• 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!

Are you pro life or pro choice

Are you pro life or pro choice

  • Total voters
    62
jet57 said:
I'm pro choice. Make it safe. Why have two dead people?
Click to expand...

We could make bank robbery, burglary, rape, car jacking and armed robbery safe by giving them guns and bullet proof vests. Why have two or more dead people?
 
Im prochoice on a narrow basis...not wholesale abortions on demand....
 
jamesrage said:
We could make bank robbery, burglary, rape, car jacking and armed robbery safe by giving them guns and bullet proof vests. Why have two or more dead people?
Click to expand...
Are you trying to equate babies to hardened criminals?
 
Why is this abortion thread under this category?
 
lunchbox said:
Are you trying to equate babies to hardened criminals?
Click to expand...

Just bringing up the point that its stupid to legalize something or to keep something illegal just because it being illegal might result in the loss of more lives.
 
jamesrage said:
Only a ****en moron says it should be left up to the states because of the simple fact someone can take their happy ass to the next state and getting an abortion thus defeating the purpose of making abortion illegal in your own state.
Click to expand...

Being capable of complex thoughts =/= ****ing moron.

I'm sorry that you are not capable of complex thoughts, but that doesn't mean that others aren't.
 
Cephus said:
Except it has nothing to do with fetal rights and everything to do with a woman's reproductive rights.
Click to expand...

Both sides support women's reproductive rights to some degree. Ultimately, it comes down to one side saying that the fetus' hypothetical right to life trumps the woman's reproductive rights while th eotehr side disagrees that fetuses have a right to life which can trump the woman's reproductive rights.
 
Only a ****en moron says it should be left up to the states because of the simple fact someone can take their happy ass to the next state and getting an abortion thus defeating the purpose of making abortion illegal in your own state.
Click to expand...

Well ****, why make anything illegal at all at the state level then?
 
Tucker Case said:
Both sides support women's reproductive rights to some degree. Ultimately, it comes down to one side saying that the fetus' hypothetical right to life trumps the woman's reproductive rights while th eotehr side disagrees that fetuses have a right to life which can trump the woman's reproductive rights.
Click to expand...

Not really. Depending on the group, they can want absolutely no reproductive rights, the woman exists as a brood mare. No birth control, no sex education and the woman isn't even allowed to say no to her husband. Where are the reproductive rights there?
 
Cephus said:
Not really. Depending on the group, they can want absolutely no reproductive rights, the woman exists as a brood mare. No birth control, no sex education and the woman isn't even allowed to say no to her husband. Where are the reproductive rights there?
Click to expand...

And there there those that want absolutely no human rights for the unborn who will allow for partial birth abortions. If it's about reproductive rights why can't men abort their right to fatherhood? You have the choice to use contraception and birth control, and you chose to have sex (which obviously may result in pregnancy). Reproductive "rights" end at conception when another life has been created by your choices and decision to engage in intercourse.
 
Cephus said:
Not really. Depending on the group, they can want absolutely no reproductive rights, the woman exists as a brood mare. No birth control, no sex education and the woman isn't even allowed to say no to her husband. Where are the reproductive rights there?
Click to expand...

Those are the exception rather than the rule.

Whereas there is no doubt that people who are in favor of legalized abortion are opposed to granting fetuses rights, while those who oppose legalized abortion are in favor of granting fetuses rights. It's the person-hood decision by the SC boiled down in to shorthand. In general, the US court system places right to life issues ahead of all other rights issues. when exercising your rights infringe upon another right to life, it will always be the "lesser" right (i.e. non-right-to-life right) that is infringed upon.
 
My answer to that line of reasoning is thus: should it be banned nationwide? Sure. It's a human rights abuse. To the best extent possible, it should be stamped out across the world.

Can it be banned nationwide, in keeping with our rule of law? No, no more than it can be imposed upon the entire nation, at least, not without abandoning the rule of law, as our Supreme Court did in 1973.

To ban it nationwide would require a constitutional amendment. And such a thing should be passed. But until it is, the matter falls to federalism, state by state, in keeping with the 10th Amendment. At least, again, if you want to follow the rule of law.
 
digsbe said:
And there there those that want absolutely no human rights for the unborn who will allow for partial birth abortions. If it's about reproductive rights why can't men abort their right to fatherhood? You have the choice to use contraception and birth control, and you chose to have sex (which obviously may result in pregnancy). Reproductive "rights" end at conception when another life has been created by your choices and decision to engage in intercourse.
Click to expand...

the issue of reproductive rights is really a red herring because if the fetus has a right to life, it's right to life would supersede a woman's reproductive rights. If it doesn't have a right to life, then nothing supersedes the woman's reproductive rights.

The woman's reproductive rights do exist in both scenarios.
 
Tucker Case said:
the issue of reproductive rights is really a red herring because if the fetus has a right to life, it's right to life would supersede a woman's reproductive rights. If it doesn't have a right to life, then nothing supersedes the woman's reproductive rights.

The woman's reproductive rights do exist in both scenarios.
Click to expand...

I agree. My premise is that as human life, the fetus deserves human rights even if it isn't eligible for citizenship. I'm all for women and men exercising reproductive rights, but I don't feel that it is their right to abort due to the fact that what they perceive as their right is a decision that infringes upon another human life in the most drastic way possible (death). For me, the abortion debate is ethically extending human rights to the unborn which would result in the banning of elective abortions due to the procedure violating the greater human right of life verses what others call reproductive rights. Reproductive rights still exist, it's just drawing the line to where your rights begin to infringe upon another human's rights with that line being at implantation.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
I agree. My premise is that as human life, the fetus deserves human rights even if it isn't eligible for citizenship. I'm all for women and men exercising reproductive rights, but I don't feel that it is their right to abort due to the fact that what they perceive as their right is a decision that infringes upon another human life in the most drastic way possible (death). For me, the abortion debate is ethically extending human rights to the unborn which would result in the banning of elective abortions due to the procedure violating the greater human right of life verses what others call reproductive rights.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you are using circular and unclear reasoning. "Because it is human, it deserves human rights, therefore it should be given human rights" is really just stating the same thing in three different ways.

As far as why it is unclear: What is a human, exactly? Why do humans deserve human rights? Do all humans universally deserve human rights? What is a human right?

The problem is that the most honest answers to those questions will, more than likely, lead to a conflict and contradiction in the initial argument about fetuses deserving human rights.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Those are the exception rather than the rule.

Whereas there is no doubt that people who are in favor of legalized abortion are opposed to granting fetuses rights, while those who oppose legalized abortion are in favor of granting fetuses rights. It's the person-hood decision by the SC boiled down in to shorthand. In general, the US court system places right to life issues ahead of all other rights issues. when exercising your rights infringe upon another right to life, it will always be the "lesser" right (i.e. non-right-to-life right) that is infringed upon.
Click to expand...

I don't know that those are exceptions honestly. Most people I see who are anti-abortion aren't doing it because they think fetuses deserve rights, but because they think abortion goes against the will of an imaginary man in the sky. Rights of any kind simply don't enter into it. Half of these people aren't even happy with women having rights.
 
Cephus said:
I don't know that those are exceptions honestly. Most people I see who are anti-abortion aren't doing it because they think fetuses deserve rights, but because they think abortion goes against the will of an imaginary man in the sky. Rights of any kind simply don't enter into it. Half of these people aren't even happy with women having rights.
Click to expand...

They think that it goes against the will of said sky-person due to the fact that said sky person has allegedly granted those fetuses a right to life. Just because god is a preliminary premise doesn't mean it isn't ultimately about fetal rights.
 
Tucker Case said:
They think that it goes against the will of said sky-person due to the fact that said sky person has allegedly granted those fetuses a right to life. Just because god is a preliminary premise doesn't mean it isn't ultimately about fetal rights.
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't, if you ask most of these people, the concept of fetal rights isn't even on their radar. It's not even in their vocabulary. Their whole argument starts and ends with make-believe sky-daddy. You can't just rationalize "this is what they really mean". There really is no rational case that can be made for fetal rights anyhow, otherwise you'd be putting women in prison for miscarriages and failing to provide a healthy environment for a fetus. It makes no sense to say "we're for fetal rights, but only in this very specific, very narrow case".
 
Tucker Case said:
The problem is that you are using circular and unclear reasoning. "Because it is human, it deserves human rights, therefore it should be given human rights" is really just stating the same thing in three different ways.
Click to expand...
It's a human life, and as such deserves human rights. We use this reasoning and the reasoning that all men are created equal to establish the concept of human rights. I don't really see how believing as such is in error.
As far as why it is unclear: What is a human, exactly? Why do humans deserve human rights? Do all humans universally deserve human rights? What is a human right?
Click to expand...
Biologically it is human. A human egg and sperm fuse to make a human embryo. Personally, I think humans should be given human rights due to individual freedom. Why should blacks be treated as humans? What about whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc? I believe that a human rights is a right given to someone because we as a species value freedom and have a sense of morality. We don't deny minorities rights or others rights because we recognize that doing so is wrong and clashes with our sense of morality and freedom. As it is now, if anything to be consistent with the laws regarding human rights and equality I know that it's a violation to deny a fetus all rights and place its right to life below the personal feelings of a pregnant woman.
The problem is that the most honest answers to those questions will, more than likely, lead to a conflict and contradiction in the initial argument about fetuses deserving human rights.
Click to expand...

I don't really think it leads to conflicts or contradictions. From the debates I've had I think the conflicts and contradictions exist in denying fetuses human rights and allowing women to electively chose whether or not someone else lives or dies. It's known fact that the embryo/fetus is all stages is human life, so the concept of "personhood" and the use of "personhood" to define if someone should have any rights is put into play.
 
Once they hit the ground, yes. A blob of cells that can spontaneously abort, no. Does Gawd hate the fetuses that spontaneously abort on their own?
 
Tucker Case said:
Being capable of complex thoughts =/= ****ing moron.

I'm sorry that you are not capable of complex thoughts, but that doesn't mean that others aren't.
Click to expand...

If you think abortion is murder or should be considered murder then the last thing you should want is for it to be left up to the states.Again no one says I think rape,child molestation, bank robbery, or some other vile crime should be left up to the states to decide whether or not those things should be illegal and we damn well that the pro-abortion crowd does not want abortion left up to the state(Roe v. Wade is evidence they don't want it left it up to the states). So yes only a ****ing moron thinks it should be left up to the states.
 
notquiteright said:
Once they hit the ground, yes. A blob of cells that can spontaneously abort, no. Does Gawd hate the fetuses that spontaneously abort on their own?
Click to expand...

The question, of course, then is is the miscarriaged "child" going to heaven or hell? If heaven, then both miscarriages and abortions are wonderful. If hell, then God is filling up hell with gzillions of "people" who never had a chance.

So which one is it - the those who claim upon conception there is a "baby?"
 
joko104 said:
The question, of course, then is is the miscarriaged "child" going to heaven or hell? If heaven, then both miscarriages and abortions are wonderful. If hell, then God is filling up hell with gzillions of "people" who never had a chance.

So which one is it - the those who claim upon conception there is a "baby?"
Click to expand...

While I don't think there's any official policy on it, all of the Catholic web sites I've looked at seem to suggest that any fetus, aborted or miscarried, automatically goes to heaven because it was innocent. Therefore, shouldn't Catholics, and by extension all Christians assuming they believe the same thing, be huge supporters of abortion? After all, you can't go to hell if you never had a chance to sin, right? So let's genocide the human species and send everyone to heaven!

Sorry, that was me being logical. Can't have that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom