• 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!

When Should Mandatory Abortions be implemented in the United States?

When Should Mandatory Abortions be implemented in the United States?

  • As soon as possible. There are many people that shouldn't be having kids.

    Votes: 7 63.6%

  • Within 50 years. We're not quite ready but we are almost there.

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • 51-200 years. Some people are so stupid that they think aborition is wrong.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 201-1000 years. This is the most advanced dream of abortionist. It takes lots of time.

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .
There's a reason it's called pro-choice. It is the choice of the individuals, up to the point where the fetus is able to live outside the womb. So says the civil law.

Being against abortion is anti-choice, and seeks to impose a will on others based on the anti-choice person's belief system. Ironically, once an unwanted child is born, the anti-choicer wants nothing to do with it....no food stamps, no health care, no assistance in recessions. The unwanted baby is on its own.

I am pro-choice. Except maybe for you. I think you shouldn't have any children, so we don't get any more OPs like this one.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I never claimed either the desire or the qualifications - you, however, feel quite capable of making decisions related to other people's bodies.

I do find it odd, however, that you so freely want to end certain people's ability to procreate yet you adamantly oppose other people who believe that a woman should not be allowed to abort for "lifestyle" reasons. It's funny that you selectively believe in the sanctity of a person's body and a person's right to choose.

As a result, you're not "pro-choice" so much as you're "pro-your-choice". I, on the other hand, am fully pro-choice because I believe in the right of people to make their own choices even if I disagree with those choices and think they are terrible.
Click to expand...

Yes, we totally disagree, don't we? You believe rapists have a fundamental right to make as many girls and women pregnant as he can get away with. I do not think rapists have any procreation rights.

You have no problem with two severely mentally handicapped adults making as many children as possible and dumping them into the system, no problem with serial child abusers having as many more children as possible, and otherwise dumping as many children parentless as anyone wants to. I don't.

What other other "rights" to harm women and abandon children do you defend as "choices" a person has a right to make?
 
Thrilla said:
here in the US, eugenics has been a leftist notion.. so i wouldn't worry too much about the right suddenly adopting it to eradicate "da gayz".

in any event, Hitler pretty much soured the world on mandated eugenics.... promotional eugenics is how we roll nowadays
hell, people on this forum push promotional eugenics every day...they are easy to spot.. .they are the ones promoting the virtues of abortion to anyone who will listen.
Click to expand...

No, it is 100% only some "pro-lifers" on the forum who rage how gays are inferior genetic birth defects, not pro-choice. There is no exception to this on the forum. Just look above for one example.
 
joko104 said:
No, it is 100% only some "pro-lifers" on the forum who rage how gays are inferior genetic birth defects, not pro-choice. There is no exception to this on the forum. Just look above for one example.
Click to expand...

yet none of the pro-lifers have shown support for eugenics....which is what we are talking about.

imagine that.

we should head on over and watch pro-choicers tell us about the alien parasites that invade womens bodies and need to be eradicated on demand by hero abortion providers who courageously suck non-human globs of cells from women's uterus's and whom have have historically supported every eugenics scheme that came down the line.... could be fun!
 
JumpinJack said:
There's a reason it's called pro-choice. It is the choice of the individuals, up to the point where the fetus is able to live outside the womb. So says the civil law.

Being against abortion is anti-choice, and seeks to impose a will on others based on the anti-choice person's belief system. Ironically, once an unwanted child is born, the anti-choicer wants nothing to do with it....no food stamps, no health care, no assistance in recessions. The unwanted baby is on its own.

I am pro-choice. Except maybe for you. I think you shouldn't have any children, so we don't get any more OPs like this one.
Click to expand...

do you have children?
 
TheNextEra said:
Noone has convinced the public that is is the "morally reasonable" thing to do. It is simply the LEGAL thing to do.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is not exactly true. There is a very common pro abortion argument that outright says that abortion is the preferred option and usually it shows up in the form of arguing that unplanned children are "unwanted" and are sure to be abandoned/abused, and would therefore be better off if they had been aborted. There are other variations.

As far as it being mandated, I have seen that argument before but that won't ever have popular support. I do admit though, when some of the same people who call the unborn baby all sorts of awful things claim they would argue as vehemently against mandatory abortion, I'm dubious.
 
Oh right, typical reflexive reaction from someone who "strongly" believes we should have a theocracy. If you actually thought of it, 'mandatory abortions' will never happen, because it's much more fullproof to just sterilize. That is nothing new. Now those would-be unfit parents won't exist and you won't get to cry about "dead babies," because they won't ever get pregnant!
 
