• 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!

Abortion

GEIxBattleRifle said:
I forgot isn't your position a random gestation cut off?
Click to expand...

I have a hard line at viability, but I can live with the 12 week window. See, I'm willing to compromise.
 
lb_on_teh_cb said:
i think you're wrong though. if you talk about concepts like personhood most people will just tune you out but if people see more and more pictures of fetuses that look human then they Pro-Choice side will lose. that's what they're scared of. democrats always use emotion while repubs use cold reason - and repubs lose
Click to expand...
NO I'm correct. The abortion debate comes down to personhood not unborn humans "who look human." You can try to trick people easier though if they haven't ever participated in the debate. Showing pictures though is fine. It doesn't undermine a pro choicers position if they are already in agree with the medical science on the matter.
 
akrunner88 said:
Yay, another thread that's about to break down into 100 pages of the same **** spewed in all other abortion threads.

Why even have an abortion forum? Why not just ban the topic on DP altogether? It's only purpose serves to up people's post counts.
Click to expand...

I get the frustration. The two factions arguments are mutually exclusive. Pro-choice can make their arguments without using the words "abortion, zygote, embryo, and fetus.

Actually dont have have to make any scientific arguments.

But there are hundreds of people who drop in and never post. Who knows, might make a person or two a perspective they've not considered.

So yes, no visible winners in these threads.
 
Removable Mind said:
I get the frustration. The two factions arguments are mutually exclusive. Pro-choice can make their arguments without using the words "abortion, zygote, embryo, and fetus.

Actually dont have have to make any scientific arguments.

But there are hundreds of people who drop in and never post. Who knows, might make a person or two a perspective they've not considered.

So yes, no visible winners in these threads.
Click to expand...

I guess that's true, as a former pro-lifer myself. The question of viability won me out ultimately, as did the economic and societal concerns of families having children they just can't financially support at a level that will keep them out of trouble. But it took me a while to get there, as I saw (and still do) at the time that regardless of viability, it was still technically a human life.

As someone who is not religious, I don't see anything immoral about getting rid of a fetus that is the size of a pin prick (if not smaller). I still have deep reservations and concerns regarding third trimester abortions, but they are so rare that it's a non-issue. And when they do occur, it's mostly because of extreme complications that have the potential of affecting the mother's well being or life.
 
akrunner88 said:
I guess that's true, as a former pro-lifer myself. The question of viability won me out ultimately, as did the economic and societal concerns of families having children they just can't financially support at a level that will keep them out of trouble. But it took me a while to get there, as I saw (and still do) at the time that regardless of viability, it was still technically a human life.

As someone who is not religious, I don't see anything immoral about getting rid of a fetus that is the size of a pin prick (if not smaller). I still have deep reservations and concerns regarding third trimester abortions, but they are so rare that it's a non-issue. And when they do occur, it's mostly because of extreme complications that have the potential of affecting the mother's well being or life.
Click to expand...

Actually a significant number of pro-choice women wouldn't have an abortion. They know that the underlying issue, their fundamental rights to equal protection under the law, rights to due process, and certainly their right to privacy related to several Amendments would be compromised if they surrendered to pro-life's wants.

A lot, not all, but a lot of pro-life see forcing a woman to give birth and bear the burdens associated with having a child as "punishment" for having irresponsible sex. And many want to end or significantly reduce essential social services that impact children. So in the end, children are punished by proxy for existing.

Most pro-choice agree with the boundary of viability of a fetus being the sand in the line. But really, viability can run give or take 24 weeks and up. And well over 90% of abortions happen and 12 weeks and under. Actually of those, just over 60% are 10 weeks and under.

So there's all of the evidence in the world that women don't frivolously get abortion. Sure, there's exceptions, but they are by far not the rule. Now, by my saying that women don't "frivolously have abortions" - that's not a good term to use for pro-life. They're offended by such a comment. That raises their "on demand" flag. Women are being frivolous if they have an abortion for any reason other than to save their own lives or long-term health. Some don't even believe those are acceptable reasons.

But women shouldn't have to have a reason, or be questioned about their motives under the boundaries set by law. They're not obligated to announce any they've conceived. That's between them and a medical provider.

Thanks for your response.
 
Crovax said:
What makes you think you have the right to kill your own child?
Click to expand...

Why makes you think that the yet to be born have more value than born women (and men)? There's no evidence that all of the abortions ever performed has had a negative impact on humanity. But there is evidence that abortions have benefits to society.

And we live in a society, ruled by law, that defines child, which is not what your post refers to. You're talking about a yet to be born human life. Under the stage of viability, a women has no obligation to any legal authority to get permission to terminate a pregnancy.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)
Click to expand...
 
FeistyBroad said:
What gives you the right to tell me what to do? Or any other woman what to do? If I own it it's mine I'll do what I want.
Click to expand...

You have to understand a person cannot be a possession. Slavery was outlawed several years ago.

Although some posters on this forum would probably praise the 1 child policy and selective sex abortions, women should have the right to have a child. They should be able to send said child to failed schools that teach common core, they have the right to feed said child sugary drinks and fatty foods, they have the right to teach that child cockamamie theories, etc...

But we are a nation of laws and ethics. You do not have the right to torture or abuse your children. Obviously you do not have the right to murdering children.

Let us have a productive discussion regarding this matter FeistyBroad. Please feel free to message me back. Please do not make any rash decisions and pray before making any life-altering decisions.
 
Bucky said:
Although some posters on this forum would probably praise the 1 child policy and selective sex abortions...
Click to expand...

I have never seen a single person on the abortion sub-forum make ANY claims about 1-child per family or selective sex abortions. You personally, all on your own, have associated some personal view that pro-choice people are all about population. You are wrong. So please stick to the actual topic...abortion.
 
Bucky said:
You have to understand a person cannot be a possession.

women should have the right to have a child.

But we are a nation of laws and ethics. You do not have the right to torture or abuse your children. Obviously you do not have the right to murdering children.
.
Click to expand...

Clearly you do not understand a thing about this issue. No person on either side of the issue EVER says a woman should not have the right to have a child.

And because we are indeed a nation of law and ethics, you should recognize that your first sentence is also wrong: the unborn are not persons. They have no rights. They are not equal to born people. You have been informed of this and given the legal definition that you just implied should be respected. But you can see post 35 for a refresher.

And in abortion, as you also know but just apparently like to keep typing to look foolish, just like with the definition of person....no one having an abortion is murdering any children.

Besides 'person' you seem to need the definitions for 'murder' and 'children' too. So your comment re: a nation of laws and ethics seems bizarre when you right such things. For instance you refuse to address the 'ethics' of violating women's rights in order to enforce any laws making abortion illegal.
 
Fiesty, lest us have a discussion. I apologize for the screaming, bleeding unhinged lady attacking me. Since you are from Texas you probably understand strong moral ethics and principles.
 
Bucky said:
Fiesty, lest us have a discussion. I apologize for the screaming, bleeding unhinged lady attacking me. Since you are from Texas you probably understand strong moral ethics and principles.
Click to expand...

There is no "screaming, bleeding unhinged lady" attacking you.
 
Scrabaholic said:
There is no "screaming, bleeding unhinged lady" attacking you.
Click to expand...

I had several conversations with Lursa regarding abortion. I have answered all of her questions yet she never directly answers my questions. Most of her posts against me are vile, hateful attacks. Clearly she has an agenda. On record I have no problem with her and find her to be a very intelligent poster. Incorrect but still intelligent.
 
calamity said:
Killing a fetus before the twelfth week is not quite the same as killing a husband. Although, it has been argued that they perhaps both have the same level of brain development...
Click to expand...
All depends on your level of humanity I suppose. If you are uncaring, you are probably uncaring about both, more or less. A fetus is us at a younger age, all of us. All of us alive, separate DNA from mother or father human beings that have no voice of our own yet to defend our existence and rely upon those of us who were not aborted to speak in our behalf.

Your attempt at a joke is sexist and offensive.
 
Bucky said:
Fiesty, lest us have a discussion. I apologize for the screaming, bleeding unhinged lady attacking me. Since you are from Texas you probably understand strong moral ethics and principles.
Click to expand...

LMAO, not an exclamation point or all-caps word to be found so you certainly cant be writing about me. Esp. since there is nothing vile or hateful in them, no attacks....and I'm also not whining as a defense to avoid having to answer the tough questions.

But anytime you can refute my statements or answer my questions it would certainly make your position clear to the rest of the people in the thread.
 
Last edited:
Gaugingcatenate said:
All depends on your level of humanity I suppose. If you are uncaring, you are probably uncaring about both, more or less. A fetus is us at a younger age, all of us. All of us alive, separate DNA from mother or father human beings that have no voice of our own yet to defend our existence and rely upon those of us who were not aborted to speak in our behalf.

Your attempt at a joke is sexist and offensive.
Click to expand...

So you believe that it's more important to care about the unborn than women? If people care about women...they are not as caring as those that care more about the unborn?
 
Bucky said:
I had several conversations with Lursa regarding abortion. I have answered all of her questions yet she never directly answers my questions. Most of her posts against me are vile, hateful attacks. Clearly she has an agenda. On record I have no problem with her and find her to be a very intelligent poster. Incorrect but still intelligent.
Click to expand...

You are lying, as I recently posted 2 questions that you never answered. Here, try again:

How can the unborn and born be treated equally...legally or practically?

And since they cannot (unless you explain), why do you value the unborn more than women? How do you justify the gross violations of women's rights in order to entitle the unborn 'the exact same things?' (Life, liberty, self-determination, due process, etc.)

And I answer all your questions 'that are about abortion.' Not nonsense about '1 child per couple.'
 
Lursa said:
You are lying, as I recently posted 2 questions that you never answered. Here, try again:

How can the unborn and born be treated equally...legally or practically?

And since they cannot (unless you explain), why do you value the unborn more than women? How do you justify the gross violations of women's rights in order to entitle the unborn 'the exact same things?' (Life, liberty, self-determination, due process, etc.)

And I answer all your questions 'that are about abortion.' Not nonsense about '1 child per couple.'
Click to expand...

1. I believe you are referring to the idea should an abortion be allowed in regards to saving a mother's life correct? I'll gladly answer your question. Should an abortion be allowed in cases where the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy?

I value life, the sanctity of life.

Of course. That being said what you are asking is a straw man argument. An abortion is never medically necessary to save a mothers life.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.”

Imagine a culture where patients were filled with worry that someone was paying their physician more to end their life than they were paying to keep them alive. That was the Greek culture of Hippocrates day. Doctors were ending the lives of their patients through physician-assisted suicide and abortion Hippocrates drew an ethical line in the proverbial sand. On one side he called all physicians who would not end the lives of patients; on the other, he left those who would. Patients voted with their dollars, and in time, physicians either adopted the Hippocratic oath or they lost business. Ending the lives of patients through medical services was re-stigmatized.
Click to expand...

Association of Pro-Life Physicians - "Primum non nocere – First do no harm"

2.
And since they cannot (unless you explain), why do you value the unborn more than women? How do you justify the gross violations of women's rights in order to entitle the unborn 'the exact same things?' (Life, liberty, self-determination, due process, etc.)
Click to expand...

My position is clear: An abortion is never morally or medically necessary. Not even in the case of rape or incest. I will state this until I die: The right to choice ends when another life begins.
 
Bucky said:
Please do not make any rash decisions and pray before making any life-altering decisions.
Click to expand...

Why on earth should she pray? What she needs to do is make her own decision. Honestly, the answer isn't prayer which is total nonsense anyway, it's making a choice.
 
Bucky said:
I value life, the sanctity of life.

\.
Click to expand...

Once a child is born, right wingers jump off the ship like rats in a fire. Who do you think you're kidding?
 
Scrabaholic said:
The fact that said 'child' is inside of and attached to her body.
Click to expand...

Right so its her property to kill as she chooses, just like slaves in the old south. Great argument :thumbs:
 
Bucky said:
I had several conversations with Lursa regarding abortion. I have answered all of her questions yet she never directly answers my questions. Most of her posts against me are vile, hateful attacks. Clearly she has an agenda. On record I have no problem with her and find her to be a very intelligent poster. Incorrect but still intelligent.
Click to expand...

Can you point out where you feel she's attacked you? I haven't seen it happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom