• 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!

Obama wins over notre dame

hazlnut said:
Abortion after the first term is taking a human life. I very much do care about this. I have given much time and financial support to a Catholic charity that supports underage girls through a pregnancy and helps facilitate adoptions.
Click to expand...


thank you for answering. i disagree, but i can respect your answer.


I could never force an underage girl to carry to term. Nor could I force a victim of incest or rape to carry to term. And there are a number of other complicated medical issues that should be between a woman and her doctor.
Click to expand...


i reluctantly agree, it is most unfortunate, but sometimes this is the best option.



As far as using abortion as a form of birth control, I do everything I can to provide women/girls with an alternative choice, spiritual counseling when they ask for it, foster care support when the state deems it appropriate, and information and support on adoption.
Click to expand...


+1


My question to you Reverend_Hellhound: Are you for the criminalizing of all abortions regardless or circumstances, mental and physical health issues? (Not trying to confront you, I just don't know where you stand)
Click to expand...


no.


I think though the difference between me and you is the timeline. i think 3 months is an arbritrary timeline. I look at the development of the fetus, and personally call it at 4 weeks, though i much rather it be 2 because at 4 weeks, things are starting to develop. i will grant 8 weeks very reluctantly because of societal concerns.


Granted this is hard, to me even at 4 weeks. but that is where I would compromise. in the case of medical, psychiatric, rape and incest, or any other out of control circumstances.
 
jallman said:
Blah. Nothing in the hippocratic oath precludes the ability of a doctor to perform an abortion as it is read today. Try again but next time try just a little harder.
Click to expand...



Really?


have you read the origional?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Really?


have you read the origional?
Click to expand...

Yes, really. And Scarecrow posted the original so I read it then again.

Medical ethics by today's standards do not preclude abortion in the first trimester. It is morally inconsequential, nazis aside.
 
jallman said:
Yes, really. And Scarecrow posted the original so I read it then again.

Medical ethics by today's standards do not preclude abortion in the first trimester. It is morally inconsequential, nazis aside.
Click to expand...



f the nazis.... :lol: i admit to not reading the discussion. but from the origional...



I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion
Click to expand...


I see nothing about the "1st trimester".
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
f the nazis.... :lol: i admit to not reading the discussion. but from the origional...






I see nothing about the "1st trimester".
Click to expand...

That's the original hippocratic oath of thousands of years ago. I have no interest in what ancient greeks, who also believed that all sickness was a result of 4 humers being out of balance or some such nonsense, have to think about medical ethics today.

Nothing, from today's medical ethics, precludes abortion being performed in the first trimester.
 
jallman said:
That's the original hippocratic oath of thousands of years ago. I have no interest in what ancient greeks, who also believed that all sickness was a result of 4 humers being out of balance or some such nonsense, have to think about medical ethics today.

Nothing, from today's medical ethics, precludes abortion being performed in the first trimester.
Click to expand...



i think though that the 4 humers, are about as scientifically sound as suggesting human life magically begins at 90 days.


my position is that we don't know, and when we don't know, we should air on the side of life.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
i think though that the 4 humers, are about as scientifically sound as suggesting human life magically begins at 90 days.


my position is that we don't know, and when we don't know, we should air on the side of life.
Click to expand...

I do err on the side of life; the life of the woman who is saddled with an unwanted medical condition that, if left untreated, can burden society with another unwanted or ill treated life.
 
jallman said:
I do err on the side of life; the life of the woman who is saddled with an unwanted medical condition that, if left untreated, can burden society with another unwanted or ill treated life.
Click to expand...




unless it's rape, incest, or the mothers life is in danger, she should have thought of that before going to make babies.... no?


how can you say in one breath you "err on the side of life" but then call human life an "unwanted medical condition"?


I am not trying to attack you. I simply do not get the reasoning here.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
unless it's rape, incest, or the mothers life is in danger, she should have thought of that before going to make babies.... no?


how can you say in one breath you "err on the side of life" but then call human life an "unwanted medical condition"?


I am not trying to attack you. I simply do not get the reasoning here.
Click to expand...

I don't feel attacked so its cool. The abortion issue is the short bus to hysteria for both sides so I try not to take offense too quickly. (Though, I just like poking at felicity because I know she can take it and its funny.)

But to make my answer brief, I don't think that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. Especially not in our society where sex is used to sell everything under the sun. I'm not willing to allow a young woman to be saddled with a lifetime burden just because she gave in to, or even enjoys, the same lusts that men are commended for enjoying. I'm not ok with punishing her body physically for nine months and altering her entire life permanently because she had sex. With a man. When a man's consequences become equal to that of a woman's, that attitude will change in a heartbeat. But I don't see that happening.

If it's really about life for the PL side, and you really consider the fetus equal to a baby, all I have to say is this: it's not a baby's fault it's mother was raped and we would not permit a born baby's death for it. As for incest, we don't kill the offspring of incestuous relationships if they are already born. Why, if the fetus is equal to a baby, would you make that exception for abortion? And if the mother was going to die of, say, kidney failure, we still would not permit her to cannibalize one of her children for a new kidney. Why, if the mother's life is at risk from having the baby, would we permit the woman to kill the fetus to save her own life if a fetus is equal to a baby?

Because it's not equal and pregnancy is a medical condition and it can be alleviated with no moral consequence. Ultimately, the only reason a person would force a woman to gestate if she did not want to do so is if they wanted to punish her for having sex in the first place.
 
jallman said:
But to make my answer brief, I don't think that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. Especially not in our society where sex is used to sell everything under the sun. I'm not willing to allow a young woman to be saddled with a lifetime burden just because she gave in to, or even enjoys, the same lusts that men are commended for enjoying. I'm not ok with punishing her body physically for nine months and altering her entire life permanently because she had sex. With a man. When a man's consequences become equal to that of a woman's, that attitude will change in a heartbeat. But I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...


I agree the burden should be shared equally. However, I disagree with your argument. Because, I see your argument as something if applied elsewhere in society, becomes rather absurd in this way.


Sex sells, yes, so do big macs. Should we be responsible for thier obesity? To me should the unborn child be sentenced to death because mommy made an oops?

Meaning, we have to teach responsibility. And these "Accidental pregnancies" where one or both parties accept the lack of protection, to me is still a personal responsibility issue.


furthemore, what percent are true "Accidents" over poor decisionmaking?


If it's really about life for the PL side, and you really consider the fetus equal to a baby, all I have to say is this: it's not a baby's fault it's mother was raped and we would not permit a born baby's death for it. As for incest, we don't kill the offspring of incestuous relationships if they are already born. Why, if the fetus is equal to a baby, would you make that exception for abortion? And if the mother was going to die of, say, kidney failure, we still would not permit her to cannibalize one of her children for a new kidney. Why, if the mother's life is at risk from having the baby, would we permit the woman to kill the fetus to save her own life if a fetus is equal to a baby?
Click to expand...


Personally I don't. but its where I will compromise at this time. I think we have a long way to go, to truly appreciate human life. Which is why, I posted, what I find reluctantly acceptable in a previous post.


Because it's not equal and pregnancy is a medical condition and it can be alleviated with no moral consequence. Ultimately, the only reason a person would force a woman to gestate if she did not want to do so is if they wanted to punish her for having sex in the first place.
Click to expand...


I think you know my position has nothing to do with religion, and nothing to do with "punishing" a woman for having sex. I do not find the creation of new human life, a punishment.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I agree the burden should be shared equally. However, I disagree with your argument. Because, I see your argument as something if applied elsewhere in society, becomes rather absurd in this way.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good if we are discussing elsewhere in society. However, we are discussing this and so I am not concerned about elsewhere in society.

Sex sells, yes, so do big macs. Should we be responsible for thier obesity? To me should the unborn child be sentenced to death because mommy made an oops?
Click to expand...

That's not the point. The point is that maybe big macs sell, but we use sex to sell those big macs. And what makes the unborn fetus that is conceived of a mistake so much more special in your eyes than the one conceived of rape or incest? Why should those unborn fetuses not be allowed to gestate because "daddy" was violent or "grandpa"?

It becomes, not about the pweshush wittle fetus, but about punishing the woman for having an oops. I ain't buying it.

Meaning, we have to teach responsibility. And these "Accidental pregnancies" where one or both parties accept the lack of protection, to me is still a personal responsibility issue.
Click to expand...

So it really isn't about the right to life. It's really about holding someone responsibile for getting a little play.

furthemore, what percent are true "Accidents" over poor decisionmaking?
Click to expand...

Probably the same percentage that car accidents are over poor decision making. But we aren't forcing someone to endure injurious states of the body if they can avoid them.

Personally I don't. but its where I will compromise at this time. I think we have a long way to go, to truly appreciate human life. Which is why, I posted, what I find reluctantly acceptable in a previous post.
Click to expand...

Well if I had the notion somebody was being murdered, I wouldn't compromise at playing "The Decider" with someone else's life, saying this baby has the right to live and this one doesn't. The fact that you back down on that, alone, tells me that even in your mind the fetus is not equal to a baby. And that's ok, too, because it's not.

I think you know my position has nothing to do with religion, and nothing to do with "punishing" a woman for having sex. I do not find the creation of new human life, a punishment.
Click to expand...

I think everything you have suggested thus far is an indication that you are part of a society that still seeks to punish women for not being pure little virgins straight to their wedding beds. It's hard to break that mold, especially as a man when you have women like felicity who take to that attitude with alacrity and glee. But it can be done.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
unless it's rape, incest, or the mothers life is in danger, she should have thought of that before going to make babies.... no?


how can you say in one breath you "err on the side of life" but then call human life an "unwanted medical condition"?


I am not trying to attack you. I simply do not get the reasoning here.
Click to expand...

What about severe birth defects, heart and brain defects, down syndrome and other medical conditions that can be diagnosed prenatally?

How do a you feel about parents who feel unable to bring a child into the world that would mostly likely suffer from day 1?

Edit: I think I see you maybe already answered this a few pages back. Very honestly. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
aaronssongs said:
You know, some things just become "given", after a while. He (Obama) is the freshest breath of air, in 8 whole years...but some folks are loathe to admit it, and some never will. I can accept that, with trepidation. However what they must admit is that the country, as a whole, approves of whatever it is he is doing, by wide margins (say 60-70%)...and one can argue all day about the rightness or the wrongness of it all, but the fact remains.
I'm hot, behind Gov. Rick Perry, continuing to discuss the remote possibility of Texas seceding the Union. He needs to be in a mental institution. And has the hopes of being in the running for 2012.....talk about the visible impotency in the presence of Sarah Palin, in a GOP conference, some months back. We had one P-whipped president...we hardly need a repeat.
Not to digress, but Kay Bailey Hutchinson, loon that she is, will beat him 'handily" in the next governor's race...if a Democrat doesn't appear to be the spoiler.


Someone please tell Jallman, that we hardly need an Uncle Tom in the Oval Office....speaking of Colin Powell or Condi Rice. Blacks in white-face, is all they are, although Colin Powell's mea culpa is promising and hopeful, that even Republicans can "see the light".
Click to expand...


Which is to say you haven't an iota of historical context or policy knowledge whatsoever, and that you love that a black man is in office. We might as well have elected Pacman Jones for all you care.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Just because something is legal, or ethical according to politically motivated self-interested parties, doesn't make it either moral or ethical.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely correct -- for instance. its impossible to argue that adultry, while legal, is not immoral.

And if you DO make the argument that moral = legal and legal = moral, then nothing the Nazis did was immoral.
 
Goobieman said:
This is absolutely correct -- for instance. its impossible to argue that adultry, while legal, is not immoral.

And if you DO make the argument that moral = legal and legal = moral, then nothing the Nazis did was immoral.
Click to expand...

Which is all well and good save for the fact that no one actually made that simplistic argument.

Does your straw man get lonely?
 
jallman said:
Which is all well and good save for the fact that no one actually made that simplistic argument.

Does your straw man get lonely?
Click to expand...
You'll note that i was responding to someone other than you.

I was responding to the comment that "Just because something is legal, or ethical according to politically motivated self-interested parties, doesn't make it either moral or ethical", which I correctly said was absolutely correct.

So, you issue here is with that statement and the person that made it.
 
Goobieman said:
You'll note that i was responding to someone other than you.

I was responding to the comment that "Just because something is legal, or ethical according to politically motivated self-interested parties, doesn't make it either moral or ethical", which I correctly said was absolutely correct.

So, you issue here is with that statement and the person that made it.
Click to expand...

Oh well if we're just sitting around patting each other on the back for stating the obvious, let me throw in a "good job", too. :thumbs:
 
jallman said:
Oh well if we're just sitting around patting each other on the back for stating the obvious, let me throw in a "good job", too. :thumbs:
Click to expand...
So then... how is abotion 'morally neutral'?
 
jallman said:
That they are morally neutral.
Click to expand...
No. What is the way that the majority, if not all, medical procedures are morally neutral?

That is, how do you reach the conclusion that the majority, if not all, medical procedures are morally neutral?
 
hazlnut said:
What about severe birth defects, heart and brain defects, down syndrome and other medical conditions that can be diagnosed prenatally?

How do a you feel about parents who feel unable to bring a child into the world that would mostly likely suffer from day 1?

Edit: I think I see you maybe already answered this a few pages back. Very honestly. Thanks.
Click to expand...

My wife did an internship at a hospital for these types of childeren. It is horrid, yes, and I don't know honestly. I think once again, I aire on the side of life. But what a horrible position for a parent to be in, and I would understand if someone else made that choice.


Downs is a different level though, many have happy productive lives. so that I am less sympathetic too.
 
Im pro choice.

We have close friends who have a downs child, my wife and I love him, he is 32yrs old.

I find peace when we are on our own together.


His parents hope he dies before them, we do too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom