• 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!

Zika Virus May Push South America to Loosen Abortion Bans

I am neither arguing for "shooting a newborn or leaving them to die from exposure of starvation," I am asking people to evaluate what Zika is capable of doing to kids in concert with governments that want to dictate the outcome.

"Dictate the outcome" is your funny little way of condemning governments for trying to prevent homicide.


If you don't want to be a parent or you can't handle the responsibilities or expenses, then don't make kids. If you're going to do the act which makes kids anyway, use contraception, but know that no contraception is perfect and you're still possibly going to make a kid.

The existence and prevalence of a virus with teratogenic effects does not alter those fundamentals principles in any way.
 
You want the government to allow kids to be murdered. Same difference really.

No it is not, it just what you need it to be to avoid having to really discuss this matter.
 
"Dictate the outcome" is your funny little way of condemning governments for trying to prevent homicide.


If you don't want to be a parent or you can't handle the responsibilities or expenses, then don't make kids. If you're going to do the act which makes kids anyway, use contraception, but know that no contraception is perfect and you're still possibly going to make a kid.


The existence and prevalence of a virus with teratogenic effects does not alter those fundamentals principles in any way.

Of course it does, else governments across South America would not be having this conversation right now. But we clearly know they are, and we clearly know why.
 
No it is not, it just what you need it to be to avoid having to really discuss this matter.

There's nothing to discuss. Murder should be illegal, and people who think otherwise, being immune to reason, should be mocked and ridiculed.
 
There's nothing to discuss. Murder should be illegal, and people who think otherwise, being immune to reason, should be mocked and ridiculed.

"Immune to reason"... irony coming from you.
 
Of course it does

What part of the existence of a teratogenic virus changes the fundamentals of "If you don't want to be a parent or you can't handle the responsibilities or expenses, then don't make kids," aside from nothing?


I mean, it raises the amount of responsibilities and expenses should you (or your partner, for men) become pregnant... but the quantity or level therein is not important to the underlying principle. Whatever they are, as a parent, you own up to them.
 
What part of the existence of a teratogenic virus changes the fundamentals of "If you don't want to be a parent or you can't handle the responsibilities or expenses, then don't make kids."


I mean, it raises the amount of responsibilities and expenses should you (or your partner, for men) become pregnant.

Because you assume everyone will act the same way, make the same decision, and all based on the same circumstance. We know that is not accurate.

It is one of those things that sounds nice in debate, but is not very practical when looking at all the influences and standards in any given society (then of course compared to another.)
 
Finally! A cure for all maladies. Death. :roll:
 
Finally! A cure for all maladies. Death. :roll:

Indeed, we should employ this new death panacea for more things; morbidity is kind of a funny word, after all, better to only have mortality.
 
No it is not, it just what you need it to be to avoid having to really discuss this matter.

There's a reason abortion discussions are useless. Either you believe life begins at conception, and therefore a fetus is a human baby that must be protected, or you don't. People who do will always see abortion as murdering a child. People who don't will not. There's no middle ground. There's no compromise.

However, it is useful to at least be able to discuss things from another's perspective. Paleocon sees abortion as murder. I don't agree, but I understand his perspective and therefore understand the posts he makes. Whether that goes the other way is anyone's guess. This also makes it fun to evaluate various proposals put up by conservatives regarding abortion. So often, the proposal isn't consistent with someone who sees a fetus as a human baby, but rather consistent with someone who wants to make sure women are properly punished for having sex.
 
No, that is not what is happening at all. Reasonable people are trying to have a discussion on dealing with the reality of Zika which is soon to become our reality, others want to derail the conversation into rhetoric about "evil."

It illustrates with perfection that you have no idea what in the hell you are talking about.

I agree with the Olympics coming up in Brazil there is a real fear this will spread to many of our states this summer.

Brazil is suffering from an outbreak of Zika virus, which health officials here say may be behind a spike in cases of microcephaly, which sees infants born with unusually small heads, as well as the paralysis-causing Guillain-Barre syndrome. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has advised pregnant women to reconsider travel to Brazil and 21 other countries with Zika outbreaks.

Zika virus adding to long list of Brazil Olympics woes - CBS News
 
Last edited:
Correct. Abstinence is ineffective everywhere!

Abstinence is actually 100% effective.

There's a reason abortion discussions are useless. Either you believe life begins at conception, and therefore a fetus is a human baby that must be protected, or you don't. People who do will always see abortion as murdering a child. People who don't will not. There's no middle ground. There's no compromise.

However, it is useful to at least be able to discuss things from another's perspective. Paleocon sees abortion as murder. I don't agree, but I understand his perspective and therefore understand the posts he makes. Whether that goes the other way is anyone's guess.

Actually, it is philosophically tenable (though I obviously don't agree) to regard the unborn as being only potential persons, and yet hold abortion to gravely immoral (but not as bad as murder) and deserving of legal prohibition. Indeed, this is my own position on contraception, which destroys a potential person. So it is difficult to see the pro-choice side, as even if the unborn were only potential persons, it wouldn't follow that it's ok.

This also makes it fun to evaluate various proposals put up by conservatives regarding abortion. So often, the proposal isn't consistent with someone who sees a fetus as a human baby, but rather consistent with someone who wants to make sure women are properly punished for having sex.

Such as?
 
I'm glad Beethoven wasn't aborted because of his hearing loss.
Just saying.

Microcephaly almost always causes significant brain damage and can be life threatening.
 
Microcephaly almost always causes significant brain damage and can be life threatening.

Abortion tends to be life threatening, too.
 
Banning abortion but not increasing access to contraceptives is the typical agenda of the Church, and the only reason is to punish people for having non-reproductive sex. They'd rather have a 20 fold increase in microcephaly than do what is right.

Abstinence-only policies don't work. If you think they do then you don't understand human nature, or the data that shows what a failure it is.

I would not want to carry a child full term that may likely be dead on arrival, or within the first 5 years of life.
 
Back
Top Bottom