• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WHich do you choose Womans Right's (Pro-choice) VS ZEF's Rights (Pro-Life)

Which do you support?

  • Total voters
    57
JayDubya said:
I concur with the appropriateness of this reply.
Click to expand...
Yes, there comes a point when words must appropriately give way to a palmless facepalm, in effect.


JayDubya said:
Furthermore, :fart ROFLMAO
Click to expand...
;)


JayDubya said:
In any event, thankfully many folks have realized that this poll is best not-answered, as valuing human rights and equality means that you don't engage in age-based bigotry against one group or another.
Click to expand...
Yes, the black-or-white either-or polemic of the poll suffers from an embarrassingly obvoius lack of an available correct-answer option, one that respects the reality of rights.

For a guy whose signature touts that there's more to life than black or white, Objective-J apparently missed the appropriately toned and shaded obviously colorful right answer that was omitted from his poll.
 
Ontologuy said:
:roll:

1k3c5a7u9q11
Click to expand...

translation: You still have no factual proof to back up your false claims, LMAO I LOVE IT

Because well, if you did, you would just post it :shrug:
 
Ontologuy said:
Yes, there comes a point when words must appropriately give way to a palmless facepalm, in effect.



;)



Yes, the black-or-white either-or polemic of the poll suffers from an embarrassingly obvoius lack of an available correct-answer option, one that respects the reality of rights.

For a guy whose signature touts that there's more to life than black or white, Objective-J apparently missed the appropriately toned and shaded obviously colorful right answer that was omitted from his poll.
Click to expand...

for those that understand reality the the right answer is present in the poll. WHy? because there is no wrong answer LMAO wow you just proved you dont get the reality of the situations.

Based on how one feels, both answers are in fact correct. There is no wrong answer in the pool and there are no other answers that would accurately reflect the reality of abortion.

The only grey area is one that has been identified, some of the people here said that for themselves they are pro-life, they side with the ZEFs rights. For others they are pro-choice and side with women's rights because they have the common sense to understand in this situation their views arent to be forced on others.

It also means that technically they are always for womans rights, its just in the case of themselves they CHOOSE to relinquish those rights to the ZEF and not have the forced away. Everybody objective sees this reality then there are others. :shrug:
 
Ontologuy said:
An accurate analysis of the information provided by the OP link in this thread -- http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/131790-abortion-statistics-and-thoughts.html#post1060731881 -- which, contrary to the OP commentary includes not just federally funded but all funding souces for abortions, reveals that roughtly 98.5% of all abortions do indeed occur for reason of "convenience", to avoid the inconvenience that would be caused to the woman's economic, romantic relationship, work, social, fun, and the like reasons, not to mention the sexual addiction and child-support wallet of the pro-choice man that controls her, his inconvenience as well, that when these reasons are given for the killing of a three-year-old postnatal would be considered egregious and would disgust the vast majority of Americans.

And it's understandable that the great majority of Americans would feel that way, would be disgusted by these abortions, because the great majority of Americans know that a prenatal is a living human too, and these people are ethical and moral people, not sociopaths or crass utilitarians or ageistic bigots. These same ethical and moral people find abortion for reasons of saving the woman's life/grave health, rape and incest to be sad, and very tragic, but not disgusting, and thus they favor keeping abortion legal for these so-called "hard" non-egregious reasons .. but they are nevertheless disgusted by the "convenience" reasons for abortion, the egregious 98.5% of all abortions, and would prefer to slam the door shut on those abortions as the polls clearly show.

And they are so disgusted because the reality that a ZEF is a human, which a continually growing majority of Americans know, a human that is alive as alive can be, is what makes people "uncomfortable", as you say, with killing prenatal humans in general, and they are truly disgusted about abortions that occur for murder-type reasons, as the polls also show.

Only those who suffer from the pro-choice bigotry of ageism as an excuse to kill prenatal humans ( http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/130363-pro-choice-bigotry-ageism.html ) make the ludicrous sophister's distinction between pre- and post- natal as a killing excuse.

Roe-Webster's viability protection of fetuses created roughly 35 years ago, prior to the complete scientific confirmation that a ZEF is a living organism, a human, way back then, to today's reality of the poll revealing 8 out of 10 Americans want that demarcation moved back to the end of the first trimester (presented in this thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/126824-pro-choice-americans-record-low.html) shows where most Americans have been and in growing majority numbers truly are today: opposed to abortion on demand for convenience reasons.

