• 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!

Changes in my Abortion Position

RetiredUSN said:
Are you sure this is all true? I am asking out of ignorance....... and not to argue.
Click to expand...

Yes, the medical science (re: awareness and pain) and data on late term abortions is often provided here.
 
JayDubya said:
That's a lie, and you know it.

Or rather, it's a ridiculous stretch of the word "necessity" beyond all reason and sanity.
Click to expand...

SInce you recognize no 'necessity' for abortion at all except to save the mother ONLY if the unborn will also die anyway, your post is the one which is utterly ridiculous.

Please refrain from your hyperbole and falsities in this thread, it seems to have been posted in good faith and to be civil so far.
 
digsbe said:
I feel like it's important to continuously learn and always evaluate what we believe and why we believe it. I've been staunchly pro-life and completely opposed to nearly all abortions outside of the need to terminate to save the mother's life. After going through life, learning, evaluating, and seeing people in a healthcare setting I've changed what I believe and what I support.

You could say I'm "pro-choice" to an extent. I support the ability for a woman to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester or only early on in pregnancy and only in the first trimester/early on (depending on what embryology says about the fetal development). I believe in the absence of complete human development and the fetus not having a mind I believe it's not unethical to terminate pregnancy in this stage. I do, however, believe it's inhumane and wrong to do so after the first trimester or when he child may have a functioning brain and/or mind. Many pregnancies naturally terminate early on, and most women will delay a pregnancy announcement until they are roughly 16 weeks out because there is still a high risk of losing the baby and wouldn't want to announce before they know they have a believable healthy pregnancy.

I've seen women in crisis who followed all the "right" steps, did all the "right" things that still wound up conceiving and I wouldn't put it past them to chose to terminate or not. I've never been in this kind of situation and that's not the reason behind my position change.

Basically, I don't believe it's inhumane to terminate a pregnancy in the earliest stages, I do believe it is wrong to do so in later stages and support full bans on mid-late term abortion as I believe that's unethical killing of a human life that has a mind, may feel pain, or is a viable human life. Prior to this though while it is an embryo or in the earliest stages of development I do not see a problem with it and believe a woman should be able to chose to abort if she feels it's the best decision for her and/or her partner.
Click to expand...

Good for you, many people who identify as pro-choice feel like you do. Sadly they don't p[ost often due to some other pro-lifers. There are some here that will argue with you and now call you pro-life but their opinions don't matter. Only YOU get to choose what you are. Very interesting, I think its always commendable whether I agree with ones position or not when one can continue to learn and grow and be open.
 
digsbe said:
I feel like...
Click to expand...
I must admit, I would have never thought and now I AM impressed. Thank you for sharing that and for demonstrating what open mind can do and I will qualify that with saying that it is not that you changed your mind to what I think it is right, but tho the simple and honest fact that you were willing to change when you re-evaluated the basis of your belief. Bravo for that.
 
Lursa said:
SInce you recognize no 'necessity' for abortion at all except to save the mother ONLY if the unborn will also die anyway, your post is the one which is utterly ridiculous.

Please refrain from your hyperbole and falsities in this thread, it seems to have been posted in good faith and to be civil so far.
Click to expand...

Well yes, I do believe in the principles of life saving emergency medical triage, thank you for noticing.

Anything less than that and you're just having another human being killed on a whim for your personal convenience, by definition.
 
JayDubya said:
Well yes, I do believe in the principles of life saving emergency medical triage, thank you for noticing.

Anything less than that and you're just having another human being killed on a whim for your personal convenience, by definition.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying your position. That fact that it's not an accurate portrayal of abortion and women's lives notwithstanding, it does show exactly what you believe.
 
Crovax said:
Only if you are a sociopath
Click to expand...

Not at all. Life isn't prefect, and neither are pregnancies.

Sometimes, the health of the mother is compromised by a pregnancy. Other times, there are defective fetuses. Of course, the reason someone gets an abortion is not your business, nor it is mine.
 
JayDubya said:
Well yes, I do believe in the principles of life saving emergency medical triage, thank you for noticing.

Anything less than that and you're just having another human being killed on a whim for your personal convenience, by definition.
Click to expand...

there is no factual definition that supports your claim . . . ZERO . . none. I challenge you or anybody to provide facts proving there is.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Are you sure this is all true? I am asking out of ignorance....... and not to argue.
Click to expand...

Yes, legal late term abortions in the US are for medical reasons.

Perhaps an old Fox News article ( from 2003 ) will help.
June 17, 2003
...
Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation),
Click to expand...

Fast Facts: U.S. Abortion Statistics | Fox News

The stats since then have changed.
By 2012 the numbers of abortion were less than 1.2 million.
In 2014 the CDC reported less than I million.

Fewer than I.3 percent of legal abortions took place between 21 weeks gestation and 24 weeks gestation.
Some for maternal health , more for fetal health since fetal abnormalies usually do not show up until the 18-20 gestational week ultrasound. That only gives the parents with input from the doctor and tests to decide if they want to terminate the pregnancy since viabily usually occurs between 22 and 24 weeks.

Less than 100 abortions occur after 24 weeks gestation.

They are the extreme cases.

There are only 3 clinics in all the USA ( and 4 clinic doctors ) who perform legal abortions after the age of viability ( between 22 to 24 weeks ) gestation and they are for the extreme cases. Cases where the fetus is not viable ( will be stillborn or is so malformed will only live a few minutes or hours). If a fetus dies or is dying within the womb , it can case a life threatening infection in the woman. Or if irreparable damage to a major bodily function ( such as stroke, heart attack, paralysis from the neck down , kidney damage etc. ) would occur if the pregnancy continued.

Doctors all of the US who patients had these extreme conditions would send there patients to one of these clinics.

In 2008 Kansas had one of the clinics for these extreme cases.
Kansas kept a record of all abortions at or after 22 weeks gestation.

There were 323 abortions for these extreme cases.

131 were because the fetus was not viable. ( was stillborns or so malformed it would live only a few minutes or hours).
The other 192 were because irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued.

They were extreme cases.

See page for Kansas stats for abortions at or after 22 weeks gestation.

http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/abortion_sum/08itop1.pdf
 
Last edited:
Crovax said:
You are changing your views based on anecdotal experiences, that's pretty silly did you never think of those scenarios before. You claimed they did all "right" things, that's extremely ignorant. All birth control has a failure rate the only right way to ensure that you don't get pregnant is not to have sex.
Click to expand...

Except that is not how humans work/live/exist, humans want and need the thrill and emotional fulfillment that sex brings them. Only a highly oppressive or highly out of touch with reality minds (like the previous popes and leaders of churches) would think that is a workable solution.

People have sex, it is part of being human/adult/in a relationship. To just say to people if they do not want to become pregnant they should refrain from having sex is an unworkable and out of touch with reality proposition.
 
Peter King said:
Except that is not how humans work/live/exist, humans want and need the thrill and emotional fulfillment that sex brings them. Only a highly oppressive or highly out of touch with reality minds (like the previous popes and leaders of churches) would think that is a workable solution.

People have sex, it is part of being human/adult/in a relationship. To just say to people if they do not want to become pregnant they should refrain from having sex is an unworkable and out of touch with reality proposition.
Click to expand...

I never claimed that people shouldnt have sex only that they accept the fact that no matter how "safe" they are a pregnancy can happen. If someone absolutely doesnt want to have a child and they are sexually active they are the ones out of touch with reality because those two things are imcompatible
 
Crovax said:
I never claimed that people shouldnt have sex only that they accept the fact that no matter how "safe" they are a pregnancy can happen. If someone absolutely doesnt want to have a child and they are sexually active they are the ones out of touch with reality because those two things are imcompatible
Click to expand...

Well, you suggested it, people who do not want to get pregnant should not have sex because that is the risk of having sex. Which is out of touch with reality due to birth control and abortion. You can have sex and never get pregnant in 2 ways, first birth control and abortion and the second one is tying the tubes/snip snip. So your comment that having sex is incompatible with not wanting to procreate/have further children is the comment that is out of touch with reality. You can have sex and not have children/further children with ease.
 
Crovax said:
I never claimed that people shouldnt have sex only that they accept the fact that no matter how "safe" they are a pregnancy can happen. If someone absolutely doesnt want to have a child and they are sexually active they are the ones out of touch with reality because those two things are imcompatible
Click to expand...

And they also know that there are safer, legal options to being pregnant and having a kid you're not prepared for or cant afford. So they can make several responsible choices, depending on personal circumstances.

Pretty sure you dont have the right to determine that priority for strangers or presume to know their circumstances.
 
Crovax said:
I never claimed that people shouldnt have sex only that they accept the fact that no matter how "safe" they are a pregnancy can happen.
Click to expand...
And they do that and when an unwanted pregnancy happens they take measures. It has been that way since the dawn of time.

If someone absolutely doesnt want to have a child and they are sexually active they are the ones out of touch with reality because those two things are imcompatible
Click to expand...
Only in your world or delusion.
 
JayDubya said:
Furthermore, you have every reason to suspect a home invader who has already disrespected your property rights will continue to aggress against you. A helpless and innocent human being who cannot attack you in any way is not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Mens rea is not required for harm or the threat of harm to justify homicide. And all pregnancies are harmful to the mother, even if only temporarily.

Why don't you support womens' right to self-defense? Why do you think women should be forced to subject themselves to unwanted harm for the sake of another being? Why do you support slavery?
 
JayDubya said:
Furthermore, you have every reason to suspect a home invader who has already disrespected your property rights will continue to aggress against you. A helpless and innocent human being who cannot attack you in any way is not the same thing.
Click to expand...
If a home invader is dumping bio toxic waste into my body, I can kill them. Since the unborn human dumps bio toxic waste into the women's bloodstream she should be allowed to kill the human if she wants to.
 
AGENT J said:
there is no factual definition that supports your claim . . . ZERO . . none. I challenge you or anybody to provide facts proving there is.
Click to expand...

His entire argument, every bit of it, is premised on an inch long 6-week old embryo with no sense of feeling, sentience or discernible brain function whatsoever is no different than a 3-year old boy out riding a tricycle. If he truly believes this or not is probably worth considering. I suspect he just uses it as a club in these forums. It's his way of not dealing with anyone else's more nuanced arguments on this issue.

Seriously, who here really believes a fetus before 12 weeks is no different than the woman carrying it? Where do you have to be in your disdain for women to think that they are the same?
 
calamity said:
His entire argument, every bit of it, is premised on an inch long 6-week old embryo with no sense of feeling, sentience or discernible brain function whatsoever is no different than a 3-year old boy out riding a tricycle. If he truly believes this or not is probably worth considering. I suspect he just uses it as a club in these forums. It's his way of not dealing with anyone else's more nuanced arguments on this issue.

Seriously, who here really believes a fetus before 12 weeks is no different than the woman carrying it? Where do you have to be in your disdain for women to think that they are the same?
Click to expand...

You dont even have to get in to that, that's going way to far.he claims Abortion (not for medical triage) is killing for personal convenience as a fact. Thats wrong period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom