get what they want. Until this stops it doesn't seem important what happens below, the rich will get their way anyway.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. cnm
    Offline

    cnm Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2013
    Messages:
    9,444
    Thanks Received:
    7,703
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Te Ika a Maui
    Ratings:
    +29,024
    Federal funding of birth control is merely a point of attack for pro lifers. They still would run abstinence only programmes where they had the power to do so, which means in certain states. Of course that is why Federal funding is attacked, it prevents states' idiological idiocies.

    Could those idiolists be persuaded to abandon abstinence only? I don't believe so, which means policies can not be agreed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page