• 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
Why are there only two choices?

As if the issue were that simple.

Maybe that's the problem with many issues, too many simpleminded people on both sides have the microphone.
 
Human being and person have sociological-philosophical-spiritual connotations, and thus there is debate about the application of these terms to prenatals and, historically, to some postnatals, too.

But that's all aside from hard-science.

When it comes to hard-science, when it comes to taxonomy, phylogeny, anthropology, biology, genetics-DNA, organism-life, all of these scientific discplines are in complete concensus agreement and they have been for over 35 years: a prenatal, a ZEF (zygote/embryo/fetus), is an organism, completely alive, of the human species, a living human.

That's the same thing we postnatals are: an organism, completely alive, of the human species, a living human.

And that makes sense.

A day before we're born, are we that much different, hard-science designation-wise? Of course not. We're still an organism, completely alive, of the human species, a living human.

We may not be a human being to some, or a person, but these aren't exclusively hard-science terms.

And no matter how far back you want to go in gestation to debate the developmental qualifications for the human being or person status of a prenatal, there simply is no hard-science debate about the reality that a prenatal at any stage of development -- zygote, embryo, fetus -- is a living human, the same designation a postal is given by hard-science: a living human.

As the previous poster said, "What, only two choices?"

Indeed, I've seen some pretty amusing arguments both pro-choice and pro-life, and I simply can't identify with some of the denials and exaggerations that come from these two ldeologically extremely polarized camps.

Yes, it seems like the pro-choice camp goes to some pretty laughably bizarre extremes of sophistry to deny the living human reality of prenatals, and the pro-life camp goes to some rather wild exaggerations of development terms to make a prenatal a lot more than it is.

But I guess after so many years of intense emotional debate, they've both been pushed to the extremities of irrationalism on the matter, to where neither is really in possession of the foundational truth.

I feel fortunate to not be caught in that dualistic paradigm.

So where does that put someone who recognizes a prenatal is a living human just like a postanal is a living human, realizes that until we can reduce the number of unplanned/undesired conceptions that abortion will happen, doesn't want to see women butchered in back-alley abortions, doesn't want to see viable humans butchered either, supports Roe v. Wade and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services as the best law we've got in the matter for so many reasons, doesn't want to see women suffer degrees of post-abortion adverse side-effects both psychologically and physiologically, wants hi-tech conception prevention "pills" in everyone's hands to super drastically reduce abortion to the degree of rarity to thus spare nearly all prenatal humans from premature death, and wants both sides to come to their senses, accept the foundational truths of the matter, and realize the current law and high-tech conception prevention pills are the only real solution to the abortion conflict?

As usual, there is no ideological label for such a position on this issue, or maybe any issue, in the wide expanse of territory in the center apart from either of the ideological wing positions.

But nameless or not, that's still the position on the matter that makes the best sense to me.
 
Human being and person have sociological-philosophical-spiritual connotations, and thus there is debate about the application of these terms to prenatals and, historically, to some postnatals, too.

But that's all aside from hard-science.

When it comes to hard-science, when it comes to taxonomy, phylogeny, anthropology, biology, genetics-DNA, organism-life, all of these scientific discplines are in complete concensus agreement and they have been for over 35 years: a prenatal, a ZEF (zygote/embryo/fetus), is an organism, completely alive, of the human species, a living human.

That's the same thing we postnatals are: an organism, completely alive, of the human species, a living human.

And that makes sense.

A day before we're born, are we that much different, hard-science designation-wise? Of course not. We're still an organism, completely alive, of the human species, a living human.

We may not be a human being to some, or a person, but these aren't exclusively hard-science terms.

And no matter how far back you want to go in gestation to debate the developmental qualifications for the human being or person status of a prenatal, there simply is no hard-science debate about the reality that a prenatal at any stage of development -- zygote, embryo, fetus -- is a living human, the same designation a postnatal is given by hard-science: a living human.

As the previous poster said, "Why are there only two choices?"

Indeed, I've seen some pretty amusing arguments both pro-choice and pro-life, and I simply can't identify with the denials and exaggerations that come from these two ldeologically extremely polarized camps.

Yes, it seems like the pro-choice camp goes to some pretty laughably bizarre extremes of sophistry to deny the living human reality of prenatals, and the pro-life camp goes to some rather wild exaggerations of development terms to make a prenatal a lot more than it is.

But I guess after so many years of intense emotional debate, they've both been pushed to the extremities of irrationalism on the matter, to where neither is really in possession of the foundational truth.

I feel fortunate not to be caught in that mind-dumbing dualistic paradigm.

So where does that put someone who recognizes a prenatal is a living human just like a postnatal is a living human, realizes that until we can drastically reduce the number of unplanned/undesired conceptions that abortion will happen in sadly great numbers, doesn't want to see women butchered in back-alley abortions, doesn't want to see viable humans butchered either, supports Roe v. Wade and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services as the best law we've got in the matter for so many reasons, doesn't want to see women suffer degrees of post-abortion adverse side-effects both psychologically and physiologically, wants hi-tech conception prevention "pills" in everyone's hands to super drastically reduce abortion to the degree of rarity to thus spare nearly all prenatal humans from premature death and women from the adversities of abortion, and wants both sides to come to their senses, accept the foundational truths of the matter, and realize the current law and high-tech conception prevention pills are the only real solution to the abortion conflict?

As usual, there is no ideological label for such a position on this issue, or maybe any issue, in the wide expanse of territory in the center apart from either of the ideological wing positions.

But nameless or not, that's still the position on the matter that makes the best sense to me.
 
Last edited:
I am a die hard Democrat but, abortion is one thing my Party has wrong... especially given the nefarious and blatant historical background of abortion. In which it is still being used a population tool to this day.
 
I am a die hard Democrat but, abortion is one thing my Party has wrong... especially given the nefarious and blatant historical background of abortion. In which it is still being used a population tool to this day.

Thank you for your honesty. My hat is off to you...........
 
I am a die hard Democrat but, abortion is one thing my Party has wrong... especially given the nefarious and blatant historical background of abortion. In which it is still being used a population tool to this day.

Not only do I disagree, but you can't prove your claim to be close to being true.
 
I am a die hard Democrat but, abortion is one thing my Party has wrong... especially given the nefarious and blatant historical background of abortion. In which it is still being used a population tool to this day.

Yup, it's a great big conspiracy.

Seriously though, got any proof of this population control plot and nefarious background?

Abortion, as we're discussing it here, is something the women does of her own free will. 99 time out of 100, her reasons for doing so don't extend too far outside of herself and her immediate loved ones.

I am not even sure what you're talking about.
 
But just to look at what you said with some scrutiny, I don't understand how you could turn around and be "pro-choice."

If you "believe" that we are living human beings in the womb, then I have to tell you that it really isn't a question of belief, let alone "personal" ones. That our lifespan begins at conception and that we are human beings from the beginning of that lifespan until its end... both are established scientific fact.

Our government has deemed that fetuses are property of the woman, thus subject to the right to choose. I don't agree with it personally, but I have no desire to force my own beliefs on those who do not agree.
 
Not only do I disagree, but you can't prove your claim to be close to being true.

How many abortions is ok with you my left wing friend? There have been 54,000,000 since 1973....How many is to many? 60,000,00, 100,000,000. 200,000,000.........The whole population of the U.S. WHEN IS IT TO MANY???????


Seriously, can you answer that?
 
Our government has deemed that fetuses are property of the woman, thus subject to the right to choose. I don't agree with it personally, but I have no desire to force my own beliefs on those who do not agree.


For once in your life take a stand Lizzie.........Protect those who can't protect theirselves.......
 
For once in your life take a stand Lizzie.........Protect those who can't protect theirselves.......

If a woman isn't willing to protect the baby growing inside of her, then that baby is already at a huge disadvantage. I'm sorry NP- but you're just not going to turn me into a cause-head. I do not take on the personal responsibility of others for doing what is legal in our society. You won't guilt me into taking up someone else's cause any more than someone with a liberal cause will guilt me into taking up theirs. I live by a creed of personal responsibility.
 
Yup, it's a great big conspiracy.

Seriously though, got any proof of this population control plot and nefarious background?

Abortion, as we're discussing it here, is something the women does of her own free will. 99 time out of 100, her reasons for doing so don't extend too far outside of herself and her immediate loved ones.

I am not even sure what you're talking about.

You do the math, like I have said there have been 54,000,000 abortions since 1973........How many do you think were when the mothers life was endangered........10% that would be 5,400,000.......Lets ad a million for rape and incest.....that is roughly 6,000...........that means 48,000,000 babies were butchered in the womb for nothing...........How horrific is that........

People on the left want to spare the lives of vicious murderers and rapists but have no compassion for a baby in the womb who has committed no crime........How crazy is that......
 
If a woman isn't willing to protect the baby growing inside of her, then that baby is already at a huge disadvantage. I'm sorry NP- but you're just not going to turn me into a cause-head. I do not take on the personal responsibility of others for doing what is legal in our society. You won't guilt me into taking up someone else's cause any more than someone with a liberal cause will guilt me into taking up theirs. I live by a creed of personal responsibility.

I am sorry but it is the responsibility of every person in this country to stop the butchering of unborn infants.....
 
You do the math, like I have said there have been 54,000,000 abortions since 1973........How many do you think were when the mothers life was endangered........10% that would be 5,400,000.......Lets ad a million for rape and incest.....that is roughly 6,000...........that means 48,000,000 babies were butchered in the womb for nothing...........How horrific is that........

People on the left want to spare the lives of vicious murderers and rapists but have no compassion for a baby in the womb who has committed no crime........How crazy is that......

Ice cold man. Ice cold gangstas...
 
I am sorry but it is the responsibility of every person in this country to stop the butchering of unborn infants.....

No, it is not. If a woman gets pregnant out of her own stupidity or negligence, the she is the one who must bear the burden of her own mistakes. You will not budge me on this point. Try as you may, I am firmly planted in my position. Guilt won't work, emotional manipuation won't work, shame won't work. I live my life according to my personal moral code, and I am perfectly secure with it.
 
m0xz5.jpg


Bro-Choice - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 04/11/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Why does religious bigots believe they have the right to control women?
 
No, it is not. If a woman gets pregnant out of her own stupidity or negligence, the she is the one who must bear the burden of her own mistakes. You will not budge me on this point. Try as you may, I am firmly planted in my position. Guilt won't work, emotional manipuation won't work, shame won't work. I live my life according to my personal moral code, and I am perfectly secure with it.

If it didn't effect the butcher of another human being I would agree with you
 
Abortion should be safe, legal, and absolutely unnecessary.
 
How many abortions is ok with you my left wing friend? There have been 54,000,000 since 1973....How many is to many? 60,000,00, 100,000,000. 200,000,000.........The whole population of the U.S. WHEN IS IT TO MANY???????

Seriously, can you answer that?

First of all...you don't know me nor can you appropriately classify my political philosophical lean. So calling me "your left wing friend" is is incorrect on two fronts.

Secondly, differetDEM made the claim that abortion is nothing more than a means to control population. That is not true and can't be proven.

Lastly, it is a physical impossibility for the number of abortions annually to significantly effect the increase in our population. Ever read the census reports that are gathered and published every 10 years? In case you haven't noticed, not only is the US population growing at a rapid rate, but even more so for the world population.
 
First of all...you don't know me nor can you appropriately classify my political philosophical lean. So calling me "your left wing friend" is is incorrect on two fronts.

Everyone is left wing to him. It's pretty inconceivable that anyone could possibly be farther right wing than he is. Don't take it personally.
 
Considering he sits to the right of Atilla the Hun...

He's so far right of Atilla the Hun, he can't see him with a telescope.
 
First of all...you don't know me nor can you appropriately classify my political philosophical lean. So calling me "your left wing friend" is is incorrect on two fronts.

Secondly, differetDEM made the claim that abortion is nothing more than a means to control population. That is not true and can't be proven.

Lastly, it is a physical impossibility for the number of abortions annually to significantly effect the increase in our population. Ever read the census reports that are gathered and published every 10 years? In case you haven't noticed, not only is the US population growing at a rapid rate, but even more so for the world population.

I can't believe you, so its ok to kill all those babies for nothing because it does not affect the population in the U.S.............How ****ing sick is that???????????
 
Originally Posted by Removable Mind
First of all...you don't know me nor can you appropriately classify my political philosophical lean. So calling me "your left wing friend" is is incorrect on two fronts.

Secondly, differetDEM made the claim that abortion is nothing more than a means to control population. That is not true and can't be proven.

Lastly, it is a physical impossibility for the number of abortions annually to significantly effect the increase in our population. Ever read the census reports that are gathered and published every 10 years? In case you haven't noticed, not only is the US population growing at a rapid rate, but even more so for the world population.

NP said:
I can't believe you, so its ok to kill all those babies for nothing because it does not affect the population in the U.S.............How ****ing sick is that???????????

I cant believe that you cant accept and live with facts and resort to emotionalism!
 
I cant believe that you cant accept and live with facts and resort to emotionalism!

For some people, that's all they're capable of. They just don't function rationally. They don't really care if it's true or not, so long as it makes them feel good.
 
Back
Top Bottom