• 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!

How would you solve the abortion issue?

That is why I do not have an issue with euthanasia on infants if they are that seriously defected than it should be able for the parents to decide to (in consultation with more than 1 doctor) to let a baby pass away in order to not suffer anymore in their few weeks of life that they have left.

If one is going to allow abortion, that is the quite logical conclusion. Towards the end of the 19th century that was a quite widely accepted idea among the elites.
 
Calling people murderers and is all well and good, but how would you solve the issue? Pretend that you have the ability to enact law.

Useless question since the only way to solve the abortion crisis in the US is to have citizens who respect themselves, respect others, view sex as serious and not a simple pastime, and principally have a respect for the miracle of life, none of which can be legislated.

No one in my extended family has ever had a need to seek an abortion - much credit goes to being raised right and having the above moral values instilled early and often.
 
If you interrogate the beliefs of most pro-lifers in the U.S., it's okay to abort for medical reasons, for rape or for incest. It's not "murder" in those cases but it's "murder" if you get an elective abortion. It's time to call out these beliefs for what they are: backward and punishing toward free women. National policy should be based on secular reasoning and the overriding good of society. One group's religious beliefs don't get to cancel out everyone else's.

Just because you don't hold these beliefs doesn't make them religious, backward or a form of punishment. Many non-religious people such as myself consider ourselves pro-choice even though we abhor some of the choices some women make related to abortion. We believe it's ultimately a women's prerogative, but we sure wish some would make better choices.

There's nothing inconsistent in holding moral values that can be conditional upon circumstances. Abortion, for many as you say, is not generally opposed if the life and/or physical/mental health of the woman or fetus is at issue. We also consider it very sad that some women are so callous and irresponsible that they consider abortion a form of birth control. That's not backward at all. Likewise, I consider robbery to be immoral, however, if one were left in a situation that required stealing food to feed one's family or oneself, I'd not find that immoral. You'd have us believe that morality is black and white with no shades or grey areas. That's not the way life works.
 
Useless question since the only way to solve the abortion crisis in the US is to have citizens who respect themselves, respect others, view sex as serious and not a simple pastime, and principally have a respect for the miracle of life, none of which can be legislated.

No one in my extended family has ever had a need to seek an abortion - much credit goes to being raised right and having the above moral values instilled early and often.

all OPINION
opinion you are welcome too of course but nothing more than subjective opinion since millions of people have had abortions because they were morally driven to by there sense of responsibility. :shrug:
your opinion is no better than theirs and vice versa.
 
all OPINION
opinion you are welcome too of course but nothing more than subjective opinion since millions of people have had abortions because they were morally driven to by there sense of responsibility. :shrug:
your opinion is no better than theirs and vice versa.

And your opinion of my opinion is less than worthless. If you have an opinion on the OP, feel free to share it.
 
No one in my extended family has ever had a need to seek an abortion - much credit goes to being raised right and having the above moral values instilled early and often.

My family has been just as lucky. I sure think so at least. Then again, if one of my siblings or their spouses/children sought an abortion, they probably would not share the news. So - who knows?
 
My family has been just as lucky. I sure think so at least. Then again, if one of my siblings or their spouses/children sought an abortion, they probably would not share the news. So - who knows?

True enough, depending on how close a family you are. Your comment does, however, indicate a certain level of embarrassment or self-doubt may be at play if someone isn't sharing any discussion of such a serious issue/action. Most, at least here on DP, would like us to believe that getting an abortion is about as normal as getting a flu shot and just as healthy, yet so very few women actually discuss it. But they have no problem talking about getting a boob job, treating cancer, or any number of other medical services/treatments. That speaks, to me, to the moral dilemma involved in the abortion decision.
 
Just because you don't hold these beliefs doesn't make them religious, backward or a form of punishment. Many non-religious people such as myself consider ourselves pro-choice even though we abhor some of the choices some women make related to abortion. We believe it's ultimately a women's prerogative, but we sure wish some would make better choices.

I understand this and thank you for clarifying, but in the United States the pro-life lobby is largely evangelical and religious. By and large, you don't see non-denominational people out picketing abortion clinics very often. They may hold provide anti-abortion views but the lion's share of the activism comes from the religious right, which is why I'm responding to them on a political level.

There's nothing inconsistent in holding moral values that can be conditional upon circumstances. Abortion, for many as you say, is not generally opposed if the life and/or physical/mental health of the woman or fetus is at issue.

Ideologically, that doesn't make sense though. You can't call it murder (a form of homicide, i.e. killing a person) in one instance, but call it saving the mother in another. Re-examine that from a legal standpoint. In general there is homicide, which then gets classified into accidental, negligent, manslaughter, second and first degree murder... but it's all homicide, based on the knowledge that a person has killed another person. Calling abortion murder is calling it pre-meditated homicide. If abortion is done for medical reasons, or for rape and incest, you still KNOW it's an abortion and it's pre-meditated, so how is that not also murder? You can't equivocate on this point. Either all abortions are murders or they're not. Under "right to life", this is ideologically non-sensical.

We also consider it very sad that some women are so callous and irresponsible that they consider abortion a form of birth control.

That does happen, but not very often. This point gets pushed a lot but it's almost mythological in its proportions, just like the accusation that lots of women make false rape accusations. Each successive abortion increases risk of hemorrhage and infertility because of the damage it does to the uterus. You'll be hard pressed to find a major statistic where women use it as their primary means of birth control. Fact is, most abortions are due to accidental pregnancies, and the majority take place when other birth control methods failed.

That's not backward at all. Likewise, I consider robbery to be immoral, however, if one were left in a situation that required stealing food to feed one's family or oneself, I'd not find that immoral. You'd have us believe that morality is black and white with no shades or grey areas. That's not the way life works.

Robbery isn't abortion. We're talking about issues that pertain to suggestions of homicide, murder, right to life, personhood, etc.

If the pro-life want to take away a woman's right to choose based on the premise that a person is being murdered, then they must reconcile their moral equivocations about the different contexts where they will allow abortion to take place.

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that if there are certain circumstances where pro-lifers will accept abortion, then we might as well live in a pro-choice world since, as you say, this issue isn't black and white. I think the Federal government should stop catering to abstract non-sense and just make the call already. It's about medical science and patient confidentiality. Nobody has any business leveraging their beliefs to oppress others in this way.
 
Last edited:
I understand this and thank you for clarifying, but in the United States the pro-life lobby is largely evangelical and religious. By and large, you don't see non-denominational people out picketing abortion clinics very often. They may hold provide anti-abortion views but the lion's share of the activism comes from the religious right, which is why I'm responding to them on a political level.



Ideologically, that doesn't make sense though. You can't call it murder (a form of homicide, i.e. killing a person) in one instance, but call it saving the mother in another. Re-examine that from a legal standpoint. In general there is homicide, which then gets classified into accidental, negligent, manslaughter, second and first degree murder... but it's all homicide, based on the knowledge that a person has killed another person. Calling abortion murder is calling it pre-meditated homicide. If abortion is done for medical reasons, or for rape and incest, you still KNOW it's an abortion and it's pre-meditated, so how is that not also murder? You can't equivocate on this point. Either all abortions are murders or they're not. Under "right to life", this is ideologically non-sensical.



That does happen, but not very often. This point gets pushed a lot but it's almost mythological in its proportions, just like the accusation that lots of women make false rape accusations. Each successive abortion increases risk of hemorrhage and infertility because of the damage it does to the uterus. You'll be hard pressed to find a major statistic where women use it as their primary means of birth control. Fact is, most abortions are due to accidental pregnancies, and the majority take place when other birth control methods failed.



Robbery isn't abortion. We're talking about issues that pertain to suggestions of homicide, murder, right to life, personhood, etc.

If the pro-life want to take a woman's right to choose based on the premise that a person is being murdered, then they must reconcile their moral equivocations about the different contexts where they will allow abortion to take place.

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that if there are certain circumstances where pro-lifers will accept abortion, then we might as well live in a pro-choice world since, as you say, this issue isn't black and white. I think the Federal government should stop catering to abstract non-sense and just make the call alright. It's about medical science and patient confidentiality. Nobody has any business leveraging their beliefs to oppress others in this way.

I appreciate what you're saying and I'll only comment on your continued inflexible view of murder is murder and if abortion is murder in one sense it's inconsistent not to view it as murder in all senses. I strongly disagree, both legally and morally. If you look at murder as a legal concept, it is on occasion legally acceptable even if it is still, strictly speaking, murder. Killing an intruder who's threatening your family will most often not result in a murder conviction. Killing your kidnapper in order to escape is murder but not immoral or illegal. There are many other examples. Thus, believing that ending a pregnancy for the physical/mental health of the mother or her fetus isn't immoral isn't inconsistent with thinking ending a pregnancy for lifestyle reasons is immoral.
 
I appreciate what you're saying and I'll only comment on your continued inflexible view of murder is murder and if abortion is murder in one sense it's inconsistent not to view it as murder in all senses. I strongly disagree, both legally and morally. If you look at murder as a legal concept, it is on occasion legally acceptable even if it is still, strictly speaking, murder. Killing an intruder who's threatening your family will most often not result in a murder conviction. Killing your kidnapper in order to escape is murder but not immoral or illegal. There are many other examples. Thus, believing that ending a pregnancy for the physical/mental health of the mother or her fetus isn't immoral isn't inconsistent with thinking ending a pregnancy for lifestyle reasons is immoral.

Every single example you mention is still called homicide. We don't refer to abortion as homicide. So let me condense it further: it's either homicide or it isn't, regardless if we feel it's justified or legally excusable, whether it's murder or not. If it's homicide in one instance, then it means a person has been killed, and therefore it makes no sense to say that in another instance, it isn't homicide. If it's a person then it's always a person. Are you prepared to say that abortion is homicide?

All your examples refer to the born. We're talking about fetuses, even ones in the first trimester.

So, is it homicide or not?
 
Calling people murderers and is all well and good, but how would you solve the issue? Pretend that you have the ability to enact law.

If it was up to me id do the following and i have given this same answer each time this topic is discussed.

First, there isnt really an abortion issue in reality. yes some individuals take issue with it but thats about it.

RvW is actually pretty good. Its based on medical science and rights. Its a logical MIDDLE GROUND solution that I would only tweak some. There are many pther things i would change and revamp but they are just a subtopic.

If it was up to me RvW would move to 20/21 weeks based again on medical science and rights. This is the earliest possible viability time frame and theres no reason to go under it because of that. This is also middle ground pregnancy wise.

This wouldnt change things much as very few pregnancy happen after 20 weeks and the super vast majority are based on womans health and or fetus health. All which would still be allowed of course.I'd also legislate fetal rights more clearly at this mark.

THis is what I would do because its the most middle ground we can get based on human and legal rights. I accept the fact that there is no such thing as equal rights on this issue so we must strive for somethign near the middle.

The other things I would do would be major revamps and structuring of other areas.
REAL sex education based on reality and medical science would become OPTIONAL 6-8th grade with parental approval, it would mandatory in 9th grade and part of the health curriculum. (this is how it is in my school district now and has been for quit some time.)

Birth control would be made as cheap and readily available as possible. Research into better, more reliable and user friendly BC would also be done. Free condoms would also be available starting at the same time frame. Orgs like planned parenthood who actually do more to prevent unwanted pregnancies than any other org would get the support they need.

Adoption and foster cares systems need totally revamped, they are broken and need fixed. Saftey for the children need increased, higher adoption numbers need to be reached for and qualification for adopters are to be based on safety, finance ad what medical professionals say is a good environment alone. Race, gender, martial status, sexual orientation etc are NOT factors to "deny" adoption that's just plan stupidity.

Healthcare, child care, prenatal care and prefamily/family care need improved in these areas concerning new borns/new families.

Job security needs legislated along with parental leave/pay like the super vast majorities of other countries.

If children and family is what people truly want to protect then DO IT dont just blow smoke.

Also mens rights in regard to this issue need addressed. Of course NO MAN can every force a woman to have a child that would just be insanity and instantly violate rights. WIth that being said the mens options should be expanded he must be notified of the pregnancy as soon as possible and he is given the legal rights to waive his parental rights of keep them. His limit should be 16weeks giving the woman a full month extra his decision effects hers. Wouldn't be right for him to decided at 19 weeks and 6 days. If he waives his rights they are gone, they cant be challeneged unless the woman allows it or major life change of the child that now puts the child in jeopardy. Example mom dies in car wreak and there is no other family.

SO thats what i would do.
-RvW moves to 20/21 weeks
-Legislate fetal rights
-Legislate sex ed as part of health education
-Increase birth control affordability, availability and technology
-Legislate mens rights
-Expand and support health care/social services in regards to prenatal, child and family care (including job/education assistance providers, employment protection involving mandatory parental leave being available and support of healthcare providers)
-Revamp foster care system

america is actually VERY good at not having abortions, hopefully we can improve on this
 
And your opinion of my opinion is less than worthless. If you have an opinion on the OP, feel free to share it.

weird I didnt give you my opinion of your opinion, please dont make stuff up. I pointed out what your post FACTUALLY was :shrug:
 
Useless question since the only way to solve the abortion crisis in the US is to have citizens who respect themselves, respect others, view sex as serious and not a simple pastime, and principally have a respect for the miracle of life, none of which can be legislated.

No one in my extended family has ever had a need to seek an abortion - much credit goes to being raised right and having the above moral values instilled early and often.

Congratulations to your and your family. You people ought to join the rest of the world where things are not always so easy and respectful. It might also help if you weren't such a judgmental lot...and give others the space to be less than the perfect beings you apparently are.
 
Every single example you mention is still called homicide. We don't refer to abortion as homicide. So let me condense it further: it's either homicide or it isn't, regardless if we feel it's justified or legally excusable, whether it's murder or not. If it's homicide in one instance, then it means a person has been killed, and therefore it makes no sense to say that in another instance, it isn't homicide. If it's a person then it's always a person. Are you prepared to say that abortion is homicide?

All your examples refer to the born. We're talking about fetuses, even ones in the first trimester.

So, is it homicide or not?

I believe it's ending a growing, human life. It's justified if that growing, human life is a threat to the life of the woman carrying it or is a life that isn't physically viable. I don't call it homicide because it is not yet a viable human life.
 
weird I didnt give you my opinion of your opinion, please dont make stuff up. I pointed out what your post FACTUALLY was :shrug:

Factually wrong. Unless you've personally done the research, found and spoken to the "millions of people (who) have had abortions because they were morally driven to by there sense of responsibility" then the comments you posted are simply your conjecture and opinion, nothing more.

Have a good day.
 
Calling people murderers and is all well and good, but how would you solve the issue? Pretend that you have the ability to enact law.

1st law... I'd sentence every outspoken pro-lifer and pro-choicer to immediate summary execution by firing squad.

2nd, require age appropriate comprehensive sex education ( yes, that includes abstinence) in every year of school, starting in 4th grade.... this class will be given every day... all year long... every year... until graduation.
homeschools and private schools will receive no exemption for this requirement.

3rd.... ban abortion after viability, with a clear exemption for the life of the mother .

4th... declare all pro-life and pro-choice advocacy groups as hate groups and burn them out of existence.

5th... have the federal government directly provide contraceptives to women under 200% of the poverty level.... everybody else pays for it themselves, or has it voluntarily provided to them through their insurance plans.

6th.. form a new agency with the sole task of making sure kids whom are born have forever homes.... give incredibly generous incentives to bring more adoptive parents into the fold

7th.... sentence myself to immediate impeachment ...and public execution... preferably by drawing and quartering.
 
Calling people murderers and is all well and good, but how would you solve the issue? Pretend that you have the ability to enact law.
Age appropriate, comprehensive sex ed in the manditory ciriculem.

National vasectomy campaign (they're reversable now).

Fiscal policy in support of intact families.

Social programs reaching out to help finishing highschool for both bio parents.
 
Factually wrong. Unless you've personally done the research, found and spoken to the "millions of people (who) have had abortions because they were morally driven to by there sense of responsibility" then the comments you posted are simply your conjecture and opinion, nothing more.

Have a good day.

there you go again makign stuff up, do you ever make a post that isnt fantasy? Try reading what I wrote again SLOWER this time so you understand it.

"weird I didnt give you my opinion of your opinion, please dont make stuff up. I pointed out what your post FACTUALLY was"

once again your post is proven wrong and i always have a good day when i do that.
fact remains, I pointed out what your post FACTUALLY was. Nothing you say will change that fact :D
Your post gets destroyed and fails again.
 
I believe it's ending a growing, human life. It's justified if that growing, human life is a threat to the life of the woman carrying it or is a life that isn't physically viable. I don't call it homicide because it is not yet a viable human life.

You're pro-choice so I see no need to take this argument further.

I'm just demonstrating how unclear these issues are and how there's no real solution, so pro-choice should be the default.

It's an unfortunate human misunderstanding when people think nature can be so divided into black and white, when the reality is that sometimes ugly or unfortunate things happen and that's just reality.
 
Congratulations to your and your family. You people ought to join the rest of the world where things are not always so easy and respectful. It might also help if you weren't such a judgmental lot...and give others the space to be less than the perfect beings you apparently are.

I never claimed to be perfect, only the product of a moral and principled family and upbringing. I don't judge those who weren't so fortunate. Clearly, the post raced right over your head in your desire to personally insult me and "my lot". My point was, looking for legislative solutions to abortion is useless because abortions will not be reduced or end until people are more respectful of themselves and each other and the miracle of life. If you take that as being judgmental of you, so be it.
 
Congratulations to your and your family. You people ought to join the rest of the world where things are not always so easy and respectful. It might also help if you weren't such a judgmental lot...and give others the space to be less than the perfect beings you apparently are.

Well said. The notion that people who have unwanted pregnancies 'aren't raised right' is particularly insulting, especially to young women (many of whom come from well-meaning 'Christian homes').
 
I never claimed to be perfect, only the product of a moral and principled family and upbringing. I don't judge those who weren't so fortunate. Clearly, the post raced right over your head in your desire to personally insult me and "my lot". My point was, looking for legislative solutions to abortion is useless because abortions will not be reduced or end until people are more respectful of themselves and each other and the miracle of life. If you take that as being judgmental of you, so be it.

Yeah, it is judgmental. You said that girl with the cell phone deserved to be thrown across the room by the officer because she wasn't 'raised right'. Get the **** out of here with your holier-than-thou attitude. It's disgusting.
 
Calling people murderers and is all well and good, but how would you solve the issue? Pretend that you have the ability to enact law.

For abortion law itself, I'd go Canada style: less is more. No hard limits. No battling parents in court for minors; for those under 16, appoint a guardian ad litem to co-sign for the procedure. Canada has the same rate of late-term abortion as the US, sometimes less. Only difference is the women suffer less trying to trudge their way through a million restrictions, or worse, getting sub-par care because the least traumatic procedures aren't available to them. Covered under universal healthcare.

No penalization for seeking or performing on oneself a non-professional abortion, but it would be a crime to provide one to other people. I would fund a study to see why some women seek illegal abortions even when legal ones are easily available to them (yes, it happens) to see if we could bring that down. In keeping with recent studies on their very high safety and the recommendations therein, one part of that solution may be offering medical abortions to women in abusive or oppressive homes with only a single, or no, clinic visit.

Adoption laws would be altered too. Some women would prefer this, but understandably don't want to put a child into our dysfunctional system. Foster parent restrictions tightened, adoptive parent restrictions loosened, and closed adoption re-instituted as an option. Campaigns and research to help improve the poor adoption rates of children who are typically overlooked in adoption agencies (minorities, older than infant, etc).

Also, prenatal is covered under universal healthcare.

I'd throw tons of funding and time into comprehensive sex education, covering everything from the biology to contraception to abstinence to consent to sexuality. I'd do it in tiers, starting young, preferably early in elementary school beginning with the basic anatomy and biology. Along with it would be acceptable touch and where to go if the child is being abused (protections for abused children would also be strengthened to help increase reporting). Discussion of different types of families would also be in these early lessons, to reduce bullying. Every couple years, there would be another tier, working gradually to the full lessons on sexuality, contraception, etc, early in high school. The goal is for them to have all of the information necessary to make a fully informed decision before it is likely they are having sex. Comprehensive sex ed is proven to raise the age of sexual debut, so I think freshman year would be fine for this.

I'd make all contraception as accessible as possible to everyone. Covered under universal healthcare.

Plan B would be free and easy to get at a pharmacy or clinic for girls of any age.

Put tons more resources for research into male contraceptives as well.

I would also enact new legal codes covering crimes of reproductive coercion. This is a surprisingly common method of domestic abuse. It can take the form of forcing someone to abort, to become pregnant and not abort, etc.

In other words, I'd do all of the things that other countries have had proven success with, plus a couple that I think could make things that little bit better.

Will this get rid of abortion? No. Even if everyone in the world used contraception perfectly all the time, there would still be some unwanted pregnancies, and some women will always abort unwanted pregnancies. Contraception is not perfect, even if humans were. And abortion is not a moral issue to me. What is an issue is that no woman would prefer to spend her time getting an abortion (or any medical procedure), even if they have moral no issue with it at all, so it should be reduced as far as possible.

But it would probably at least cut it in half, and probably much more. It works to fix all of the common reasons for abortion that are avoidable, or help them to abort earlier if possible: eliminating coercion, ignorance of contraception, uneducated risk-taking, lack of resources, and legal roadblocks.
 
Last edited:
If one is going to allow abortion, that is the quite logical conclusion. Towards the end of the 19th century that was a quite widely accepted idea among the elites.

I think it is the compassionate thing to do if a baby is that handicapped/ill that it will die in days or weeks and if there is absolutely no chance of giving this baby an even modicum of quality of life (of course that is purely down to the parents).
 
Yeah, it is judgmental. You said that girl with the cell phone deserved to be thrown across the room by the officer because she wasn't 'raised right'. Get the **** out of here with your holier-than-thou attitude. It's disgusting.

Quote the comment I posted that said this.
 
Back
Top Bottom