• 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!

Where you stand on abortion in relation to women?

Poll on where you stand on abortion in relation to women

  • I favor forcing women to have children against her wishes.

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • I oppose forcing women to have children against her wishes.

    Votes: 34 68.0%

  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 7 14.0%
  • Total voters
    50
Where I stand is aside, while the woman chooses what is done with her body.
 
tecoyah said:
Okay then...How do suggest we as a species/civilization manage several Billion individuals?

Or, to simplify, how would you recommend (without laws) we somehow create a utopia that meets your individual needs without stomping on mine, for several million individuals?

I can agree our society is flawed, and imperfect...hell I sometimes find it disgusting. Yet, this is what we have, and to pretend it is not just seems to me rather naive.

To expect everyone else to bow down before my opinion is also...unrealistic, and possibly cruel.



we are forced to live and let live, or kill each other.
Click to expand...
It's not that I'm suggesting we do without laws.

More that I think the laws we've been passing are too specific.

And I have no desire for a utopia created to meet my individual needs, but rather a general framework that allows for individuals to build their own personal version of utopia, while restraining them from methods/actions that would endanger that option for other individuals.

I’m not sure, but I suspect that in multiple cases around the country (and most likely the world) there are laws that specifically address a certain action or several, and which are unnecessary – said action already being illegal, albeit perhaps not directly, under a previous law.

Unnecessary legislation/laws, mainly passed (IMO) so that politicians can say “I was part of this, vote me back into office”, or in short, “I did something”.

And…stuff.
 
The Mark said:
It's not that I'm suggesting we do without laws.

Then, perhaps you might accept them, and at least accept the reality of them.

More that I think the laws we've been passing are too specific.

Yet, they are societal law you can disagree with them, but hey are still society in action.

And I have no desire for a utopia created to meet my individual needs, but rather a general framework that allows for individuals to build their own personal version of utopia, while restraining them from methods/actions that would endanger that option for other individuals.

We have precisely that...right now

I’m not sure, but I suspect that in multiple cases around the country (and most likely the world) there are laws that specifically address a certain action or several, and which are unnecessary – said action already being illegal, albeit perhaps not directly, under a previous law.

Much like our system...

Unnecessary legislation/laws, mainly passed (IMO) so that politicians can say “I was part of this, vote me back into office”, or in short, “I did something”.

And…stuff.
Click to expand...

So...we should defy law...because we don't agree with it?
 
tecoyah said:

So...we should defy law...because we don't agree with it?
Click to expand...
No.

We should change it.

Repeal, replace, rewrite, ect.

I'm not saying this would be easy or even possible given some of the constraints currently emplaced...

But that's what I think should be done...


Edit: And I disagree with your statement "We have precisely that...right now."
 
Last edited:
ElijahGalt said:
Paperwork? You mean the medical records which are protected under the privacy clause of the 4th Amendment?
Click to expand...

Yes.

The state of NY had no problem getting my wife's medical records of the miscarriage from the nurses station to make their determination, given that the state requires the investigation.

ElijahGalt said:
Wow. No offense, but under your proposal one of two things will have to happen. Either we can maintain lax investigative procedures such as the one which faced your wife (and in which case, there will definitely be a sudden increase in the number of "miscarriages" across the country), or we can impose more intrusive investigative procedures that look at more than just paperwork. How would you like it if your wife was subjected to a cavity search in order to rule out a self-induced abortion?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you think a miscarriage entails, but as the hospital had to remove the ZEF from my wife and she nearly bled to death in the process, I there's little more a cavity search would discover. Everything that could have been examined in a cavity search was already examined (and stitched) in removing the ZEF.
 
The Mark said:
...snip...


Edit: And I disagree with your statement "We have precisely that...right now."
Click to expand...

You said this "And I have no desire for a utopia created to meet my individual needs, but rather a general framework that allows for individuals to build their own personal version of utopia, while restraining them from methods/actions that would endanger that option for other individuals."

I see this as the whole point of Roe vs. Wade...it is a general framework that allows for individual freedom and has no aspect that allows for the endangerment of others.
Basically...it lets everyone involved maintain the freedoms they enjoy without interfering with anyone elses.
 
Jerry said:
Yes.

The state of NY had no problem getting my wife's medical records of the miscarriage from the nurses station to make their determination, given that the state requires the investigation.



I'm not sure what you think a miscarriage entails, but as the hospital had to remove the ZEF from my wife and she nearly bled to death in the process, I there's little more a cavity search would discover. Everything that could have been examined in a cavity search was already examined (and stitched) in removing the ZEF.
Click to expand...

Also remove the after birth (Placenta).

So what your saying, among other things, is 1.) pregnancy can be life threatening and 2.) there was a criminal investigation of the miscarriage to determine if charges should be brought against your wife and/or doctor(s)?
 
Jerry said:
Yes.

The state of NY had no problem getting my wife's medical records of the miscarriage from the nurses station to make their determination, given that the state requires the investigation.



I'm not sure what you think a miscarriage entails, but as the hospital had to remove the ZEF from my wife and she nearly bled to death in the process, I there's little more a cavity search would discover. Everything that could have been examined in a cavity search was already examined (and stitched) in removing the ZEF.
Click to expand...

Most miscarriages take place away from a hospital and most women who miscarry before 10 weeks can do so safely without a DNC or medical intervention.
 
tecoyah said:
You said this "And I have no desire for a utopia created to meet my individual needs, but rather a general framework that allows for individuals to build their own personal version of utopia, while restraining them from methods/actions that would endanger that option for other individuals."

I see this as the whole point of Roe vs. Wade...it is a general framework that allows for individual freedom and has no aspect that allows for the endangerment of others.
Basically...it lets everyone involved maintain the freedoms they enjoy without interfering with anyone else’s.
Click to expand...
I was actually speaking in more general terms, not specifically about abortion laws…Which means I was straying a bit from the main topic, I suppose.

But.
What if you think it does interfere with another person’s rights? The right that an unborn child has to life, for example…
Then, it would seem, Roe vs. Wade violates that statement I made.

That decision, like most involving abortion, hinges on what point in the process of reproduction you believe a potential human should be considered “a life” and thus protected. If ever.

Most of us, I think, don’t consider partial-birth abortions acceptable, outside such being the only option to save the mother. Some of us not even then, I suppose.

But everything else in between that and conception is apparently fair game, in general.

And so…the argument continues.
 
The Mark said:
I was actually speaking in more general terms, not specifically about abortion laws…Which means I was straying a bit from the main topic, I suppose.

Understood

But.
What if you think it does interfere with another person’s rights? The right that an unborn child has to life, for example…
Then, it would seem, Roe vs. Wade violates that statement I made.

Then you disagree with the law, as you are welcome to...yet it is the law nonetheless.

That decision, like most involving abortion, hinges on what point in the process of reproduction you believe a potential human should be considered “a life” and thus protected. If ever.

No, it does not...there is nothing to tell you your belief must be changed to conform to said law.

Most of us, I think, don’t consider partial-birth abortions acceptable, outside such being the only option to save the mother. Some of us not even then, I suppose.

But everything else in between that and conception is apparently fair game, in general.

And so…the argument continues.
Click to expand...

Agreed...it continues...
 
Other -

I am opposed to late-term abortions, when the fetus is able to develop emotional attachments (as a result of this, abortion will erase these attachments and the fetus will cease to exist, which is where it becomes a moral issue).

I am in favor of earlier abortions, when the fetus is unable to form such attachments. This accounts for about 97% of all abortions.
 
tecoyah said:
Then you disagree with the law, as you are welcome to...yet it is the law nonetheless.
Click to expand...
True.
tecoyah said:
No, it does not...there is nothing to tell you your belief must be changed to conform to said law.
Click to expand...
I should have been clearer…

I meant that, on a personal level, such is the process towards making a decision.

The law, as currently formatted, is still the law – until or if it changes…

Which is really the whole point of abortion debates, in a way – “do you agree with the current law, and if not, what would you prefer.”
 
JustinS said:
Other -

I am opposed to late-term abortions, when the fetus is able to develop emotional attachments (as a result of this, abortion will erase these attachments and the fetus will cease to exist, which is where it becomes a moral issue).

I am in favor of earlier abortions, when the fetus is unable to form such attachments. This accounts for about 97% of all abortions.
Click to expand...
I favor aborting as soon as the gender can be determined to be male. The world would be a so much better place.

.
 
TOJ said:
I favor aborting as soon as the gender can be determined to be male. The world would be a so much better place.

.
Click to expand...

That actually is increasingly an abortion issue. In the East, where abortions legal, most opt for male children. Increasingly, but not to the same degree, there is a slight leaning towards girls.

Gender and race selection abortions is a growing topic of dispute even among pro-choicers. Not as a legal issue, but an ethical one. To just keep aborting until she/they get what they want.
 
Abortion is a moral issue. It is between a woman (and her mate) and God. The moral standard is always going to be a greater standard than the legal standard (ie; divorce, adultery, lust, greed are all moral issues; none are illegal). The idea that we can legislate morality is not only wrong thinking, it is a form of tyranny (and thus immoral, in and of itself, in a free society).

The abortion issue takes far, far too much political resource, and at the end of the day is a waste of time. Does anyone really believe the greatest problem facing America today is abortion? Yet, it seems to be the #1 litmus test applied to political candidates and judge appointments. Talk about being obsessed with re-arranging the deck chairs.

I have absolutely no patience for this issue. I wish it would just go away so that we can argue about things that matter.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
So what your saying, among other things, is 1.) pregnancy can be life threatening and 2.) there was a criminal investigation of the miscarriage to determine if charges should be brought against your wife and/or doctor(s)?
Click to expand...

Yes. So stop worrying about investigations, they already happen, this is by far nothing new.
 
Jerry said:
Yes. So stop worrying about investigations, they already happen, this is by far nothing new.
Click to expand...

I would stop short of claiming such criminal investigations are commonplace. Perhaps in NY, but I am yet convinced there is any sort of mandatory investigation. I doubt a woman in Long Island who miscarried at home would be subject to criminal charges for not reporting it and/or not subjecting herself to a formal medical examination/investigation.

Again, the majority of miscarriages occur outside a hospital and most miscarriages before 10 weeks occur without the necessity of DNC.
 
tecoyah said:
I am forced to assume "Jerry" is not quite who he pretends to be...as the odds of me ever running into an individual this incapable of functional logic, average societal understanding, and basic cognitive ability are likely astronomical in proportion.

Thus I have developed a theory..."Jerry" is an exceptional gamer, and though I am hesitant to state it....he should continue.

I personally would prefer an illusion of this unfortunate aspect of our little experiment Life), than wondering if I am actually in contact with it.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Knock off the personal attacks, tecoyah.
 
ElijahGalt said:
I would stop short of claiming such criminal investigations are commonplace. Perhaps in NY, but I am yet convinced there is any sort of mandatory investigation. I doubt a woman in Long Island who miscarried at home would be subject to criminal charges for not reporting it and/or not subjecting herself to a formal medical examination/investigation.

Again, the majority of miscarriages occur outside a hospital and most miscarriages before 10 weeks occur without the necessity of DNC.
Click to expand...

You're the only person in the world claiming criminal charges or a trial are involved.

It's a clerk who looks at paperwork. That's it. That's the "investigation". You're stressing about 1 pencil-pusher taking about an hour to look at a few forms. It's beyond trivial.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Most miscarriages take place away from a hospital and most women who miscarry before 10 weeks can do so safely without a DNC or medical intervention.
Click to expand...

That's nice.
 
tecoyah said:
I am forced to assume "Jerry" is not quite who he pretends to be...as the odds of me ever running into an individual this incapable of functional logic, average societal understanding, and basic cognitive ability are likely astronomical in proportion.

Thus I have developed a theory..."Jerry" is an exceptional gamer, and though I am hesitant to state it....he should continue.

I personally would prefer an illusion of this unfortunate aspect of our little experiment Life), than wondering if I am actually in contact with it.
Click to expand...

I simply hold that a ZEF is a "person" from conseption onward because fertilization is the beginning of the life cycle. Pro-choice has argued in threads before that pro-life is hypocritical when it makes an exception for rape, and I tend to agree.
 
My apologies to you both...the post however, was mostly a serious commentary.
 
ElijahGalt said:
I don't get it.
Click to expand...

you're an adult grown male. shoving aside 7 year old children to increase the odds of your survival at the cost of their lives isn't "a viable option to consider". It's despicable.
 
cpwill said:
you're an adult grown male. shoving aside 7 year old children to increase the odds of your survival at the cost of their lives isn't "a viable option to consider". It's despicable.
Click to expand...

It was a hypothetical scenario. Tell me how is morally OK to "murder" a human being younger than 7 years old in order to save the life of an adult grown woman but it's not OK to take a child's place on the lifeboat? I was trying to argue to Jerry that on moral grounds, it is essentially the same. I still don't understand how those who claim abortion is "murdering children" can morally and logically make ANY exceptions whether they be for the life of the mother or incest or rape.
 
Jerry said:
That's nice.
Click to expand...

Are you being sarcastic? I was almost quoting word for word a medical paper. I'm not arguing women shouldn't go to the hospital if a miscarriage takes place. I'm only predicting the outcome of an abortion ban that will inevitably see a rise in private in-home abortions that publicly will be recorded as miscarriages. As you probably know, once the public gets word of a sudden rise in tragedies, disasters, or crimes, they usually demand congress pass some sort of law to address the issue. Regulation is inevitable in this case. We ban abortion. Suddenly, women who want to terminate their pregnancy do so in the privacy of their own home and as a result, the instances of "miscarriages" unexpectedly rises. The public wants an investigation and after a couple years, probes indicate the miscarriages are actually abortions. Congress now passes a new place making it illegal to give birth at home and/or miscarry without informing the authorities. There will also likely be provisions within that new bill calling for full medical examinations and possible criminal investigations (I doubt your wife faced a criminal investigation) for each and every woman who miscarries. At that point we can go to the National Archives, remove the constitution, and burn it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom