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.