• 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!

Why do males have an abortion opinion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
prep12 said:
Well, I agree. Why should gay men have a say?

But then again, this is America, and they have the right to have an opinion!
Click to expand...

Because abortion is usually a debate about the rights of the unborn. Its not about being pregnant.
 
Ethereal said:
Your bigotry and over-reliance on ad hominem has been duly noted. By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: What species is the fetus?
Click to expand...

Ill take that as a yes, you are religious otherwise you'd be quick to deny. So im debating about something science related with a religious person, fun fun.

Answered my question; what of rape victims? I am dying to know your point of view.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
Ill take that as a yes, you are religious otherwise you'd be quick to deny. So im debating about something science related with a religious person, fun fun.

Answered my question; what of rape victims? I am dying to know your point of view.
Click to expand...

:rofl

Whatever kid.
 
kaya'08 said:
Ill take that as a yes, you are religious otherwise you'd be quick to deny. So im debating about something science related with a religious person, fun fun.

Answered my question; what of rape victims? I am dying to know your point of view.
Click to expand...

I believe Ethereal is agnostic. You are losing at every turn. I like your passion, though.:2wave:
 
Ethereal said:
:rofl

Whatever kid.
Click to expand...

Wow, great answer Etheral. When you feel like answering my rape question, how about your insert a nice intelligent comment in the quick reply box, eh?
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
Okay, if you dont feel like answering my question, i get it. Ill just unsubscribe now. Its probably best you dont answer my question, because when it comes to abortion, even when it involves rape, you religious types usually have the same savage nonsense reply of "screw it, she has to have the baby because the invisible man will prefer that more".
Click to expand...

Enlightened.:lol:
 
kaya'08 said:
I dont pay much attention to my spelling on forums and i dont think anybody cares but ill look out for those errors in the future. :)
Click to expand...

It's in EVERY ONE of your posts;) Just a friendly heads up.:2wave:
 
kaya'08 said:
Wow, great answer Etheral. When you feel like answering my rape question, how about your insert a nice intelligent comment in the quick reply box, eh?
Click to expand...

Do you know where you are right now, little boy? This conversation isn't about rape victims, it's about the term "fetus" and its biological classification. Allow me to refresh your memory.

You ignorantly claimed that a human fetus was a not a human. I refuted your silly argument and proceeded to educate you on the basics of biology. You completely ignored a large portion of my rebuttals and side-stepped the rest with circular logic, red herrings, and ad hominem. Sound familiar? Because it happened like thirty minutes ago.
 
4liberty4enterprise said:
I'm saying cutting down a tree without putting it to use would be wrong it would be like killing an innocent squirrel or something well squirrels are animals and we are animals so killing an innocent human so cutting down a tree without putting it to use is kind of like murder
Click to expand...


You actually think like that? "Murdering a tree"?

No wonder you have the wrong perspective on this argument. Dude, its a tree.


G.
 
4liberty4enterprise said:
Well I think we should be concerned about the rights of everyone

This child probably isn't going to have an actual father

The mother probably isn't in any position to rear a child

It's practically a recipe for being born into a broken family

and it isn't even a child yet
Click to expand...

Ok... So just because the child may not have a father or the mother may not be ready for a baby, you think that the baby should be killed! And the fetus is a child! The fetus will grow into nothing but a human being!

Also you controdicted yourself. You said that you think that the rights of everyone should be considered. Well, from your point of view, it looks like you aren't even thinking about the unborn childs rights!

Your ideology is so scewed!!!
 
4liberty4enterprise said:
I'm saying cutting down a tree without putting it to use would be wrong it would be like killing an innocent squirrel or something well squirrels are animals and we are animals so killing an innocent human so cutting down a tree without putting it to use is kind of like murder

But there is nothing wrong with removing a tree in your lung.
Click to expand...

Once agian, your ideology is scewed! You just compared killing a tree to the murder of a human being!

I hope you said that jokingly!
 
Ethereal said:
Do you know where you are right now, little boy? This conversation isn't about rape victims, it's about the term "fetus" and its biological classification. Allow me to refresh your memory.
Click to expand...

So you are clearly against abortion...ill ask again, what on rape victims?
 
Goshin said:
You actually think like that? "Murdering a tree"?

No wonder you have the wrong perspective on this argument. Dude, its a tree.


G.
Click to expand...

That's why I generaly ignore or pass by such comperisons.

I took a dog to the vet the other day to get it fixed. Turns out she was pregnant so I gave them permission to abort the pups.

ZOMG Jerry's pro-choice!!!

No. 1., it's a dog, not a "person" in any respect; 2. the dog didn't have any say, so "pro-choice" doesn't apply...if anything that would make me pro-forced-abortion; and 3. dogs are clasified as vermin according to city code, people are not (although some should be;)).

Trees, dogs...all such comperisons are irrelivent.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
So you are clearly against abortion...ill ask again, what on rape victims?
Click to expand...

Rather the tree was raped or not, I'm still digging up any viable saplings and selling them.

Also, even if the dog wanted to get pregnant, or was raped, whichever, the pups were still going to be aborted.

See these silly tree/dog comperisons just don't support pro-choice arguments.
 
ARealConservative said:
This really is digressing because it is far more of a theological debate

I enjoy the subject though, so I will share my feelings.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

ARealConservative said:
natural rights come from evolution. It is something ingrained in our species over time because of its ability to sustain life though voluntary association and a desire to protect the species.

It is a theological discussion because I don't seek proof of these rights. I simply have faith in them and find them easy to defend and follow.
Click to expand...

I'm not a believer that "natural" law is something that exists outside of the agreements and social rules that groups of peoples live by, I do recognise that there are social contracts however such as the social contracts by which governments rule, bu the constitutions by which countries exist and function.

They do not exist however in the same way that we can discern gravity or oxygen or evolution. It is (to me) a social phenomenon rather than an externally measurable one in a scientific sense.
 
ARealConservative said:
This should not be a federal issue. First, The DoI is not a legally binding document. It is a fine ideal to uphold, and was a great way to piss off the king eloquently but nothing more. We as a people would need to evolve quite a bid to agree to be bound to such lofty goals.
Click to expand...

I read it as a declaration - a preamble to the actual constitution that is set out later.

ARealConservative said:
-- I will not commit the mistake of others and reconstruct the constitution to find a power to enforce pro-life mentality.
Click to expand...

So we return to my question - where do these inalienable rights come from? The declaration makes mention of them but they are not set out clearly later. I recognise that some of the elements draw on the writings of people like Hobbes and Locke (even the idea of a right to life from the event of creation) but I read the constitution itself as a legal framework that sets out rough guidelines. Many of the laws that then follow are the same as most other laws - fluid agreements that have some room for interpretation.

ARealConservative said:
-- you lost me
Click to expand...

Forgive me, my response is to the idea of appealing to equality before the law as I read in some posts. Some claim that men should have an equal say in whether abortion is carried out or not - one of the claims being that an abortion is a woman's right to deny harbour and "nutrients" to the foetus. The argument is that a man should equally be allowed to deny "harbour" (paying towards upkeep) or nutrients (the money that buys food and clothing for a baby)

There can be no equality until a zef/ zygote / foetus / embryo / baby / unborn human can be safely transplanted from a mother who does not wish to gestate to the body of another human who does. A father can (and they do) withhold child support payments - this can make life harder but is unlikely to terminate a child's life whereas removing a foetus can (before viability) terminate a child's life.

Scarecrow akbar was making an invalid argument and I saw you heading down that route too.
 
kaya'08 said:
Ill take that as a yes, you are religious otherwise you'd be quick to deny. So im debating about something science related with a religious person, fun fun.

Answered my question; what of rape victims? I am dying to know your point of view.
Click to expand...




Nonsense. One has to love how the pro-abortionist tries to discount the anti-abortion position by trying to attack the other sides religion.


I am against abortion, because, THE SCIENCE indicates to me you are killing human life.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Nonsense. One has to love how the pro-abortionist tries to discount the anti-abortion position by trying to attack the other sides religion.


I am against abortion, because, THE SCIENCE indicates to me you are killing human life.
Click to expand...

And what does intelligence, common sense, understanding, a bit of sensitivity indicate to you for rape victims? Accidental pregnancies? A fetus does not fall within the definition of a biological human being and therefore the extraction of the fetus is no less morally "wrong" then it is killing a cow for meat. At the stage when abortion can be carried out, the fetus is not even conciously aware and does not even have a nervous system or anything of the kind, its merely a lump of developed cells at that stage.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
And what does intelligence, common sense, understanding, a bit of sensitivity indicate to you for rape victims? Accidental pregnancies? A fetus does not fall within the definition of a biological human being and therefore the extraction of the fetus is no less morally "wrong" then it is killing a cow for meat. At the stage when abortion can be carried out, the fetus is not even conciously aware and does not even have a nervous system or anything of the kind, its merely a lump of developed cells at that stage.
Click to expand...




My position, is that up two 8 weeks, I will reluctantly say a woman can choose to have an abortion in this case.


I view it however, as being two victims, but I understand the ramifications and the mental well being of the woman in this case.


NEXT.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I read it as a declaration - a preamble to the actual constitution that is set out later.
Click to expand...

The constitution is legal text given weight in the court system, the DoI does not share this distinction and is not law.

So we return to my question - where do these inalienable rights come from? The declaration makes mention of them but they are not set out clearly later.
Click to expand...

You already asked this, and I replied. My feeling is that these rights evolved natural as man evolved and is a part of the human equation…similar to a commonly shared fear of snakes and spiders.. Others will disagree and find these rights were something given to us by our creator.

Forgive me, my response is to the idea of appealing to equality before the law as I read in some posts. Some claim that men should have an equal say in whether abortion is carried out or not - one of the claims being that an abortion is a woman's right to deny harbour and "nutrients" to the foetus. The argument is that a man should equally be allowed to deny "harbour" (paying towards upkeep) or nutrients (the money that buys food and clothing for a baby)

There can be no equality until a zef/ zygote / foetus / embryo / baby / unborn human can be safely transplanted from a mother who does not wish to gestate to the body of another human who does. A father can (and they do) withhold child support payments - this can make life harder but is unlikely to terminate a child's life whereas removing a foetus can (before viability) terminate a child's life.

Scarecrow akbar was making an invalid argument and I saw you heading down that route too.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken about my position. History shows that just because we have a strong collectively held view that natural rights do exist, we have never as a nation honored them universally, and I’m not arguing for doing so. Instead, I’m pointing out the hypocrisy in women trying to use them to claim a right to abortion can’t be denied.

My point is that society has just as much legitimacy in denying abortion as they do in denying a large billboard to be erected on a business property, or what drugs a person can consume. One person claimed that abortion is a right because it is a women’s body, I’m pointing out that we do not honor a person’s rights to their body (see drug laws) and it is hypocritical for a liberal to use this defense anyway (see tax laws)
 
Last edited:
Infinite Chaos said:
I'm not a believer that "natural" law is something that exists outside of the agreements and social rules that groups of peoples live by, I do recognise that there are social contracts however such as the social contracts by which governments rule, bu the constitutions by which countries exist and function.
Click to expand...

I definitively am a believer in natural law. For instance, I don’t need society to recognize that slavery is wrong. Rights most certainly do exist outside of a state construct

One of the first – and usually the most recited word used by an infant is “mine”. Even at early adolescents, natural rights are recognized.

They do not exist however in the same way that we can discern gravity or oxygen or evolution. It is (to me) a social phenomenon rather than an externally measurable one in a scientific sense.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom