• 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!

What if?

BrewerBob said:
I am prochoice and have personally never quoted the Founding Fathers in support of my decision. While I recognize they were intelligent, I don't really care what some slave owning men from the 1700s thought when it comes to how I live my life today. I have on occasion used the phrase "Our Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they saw this" but it is just a superficial comment.

I care about the Constitution in as much as it is the foundation of our laws. When the Court's interpretation of the Constitution agrees with me I use it to bolster my legal claim. Such as in abortion. When it disagrees with me I argue to have it amended or for the Court to change its interpretation. Such as in Citizens United.
Click to expand...

Interesting and I agree that for the most part. IMO it never even occured to the FFs to consider the unborn in any of their decisions or precepts.

May I ask what you do base your pro-choice position on?
 
Lursa said:
Here you go making claims you cant support again.
Click to expand...
Great, what claim did I make that I cannot support?

Lursa said:
Abortion is a responsible action.
Click to expand...
Didn't you just say that writing "I want to be Queen of the World" doesn't make it so?

Abortion is certainly a shirking of one responsibility. Abortion is certainly more convenient than a particular alternative.

Lursa said:
...what is not responsible is producing a kid that you cant properly care for or afford,
Click to expand...
So you agree that it is irresponsible to gamble in Vegas if you can't afford to lose any money, yes?
So you agree that it is irresponsible to accept the risk of pregnancy and to willingly engage in sex when you cannot properly care for, or afford, the child that might be produced, yes?

Lursa said:
And what crimes (abortion is not a crime) might a woman claim 'freedom of choice' from? Esp. any that would also not also apply to men?
Click to expand...
Men don't have advocates for empowering them to kill others for their own convenience.

Lursa said:
And of course I'd still be interested in seeing how the born and unborn can be treated equally
Click to expand...
You specifically are unable to see this. You value the ability to kill very young living humans more than you value equal protection of living humans. You perceive any restriction on a woman's ability to kill a living human for convenience as granting "more rights" to the living human who would get to remain alive. With a value system that screwed up, there's no way you can "see" equal protection under the law if it were standing in front of you on a bright summer day.
 
IB daMann said:
So your argument rests on misrepresenting the position and views of your opponents? That kind of wraps it up for you. It looks like you're done.
Click to expand...

can somebody say irony LMAO
 
IB daMann said:
1.)Great, what claim did I make that I cannot support?
2.) Abortion is certainly a shirking of one responsibility.
3.) Abortion is certainly more convenient than a particular alternative.
4.) So you agree that it is irresponsible to accept the risk of pregnancy and to willingly engage in sex when you cannot properly care for, or afford, the child that might be produced, yes?


Men don't have advocates for empowering them to kill others for their own convenience.


You specifically are unable to see this. You value the ability to kill very young living humans more than you value equal protection of living humans. You perceive any restriction on a woman's ability to kill a living human for convenience as granting "more rights" to the living human who would get to remain alive. With a value system that screwed up, there's no way you can "see" equal protection under the law if it were standing in front of you on a bright summer day.
Click to expand...

1.) the many i already pointed out that you run from because you know you cant support them
2.) nope thats just your opinion . Millions of people feel obligated by thier morals and responsibility to have an abortion. What makes your opinion better than theirs and vice versa. You statement is pure 100% opinion at best.
3.) more opinion and nothing more
4.) nope because that would suggest that sex is only for procreation and its not :shrug:
your claims fail again
 
Lursa said:
Interesting and I agree that for the most part. IMO it never even occured to the FFs to consider the unborn in any of their decisions or precepts.

May I ask what you do base your pro-choice position on?
Click to expand...

Sure. My position is based on when I consider someone a "person". I am talking about the moral definition, not the legal definition. What is it about you, Lursa, that makes me value your life? What is it about YOU that makes me care what happens to you or that your rights are protected?

Is it that you have a beating heart? No. Is it that your DNA is similar to mine? No? Is that you are carbon-based or that your body contains blood? No and no.

What makes you a person to me is that you have a mind. You are an aware, sentient being. THAT is what makes you a person to me. Without a mind you are no more a person to me than a rock, or a flower, or a bacteria, or an embryo.

The overwhelming majority of abortions happen before the fetus has a sufficiently developed enough brain for a mind to emerge. So I have zero problems with aborting at that stage, whether the embryo is in a woman OR in a test tube.

Things change for me in the third trimester. At some point in the third trimester it seems apparent to me that the fetus' brain develops to the point of a mind emerging. IMO the fetus is a person, morally speaking, at that point and is deserving of protections. When abortion DOES legally happen in the third trimester there is typically a medical reason for it and in that case it is a matter of triage.

Anyway, that is why I believe what I believe.
 
IB daMann said:
Great, what claim did I make that I cannot support?
Click to expand...

That born and unborn are not equal. In your personal view, perhaps but in any legal or practical way, you'll have to prove that claim. Otherwise, yeah, your personal opinion is noted.

Or you can continue to avoid it and I'll just continue to ask when you falsely claim it. No biggie.

Didn't you just say that writing "I want to be Queen of the World" doesn't make it so?
Click to expand...

Yes, just like your claim about born and unborn being equal. Did that finally connect the dots for you?

Abortion is certainly a shirking of one responsibility. Abortion is certainly more convenient than a particular alternative.
Click to expand...

False, did you not comprehend what I wrote or just ignore it? Abortion is certainly responsible. Just because you dont "like" those reasons where it proves to be responsible doesnt change the fact that they are.

So just replying 'na huh' isnt really countering my facts, lol.
So you agree that it is irresponsible to gamble in Vegas if you can't afford to lose any money, yes?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is my 'opinion.'


So you agree that it is irresponsible to accept the risk of pregnancy and to willingly engage in sex when you cannot properly care for, or afford, the child that might be produced, yes?
Click to expand...

No of course not. Not when birth control offers *reasonable protection* and women know that they have a safer, legal option in abortion. So they are not forced into any irresponsible actions. They have several choices...give birth, adoption, abortion...all responsible.

LOL, so you're still wrong.

Men don't have advocates for empowering them to kill others for their own convenience.
Click to expand...

Neither do women. Unless you consider everything in someone's life a convenience? Do you? And if so, is it only in women's lives that everything is a convenience or is it everything in men's lives too?

You are soooooo sadly dug in deep here, after all this time. You are just embarrassing yourself with the whole 'convenience' thing.

IB daMann said:
You specifically are unable to see this. You value the ability to kill very young living humans more than you value equal protection of living humans. You perceive any restriction on a woman's ability to kill a living human for convenience as granting "more rights" to the living human who would get to remain alive. With a value system that screwed up, there's no way you can "see" equal protection under the law if it were standing in front of you on a bright summer day.
Click to expand...

I am very honest that I value the unborn less than people. Your attempt at criticism is meaningless, because your position holds zero moral High Ground. You show no respect or value for women's lives at all...reducing their entire lives to convenience...and have not even acknowleged the harm and impacts on them that restricted abortion would have.

So you trying to play the 'morality' or 'guilt' card is laughable.

Oh, and dont forget to let us know when you can show...in the 'real world'...how the born and unborn can be treated equally. Or remain yearning for "Queenhood!" :lamo
 
BrewerBob said:
Sure. My position is based on when I consider someone a "person". I am talking about the moral definition, not the legal definition. What is it about you, Lursa, that makes me value your life? What is it about YOU that makes me care what happens to you or that your rights are protected?

Is it that you have a beating heart? No. Is it that your DNA is similar to mine? No? Is that you are carbon-based or that your body contains blood? No and no.

What makes you a person to me is that you have a mind. You are an aware, sentient being. THAT is what makes you a person to me. Without a mind you are no more a person to me than a rock, or a flower, or a bacteria, or an embryo.

