(Soon to be) Former President Donald Trump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

So the decision on abortion has been handed back to the states and therefore the people. The way it should have been all along. This isn’t a ban on abortion, if the people who live in each state want it, they will vote for those who will give them it.

---

You DO have a point of course, it’s democracy to a point. But 85% of US citizens want to retain abortion with certain controls and oversights, what about that vast majority that have their constitutional right removed? The militant right have control over the Republican Party now. That’s fine, major companies and investors will start to avoid otherwise booming urban centres like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas and New Orleans because successful people will start to avoid those places and the South and Rural America will get poorer for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

So the decision on abortion has been handed back to the states and therefore the people. The way it should have been all along. This isn’t a ban on abortion, if the people who live in each state want it, they will vote for those who will give them it.

---

What? And what about equal protection under the law? What about those women who vote for it but are denied abortion rights? It shouldn't depend upon accident of birth. A woman in Mississippi shouldn't have fewer rights than a woman in California.

If Republican states vote to bring back slavery, would that be okay? Anything the majority wants is okay. If they vote to allow stoning to death of homosexuals, that's okay, they voted for it in Alabama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

So the decision on abortion has been handed back to the states and therefore the people. The way it should have been all along. This isn’t a ban on abortion, if the people who live in each state want it, they will vote for those who will give them it.

---

Does that apply to other civil rights. Should they be able to outlaw homosexuality and introduce slavery if the majority want it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

So the decision on abortion has been handed back to the states and therefore the people. The way it should have been all along. This isn’t a ban on abortion, if the people who live in each state want it, they will vote for those who will give them it.

---

Your either half daft or fishing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibby70

Does that apply to other civil rights. Should they be able to outlaw homosexuality and introduce slavery if the majority want it?

---

Today's announcement has also come with a mention of "Reviewing" same sex and inter-racial marriage along with access to contraception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibby70

Does that apply to other civil rights. Should they be able to outlaw homosexuality and introduce slavery if the majority want it?

---

Yep and lynching and flogging, give the public their choice. Ban unemployment pay, transgender rights and separate water fountains. You want it you got it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibsbollah

You DO have a point of course, it’s democracy to a point. But 85% of US citizens want to retain abortion with certain controls and oversights, what about that vast majority that have their constitutional right removed? The militant right have control over the Republican Party now. That’s fine, major companies and investors will start to avoid otherwise booming urban centres like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas and New Orleans because successful people will start to avoid those places and the South and Rural America will get poorer for it.

---

Certain controls and oversights - that’s quite broad and I would be genuinely interested to know what that meant. Most states that have trigger laws that oppose unfettered abortion, still have some conditions like the welfare of the mother being in jeopardy.

Does the 85% you quoted cover that as a “control or oversight”?

I don’t believe this was ever an issue for the Supreme Court and it’s now with the people. I dislike how the Democrats and left are positioning this as a ban on abortion when it isn’t.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Your either half daft or fishing?

---

Neither mate, maybe just differ in opinion to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibby70

Does that apply to other civil rights. Should they be able to outlaw homosexuality and introduce slavery if the majority want it?

---

Although this is a straw man as well as a dig at me, its an interesting question. At which point does democracy have to be set aside in the name of morality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Neither mate, maybe just differ in opinion to you.

---

But it's nuts. Democracy isn't the same thing as mob rule. There are rights that all must have, in order to protect minorities. Where would you stop, if you go down the line that every majority decision must be carried out? If the public votes to forcibly sterilise everyone with red hair, in order to remove the ginger gene from the gene pool, is that okay? What if the majority votes to euthanise gypsies and execute shoplifters? What are the limits?

Your argument supports the majority always getting their way in law. For the minority it's just tough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

But it's nuts. Democracy isn't the same thing as mob rule. There are rights that all must have, in order to protect minorities. Where would you stop, if you go down the line that every majority decision must be carried out? If the public votes to forcibly sterilise everyone with red hair, in order to remove the ginger gene from the gene pool, is that okay? What if the majority votes to euthanise gypsies and execute shoplifters? What are the limits?

---

It’s not mob rule. It’s voting for what you want.