These are the facts, the facts that pro-choicers have such a huge problem facing .. that they have to create pro-choice tavern threads like this one where they can commiserate in inebriation, in drunken ideological denial of the truth of it their ongoing political demise.
Click to expand...

I think you linked me to the wrong post. I couldn't find any info concerning the "reason of "convenience", to avoid the inconvenience that would be caused to the woman's economic, romantic relationship, work, social, fun, and the like reasons, not to mention the sexual addiction and child-support wallet of the pro-choice man that controls her, his inconvenience as well, that when these reasons are given for the killing of a three-year-old postnatal would be considered egregious and would disgust the vast majority of Americans." I would suggest you copy and paste this part for me to examine further, because actual abortion statistics and studies have shown otherwise.

Furthermore, I don't think any of you pro-"lifers" really understand anything about the cost of pregnancy. I have yet to meet anyone who felt having children or being pregnant was merely an inconvenience. If pregnancy was just a mere setback, abortion would be a rarity but it isn't. Pregnancy is in fact a very stressful and costly affair. The sooner opponents of abortion rights understand this, the sooner they may understand your own arguments. When you say women have abortions out of "convenience" then you are effectively calling pregnancy/children a inconvenience. I couldn't imagine a statement any further divorced from reality in this discussion.
 
Objective-J said:
exactly, its made up.

I laugh at anybody uneducated enough on the subject to think that their opinion applies to all, its illogical.

What I call a convenience, you may not, I dont get to decide for you because if I did that would make me a pompous moron.

Hell I could say that you getting an abortion to avoid death was just for your convenience, does that make it fact or true? of course not LMAO convenience is a subjective term and nobody gets to decide for others, thats just common sense.
Click to expand...

It isn't that convenience varies between person to person, but that the right-to-lifers don't comprehend the gravity of that insensitive comment. When you have thousands of women killing themselves in order to terminate a pregnancy and even millions more endangering their health/lives/family to have an abortion, how can anyone define that as a convenience? In their race to slander abortion they honestly don't understand that by such a remark reduces pregnancy to nothing more than a slight mishap. A simple bellyache for 9 months.

Being pregnant has a huge impact upon the individual. Being Pregnant is not an inconvenience and it is a life altering event. Why are the "lifers" trying to deny this?
 
Babylon_Drifter said:
I think you linked me to the wrong post. I couldn't find any info concerning the "reason of "convenience", to avoid the inconvenience that would be caused to the woman's economic, romantic relationship, work, social, fun, and the like reasons, not to mention the sexual addiction and child-support wallet of the pro-choice man that controls her, his inconvenience as well, that when these reasons are given for the killing of a three-year-old postnatal would be considered egregious and would disgust the vast majority of Americans." I would suggest you copy and paste this part for me to examine further, because actual abortion statistics and studies have shown otherwise.

Furthermore, I don't think any of you pro-"lifers" really understand anything about the cost of pregnancy. I have yet to meet anyone who felt having children or being pregnant was merely an inconvenience. If pregnancy was just a mere setback, abortion would be a rarity but it isn't. Pregnancy is in fact a very stressful and costly affair. The sooner opponents of abortion rights understand this, the sooner they may understand your own arguments. When you say women have abortions out of "convenience" then you are effectively calling pregnancy/children a inconvenience. I couldn't imagine a statement any further divorced from reality in this discussion.
Click to expand...

When were you last pregnant? Just curious.

And if you want a list of "convenience" reasons, you need look no further than the Guttmacher Institute's list of reasons for abortion.
 
nota bene said:
When were you last pregnant? Just curious.

And if you want a list of "convenience" reasons, you need look no further than the Guttmacher Institute's list of reasons for abortion.
Click to expand...

any list is nothing more than opinion, plain and simple. Whether the lists is somebody's good reasons to have one or bad reasons, its nothing more than opinion and meaningless to the actual debate.
 
nota bene said:
When were you last pregnant? Just curious.

And if you want a list of "convenience" reasons, you need look no further than the Guttmacher Institute's list of reasons for abortion.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be pregnant to know that pregnancy (esp. an unplanned one) is a stressful, life altering event. It is a sad state of affairs that that I have to enlighten my opponents on a condition that centers on this very discussion. I don't have to lose a limb in order to know that missing a leg is more than a slight inconvenience. Empathy, try it next time.

Abortions are mostly performed due to social economical reasons. I understand that it is attractive for people of your position to distort abortion as a whimsical choice and pregnancy is a mere inconvenience but you should do some more research before you make such rash judgements.

Being pregnant is NOT an inconvenience. It is life changing.
Raising children is NOT an inconvenience. It is life changing too.
Do you understand me? How could you callously argue otherwise?
 
Babylon_Drifter said:
It isn't that convenience varies between person to person, but that the right-to-lifers don't comprehend the gravity of that insensitive comment. When you have thousands of women killing themselves in order to terminate a pregnancy and even millions more endangering their health/lives/family to have an abortion, how can anyone define that as a convenience? In their race to slander abortion they honestly don't understand that by such a remark reduces pregnancy to nothing more than a slight mishap. A simple bellyache for 9 months.

Being pregnant has a huge impact upon the individual. Being Pregnant is not an inconvenience and it is a life altering event. Why are the "lifers" trying to deny this?
Click to expand...

not that I disagree but its not all pro-lifers, some totally get that their views arent to be pushed on others and they arent pompous and uneducated enough on the subject to think that what they feel isnt what others feel
 
Objective-J said:
OH Im sure this is true, i would never act like its a meaningless decision, lots of women that have abortions have already had kids or have kids later in life so of course theres though in it. Only a handful around here believe that the only people that have abortions are crack alley whores and trailer park sluts the will never want a kid and just want to spend their lives murdering the unborn and having sinful sex. Just like it seems like there are a couple around here that refer to the ZEF as trash.
Click to expand...

Who here refers to the zef as trash??
 
Scrabaholic said:
Who here refers to the zef as trash??
Click to expand...

not sure, thats what ChrisL said, and I asked but wasnt told yet, I THINK I know who it was and im sure it probably done to rattle the cages of the handful of extremist trolls but I dont want to say until its confirmed. Either way thats still not right IMO but again not sure who and when.
 
Scrabaholic said:
With any choice that people make, there will be some who regret it. There are women who regret giving birth.
Click to expand...

yep and there are also mental and physical issues associated with that too but shhhhhhhhhhh, that doesnt matter, to some this is only a one sided reality ;)
 
digsbe said:
I think the human right to life trumps all others. Someone may say that they have the right to do what they want with their body or bear arms, but you don't have the right to use your body or arms to kill another human unless trying to defend yourself. I think the fact that terminating a pregnancy means that the child will be killed that the right for the unborn to be alive trumps the right of the mother who wishes to not be pregnant.
Click to expand...

You are perfectly free to have that opinion, and to apply it to yourself should you ever find yourself with an unplanned pregnancy. However, you don't and shouldn't have the right to force others who disagree with that opinion to gestate and birth.

BTW, if you truly feel that the right to life trumps everything, you should also be in favour of forcing people to donate blood, bone marrow, a kidney, a piece of their liver and any other body part you can live without to someone who is a compatible recipient and would die without it. How many times have you done any of those life saving actions?
 
Scrabaholic said:
You are perfectly free to have that opinion, and to apply it to yourself should you ever find yourself with an unplanned pregnancy. However, you don't and shouldn't have the right to force others who disagree with that opinion to gestate and birth.

BTW, if you truly feel that the right to life trumps everything, you should also be in favour of forcing people to donate blood, bone marrow, a kidney, a piece of their liver and any other body part you can live without to someone who is a compatible recipient and would die without it. How many times have you done any of those life saving actions?
Click to expand...

How do you get from not killing your unborn child to forcing others to donate kidneys?
 
Scrabaholic said:
You are perfectly free to have that opinion, and to apply it to yourself should you ever find yourself with an unplanned pregnancy. However, you don't and shouldn't have the right to force others who disagree with that opinion to gestate and birth.

BTW, if you truly feel that the right to life trumps everything, you should also be in favour of forcing people to donate blood, bone marrow, a kidney, a piece of their liver and any other body part you can live without to someone who is a compatible recipient and would die without it. How many times have you done any of those life saving actions?
Click to expand...

That is a false analogy...
 
Bodhisattva said:
That is a false analogy...
Click to expand...

I actually think it is a pretty good analogy.

Why do think that donating blood, bone marrow, a kidney, a piece of their liver and any other body part you can live without to someone who is a compatible recipient and would die without it is not supporting their right to life ?
 
nota bene said:
How do you get from not killing your unborn child to forcing others to donate kidneys?
Click to expand...

Through the application of extreme amounts of :screwy
 
nota bene said:
How do you get from not killing your unborn child to forcing others to donate kidneys?
Click to expand...

No shi!! I can't even believe it! I guess basically what they're trying to say is that a fetus carries no more value than say, an appendix? Obviously, some people do NOT hold the life of the unborn as important. I guess the life of the unborn child has as much value as the "incubator" carrying it allows it to have (which is still OPINION on the part of the "incubator").

I actually read an interesting article this morning about a premature baby who survived being born at only 21 weeks' gestation.


Premature baby survives after doctors advised abortion - Telegraph
 
Shady, shady, shady. :cool:
 
ChrisL said:
No shi!! I can't even believe it! I guess basically what they're trying to say is that a fetus carries no more value than say, an appendix? Obviously, some people do NOT hold the life of the unborn as important. I guess the life of the unborn child has as much value as the "incubator" carrying it allows it to have (which is still OPINION on the part of the "incubator").


I actually read an interesting article this morning about a premature baby who survived being born at only 21 weeks' gestati


Premature baby survives after doctors advised abortion - Telegraph
Click to expand...

What are you takling about when you say they're saying a fetus has no more value than say, an apendix.

The baby in the article you posted who survived was 23 weeks gestation.

here are a few <SNIPS> from an intersting follow up article.
Acoording to the article he did spend 5 months in hospital before he was able to home.
When the article was written he was stll on oxygen but appeared pretty healthy otherwise.

Tiny Jacob McMahon has defied all the odds to survive after being born at just 23 weeks weighing only 1lb 4oz.

In doing so he is the most premature baby ever to be born in Bradford and survive, and is also believed to be the most premature twin ever to survive across the whole UK.

Jacob, who was born in Bradford Royal Infirmary at a mere 23 weeks, one hour and 15 minutes, is now at home with his delighted parents after spending five months battling for life in the city’s special care baby unit.

He was not due until June 21, but was born on February 22.

His twin sister, Emie, who was born at 21 weeks and six days, unfortunately did not live and doctors warned first-time parents Sara Fisher, 25, and Scott McMahon, 26, that their son would have a low chance of survival.

But Jacob has just celebrated five months of life at the family home in St Margaret’s Avenue, Holme Wood, Bradford, after doctors decided he was strong enough to be discharged from hospital.

Although still on oxygen, he is able to feed from a bottle and weighs a healthier 7lb 3oz.
<SNIP>
Babies born as prematurely as Jacob can be left with a host of health problems, but doctors are happy with how he is progressing so far.
Click to expand...

1lb 4oz baby Jacob goes home after beating odds (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)
 
Last edited:
Are you kidding? Have you read some of the posts in this and other abortion threads? That's the gist. Some people here view the fetus as nothing more valuable than an infected appendix that needs to be removed. Comparing it to an acorn and comparing it to a disease.

And so, what do you think about the article? Pretty amazing, huh? This child was able to survive outside the womb (with assistance of course) at less than 25 weeks' gestation. Do you think this baby can feel pain or not?

minnie616 said:
What are you takling about when you say they're saying a fetus has no more value than say, an apendix.

The baby in the article you posted who survived was 23 weeks gestation.

here are a few <SNIPS> from an intersting follow up article.
Acoording to the article he did spend 5 months in hospital before he was able to home.
When the article was written he was stll on oxygen but appeared pretty healthy otherwise.



1lb 4oz baby Jacob goes home after beating odds (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)
Click to expand...
 
Just out of curiosity, how do some of you feel about partial birth abortion?

When and if someone gets an abortion, IMO, it should be a learning experience. It's almost like some here are blaming the fetus for implanting itself in the mother! Cripes!!! That is just insane.
 
I just want to add that I am a woman. Do you think I want the government interfering with my womb? Hell no!!! That's why I wouldn't want to make abortion illegal, among a few other reasons. But IMO it is just really a bad idea to try to devalue any human life. . . or animal life for that matter. I don't care whether it is in the womb or outside the womb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom