• 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!

Openminded, looking for intelligent arguments.

Fishking said:
So are you also OK with there being no laws against people walking around killing other people, for whatever reason? You know, to be ideologically consistent.
Click to expand...

That's completely different and you know it.

And that's the belief you are allowed to live with under pro-choice.

Don't like it - don't do it.

Abortion is NOT murder.
 
trouble13 said:
No I'm saying how it affects the mother and the child but the father was not mentioned. It is his child too, or isnt it?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

While it's in her body the woman is the most directly affected by the pregnancy and so the decision belongs to her.

The fetus isn't the man's. You don't have a property right to people or to tissue growing in someone else's body. Thing's change after birth but before then it's solely the provence of the woman like any other medical decision.
 
Dragonfly said:
That's completely different and you know it.
Click to expand...

Obviously people disagree with you, which was the point of my post.

And that's the belief you are allowed to live with under pro-choice.

Don't like it - don't do it.

Abortion is NOT murder.
Click to expand...

As that is a legal term, you're correct in some circumstances. We do have the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which you can charge someone for double homicide for killing a pregnant woman.

So the question is, does certain codified laws change reality or not? Legally, blacks were 3/5th a person, at one point. Were they really 3/5th a person in reality?
 
trouble13 said:
Cant the atgument also be made that if prochoice people did a better job of hetting sexual active people to use contraception, abortions would not be necesarry.

Seems unrealistic to criticize one side more that the other

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why is it pro choice's job to get people to use contraception? *We* aren't dictating what choice the woman should make. Anti choicers are, so perhaps *they* should be encouraging contraceptive use more.

BTW, pro choicers are more likely to encourage contraception than anti choicers - as well as be for low cost/subsidized.
 
Fishking said:
As that is a legal term, you're correct in some circumstances. We do have the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which you can charge someone for double homicide for killing a pregnant woman.
Click to expand...

That is not abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure that the woman chooses to undergo to terminate pregnancy.



Legally, blacks were 3/5th a person, at one point. Were they really 3/5th a person in reality?
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Slaves (not free blacks) were 3/5 of a person, SOLELY for the purposes of the census and political representation.
 
Gaius46 said:
I'll answer your question with a question. If one accepts the risk associated with a activity does that mean they've relinquished the right to address that risk if it is realized?

If I decide to fly a single engine aircraft I've accepted the risk that my one engine may fail on takeoff and leave me in dire circumstances. That doesn't mean I'm not going to do everything in my power to get the best outcome possible.

I believe that would apply as well in the case of pregnancy. People engage in sex for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with having children and pregnancy itself does not inevitably end in live childbirth so I would pregnancy as a risk that accept when having sex. That doesn't mean to me you've accepted the possible outcome of a child being born.

I don't believe there is a moral responsibility to the fetus simply because you engaged in sex. That responsibilitybi believe begins at the point that the woman decides she wants to continue the pregnancy but not before.
Click to expand...

I know a lot of pro choice people take that position. But for me there is an ethical consideration that was once the norm in this country--the unborn baby was not considered nor called a zygote or parasite or any other term that salves the consciences of those who choose to kill it. When a woman became pregnant, the term was she was going to have a baby. And that was it. And almost all of us wondered who that baby would be, what would he/she become?

I would like for the public consciousness to return to something approximating that point of view so that only medically necessary abortions would be performed.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Abortion is never infanticide. Ever.
Click to expand...

In my opinion it is when a perfectly viable baby is killed for no reason other than the mother didn't want him or her or it was inconvenient or was the wrong sex or any other superficial reason.
 
Gaius46 said:
While it's in her body the woman is the most directly affected by the pregnancy and so the decision belongs to her.

The fetus isn't the man's. You don't have a property right to people or to tissue growing in someone else's body. Thing's change after birth but before then it's solely the provence of the woman like any other medical decision.
Click to expand...
Aftet birth is a whole new convuleyed argument made by women and their uncle tims. I just thought it odd tje tje onle two parties who get any consideration before birth is the mother and the child


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Scrabaholic said:
Why is it pro choice's job to get people to use contraception? *We* aren't dictating what choice the woman should make. Anti choicers are, so perhaps *they* should be encouraging contraceptive use more.

BTW, pro choicers are more likely to encourage contraception than anti choicers - as well as be for low cost/subsidized.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense. Prolifers are not saying dont have sex. They are saying be accountable for its consequences. Some prolifers domt eben believe in contraveptibe use so why would you expect them to encourage it?

Personaly.i think women should be more receptive to anal sex to stop unwanted pregnecies. Should we as a society start pressuring tjem to take it up the but even if its a little less enjoyable for them. It would cut down on unwanted pregenacies.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Fishking said:
Obviously people disagree with you, which was the point of my post.



As that is a legal term, you're correct in some circumstances. We do have the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which you can charge someone for double homicide for killing a pregnant woman.

So the question is, does certain codified laws change reality or not? Legally, blacks were 3/5th a person, at one point. Were they really 3/5th a person in reality?
Click to expand...

As I pointed out before when an unborn is killed during a crime against the woman , the charge for killing the woman is homicide but the charge for killing the unborn is violating the UVVA.

Also the death penalty cannot be applied for causing the death of the unborn according to the UVVA
 
Last edited:
Scrabaholic said:
That is not abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure that the woman chooses to undergo to terminate pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Correct, but that doesn't negate the fact that there is a law on the books that codify an unborn human as a person by charging them with homicide. Seems pretty weak to define personhood status by situation.

Incorrect. Slaves (not free blacks) were 3/5 of a person, SOLELY for the purposes of the census and political representation.
Click to expand...

A distinction that makes no difference. Were slaves actually 3/5th of a person in reality? Is that how your morality works? Just base it off of what the law says? Pretty weak position to have and has some really horrible history.
 
minnie616 said:
As I pointed out before when an unborn is killed during a crime against the woman , the charge for killing the woman is homicide but the charge for killing the unborn is violating the UVVA.

Also the death penalty cannot be applied for causing the death of the unborn according to the UVVA
Click to expand...

Yes, and under the UVVA they get charged for double homicide.
 
beachdoc said:
Look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your help.
Click to expand...

First and foremost your views are yours to have. I have no real interest in selling you on anything or making an "argument" because I simply go from a factual and rights stand point and move on from there. I simply admit what are facts, what are feelings and acknowledge them both. As for your two questions, again they are NOT truly separate unless a individual feels they are. (right/wrong) is subjective along what should be legal or illegal unless the legality is already defined.

Anyway I will simply share with you my views. First we wil start with the facts. The fact is abortion is about two lives, not one but two. Abortion is it's own unique topic and theres no other topic like it. There are things that share certain aspects but nothing like it. ABortion is about two lives, on live resides inside another. WIth that fact comes along the fact that it is impossible to grant equal rights to either, factually impossible. One will always be held in higher regard than the other. that might be "accepted" or "thought" to be ok in one way or another but it will never change the fact that one will always be a lesser. For me its easy, with those facts I want somethign in the middle. Anything to prochoice, unlimited abortion until the moment the baby is born is too much for me (babys is always the lesser). Anything to pro-life banned abortions is to much for me also(Woman is always the lesser). RvW actually does a good job of somethign in the middle. RvW picks 24 weeks due to thats the point of 50% viability. Before than abortion are unlimited, after that they are more restricted and mostly only get down for health reasons. Thats actually pretty solid. I personally would support it moving to 20/21 weeks based on the fact thats the earliest possible viability point due to lung development. Before viability there is no reason that will ever convince me to violate a womans legal and human rights and force her to risk her life and health against her will. It will never happen. To subjective her to that and make her a lesser vs a baby that isnt viable yet and may never be or could even abort itself I find irrational. One is an unknown that's not viable, one is an already born woman that is viable and has human and legal rights. Ill never tump the women's rights in that case. Now AFTER viability I am all for more restrictions. Actual medical reason are needed to abort, if the mothers physical or mental health is in jeopardy then abortion is allowed because now its two lives and both are viable. Later in the weeks after 24 weeks Id keep the same restrictions as now, no abortion unless mothers health is at risk or the child's health/abilities are in danger or going to be stinited. Some abnormalities cant be detected until late so they would be allowed.

As for how to I justify this with myself, thats easy its all about rights. Im going for a solution in the middle near equal even though equal is impossible. Thats definitely where the law should be.

As for morals or right and wrong, thats kind of meaningless. Morals are subjective from person to person and my morals are mine and other peoples morals are theres. There are many driven to about based on their morals and sense of responsibility. What makes their morals less than anybody else's or vice versa? I don't get to force my morals on others and they dont get to force theirs on me.

Pro-life with limits simply makes the most sense to me IMO and certainly to the law based on legal and human rights.

Anyway thats PART of my stance, if that helps you in anyway great, if not thats fine too.
 
beachdoc said:
For the fourth time in my life I feel compelled to investigate and reconsider my stance on abortion.

A little background. For the last 6 or so years I've settled the argument in my head this way. After seeing the difficulty associated with trying to figure out when "personhood" starts, I managed to justify that even if abortion is wrong in every circumstance, a proper respect for the right to human autonomy, especially over body, which should be one of the most essential and inalienable rights, requires that even if we grant personhood to a fetus we could not tell a woman she could not evict, in the same way that if homeless man came to your house and needed food and shelter for the next 9 months to survive you would not be required to do so and could evict him even if it meant he would die. This meant I wasn't okay with abortions after viability. Anyhow, this has been helpful for me over the last 6 years. As a libertarian it played to my strong sense of personal rights. As a medical professional (OB/Gyn) who has personally seen many miscarriages, it allowed me to recognize the moral and ethical significance of that loss as well.

Unfortunately for me, a thought entered my brain. Essentially that thought is this. My analogy I had used assumed a stranger. Obviously, a mother's obligation to her child is much different than a stranger's obligation to another stranger.

It has caused me to doubt my previous moral construct for answering the questions.

If you guys could answer, do you think I should throw out this construct? If so, I'd love to her the arguments you make to yourself to answer the two salient questions. 1) Is abortion wrong? 2) Should abortion be illegal? These are truly two separate questions.

Look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your help.
Click to expand...

As a healthcare provider myself.. I struggled with this issue as well. I have seen babies in the NICU.. that lived only in pain for weeks until finally passing away.
I have seen physicians who performed lifesaving procedures concerned with "can we"... without ever thinking "should we?".

I have seen young girls 12, 13. 14 years old.. beaten, raped, with multiple fractures who were pregnant..

And 11 year old raped by her father and brother.

In the context of that?

Is abortion wrong? In and of itself? No.

Should abortion be illegal? Definitely not. It should be up to a woman and her husband and her physician
 
AlbqOwl said:
In my opinion it is when a perfectly viable baby is killed for no reason other than the mother didn't want him or her or it was inconvenient or was the wrong sex or any other superficial reason.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Infanticide is killing infants. Infants are born. Call it feticide if you want, but the *fact* is that is not infanticide.
 
trouble13 said:
That makes no sense. Prolifers are not saying dont have sex. They are saying be accountable for its consequences. Some prolifers domt eben believe in contraveptibe use so why would you expect them to encourage it?
Click to expand...


I have seen plenty of anti choicers say don't have sex if you don't want a baby. To be against abortion and contraception is stupid.


Personaly.i think women should be more receptive to anal sex to stop unwanted pregnecies. Should we as a society start pressuring tjem to take it up the but even if its a little less enjoyable for them. It would cut down on unwanted pregenacies.
Click to expand...

Way to show you don't care about women.
 
Fishking said:
Yes, in your POV, which is clearly acknowledged in my statement so I don't know why you bothered to make this response. I already know that's what you believe, and it doesn't change the validity of my statement one bit.
Click to expand...

But ultimately that's what you're alluding to, is it not?
 
Fishking said:
Correct, but that doesn't negate the fact that there is a law on the books that codify an unborn human as a person by charging them with homicide. Seems pretty weak to define personhood status by situation.
Click to expand...

It is ONLY for the purposes of that law that it is classified as a person and notice they had to make a law, because zefs have never been people. And that is the problem of your country, MY country is consistent.
 
Scrabaholic said:
It is ONLY for the purposes of that law that it is classified as a person and notice they had to make a law, because zefs have never been people. And that is the problem of your country, MY country is consistent.
Click to expand...

If your country doesn't have such a law then I agree that your country is more intellectually consistent.
 
Scrabaholic said:
You are wrong. Infanticide is killing infants. Infants are born. Call it feticide if you want, but the *fact* is that is not infanticide.
Click to expand...

Not from where I sit. That is a baby in the womb 5 minutes, 5 hours, 5 days, 5 weeks, 5 months before he or she is born. A baby is a very young human being. Not a single one of becomes the person we are without going through all those stages in the womb, as well as all the stages after our birth--the human baby is just as helpless to take care of himself or herself as that baby was in the time before birth. Therefore it is impossible to say that somebody is more important 5 minutes after he or she is born than s/he was 5 minutes before. Or that the person was any less a person 5 minutes before birth or during the process than he/she is after the birth.
 
Removable Mind said:
But ultimately that's what you're alluding to, is it not?
Click to expand...

I'm not alluding to anything.

Most of the pro-choice side seems composed of varying degrees of reduced, or non-existent, personhood status for unborn humans.

Most of the pro-life side is composed by those who do not believe in a reduced status.

So when talking about various rights of people, one side will talk about it and omit applying that to the unborn and the other does not. All I did was point that distinction from the previous statement that obviously wasn't counting the life of the unborn.
 
Fishking said:
I'm not alluding to anything.

Most of the pro-choice side seems composed of varying degrees of reduced, or non-existent, personhood status for unborn humans.

Most of the pro-life side is composed by those who do not believe in a reduced status.

So when talking about various rights of people, one side will talk about it and omit applying that to the unborn and the other does not. All I did was point that distinction from the previous statement that obviously wasn't counting the life of the unborn.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. The life of a yet to be born's life (within a specific parameter of development according to judicial guidelines, which is technically based on the "reduction of women's Constitutional rights) isn't a part of the equation. But to count it, there has to be an assigned value. Yes? No? Who should have the right to assign such a value? And in doing so wouldn't the devaluation of women simultaneously result?
 
Removable Mind said:
You're absolutely right. The life of a yet to be born's life (within a specific parameter of development according to judicial guidelines, which is technically based on the "reduction of women's Constitutional rights) isn't a part of the equation. But to count it, there has to be an assigned value. Yes? No? Who should have the right to assign such a value? And in doing so wouldn't the devaluation of women simultaneously result?
Click to expand...

To some degree, yes. So I look at the scale of balance as stipulated in a previous post:

Fishking said:
For me, I've always looked at it on a meta level. Most people focus on abortion in a very temporal manner, as if that moment in time is never ending. This makes people fall into false comparatives and such. So we can look at the two options and compare:

1. Not getting an abortion: When talking about the bodily autonomy of the mother, we are talking about a partial loss over a period of 9 months. This isn't a very long time.

2. Getting an abortion: This removes the limited restrictions of bodily autonomy of the mother but permanently ends the life of the human growing inside of her.

So you have two disproportional solutions to a problem. I side with the one that has the lowest lasting damage.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom