Abortion

Started by Ymir787 pages

Rule of the majority, while still keeping a rule of law. The United States is not a pure democracy, because it is a republic. This is all I've been saying.

What you are saying is that governments are absolute. Can you not be a republic, and a democracy, if there are various definitions of democracy?

Originally posted by Ymir
Rule of the majority, while still keeping a rule of law. The United States is not a pure democracy, because it is a republic. This is all I've been saying.

What you are saying is that governments are absolute. Can you not be a republic, and a democracy, if there are various definitions of democracy?

In order to be a Democracy, the majority/People must rule. The definition of a Democracy is "Rule of The People",sure there rule can be excersized to many different ways. But, in the end Democracy= Rule of The People.

The majority do rule. The law protects the rights of minorities. That is all a republic is. Rule by law. The United States has elements of both forms of government. That is why the United States has a democratic process, while being a republic. I would agree that the term 'democracy' is not applicable in the strictest sense to the United States, but that the United States is a form of democracy.

Originally posted by Ymir
The majority do rule.

No, they do not:

-They Don't Elect
-They do not pass laws
-They aren't involved in any descion makes or truly elect there representatives

So, how do they rule?

They are protected by laws.

Originally posted by Ymir

United States is a form of democracy.

No, it's not, because the people do not rule. Democracy is a rule of the people.

Ashtar, make a seperate thread..

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
No, they do not:

-They Don't Elect
-They do not pass laws
-They aren't involved in any descion makes or truly elect there representatives

So, how do they rule?

They are protected by laws.

No, it's not, because the people do not rule. Democracy is a rule of the people.

It is, actually, the United States is considered a form of republican democracy. Look up 'representative democracy'.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Abortion has been accepted for years, no moral revolution has happened. Also it's considered morally wrong in your eyes, I consider it to be fine.

Yeah since the last quarter of the 1900s I would hardly consider that to be any significant portion of history. Also take into account the rest of what has happened over the last quarter of a century.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Ashtar, make a seperate thread..

Honestly, I'm tired, I already explained my point and I'm done.
A Democracy=Rule of People, the people do not rule therefore we are not a Democracy, The End.

-I already prove we do not Truly elect our officials, but simple suggest.
- We do not vote on laws
-We are governed by Law

Thus we are not a Democracy.

Hooray more dystopic soothsaying.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Yeah since the last quarter of the 1900s I would hardly consider that to be any significant portion of history. Also take into account the rest of what has happened over the last quarter of a century.

You think what's happened in the last quarter of a century, to be negative? If you want to be in a more controlled environment, go for it, write yourself a rule book. Just don't propose we all follow your moral code.

GOD JUST SHUT UP

Originally posted by Ymir
It is, actually, the United States is considered a form of republican democracy. Look up 'representative democracy'.

No, it isn't, I'm not looking up anything. I used your source to confirm what I'm saying. Nowhere does it state in the constition that we are a democracy of any form.

U.S. Constitution>> You word

In a Representive Democracy officials are directly elected by the People/Majority and Not the Electoral College like in the U.S.

Goodnight.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Hooray more dystopic soothsaying.
what exactly is a soothsayer?

Fortuneteller.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I never denied him making a point. biggest problem here is you guys have your own opinion on what potientiality is. Not definition, opinion.

No. Potential is just that. What COULD be. You brought it up yet applied a limit on it because a hole was located in your case.

You admit to realizing he made a point, so you must see why the whole argument concerning potential is utter nonsense. Can we drop this issue and move on?

You're smarter than this.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Fortuneteller.
like a seer? I have seen the word before, but I never found out what it meant.

I guess seer is not correct, for a seer predicts the future.

I wonder why you still say "Tell that to AC." when someone says "It's not fact cos you say it is.".

As if it's fact because I say so, and not because science, law and medicine say so. Odd.

-AC

Just droping in to say night.jm

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I wonder why you still say "Tell that to AC." when someone says "It's not fact cos you say it is.".

As if it's fact because I say so, and not because science, law and medicine say so. Odd.

-AC

yes, that was a jab at you. a friendly jab, mind you.