The overwhelming majority of abortions happen before the fetus has a sufficiently developed enough brain for a mind to emerge. So I have zero problems with aborting at that stage, whether the embryo is in a woman OR in a test tube.

Things change for me in the third trimester. At some point in the third trimester it seems apparent to me that the fetus' brain develops to the point of a mind emerging. IMO the fetus is a person, morally speaking, at that point and is deserving of protections. When abortion DOES legally happen in the third trimester there is typically a medical reason for it and in that case it is a matter of triage.

Anyway, that is why I believe what I believe.
Click to expand...

Thank you. There is alot of very sensible thinking and thoughtfulness in that position.
 
BrewerBob said:
Sure. My position is based on when I consider someone a "person". I am talking about the moral definition, not the legal definition. What is it about you, Lursa, that makes me value your life? What is it about YOU that makes me care what happens to you or that your rights are protected?

Is it that you have a beating heart? No. Is it that your DNA is similar to mine? No? Is that you are carbon-based or that your body contains blood? No and no.

What makes you a person to me is that you have a mind. You are an aware, sentient being. THAT is what makes you a person to me. Without a mind you are no more a person to me than a rock, or a flower, or a bacteria, or an embryo.

The overwhelming majority of abortions happen before the fetus has a sufficiently developed enough brain for a mind to emerge. So I have zero problems with aborting at that stage, whether the embryo is in a woman OR in a test tube.

Things change for me in the third trimester. At some point in the third trimester it seems apparent to me that the fetus' brain develops to the point of a mind emerging. IMO the fetus is a person, morally speaking, at that point and is deserving of protections. When abortion DOES legally happen in the third trimester there is typically a medical reason for it and in that case it is a matter of triage.

Anyway, that is why I believe what I believe.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Bob...good post.
 
Lursa said:
That born and unborn are not equal.
Click to expand...
Now I'm confused. Are you claiming that I made this claim? I don't remember doing so. Could you refresh my memory by linking to the thread?

I believe I limited my discussion to living humans.

Lursa said:
Yes, just like your claim about born and unborn being equal. Did that finally connect the dots for you?
Click to expand...
It seems you just contradicted yourself. Anyway, you were supposed to provide me a claim that I have made that I cannot support. Suddenly your writing is incoherent.

Would you mind starting over and just quote something I wrote (in context) that I cannot support?

Lursa said:
False, did you not comprehend what I wrote or just ignore it?
Click to expand...
When you babble, I end up doing both. I can't be any clearer within the limitations of the English language. I don't know what you are failing to understand. If you would tell me with what you are having problems I am more than happy to walk you through it.

Lursa said:
Abortion is certainly responsible.
Click to expand...
You are dodging. We'll just agree to disagree. You refuse to acknowledge when a woman is irresponsible and instead praise her for being "responsible" in her irresponsibility.

Lursa said:
Yes, that is my 'opinion.'
Click to expand...
I just gave examples of equal irresponsibility and you acknowledge the irresponsibility as long it doesn't involve pregnancy. If, however, the irresponsibility can lead to an unaffordable pregnancy then you're all for it.

Good job.


Lursa said:
No of course not. Not when birth control offers *reasonable protection* and women know that they have a safer, legal option in abortion.
Click to expand...
Right, whenever you are faced with a problem in your ethics, you conveniently switch to semantics of legality. Your rationale for the morality of killing a living human is that it is legal.

So you were lying when you said that bad laws should be overturned. What you really meant is that there is no such thing as a bad law because the legality itself makes it good/moral/ethical.

Good job.

Lursa said:
Neither do women.
Click to expand...
Sure they do. You are one of them. Watch:

Should women be legally permitted to get an abortion on a whim?

Lursa said:
I am very honest that I value the unborn less than people.
Click to expand...
Right. You don't value human life if it is too young for your liking, yes?


Lursa said:
You show no respect or value for women's lives at all.
Click to expand...
None? Zero? Please allow me to relish your hyperbole. If a woman is required to accept responsibility for her decisions then she is being afforded no respect for her life.

Great job!
 
IB daMann said:
Now I'm confused. Are you claiming that I made this claim? I don't remember doing so. Could you refresh my memory by linking to the thread?

I believe I limited my discussion to living humans.


It seems you just contradicted yourself. Anyway, you were supposed to provide me a claim that I have made that I cannot support. Suddenly your writing is incoherent.

Would you mind starting over and just quote something I wrote (in context) that I cannot support?


When you babble, I end up doing both. I can't be any clearer within the limitations of the English language. I don't know what you are failing to understand. If you would tell me with what you are having problems I am more than happy to walk you through it.


You are dodging. We'll just agree to disagree. You refuse to acknowledge when a woman is irresponsible and instead praise her for being "responsible" in her irresponsibility.


I just gave examples of equal irresponsibility and you acknowledge the irresponsibility as long it doesn't involve pregnancy. If, however, the irresponsibility can lead to an unaffordable pregnancy then you're all for it.

Good job.



Right, whenever you are faced with a problem in your ethics, you conveniently switch to semantics of legality. Your rationale for the morality of killing a living human is that it is legal.

So you were lying when you said that bad laws should be overturned. What you really meant is that there is no such thing as a bad law because the legality itself makes it good/moral/ethical.

Good job.


Sure they do. You are one of them. Watch:

Should women be legally permitted to get an abortion on a whim?


Right. You don't value human life if it is too young for your liking, yes?



None? Zero? Please allow me to relish your hyperbole. If a woman is required to accept responsibility for her decisions then she is being afforded no respect for her life.

Great job!
Click to expand...

:lamo:lamo:lamo

All this ^^^ to just say, "na huh, I said so! *stamps feet* " LMAO

Oh, and of course now you are just lying that you have not declared that the unborn and born can be treated equally. I guess you realized that you cant support it and now just want to go with denial?

No worries, you've posted it enough, and avoided it enough that I had ample opportunity to show my argument on how that's wrong.

Cheers!
 
IB daMann said:
...

I believe I limited my discussion to living humans. ...
Click to expand...

And you include the unborn as living humans.

While an embryo or a pre-viable fetus is human with human DNA is not not living without the direct life forces of the woman.
So until it reaches viability it is directly biologically dependent on her ( it is not capable of living without her life forces).

. It is not correct to say of the embryo that it grows: it is grown by the mother. It is not a potential living being; the mother is the potential mother of a living being.
Click to expand...

The Embryo Is Not a Potential Living Being - L'Humanité in English
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
What is threat or harm? What if a fetus poses no threat or harm? I'm glad to see a response from someone who doesn't want to endlessly talk about the constitution. It makes me fall asleep.
Click to expand...

Every pregnancy is a threat to the woman.

Birth Complications On The Rise In The U.S., Study Finds

Between 1998 and 2009, the rate of serious complications like heart attack, stroke, severe bleeding and kidney failure during or after childbirth roughly doubled among U.S. women, according to researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In 2008-2009, there were 129 cases of severe complications for every 10,000 women who delivered in a hospital. That was up 75 percent from a decade earlier.

Birth Complications On The Rise In The U.S., Study Finds
 
Bodhisattva said:
Every pregnancy is a threat to the woman.

Birth Complications On The Rise In The U.S., Study Finds

Between 1998 and 2009, the rate of serious complications like heart attack, stroke, severe bleeding and kidney failure during or after childbirth roughly doubled among U.S. women, according to researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In 2008-2009, there were 129 cases of severe complications for every 10,000 women who delivered in a hospital. That was up 75 percent from a decade earlier.

Birth Complications On The Rise In The U.S., Study Finds
Click to expand...

And what people often ignore is that this is WITH abortion being legal. Meaning that not all complications can be predicted or prevented and you cant keep pregnant women safe just by allowing abortion for medical reasons. Because they already are legal and women still die or suffer severe health consequences.
 
Last edited:
Scrabaholic said:
I am conservative and very much pro-choice.
Click to expand...

I think there are alot of conservatives that are pro-choice, if only because they recognize the fact that, as supposedly the 'side the beileves in smaller govt and less govt intrusion in people's lives' they realize that it's great govt overreach for the govt to interfere in the personal reproductive decisions of families...and that is exactly one of the main premises that RvW was based on...privacy.

They dont 'like' abortion...but then who does? No one I've ever heard or read of, including people on the 'left.'
 
Moderate Right said:
1. Pro-choicers almost always like to quote the SCOTUS's interpretation of what the founding fathers meant regarding the abortion issue and women's rights but what if the founding fathers had actually written into important documents of the time that women were indeed second class citizens (which is how they did actually feel at the time) and a fetus did have the right to life? If this timeline would have happened then we never would have had to interpret anything. Their thoughts on the subject would have been clear from the beginning. How would the left feel about that or would they still be arguing about it? In other words, maybe the whole issue has more to do with how the left feels about the subject and actually zero about what the legalities are since under this scenario abortion would be illegal.

2. Many seem to correlate abortion with women's rights. What if we had a kind of test tube baby growing in some kind of artificial womb so that the women's rights issue was not a factor. How would the left feel about aborting the "test tube" fetus at various stages of development, or would there be absolutely zero difference than if the fetus had been growing inside of a woman?
Click to expand...

You are demonstrating an incredible lack of reasoning here.

1) Even though this has been explained to you more than a dozen times, for some inexplicable reason you seem to think pro-choicers support the right to abortion only because the Framers did. I guess no matter how it's worded, you just can not understand that the legal reasoning that supports abortion rights is nothing more than "the legal reasoning that supports abortion rights"

2) Are you suggesting that people will go to the expense and effort of creating test-tube babies and then abort them? Is this your way of showing how clever you are?

If so, you're doing it wrong.
 
Moderate Right said:
I'm so sick of hearing the constitution argument by pro-choice people because if the founding fathers had included a right to life for fetuses the left wouldn't give a damn about the constitution and yet they expect the right to listen to their arguments regarding the constitution now. Double standard and hypocrisy at it's finest.
Click to expand...

As is often the case, you are once again lying about the left.

Unlike the right, who don't care about the constitution (as demonstrated by their presidential candidates, and the repeated passage of laws that are unconstitutional), the left would not ignore the constitution; they would seek to change it.

Compare that to the right, who won't even try to pass a constitutional amendment granting rights to the unborn. Instead, they just repeatedly pass unconstitutional laws and dishonestly claim they are trying to make abortion safe for pregnant women.
 
Moderate Right said:
Interesting angle but I'm not so sure it applies to my hypothetical argument, which to me is more of a black and white issue. If this test tube/artificial womb fetus were never in a female to begin with would the left still feel they have the right to abort it or not at various stages of development? Would there be any difference in their feelings about abortion or not?
Click to expand...

Of course it would make no difference. The unborn have no rights. That's true, not because the constitution says so, but because civilization has never acknowledged that the unborn have rights.

Pro choice seems to be all about a woman's right to make decisions about her own body but this fetus is hers and the fathers but was never in her body so how does the left feel about abortion under these conditions?
Click to expand...

and yet again you are lying about the left. Pro-choice is not "all about about a woman's right to make decisions about her own body"; it's also about the fact that the unborn have no rights and people have the right to make private decisions about their family size without interference from the govt
 
You would think right wingers in America would be all for abortion considering the economic impact unwanted children born to poor mothers pose on the economy in the form of government assistance.

That, and your own God (making the assumption that most pro-lifers are Christians) set out his people in the Bible to commit infanticide. If God has no problem killing babies who are already born to happy parents, I am very much in doubt to how much concern your God pays to a microscopic clump of cells that chances are will grow up to be criminals due to systemic poverty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom