• 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!

"Controlling her body"

Lursa said:
He has clearly written that women come second and that when it comes to the unborn, women's rights dont matter. I used to have that quote in my signature.
Click to expand...

There are many anti-choicers who don't give two figs about the woman or her rights. We've seen a few on this very forum.
 
Scrabaholic said:
There are many anti-choicers who don't give two figs about the woman or her rights. We've seen a few on this very forum.
Click to expand...

Scraba...more than a few. It's mind boggling that women have such little value to so many folks, which are mostly men.
 
moon1336 said:
If a parent is obligated to take care of their child and raise them then yes a mother has an obligation to go through a pregnancy as that child has equal rights to life therefore a mothers life choices do not trump their life.
Click to expand...

Do you know how totally illogical your post is?

There's absolutely no sign of "equal" present in your post.

There is zero right to life at any stage of life.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Prove it (that the unborn have a right to life).
Click to expand...





Why do you ask for proof like that? I think you know that there is no proof of that because if there was, that would mean that you would have opposing proof that the unborn don't have rights. Because if you had such proof, you would have shown that proof to us a long time ago, instead of t

But you don't, do you? Why don't you post it for us? If all that wonderful proof that you don't even have because if I am wrong, and you do have it, I would love to see it, if you please.
 
Last edited:
moon1336 said:
If a woman is pregnant and doesn't get an abortion, wouldn't you find it problematic if she drank and smoke during the entire pregnancy, knowing the serious health risks in which it cause upon her child?
Click to expand...

That would definitely be a problem, but those things are addiction related and addiction is a medical condition. You can't force people to get treatment.

I would not agree with controlling a woman's body for these purposes.
 
moon1336 said:
I find it very interesting liberals find what should be the REAL safe space in the womb problematic, but think things which are not problematic(free speech) need to be locked down by safe spaces.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that conservative & catholic women don't have abortions?
 
moon1336 said:
And let me guess you're going to say "You're a man, you don't have a uterus, so keep your mouth closed."

If pro-aborts like yourself can use the physical uterus part to denote a woman, then why do they not use the physical existence of the unborn to denote a child?
Click to expand...

I am a woman and I do not have control over another woman's uterus. Being prochoice has to do with the person whose body is affected. Adults make their own medical decisions.

But if you do not have a uterus, you will never have that choice. Input, perhaps, choice, no.
 
moon1336 said:
What I wanna know is where is the connection with killing the unborn in how it has to do with "controlling her body?"
If a woman is pregnant and doesn't get an abortion, wouldn't you find it problematic if she drank and smoke during the entire pregnancy, knowing the serious health risks in which it cause upon her child?
Click to expand...

Our country's court system (or it might vary state to state) has statutes and ways of intervening if a pregnant woman is putting her unborn child, which she intends to birth, in danger.

But enforcing measures such as incarceration or stays in an mental institution (etc) must be done THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM. A legal path with procedures and a case to make - which includes EVIDENCE and a TRIAL and results in a legal RULING by a judge.

And this I fully support.

But ending a pregnancy isn't the same (obviously) as carrying a baby to term and expecting to have the child and have it live. Quality of life is what comes into play in the above court-system issues. So what is there in question when it comes to legally ending a pregnancy (early on, not referring to anything late-term abortion) in the same way? She's not intending on carrying the baby to term, unlike a woman who drinks or smokes well into her 9th month.

If someone wants to take away a woman's right to abort I support that being done as a LEGAL PROCESS, just like waging a case against a woman in fear of fetal alcohol syndrome (etc).

And for some reason a lot of pro-choice advocates don't like that... and a lot of pro-life advocates don't find it satisfactory.

But above all, the wellbeing of mother/child isn't a SOCIAL matter, it's a private concern which only a small number of involved people have any right to question or interfere in. (family, close friends, medical professionals, the legal system). Because random people across the US aren't involved in the pregnancy/mother's wellbeing/upbringing of the child - therefor they should have no authority or say in anything that goes on regarding said pregnancy/mother/child.

When people who are not involved in any fashion with a pregnancy/the child's upbringing/that family dynamic - and they try to exert their morals and values on the situation, then they're trying to control her body and her life.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Our country's court system (or it might vary state to state) has statutes and ways of intervening if a pregnant woman is putting her unborn child, which she intends to birth, in danger.

But enforcing measures such as incarceration or stays in an mental institution (etc) must be done THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM. A legal path with procedures and a case to make - which includes EVIDENCE and a TRIAL and results in a legal RULING by a judge.

And this I fully support.

But ending a pregnancy isn't the same (obviously) as carrying a baby to term and expecting to have the child and have it live. Quality of life is what comes into play in the above court-system issues. So what is there in question when it comes to legally ending a pregnancy (early on, not referring to anything late-term abortion) in the same way? She's not intending on carrying the baby to term, unlike a woman who drinks or smokes well into her 9th month.

If someone wants to take away a woman's right to abort I support that being done as a LEGAL PROCESS, just like waging a case against a woman in fear of fetal alcohol syndrome (etc).

And for some reason a lot of pro-choice advocates don't like that... and a lot of pro-life advocates don't find it satisfactory.

But above all, the wellbeing of mother/child isn't a SOCIAL matter, it's a private concern which only a small number of involved people have any right to question or interfere in. (family, close friends, medical professionals, the legal system). Because random people across the US aren't involved in the pregnancy/mother's wellbeing/upbringing of the child - therefor they should have no authority or say in anything that goes on regarding said pregnancy/mother/child.

When people who are not involved in any fashion with a pregnancy/the child's upbringing/that family dynamic - and they try to exert their morals and values on the situation, then they're trying to control her body and her life.
Click to expand...

Funny how much you can defend abortion without using the word "abortion" and turn it into what it's really not.
 
RamFel said:
Funny how much you can defend abortion without using the word "abortion" and turn it into what it's really not.
Click to expand...

Funny how some people would see me as wanting to 'end it' and others see me as 'defending it' . . . I support the unpopular check-and-balance middle ground.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Funny how some people would see me as wanting to 'end it' and others see me as 'defending it' . . . I support the unpopular check-and-balance middle ground.
Click to expand...

i never take the middle ground. Because you take hits from both sides, and you know there's no future in it. and it shows a lack of comitment.
 
Last edited:
RamFel said:
i never take the middle ground. Because you take hits from both sides and you in it there's no future in it and it shows a lack of comitment.
Click to expand...

If someone backs down from where their TRUE beliefs are (this middle ground zone) then wouldn't that make a 'backing down to avoid confrontation' person the one lacking commitment?

I believe my view is right and just and I stick by it. Simple as that. I'm not going to back down just because one side or the other puts pressure on me . . . screw that.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
If someone backs down from where their TRUE beliefs are (this middle ground zone) then wouldn't that make a 'backing down to avoid confrontation' person the one lacking commitment?

I believe my view is right and just and I stick by it. Simple as that. I'm not going to back down just because one side or the other puts pressure on me . . . screw that.
Click to expand...

True, I suppose, but being right helps.
 
RamFel said:
True, I suppose, but being right helps.
Click to expand...

Well that's the logical fallacy: the belief that one extreme or the other IS right... the only right ground amid a moral argument is the middle ground where both views are taken into equal account.
 
Wrong..the rights of the unborn child do not supercede.
 
RamFel said:
Why do you ask for proof like that? I think you know that there is no proof of that because if there was, that would mean that you would have opposing proof that the unborn don't have rights. Because if you had such proof, you would have shown that proof to us a long time ago, instead of t

But you don't, do you? Why don't you post it for us? If all that wonderful proof that you don't even have because if I am wrong, and you do have it, I would love to see it, if you please.
Click to expand...

The gaining of rights relies on ability. Without our governments ability or our ability to defend our rights, we have no rights. Babies are defenseless, thus have no rights unless their governing body deems it so.
 
RamFel said:
Why do you ask for proof like that? I think you know that there is no proof of that because if there was, that would mean that you would have opposing proof that the unborn don't have rights. Because if you had such proof, you would have shown that proof to us a long time ago, instead of t

But you don't, do you? Why don't you post it for us? If all that wonderful proof that you don't even have because if I am wrong, and you do have it, I would love to see it, if you please.
Click to expand...

I rarely respond to your posts for the very reason I see in this post. Your blatant dishonesty. In the 5 years that I've been participating in this forum you have been given proof over and over and over that the yet to be born have zero rights.

You've been provided such so many times that people are worn out posting proof to you.

So just to be clear on your claim. You say that the yet to be born have a right to life. I'm going to take this a step farther. NO STAGE OF LIFE HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE! There is no legislated law or Constitutional provision that claims that "anybody", born or yet to be born have a right to life.

Now, you've made such claims many times, always crying that the burden of proof is on everybody else to refute your claim. THIS TIME, you need to actually support your own claim regarding the "right to life" possessed by all stages of life.

Copy and paste any legislated law that states the born and yet to be born have the right to life. Copy and paste any portion of the Constitution, which states that the born or yet to be born have a right to life.

That's it. This should be one of the easiest tasks to pull up on a google search. It's so easy a first grader who has some basic reading and writing skills could do it.

We'll all wait for your reply with proof that the born and yet to be born has a "right to life".
 
RamFel said:
there will always be the defenders of abortion. The never go away until they win. Something impossible to win. And that's when the iron wall of will power never dies, struggling to win against their political betters, against all reason. And the sheer will power will always carry on. Wrong, weak, and evil. No win is possible for them, but that doesn't stop them.
Click to expand...

They already won and will stop discussing the matter once the control freaks stop trying to control women's bodies...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom