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

[emilynghiem]

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:

The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

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

a.

BTW Chuz Life your signature script about the right to life is still faith based. Even if people AGREE when the person's soul, spirit, will or consciousness "enters the body" this remains faith based. The problem is like the death penalty. We may agree that murder is against the law, but people argue about the Constitutionality and due process of the PUNISHMENT. With abortion, Roe V Wade brought up problems with "substantive due process". Policing abortion "after pregnancy occurs" affects women more than men. The most effective efforts I have seen to prevent abortion focus on preventing sexual abuse and relationship abuse BEFORE pregnancy occurs. On that level, both men and women can be held equally responsible. The problem with abortion laws is they don't hold men equally responsible for decisions and conditions leading to abortion. However, if we were to agree to make it illegal to have sex if it causes unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion, perhaps that would hold men equally responsible, especially in cases of coercion by the men.

b.

Hi Chuz Life I was responding to your SIGNATURE statement.
.... My comment is that we cannot prove when the human will or PERSON begins
conscious existence. Right now we agree legally to start the
timeline at birth, and laws allow abortion up to 3 months of pregnancy..
Whatever other changes to laws haven't passed because people
have conflicting beliefs and can't agree what to change laws to.
I'm pointing out that since these beliefs are faith based,
that's why laws can't get passed unless the sides agree.
I'm saying your argument isn't going to change the minds
of opponents with different reasons for objections.
It will take resolving other legal issues in order to change
the laws, regardless if your arguments are true or false.
The other problems are what's getting in the way!

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.

 

[ScienceRocks]

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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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:

The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

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

a.

BTW Chuz Life your signature script about the right to life is still faith based. Even if people AGREE when the person's soul, spirit, will or consciousness "enters the body" this remains faith based. The problem is like the death penalty. We may agree that murder is against the law, but people argue about the Constitutionality and due process of the PUNISHMENT. With abortion, Roe V Wade brought up problems with "substantive due process". Policing abortion "after pregnancy occurs" affects women more than men. The most effective efforts I have seen to prevent abortion focus on preventing sexual abuse and relationship abuse BEFORE pregnancy occurs. On that level, both men and women can be held equally responsible. The problem with abortion laws is they don't hold men equally responsible for decisions and conditions leading to abortion. However, if we were to agree to make it illegal to have sex if it causes unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion, perhaps that would hold men equally responsible, especially in cases of coercion by the men.

b.

Hi Chuz Life I was responding to your SIGNATURE statement.
.... My comment is that we cannot prove when the human will or PERSON begins
conscious existence. Right now we agree legally to start the
timeline at birth, and laws allow abortion up to 3 months of pregnancy..
Whatever other changes to laws haven't passed because people
have conflicting beliefs and can't agree what to change laws to.
I'm pointing out that since these beliefs are faith based,
that's why laws can't get passed unless the sides agree.
I'm saying your argument isn't going to change the minds
of opponents with different reasons for objections.
It will take resolving other legal issues in order to change
the laws, regardless if your arguments are true or false.
The other problems are what's getting in the way!

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.

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

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?

 

[emilynghiem]

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:

The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

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

a.

BTW Chuz Life your signature script about the right to life is still faith based. Even if people AGREE when the person's soul, spirit, will or consciousness "enters the body" this remains faith based. The problem is like the death penalty. We may agree that murder is against the law, but people argue about the Constitutionality and due process of the PUNISHMENT. With abortion, Roe V Wade brought up problems with "substantive due process". Policing abortion "after pregnancy occurs" affects women more than men. The most effective efforts I have seen to prevent abortion focus on preventing sexual abuse and relationship abuse BEFORE pregnancy occurs. On that level, both men and women can be held equally responsible. The problem with abortion laws is they don't hold men equally responsible for decisions and conditions leading to abortion. However, if we were to agree to make it illegal to have sex if it causes unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion, perhaps that would hold men equally responsible, especially in cases of coercion by the men.

b.

Hi Chuz Life I was responding to your SIGNATURE statement.
.... My comment is that we cannot prove when the human will or PERSON begins
conscious existence. Right now we agree legally to start the
timeline at birth, and laws allow abortion up to 3 months of pregnancy..
Whatever other changes to laws haven't passed because people
have conflicting beliefs and can't agree what to change laws to.
I'm pointing out that since these beliefs are faith based,
that's why laws can't get passed unless the sides agree.
I'm saying your argument isn't going to change the minds
of opponents with different reasons for objections.
It will take resolving other legal issues in order to change
the laws, regardless if your arguments are true or false.
The other problems are what's getting in the way!

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.

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.

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.

 

[ScienceRocks]

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.

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.

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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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:

The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade

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

a.

BTW Chuz Life your signature script about the right to life is still faith based. Even if people AGREE when the person's soul, spirit, will or consciousness "enters the body" this remains faith based. The problem is like the death penalty. We may agree that murder is against the law, but people argue about the Constitutionality and due process of the PUNISHMENT. With abortion, Roe V Wade brought up problems with "substantive due process". Policing abortion "after pregnancy occurs" affects women more than men. The most effective efforts I have seen to prevent abortion focus on preventing sexual abuse and relationship abuse BEFORE pregnancy occurs. On that level, both men and women can be held equally responsible. The problem with abortion laws is they don't hold men equally responsible for decisions and conditions leading to abortion. However, if we were to agree to make it illegal to have sex if it causes unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or abortion, perhaps that would hold men equally responsible, especially in cases of coercion by the men.

b.

Hi Chuz Life I was responding to your SIGNATURE statement.
.... My comment is that we cannot prove when the human will or PERSON begins
conscious existence. Right now we agree legally to start the
timeline at birth, and laws allow abortion up to 3 months of pregnancy..
Whatever other changes to laws haven't passed because people
have conflicting beliefs and can't agree what to change laws to.
I'm pointing out that since these beliefs are faith based,
that's why laws can't get passed unless the sides agree.
I'm saying your argument isn't going to change the minds
of opponents with different reasons for objections.
It will take resolving other legal issues in order to change
the laws, regardless if your arguments are true or false.
The other problems are what's getting in the way!

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[cnm]

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.

 

[G.T.]

pro choice is already the compromise

if you dont lile it you already have the freedom for you and your family not to get it done.

thats total freedom

if youre not against it, you already have the freedok shall you and your family decide to go through with it

thats total freedom

 

[Vastator]

The problem with the left; is that when it comes to their pet groups, they hearken back to the Declaration of Independence, and the phrase "all men are created equal". While their current usage, to promote their pets is a clear bastardization of the meaning, and intent of that document; they put on full display their hypocrisy when they fail to acknowledge that conception is the moment that a person is created. As such they should be afforded all the constitutional protections, afforded all citizens...
While the educated amongst us realize that the Declaration of Independence is a separate document, written for an entirely different purpose than the Constitution; the left likes to treat that phrase "all men are created equal", as if the founders intended it to be law. Right up until you apply it to the unborn... Miraculously, in that moment, they seem to come to their senses. Only to drift off again when some new pet comes along...

 

[Bonzi]

I would say no because it all boils down to whether or not you believe a life growing in a woman is a human with rights or not.

I don't think there will ever be agreement on this

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

At least I WONT BE PAYING for those abortions. If you want to spread your legs and take a chance of getting pregnant then you pay the price for having the baby or aborting it. Mother f*******g liberals want all the immoral actions but never want to pay for those actions...

 

[alang1216]

they put on full display their hypocrisy when they fail to acknowledge that conception is the moment that a person is created.

It is hard to imagine any agreement between the two sides when people state their opinions as facts. Not everyone equates a person with a few strands of DNA.

 

[Vastator]

they put on full display their hypocrisy when they fail to acknowledge that conception is the moment that a person is created.

It is hard to imagine any agreement between the two sides when people state their opinions as facts. Not everyone equates a person with a few strands of DNA.

So... When exactly is a person " created"...?

 

[Chuz Life]

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

Of Course.

 

[Chuz Life]

they put on full display their hypocrisy when they fail to acknowledge that conception is the moment that a person is created.

It is hard to imagine any agreement between the two sides when people state their opinions as facts. Not everyone equates a person with a few strands of DNA.

So... When exactly is a person " created"...?

Good idea. Let's start with that.

 

[alang1216]

they put on full display their hypocrisy when they fail to acknowledge that conception is the moment that a person is created.

It is hard to imagine any agreement between the two sides when people state their opinions as facts. Not everyone equates a person with a few strands of DNA.

So... When exactly is a person " created"...?

Sometime after conception and before birth. I'd say the "person" should be distinguishable from other animals and that would mean a functioning human brain.

 

[Chuz Life]

they put on full display their hypocrisy when they fail to acknowledge that conception is the moment that a person is created.

It is hard to imagine any agreement between the two sides when people state their opinions as facts. Not everyone equates a person with a few strands of DNA.

So... When exactly is a person " created"...?

Sometime after conception and before birth. I'd say the "person" should be distinguishable from other animals and that would mean a functioning human brain.

Our fetal homicide laws define a "child in the womb" as a human being in ANY stage of development while in the womb.

That's as inclusive as it gets and leaves no chance that any children might be denied.

What could possibly be wrong with that?