Whether or not women have a constitutional right to an abortion is irrelevant. The debate title should be, "Women SHOULD have a Constitutional right to abortion." If you disagree with this, then pick con. The status quo has a place at the table, but many people disagree with it.
There could be some amendment that says, "Abortion is legal nationwide until the moment of birth", and I would argue that that amendment should be repealed even if it's protected.
Anytime someone tells me, "You are a fascist" I should tell them, "I'm a proud fascist since it's synonymous with being republican" and anytime someone tells me, "You are a communist" I should tell them, "I'm a proud communist since it's synonymous with being democrat". In reality, I'm about half and half.
America's 2 major parties: Communists and Fascists. If all left-wing ideas are communist and all right-wing ideas are fascist, then it looks like sometimes I'm a communist and other times I'm a fascist and I'm fine with that title as it would be a common title.
->Trump calls the vaccine his greatest accomplishment
He said that after trashing the COVID vax for months and his base ate it up. He said this when he could call other GOP people cowards for refusing to state whether or not they got the COVID shot.
->kamala harris in the debate with Mike Pence says she will refuse the vaccine because Trump cut red tape so it could help save lives sooner.
Kamala Harris said, "If the doctor says to take it, then I'll take it. If Trump says to take it, then I won't." Kindof like how you would trust a Harvard graduate to help you with your Calculus; but not a 4th grader. A Harvard grad says the derivative of 3x^2 is 6x, you believe him. A 4th grader says the same thing, if you know nothing about Calculus, you don't trust him.
-> I don't think you made it up, only that you don't have a mind of your own, so likely just blindly believed CNN
Times when I disagree with CNN:
1. Abortion
2. Nuclear energy
3. Funding for Ukraine
4. AR 15 legalization and constitutional carry
->Being pro vaccine is not a liberal position. We really need to ban people with IQs below 120 . Stop strawmanning literally everyone
Who are you referring too when you say this? Being pro vaccine is more left than right because Trump talked bad about the vaccines and vaccine mandates and the parties went their own routes on the vaccines and the mandates for COVID.
I got 2 COVID boosters, so on a personal level; I'm about as pro vax as it gets. I'm also very anti vax mandate for COVID and the flu.
->it's not a matter of control, it's solely about safety
A common reason why people advocate control is for safety. Why else would people want to control others? You believe the control is justified (as do I for diseases like Mumps and rubella; but not COVID or the flu).
->i heard and experienced myself certain side effects from the vaccine so i might have to modify the description.
Then do it. Otherwise, you would be having to defend COVID vaccine mandates.
Anybody that believes slavery did not cause the civil war doesn't get to say, "Lincoln the REPUBLICN freed the slaves.".
I believe the person that freed the slaves is a northern republican; so I believe the civil war is about slavery, like entirely so. I believe the confederate flag should be burned and replaced with a 2nd amendment flag. The former flag is a flag of slavery; the ladder flag is a flag of freedom.
I support forcing children to get vaccinated against horrible diseases like smallpox, mumps, rubella, and similar. My two exceptions are the COVID vaccine (and the flu) because way more people are anti COVID vax and COVID is not as deadly or pain producing as smallpox. If I had a kid, then they would be up to date with all vaccinations and I think vaccines should be free because they prevent disease.
Since you are a conservative, I respect you taking this position, but I'm just surprised because being pro vax mandate is a left wing position.
->Its much higher chance than when born at 20-25. Why would someone want to double the amount of disabled kids being born?
It's not that it is desired as much as it can be tolerated for the pursuit of liberty. You can't just go up to every 30-year-old woman and force her to remove her uterus.
->Yes, but currently, we are talking about those over 30 which are just yucky and anyone being attracted to a woman over 30 is worse than a pedophile, because he is going to produce more kids with disabilities, which is great for economy.
The vast majority of kids born to women who are over 30 aren't too severely disabled.
-> Any woman above the age of 30 is just undesirable, ugly and worthless when it comes to sex.
Maybe to you, but everyone has their own tastes. But by you saying this, you think 25 year old women are attractive. So date them instead of dating 9 year old girls.
If the wife consents to her husband watching porn, then is it really that bad? Lets say the husband is into ass licking and the wife isn't, so he gets off on Ass licking Porn. It's better than the husband licking the wife's ass without her consent. I'm not into ass licking; I think it's disgusting.
I understand that perspective, but I'm assuming we both are not married. Get married and see if your perspective changes. It might; it might not. I wouldn't judge people for watching porn while married because I don't know what it's like to be married and nobody is harmed significantly from watching porn if both spouses are ok with it.
Porn is an addiction, but so is tobacco. We aren't going to ban tobacco.
Now, if you want to ban porn, then I wouldn't agree due to my libertarian beliefs, but I would only respect it if you personally haven't watched porn in at least 5 years (and advocate banning all addictive activities like tobacco). You would then be pro safety and by extension; anti liberty. I can respect it if it's consistent. I'm just more libetarian than that. That, and if Biden banned porn, give him the same credit you would give Trump. Policies before politicians.
Be specific when you advocate this claim. There are some gun control measures I support (red flag laws). There are others that I oppose (AR 15 bans, I think background checks should be easier, I support nationwide constitutional carry).
You should read Owen's comment and possibly start a new debate about this.
I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Is consent to smoking consent to lung cancer even if you get addicted? Many want to smoke; nobody wants lung cancer, but if you don't want lung cancer, then never start smoking.
This is true of them and their culture. If you were a white person alive in 1750 in the US South, then to believe that you would have been as hardcore anti slavery as you are today is naive and foolish. We are all products of our culture.
->That's why there are so many denominations of Christianity.
And most of these types of Christianity follow the democrat or republican party more than the bible. The bible says to sell all you have and give to the poor AND to stone homosexuals to death if they go gay sex. Left wing churches find the ladder hate speech and right wing churches find the former socialism.
->While I believe, I also understand that the people who wrote scripture were all racist white men.
The Bible was written by a bunch of Middle easterners. If you think they are white, then fine.
I am unconditionally opposed to imprisonment as a punishment for a crime because it's a free ride for prisoners that the taxpayer has to pay for. Find an alternative penalty (community service should be fine unless a minor dies from your drugs, then it's death).
->That is a good point, but then how would we choose what religion is the right religion.
What if I were to say that religions are like jobs; it doesn't matter which one you pick; they will all keep you alive (whether on earth or in the afterlife), but you better have a job and you better do everything that job wants you to do (assuming atheism is false).
You said you are Christain, and the only people that get to make the, "How do we know which religion is the right religion?" argument are atheists. Everyone else assumes their religion is correct.
I just happen to believe atheism is true and if Christianity is real, then that means I would have to abide by all of the horrible bible verses which I don't want to do.
->Leftism is essentially an ideology of weakness. It's collectivist in nature.
It's collectivist to ban weed for the good of the collective. We all know which party wants to ban weed.
->It's why when they talk about taxing billionaires, there is more energy behind it than when they say "let's help the poor." .
Taxing the billionaires (aka the globalists) is how you help out the poor (aka red blooded American Patriots) with government spending on colleges, healthcare, and housing.
->This weakness can be seen in the numerous studies showing that right wingers are more likely to go to the gym[2]
The right also has a lot of Obese people. It's not like going to the gym or being Obese is an indicator of how good your ideology is. The #1 right winger (Trump) is obese. Obama has been to the gym more than Trump has.
->Leftism is pro Women's Suffrage which has been terrible for influencing public policy
Letting women vote is a good thing. The 1st state to let women vote was far left Wyoming. Note, my belief is that positions on issues settled decades ago are irrelevant; it's why I don't accuse the modern day former confederacy of being pro slavery; because the issue is settled and has been for decades.
->WOMEN ARE LIBERAL
Who cares?
->You can take on an experiment right now. Go ahead and increase your risk of walking across your house with your eyes closed, and then do it with your eyes open. Were you more cautious when the level of danger increased? Did you walk slower? Shuffle your feet to avoid tripping?
I was more cautious with my eyes closed, but what's your point?
->It’s better for children when families stay together.
This is true. The right wants to separate more families than the left does (deportation).
->This is where the redpill philosophy of “alpha fucks Beta Bucks” comes in. Women will seek high quality sperm whether they’re married or not, but want a long term partner to ensure that she and the child is taken care of. If the Beta bucks partner is fooled into thinking the child is his, This works best.
Step dads exist. What's your point? Foster dads exist. Are you going to call them betas too? If you were a kid raised by a single mom, you would want a step dad. Be grateful for step dads; don't label them as, "Cucks". There would be way more single motherhood without them.
->After women gained political power they pushed for laws that allowed alimony to be awarded in no fault divorces.
Look bud, if you want there to be tougher laws around divorce, then fine. Honestly, I would sign a pre nup and would refuse to marry a woman who didn't agree to it. But many people disagree with you on this, so it's not an objective reason why women should be barred from voting. If you don't want to risk divorce, then don't marry. When women age, they lose their value quicker than men do. A 50 year old man is attractive to women; a 50 year old woman is not. She knows whoever she marries is often (especially when she's old) is going to be the best man she will get. She won't divorce unless there is ample reason to; otherwise divorce rates would be like at 95% or something like that and nobody would marry. My rule with cheating is if either spouse cheats, then the cheater loses all of their money.
Your argument is leftism bad because woman are more likely to be leftist and women shouldn't be allowed to vote. That's not a good argument.
My reason actually for preferring leftism to conservatism is because the left actually has a consistent ethos; the right does not. The left wing consistent ethos is being anti unwanted pain (AUP). The right wing has no consistent ethos except, "Owning the libs" by making horrible arguments like claiming women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
To play Devils Advocate, lets say god is real, heaven is real, heaven is eternal and intense joy, hell is eternal and intense torment.
A Pure Theocracy causes less people to go to hell and more people to go to heaven. Surely the eternity and the billions of years should matter more than the 75-85 years you live in this planet.
If a vendor sells those to kids, then they should do community service for some amount of time and if they run off, then you get the whip. If any youth dies from the drugs, then swift beheading. Their blood and organs would be useful.
I think banning recreational drugs for people under the age of 16 is just common sense, and I'm very libertarian on drugs (I think 16 should be the legal age for weed, tobacco, and alcohol).
->Also there is no obligation in the Catholic Church to circumcise
I understand that, but my argument is circumcising infants is the genital mutilation of kids (I treat genders surgeries pretty much the same way), so it should be illegal. If your religion says you should get circumcised, then you do it when you are old enough and can make a free choice at that point.
It should be the child's choice when they are old enough, not their parent's choice.
Infant circumcision (excluding medical reason) is not only immoral, it should be illegal and the punishment should be the same thing as child rape. I believe in this thing called high slope LAW AND ORDER. I stand against groomers! (Every Catholic Priest that circumcises an infant without medical use and every parent that corporates) after a certain date to me is a groomer that should face my ideal penalty for child rape; the electric chair. Their blood and organs should be taken from them and it should go to save the lives of American Patriots. I believe in law and order. Priests are the real child abusers and groomers; not drag queens. Enforcing this would give many respectable law enforcement officers jobs in protecting children by keeping them away from theocratic groomers. Save the children!
->A female according to a search on Google: "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes."
This is a bad definition for what a woman is. I have a better one.
I don't support either party, but I prefer the Democrats to the Republicans simply because the Democrats have a consistent ethos (reducing unwanted pain). The republicans don't. I'm more libertarian, but I respect a party with a different ethos over a party with no ethos at all.
->If being a doctor implies consent to performing an abortion, and consent can be revoked, then the doctor could revoke that consent when an abortion is requested.
Good point, and this is my position; that doctors shouldn't be forced to do abortions (but should be allowed too if they are pro choice).
I can tell that if the Overton window shifts on this issue from, "Should a pro-choice doctor be allowed to act on their beliefs and get an abortion?" to, "Should a pro-life doctor be allowed to act on their beliefs and refuse to perform an abortion when asked to by a woman who (obviously) is pro choice?" and a bunch of ARFs (Abortion Receiving Females) came out as republican, then there would be the initial right wing outrage of, "How dare they try and turn our party into the left on this issue", but then as soon as the ARFs come out and say that pro life doctors shouldn't be forced to perform abortions (kindof like when Dave Rubin said religious cake makers shouldn't be forced to make a gay cake), then just as the right accepted Dave Rubin being homosexual once he leaned into a right wing talking point rather than call himself a conservative, the right would be pro ARF (aka pro choice) (but only for the right wing ARFs that lean into right wing views on abortions). It would make conservatives more electable while giving the left a win on the issue of abortion.
Once the right lets the ARFs in as they did with the homosexuals, they can no longer claim they want Christain values in this country. But hey; nothing says, "Owning the libs" by adopting their policies from 5 years ago.
->Sure, but then the doctor could also revoke consent to performing the operation (or even being a doctor at all).
You aren't legally required to be a doctor. But what doctor performs half of an abortion? If they are pro-choice, then they do the full abortion. If they are pro-life, then they don't do it at all.
->Most abortion advocates would say that consent can be revoked at any time.
For certain things, EVERYONE says that (like sex; consent can be revoked at any time). If the woman wants the abortion to stop, then she is allowed to have it stop. Pro choices agree with this because "her body, her choice" and pro-lifers agree with this because they view abortion as murder.
To play Devils Advocate, if they don't want to do that, then they just don't become a doctor. Like nobody is saying you should be forced to fix my sink if it breaks, but if you are unwilling to fix my sink, then don't expect me to pay you for fixing my sink. If fixing your sink somehow violates your religious or moral beliefs, then don't work for a plumbing company. Like, I'm vegan; I believe eating animals is unjustified in modern society. If I work at a restaurant and someone wants to have a chicken sandwich, then I have to serve them a chicken sandwich even if what they are doing I believe is an unjustified homicide. But if you are a vegan, then you wouldn't want to work at a farm where they are killing animals.
It seems to be more pragmatic to just have the abortion done by a pro choice doctor and let the pro-lifer do some other work; maybe prescribe someone medicine while the abortion is being done.
Whether or not women have a constitutional right to an abortion is irrelevant. The debate title should be, "Women SHOULD have a Constitutional right to abortion." If you disagree with this, then pick con. The status quo has a place at the table, but many people disagree with it.
There could be some amendment that says, "Abortion is legal nationwide until the moment of birth", and I would argue that that amendment should be repealed even if it's protected.
Bad laws should get eliminated.
Our schools should have airport-style security. It works with airports; there hasn't been a terrorist attack since.
You are right.
Anytime someone tells me, "You are a fascist" I should tell them, "I'm a proud fascist since it's synonymous with being republican" and anytime someone tells me, "You are a communist" I should tell them, "I'm a proud communist since it's synonymous with being democrat". In reality, I'm about half and half.
America's 2 major parties: Communists and Fascists. If all left-wing ideas are communist and all right-wing ideas are fascist, then it looks like sometimes I'm a communist and other times I'm a fascist and I'm fine with that title as it would be a common title.
@Wylted
Although I don’t see anything wrong with eating corn. It’s food.
Seeing that you meant corn and not porn is funny. LOL.
@WyIted
->Trump calls the vaccine his greatest accomplishment
He said that after trashing the COVID vax for months and his base ate it up. He said this when he could call other GOP people cowards for refusing to state whether or not they got the COVID shot.
->kamala harris in the debate with Mike Pence says she will refuse the vaccine because Trump cut red tape so it could help save lives sooner.
Kamala Harris said, "If the doctor says to take it, then I'll take it. If Trump says to take it, then I won't." Kindof like how you would trust a Harvard graduate to help you with your Calculus; but not a 4th grader. A Harvard grad says the derivative of 3x^2 is 6x, you believe him. A 4th grader says the same thing, if you know nothing about Calculus, you don't trust him.
-> I don't think you made it up, only that you don't have a mind of your own, so likely just blindly believed CNN
Times when I disagree with CNN:
1. Abortion
2. Nuclear energy
3. Funding for Ukraine
4. AR 15 legalization and constitutional carry
I'm not a left wing hack.
@WyIted
->Being pro vaccine is not a liberal position. We really need to ban people with IQs below 120 . Stop strawmanning literally everyone
Who are you referring too when you say this? Being pro vaccine is more left than right because Trump talked bad about the vaccines and vaccine mandates and the parties went their own routes on the vaccines and the mandates for COVID.
I got 2 COVID boosters, so on a personal level; I'm about as pro vax as it gets. I'm also very anti vax mandate for COVID and the flu.
->it's not a matter of control, it's solely about safety
A common reason why people advocate control is for safety. Why else would people want to control others? You believe the control is justified (as do I for diseases like Mumps and rubella; but not COVID or the flu).
->i heard and experienced myself certain side effects from the vaccine so i might have to modify the description.
Then do it. Otherwise, you would be having to defend COVID vaccine mandates.
Anybody that believes slavery did not cause the civil war doesn't get to say, "Lincoln the REPUBLICN freed the slaves.".
I believe the person that freed the slaves is a northern republican; so I believe the civil war is about slavery, like entirely so. I believe the confederate flag should be burned and replaced with a 2nd amendment flag. The former flag is a flag of slavery; the ladder flag is a flag of freedom.
I support forcing children to get vaccinated against horrible diseases like smallpox, mumps, rubella, and similar. My two exceptions are the COVID vaccine (and the flu) because way more people are anti COVID vax and COVID is not as deadly or pain producing as smallpox. If I had a kid, then they would be up to date with all vaccinations and I think vaccines should be free because they prevent disease.
Since you are a conservative, I respect you taking this position, but I'm just surprised because being pro vax mandate is a left wing position.
->Its much higher chance than when born at 20-25. Why would someone want to double the amount of disabled kids being born?
It's not that it is desired as much as it can be tolerated for the pursuit of liberty. You can't just go up to every 30-year-old woman and force her to remove her uterus.
->Yes, but currently, we are talking about those over 30 which are just yucky and anyone being attracted to a woman over 30 is worse than a pedophile, because he is going to produce more kids with disabilities, which is great for economy.
The vast majority of kids born to women who are over 30 aren't too severely disabled.
-> Women past age 30 just give birth to more defective children, more down syndrome, more autism...ect.
Any woman of any age can plausibly give birth to an autistic kid.
-> If you are attracted to women over 30, something is biologically wrong with you.
Your argument is, “If you are attracted to those that can’t give you good quality children, then something is biologically wrong with you.”
This argument can be used to say that homosexuals and PEDOPHILLES (your group) have something biologically wrong with them.
-> Any woman above the age of 30 is just undesirable, ugly and worthless when it comes to sex.
Maybe to you, but everyone has their own tastes. But by you saying this, you think 25 year old women are attractive. So date them instead of dating 9 year old girls.
@Wylted
This can be applied to any woman. Greta Thumberg is someone’s daughter; that doesn’t mean society should treat her as sacred.
I’m sort of neutral, but if you are advocating this position, then the moment you get a girlfriend, you don’t get to use porn anymore.
Maybe modify your debate title to, "Married men should stop it with all the corn consumption unless their wife is alright with them watching corn".
I disagree, but don't have the energy to take this debate.
If the wife consents to her husband watching porn, then is it really that bad? Lets say the husband is into ass licking and the wife isn't, so he gets off on Ass licking Porn. It's better than the husband licking the wife's ass without her consent. I'm not into ass licking; I think it's disgusting.
I understand that perspective, but I'm assuming we both are not married. Get married and see if your perspective changes. It might; it might not. I wouldn't judge people for watching porn while married because I don't know what it's like to be married and nobody is harmed significantly from watching porn if both spouses are ok with it.
Do you watch porn even occasionally? Yes or no.
Porn is an addiction, but so is tobacco. We aren't going to ban tobacco.
Now, if you want to ban porn, then I wouldn't agree due to my libertarian beliefs, but I would only respect it if you personally haven't watched porn in at least 5 years (and advocate banning all addictive activities like tobacco). You would then be pro safety and by extension; anti liberty. I can respect it if it's consistent. I'm just more libetarian than that. That, and if Biden banned porn, give him the same credit you would give Trump. Policies before politicians.
Concede publicly in the debate so voters know you concede.
If you watch porn even occasionally (most men do), then you have no place voting for Trump. He supports Project 2025 (which would ban porn).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025#Census_citizenship_question
Be specific when you advocate this claim. There are some gun control measures I support (red flag laws). There are others that I oppose (AR 15 bans, I think background checks should be easier, I support nationwide constitutional carry).
Does this count as more or less gun control?
You should read Owen's comment and possibly start a new debate about this.
I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Is consent to smoking consent to lung cancer even if you get addicted? Many want to smoke; nobody wants lung cancer, but if you don't want lung cancer, then never start smoking.
Either play Devils Advocate or concede and let Mall claim an easy victory.
Also, don't tie yourself to, "Because I disagree with Person A on 1 issue, I must disagree with Person A on every issue".
Richard Spencer can say "Women should be allowed the right to vote" and I'm going to agree with him on at least THAT.
I want to vote on this debate. Can you remind me when it's done?
Your profile says you are a female. You can't get anyone pregnant unless you are a trans woman.
I voted. Read my RFD; it contains useful information.
This is true of them and their culture. If you were a white person alive in 1750 in the US South, then to believe that you would have been as hardcore anti slavery as you are today is naive and foolish. We are all products of our culture.
->That's why there are so many denominations of Christianity.
And most of these types of Christianity follow the democrat or republican party more than the bible. The bible says to sell all you have and give to the poor AND to stone homosexuals to death if they go gay sex. Left wing churches find the ladder hate speech and right wing churches find the former socialism.
->While I believe, I also understand that the people who wrote scripture were all racist white men.
The Bible was written by a bunch of Middle easterners. If you think they are white, then fine.
I am unconditionally opposed to imprisonment as a punishment for a crime because it's a free ride for prisoners that the taxpayer has to pay for. Find an alternative penalty (community service should be fine unless a minor dies from your drugs, then it's death).
->That is a good point, but then how would we choose what religion is the right religion.
What if I were to say that religions are like jobs; it doesn't matter which one you pick; they will all keep you alive (whether on earth or in the afterlife), but you better have a job and you better do everything that job wants you to do (assuming atheism is false).
You said you are Christain, and the only people that get to make the, "How do we know which religion is the right religion?" argument are atheists. Everyone else assumes their religion is correct.
I just happen to believe atheism is true and if Christianity is real, then that means I would have to abide by all of the horrible bible verses which I don't want to do.
->Leftism is essentially an ideology of weakness. It's collectivist in nature.
It's collectivist to ban weed for the good of the collective. We all know which party wants to ban weed.
->It's why when they talk about taxing billionaires, there is more energy behind it than when they say "let's help the poor." .
Taxing the billionaires (aka the globalists) is how you help out the poor (aka red blooded American Patriots) with government spending on colleges, healthcare, and housing.
->This weakness can be seen in the numerous studies showing that right wingers are more likely to go to the gym[2]
The right also has a lot of Obese people. It's not like going to the gym or being Obese is an indicator of how good your ideology is. The #1 right winger (Trump) is obese. Obama has been to the gym more than Trump has.
->Leftism is pro Women's Suffrage which has been terrible for influencing public policy
Letting women vote is a good thing. The 1st state to let women vote was far left Wyoming. Note, my belief is that positions on issues settled decades ago are irrelevant; it's why I don't accuse the modern day former confederacy of being pro slavery; because the issue is settled and has been for decades.
->WOMEN ARE LIBERAL
Who cares?
->You can take on an experiment right now. Go ahead and increase your risk of walking across your house with your eyes closed, and then do it with your eyes open. Were you more cautious when the level of danger increased? Did you walk slower? Shuffle your feet to avoid tripping?
I was more cautious with my eyes closed, but what's your point?
->It’s better for children when families stay together.
This is true. The right wants to separate more families than the left does (deportation).
->This is where the redpill philosophy of “alpha fucks Beta Bucks” comes in. Women will seek high quality sperm whether they’re married or not, but want a long term partner to ensure that she and the child is taken care of. If the Beta bucks partner is fooled into thinking the child is his, This works best.
Step dads exist. What's your point? Foster dads exist. Are you going to call them betas too? If you were a kid raised by a single mom, you would want a step dad. Be grateful for step dads; don't label them as, "Cucks". There would be way more single motherhood without them.
->After women gained political power they pushed for laws that allowed alimony to be awarded in no fault divorces.
Look bud, if you want there to be tougher laws around divorce, then fine. Honestly, I would sign a pre nup and would refuse to marry a woman who didn't agree to it. But many people disagree with you on this, so it's not an objective reason why women should be barred from voting. If you don't want to risk divorce, then don't marry. When women age, they lose their value quicker than men do. A 50 year old man is attractive to women; a 50 year old woman is not. She knows whoever she marries is often (especially when she's old) is going to be the best man she will get. She won't divorce unless there is ample reason to; otherwise divorce rates would be like at 95% or something like that and nobody would marry. My rule with cheating is if either spouse cheats, then the cheater loses all of their money.
Your argument is leftism bad because woman are more likely to be leftist and women shouldn't be allowed to vote. That's not a good argument.
My reason actually for preferring leftism to conservatism is because the left actually has a consistent ethos; the right does not. The left wing consistent ethos is being anti unwanted pain (AUP). The right wing has no consistent ethos except, "Owning the libs" by making horrible arguments like claiming women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
To play Devils Advocate, lets say god is real, heaven is real, heaven is eternal and intense joy, hell is eternal and intense torment.
A Pure Theocracy causes less people to go to hell and more people to go to heaven. Surely the eternity and the billions of years should matter more than the 75-85 years you live in this planet.
If a vendor sells those to kids, then they should do community service for some amount of time and if they run off, then you get the whip. If any youth dies from the drugs, then swift beheading. Their blood and organs would be useful.
Dang; imagine losing a debate to someone that is banned while they are debating you.
I think banning recreational drugs for people under the age of 16 is just common sense, and I'm very libertarian on drugs (I think 16 should be the legal age for weed, tobacco, and alcohol).
->Also there is no obligation in the Catholic Church to circumcise
I understand that, but my argument is circumcising infants is the genital mutilation of kids (I treat genders surgeries pretty much the same way), so it should be illegal. If your religion says you should get circumcised, then you do it when you are old enough and can make a free choice at that point.
It should be the child's choice when they are old enough, not their parent's choice.
My response got big. I'll just send you the link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oL_UynPUIABEF8gxRRvQllPxBRlyo4vKET6-QbwSJfg/edit
This can apply to all abortions. I can argue any human has stupid genes.
All pregnancies are a threat to the mother's life even if it's a small threat.
The same penalty for those giving gender surgeries to 5 year olds who haven't been on HRT for at least 1 year.
I'm consistent; the partisans won't be.
Infant circumcision (excluding medical reason) is not only immoral, it should be illegal and the punishment should be the same thing as child rape. I believe in this thing called high slope LAW AND ORDER. I stand against groomers! (Every Catholic Priest that circumcises an infant without medical use and every parent that corporates) after a certain date to me is a groomer that should face my ideal penalty for child rape; the electric chair. Their blood and organs should be taken from them and it should go to save the lives of American Patriots. I believe in law and order. Priests are the real child abusers and groomers; not drag queens. Enforcing this would give many respectable law enforcement officers jobs in protecting children by keeping them away from theocratic groomers. Save the children!
->A female according to a search on Google: "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes."
This is a bad definition for what a woman is. I have a better one.
I don't support either party, but I prefer the Democrats to the Republicans simply because the Democrats have a consistent ethos (reducing unwanted pain). The republicans don't. I'm more libertarian, but I respect a party with a different ethos over a party with no ethos at all.
->If being a doctor implies consent to performing an abortion, and consent can be revoked, then the doctor could revoke that consent when an abortion is requested.
Good point, and this is my position; that doctors shouldn't be forced to do abortions (but should be allowed too if they are pro choice).
I can tell that if the Overton window shifts on this issue from, "Should a pro-choice doctor be allowed to act on their beliefs and get an abortion?" to, "Should a pro-life doctor be allowed to act on their beliefs and refuse to perform an abortion when asked to by a woman who (obviously) is pro choice?" and a bunch of ARFs (Abortion Receiving Females) came out as republican, then there would be the initial right wing outrage of, "How dare they try and turn our party into the left on this issue", but then as soon as the ARFs come out and say that pro life doctors shouldn't be forced to perform abortions (kindof like when Dave Rubin said religious cake makers shouldn't be forced to make a gay cake), then just as the right accepted Dave Rubin being homosexual once he leaned into a right wing talking point rather than call himself a conservative, the right would be pro ARF (aka pro choice) (but only for the right wing ARFs that lean into right wing views on abortions). It would make conservatives more electable while giving the left a win on the issue of abortion.
Once the right lets the ARFs in as they did with the homosexuals, they can no longer claim they want Christain values in this country. But hey; nothing says, "Owning the libs" by adopting their policies from 5 years ago.
->Sure, but then the doctor could also revoke consent to performing the operation (or even being a doctor at all).
You aren't legally required to be a doctor. But what doctor performs half of an abortion? If they are pro-choice, then they do the full abortion. If they are pro-life, then they don't do it at all.
->Most abortion advocates would say that consent can be revoked at any time.
For certain things, EVERYONE says that (like sex; consent can be revoked at any time). If the woman wants the abortion to stop, then she is allowed to have it stop. Pro choices agree with this because "her body, her choice" and pro-lifers agree with this because they view abortion as murder.
To play Devils Advocate, if they don't want to do that, then they just don't become a doctor. Like nobody is saying you should be forced to fix my sink if it breaks, but if you are unwilling to fix my sink, then don't expect me to pay you for fixing my sink. If fixing your sink somehow violates your religious or moral beliefs, then don't work for a plumbing company. Like, I'm vegan; I believe eating animals is unjustified in modern society. If I work at a restaurant and someone wants to have a chicken sandwich, then I have to serve them a chicken sandwich even if what they are doing I believe is an unjustified homicide. But if you are a vegan, then you wouldn't want to work at a farm where they are killing animals.
It seems to be more pragmatic to just have the abortion done by a pro choice doctor and let the pro-lifer do some other work; maybe prescribe someone medicine while the abortion is being done.