What is the alternative? Let’s use your ridiculous example about people with red hair. What if the government or some court decided to sterilise them all against the democratic will of the people who live there? Is that fine because those in charge think it’s right?

It works both ways. In your world it’s better the minority get what they want over the majority? That makes no sense. I suggest you just don’t agree with what the majority in these states want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

It’s not mob rule. It’s voting for what you want.

What is the alternative? Let’s use your ridiculous example about people with red hair. What if the government or some court decided to sterilise them all against the democratic will of the people who live there? Is that fine because those in charge think it’s right?

It works both ways. In your world it’s better the minority get what they want over the majority? That makes no sense. I suggest you just don’t agree with what the majority in these states want.

---

It's not really.

What about the women who vote for abortion rights in their State, but are outvoted? Is that fair? Is it fair, for example, that men should have a say?

I agree. If Americans want this then they have to make it happen. Relying on interpretations of judges of the constitution is a ridiculous way to run a country. Is that much different than allowing priests or imans to interpret the bible or Quran and making it law?
They need to take decisions out of the hands of the judges. They complain that the Supreme Court has become politicised but how could it not be when they allow it to make such massive decisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

It’s not mob rule. It’s voting for what you want.

What is the alternative? Let’s use your ridiculous example about people with red hair. What if the government or some court decided to sterilise them all against the democratic will of the people who live there? Is that fine because those in charge think it’s right?

It works both ways. In your world it’s better the minority get what they want over the majority? That makes no sense. I suggest you just don’t agree with what the majority in these states want.

---

It doesn't work both ways. There are fundamental human and civil rights that the majority must never be allowed to vote away from the minority simply because they don't like them. No population or court can remove them. The moment you say anything goes according to a majority, those protections are gone. Can you imagine a referendum just now on what should happen to refugees. It wouldn't surprise me if a majority in the UK voted in favour of putting them in concentration camps, for example, such is the toxicity of the issue. Does that mean it should happen? No, because every human has rights that cannot be breached. Democracy must come with safeguards. Mob rule would quickly lead to the breakdown of society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It's not really.

What about the women who vote for abortion rights in their State, but are outvoted? Is that fair? Is it fair, for example, that men should have a say?

---

That’s called democracy. What if at the next opportunity the state voted FOR abortion.

Is that fair on all the women who are against it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

That’s called democracy. What if at the next opportunity the state voted FOR abortion.

Is that fair on all the women who are against it?

---

But is isn't; it's called mob rule. Democracy is something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

It doesn't work both ways. There are fundamental human and civil rights that the majority must never be allowed to vote away from the minority simply because they don't like them. No population or court can remove them. The moment you say anything goes according to a majority, those protections are gone. Can you imagine a referendum just now on what should happen to refugees. It wouldn't surprise me if a majority in the UK voted in favour of putting them in concentration camps, for example, such is the toxicity of the issue. Does that mean it should happen? No, because every human has rights that cannot be breached. Democracy must come with safeguards. Mob rule would quickly lead to the breakdown of society.

---

So who decides these safeguards? A court? A President? You?

I don’t believe killing unborn children is a fundamental human or civil right. I believe the right of these children to live is the only human right worth discussing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

So who decides these safeguards? A court? A President? You?

I don’t believe killing unborn children is a fundamental human or civil right. I believe the right of these children to live is the only human right worth discussing.

---

And if one person’s human rights caused deliberate and lasting harm to another human being? Does the foetus’s human rights trump the mother’s human rights?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

So who decides these safeguards? A court? A President? You?

I don’t believe killing unborn children is a fundamental human or civil right. I believe the right of these children to live is the only human right worth discussing.

---

International human rights law is a good place to start.

The rights of the embryo/foetus isn't the ONLY right discussing. You are disregarding the woman and effectively saying you will force her to give birth against her will. Who are you, or anybody else, to force your views upon her? Nobody is saying you must have an abortion, but you don't have the right to make that decision for others. You must have heard the phrase ' your freedom ends where my freedom begins'. You are free from being persecuted by others, but you can't persecute them either. That's essential part of a democracy, it's called the rule of law. You are proposing abandoning the rule of law so that minorities can be persecuted by any vote from a majority wishing them harm. It's insane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

And if one person’s human rights caused deliberate and lasting harm to another human being? Does the foetus’s human rights trump the mother’s human rights?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

The child’s right to live trumps the mothers right to use abortion as a matter of convenience, yes. And this is what abortion is used for in the vast majority of cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

So who decides these safeguards? A court? A President? You?

I don’t believe killing unborn children is a fundamental human or civil right. I believe the right of these children to live is the only human right worth discussing.

---

Now you are admitting your pro-life anti abortion bias

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba

International human rights law is a good place to start.

The rights of the embryo/foetus isn't the ONLY right discussing. You are disregarding the woman and effectively saying you will force her to give birth against her will. Who are you, or anybody else, to force your views upon her? Nobody is saying you must have an abortion, but you don't have the right to make that decision for others. You must have heard the phrase ' your freedom ends where my freedom begins'. You are free from being persecuted by others, but you can't persecute them either. That's essential part of a democracy, it's called the rule of law. You are proposing abandoning the rule of law so that minorities can be persecuted by any vote from a majority wishing them harm. It's insane.

---

Well this is where we differ. Clearly you don’t believe an unborn child is a person and therefore has no rights? I believe they are viable people and to kill then as a matter of convenience is wrong. Somehow that’s become an evil immoral stance to take in todays world but there we go.

Nobody is forcing the woman to do anything. She is responsible for herself and for getting pregnant (other than in cases of rape where I believe abortion should be an option). Once pregnant, I don’t believe anyone has a right to kill the child unless in extreme circumstances.

I believe the rule of law should apply to everyone, especially the most vulnerable- like baby’s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Now you are admitting your pro-life anti abortion bias

---

Yes I’m pro life and I’m anti abortion. I’m not afraid or ashamed to say that.

I don’t believe killing the unborn is right, somehow I’m the bad guy. So be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Yep and lynching and flogging, give the public their choice. Ban unemployment pay, transgender rights and separate water fountains. You want it you got it

---

I've heard summary execution is on the cards for people driving slower than 55 on the highway, unless they're listening to country and western of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Well this is where we differ. Clearly you don’t believe an unborn child is a person and therefore has no rights? I believe they are viable people and to kill then as a matter of convenience is wrong. Somehow that’s become an evil immoral stance to take in todays world but there we go.

Nobody is forcing the woman to do anything. She is responsible for herself and for getting pregnant (other than in cases of rape where I believe abortion should be an option). Once pregnant, I don’t believe anyone has a right to kill the child unless in extreme circumstances.

I believe the rule of law should apply to everyone, especially the lost venerable - like baby’s.

---

You mean that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Certain controls and oversights - that’s quite broad and I would be genuinely interested to know what that meant. Most states that have trigger laws that oppose unfettered abortion, still have some conditions like the welfare of the mother being in jeopardy.

Does the 85% you quoted cover that as a “control or oversight”?

I don’t believe this was ever an issue for the Supreme Court and it’s now with the people. I dislike how the Democrats and left are positioning this as a ban on abortion when it isn’t.

---

Controls and oversights refer to all the mitigating circumstances that Alabama has just positioned itself to the outside of- in cases of rape, incest, rape AND incest, where the mother is in imminent medical danger and that sort of stuff. And of course early abortions where there is barely a foetus formed. The situations where even fundamentalist clerical states like Iran allow abortion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

You mean that?

---

Emm…..yep!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

The child’s right to live trumps the mothers right to use abortion as a matter of convenience, yes. And this is what abortion is used for in the vast majority of cases.

---

You are really badly informed on this subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Emm…..yep!

---

So by that, you mean that the man has no responsibilty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mcbizz1998

Well this is where we differ. Clearly you don’t believe an unborn child is a person and therefore has no rights? I believe they are viable people and to kill then as a matter of convenience is wrong. Somehow that’s become an evil immoral stance to take in todays world but there we go.

Nobody is forcing the woman to do anything. She is responsible for herself and for getting pregnant (other than in cases of rape where I believe abortion should be an option). Once pregnant, I don’t believe anyone has a right to kill the child unless in extreme circumstances.

I believe the rule of law should apply to everyone, especially the most vulnerable- like baby’s.

---

Holy ****.