Political Crossfire Forums

[Prole]

Sailor Moon wrote:
No but it means they were not secular. I never said they were right.

Forgive me; I falsely assumed you were presenting said presidents as proof that our society is not secular. Allow me to clarify: our government is secular, and any individual acting on non-secular pretenses is not acting under valid pretenses.

Sailor Moon wrote:
So now youre just argung religion, rather than secularism, it seems. WELL! Thats nt what this debate has turned into. We started talking about souls, and then you decided to turn this into non secular society, which I have obviously refuted as false. Now youre just arguing religion in general... I think that just about covers it.

You have refuted secular society as false? I must have missed it. Heck, the entirity of America must have missed it. Because America remains a secular government.

As per arguing religion, I don't have any interest in arguing that which is a matter of faith, only arguing solely upon that basis. I don't have anything gainst religious people nor do I favor areligious people your strawman claim nonewithstanding.


Prole wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Yes, people can certainly pass anti-abortion legislation on a state level, and it is no secret that religion is used (albeit, not overtly) as justification for many laws. But this is neither just nor valid. It goes against everything that America was founded upon. America was meant to be a land of freedom, freedom from the dominance and persecution of the religious majority. How one can celebrate the reinstatement of such dominance and still think themselves as believing in the values upon which America was founded is beyond me.

Well, allow me to give you the definition of the word "born", for your Constitutional debating purposes:

Well, I never used the word "born" nor have I ever argued that being born was an important distinctibe point, so I am going to ignore your attempt to completely derail this thread. Suffice to say, though, there are numerous other threads addressing abortion's constitutionality, which have all indicated that abortion is permitted though not neccissarily granted as a right by the US constitution.

[Snarf]

Mycroft147 wrote: Does anyone here have an actual sound, logical argument for abortion? Im doing a paper on it, so far i can't find anything that is even minorly convincing to me.
I'm late to the party but this is an easy one. Abortion is natural and most conceptions are aborted. Your issue should start there before moving to induced abortion, which can be a medical necessity, at least if you want to save the life of the woman. A D and C was invented to save the life of a woman stuck with a dead, necrotic fetus inside her. Either it comes out or she more than likely dies.

If you believe in God, then spontaneous abortion is a gift from Him. If you don't, then it's just Nature doing her necessary work to keep life moving ever forward in time...

[Sailor Moon]

Prole wrote: Sailor Moon wrote:
No but it means they were not secular. I never said they were right.

Forgive me; I falsely assumed you were presenting said presidents as proof that our society is not secular. Allow me to clarify: our government is secular, and any individual acting on non-secular pretenses is not acting under valid pretenses.

Wrong again, I WAS saying our society is NOT secular. George Bush makes decisions based on what God tells him... not secular. Secular is when a government figure does his or her religion to make a policy or law. Our Government does this ALL the time, since the writing of the Constitution... notice "our creator"... etc..

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote:
So now youre just argung religion, rather than secularism, it seems. WELL! Thats nt what this debate has turned into. We started talking about souls, and then you decided to turn this into non secular society, which I have obviously refuted as false. Now youre just arguing religion in general... I think that just about covers it.

You have refuted secular society as false? I must have missed it. Heck, the entirity of America must have missed it. Because America remains a secular government.

As per arguing religion, I don't have any interest in arguing that which is a matter of faith, only arguing solely upon that basis. I don't have anything gainst religious people nor do I favor areligious people your strawman claim nonewithstanding.

Yes I did. Did you even read my post, or just start typing?
Hopefully you will read this one a little more closely.

Prole wrote: Yes, people can certainly pass anti-abortion legislation on a state level, and it is no secret that religion is used (albeit, not overtly) as justification for many laws. But this is neither just nor valid. It goes against everything that America was founded upon. America was meant to be a land of freedom, freedom from the dominance and persecution of the religious majority. How one can celebrate the reinstatement of such dominance and still think themselves as believing in the values upon which America was founded is beyond me.

I never said it was valid, Prole.. I said it was non secular. Thank you for finally "getting it".
Quote:
Quote: Well, allow me to give you the definition of the word "born", for your Constitutional debating purposes:

Well, I never used the word "born" nor have I ever argued that being born was an important distinctibe point, so I am going to ignore your attempt to completely derail this thread. Suffice to say, though, there are numerous other threads addressing abortion's constitutionality, which have all indicated that abortion is permitted though not neccissarily granted as a right by the US constitution. [/quote]

All did? Perhaps all, EXCEPT the Constitution... HA :roll:

I also love how you just sidestepped the born issue, while you debate about the founding of this great nation.. Funny, U R...

[whatnotwho]

I know there are some situations like rape, poor health, and such, but those numbers are very small when compared to the number of pregnancies that could have been prevented to start with. Abortion is a convenient escape for the irresponsible.
Abortion should be the exception rather than the rule.
I'm pro-life, but I recognize there are exceptions. Stupidity shouldn't be one of them.

[Selfish_Meme]

whatnotwho wrote: I know there are some situations like rape, poor health, and such, but those numbers are very small when compared to the number of pregnancies that could have been prevented to start with.
By not having sex i assume, because of all the people having sex I would think a vast majority use some form of contraception. I think we calculated that there were around 31 billion instances of sex (280,000,000 x 2 x 56) in the US in a year, but there are only 6 million pregnancies. So there is a lot of contraception going on as only .02% of sex leads to preganancy. Funny thats lower than the statistical failure rate of most contraceptive devices.

whatnotwho wrote: Abortion is a convenient escape for the irresponsible.
Thats a nice throw away line, but is it true? I don'tthink abortion is convenient, safe, nice, gives you a warm and cuddly feeling. What about the alternatives, yes lets continue the pregnancy, face the social stigma, face not having a career, lets be a burden on th community and family around us. Convenient isn't a good word choice.

whatnotwho wrote: Abortion should be the exception rather than the rule. I'm pro-life, but I recognize there are exceptions.
Agreed, we should take away the need for abortion though, rather than try and outlaw it.

whatnotwho wrote: Stupidity shouldn't be one of them.
Well all of the people who fell afoul of the failure rate on contraceptive devices would like to think not.

[Prole]

I am going to choose to sidestep the "born issue" Sailor because I and I believe we have been over it several times. Rehashing the exact same arguements seems a pretty big waste of time to me, though perhaps others would like to debate. I, though, will abstain.

Sailor Moon wrote: George Bush makes decisions based on what God tells him... not secular.
He does not make decisions solely on religious grounds, which makes him quite distinct from those who would ban abortion solely on abortion grounds. He does claim to have divine inspiration, though as far as the justification(s) he provides for war and other issues, it is secular.