Gipper said:
I'm a meritocrat who believes in Platonic rule, and the concept of the philosopher-king was designed so that the enlightened class was designed to help people from self-destruction through benevolent choices unable to be seen by the general populace. He didn't have disdain for the common folk.
Click to expand...

Plato's authoritarianism compares oddly with your libertarian stances.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
If people just avoided 'forced' 'everyone' and 'required' when they shape their abortion views and enter discussions, we'd all be better off.
Click to expand...

It would be better off for the pro-death advocates. I'm not sure how the pro-life group would benefit from this strategy. Are you sure everybody would be better off or just your side?

vasuderatorrent
 
X Factor said:
Actually, this is not exactly true. There is a very common pro abortion argument that outright says that abortion is the preferred option and usually it shows up in the form of arguing that unplanned children are "unwanted" and are sure to be abandoned/abused, and would therefore be better off if they had been aborted. There are other variations.

As far as it being mandated, I have seen that argument before but that won't ever have popular support. I do admit though, when some of the same people who call the unborn baby all sorts of awful things claim they would argue as vehemently against mandatory abortion, I'm dubious.
Click to expand...

Well, you do know that's incredibly fringe, don't you? I certainly hope you're not one of those people who think pro-choice is just a euphemism for "pro-abortion." I caught the qualifiers such as "there is a very common pro abortion argument" as well as "I have seen the argument," but I'm just making certain.
 
Last edited:
I'm unaware of any situations where securing a right means requiring its exercise. Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. Freedom of religion includes the freedom to have no religion. Freedom to contract includes the freedom not to contract. Freedom of association includes the freedom not to associate. The right to privacy includes the freedom to be public if you like. The right to marry includes the right not to marry. The right to remain silent includes the right not to remain silent. The right to abort includes the right not to abort.

The OP is complete nonsense.
 
CanadaJohn said:
North America had a sad history in the last century where the mentally ill and handicapped were often sterilized against their knowledge or will. I had thought, as a society, that we had advanced beyond that sad, despicable period, but maybe not.
Click to expand...

Look at his lean. This isn't his idiocy, it's the idiocy he attributes to his opponents because he doesn't understand their arguments.
 
joko104 said:
Yes, we totally disagree, don't we? You believe rapists have a fundamental right to make as many girls and women pregnant as he can get away with. I do not think rapists have any procreation rights.

You have no problem with two severely mentally handicapped adults making as many children as possible and dumping them into the system, no problem with serial child abusers having as many more children as possible, and otherwise dumping as many children parentless as anyone wants to. I don't.

What other other "rights" to harm women and abandon children do you defend as "choices" a person has a right to make?
Click to expand...

And there's a comment so over the top or under a rock that there's no justification for a serious response. My apologies for pointing out your stunning hypocrisy and touching such a sensitive nerve.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Look at his lean. This isn't his idiocy, it's the idiocy he attributes to his opponents because he doesn't understand their arguments.
Click to expand...

It is idiocy, no matter where it comes from - no political ideology has a lock on sanity or even an abundance of sane people.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
It would be better off for the pro-death advocates. I'm not sure how the pro-life group would benefit from this strategy. Are you sure everybody would be better off or just your side?

vasuderatorrent
Click to expand...

Case in point.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
That's because this isn't a choice. Elitist are in charge and want to make America stronger. [ . . . ] This is a vision of the smartest people in our country.
Click to expand...

vasuderatorrent said:
Now that the elitist have convinced the American public to accept abortion as a morally reasonable thing to do, the next step is to implement mandatory abortions to those who are unfit to be parents.
Click to expand...

Who are these "elitists" that you believe are planning mandatory abortions, and what have they said or done that make you think they are going to force people to have abortions? Or is this just more hysterical nonsense?
 
As soon as we change women and children into community property. You can't just pull selective abortion out of Plato's ideal State and expect it to work in our society.

Edit: I must assume that there will be some difficulty in telling women that they will be slaves.
 
The only time that an abortion should ever be "mandatory", i.e. without the woman's express consent, is when she in incapable of both giving and refusing consent (coma or other similar conditions) and the legal next of kin makes the decision.
 
Grendel said:
Who are these "elitists" that you believe are planning mandatory abortions, and what have they said or done that make you think they are going to force people to have abortions? Or is this just more hysterical nonsense?
Click to expand...

Philosophers. The higher ups in universities. Once a woman is convinced by these eggheads to have an abortion she is a soldier for life for the cause of pro-death. She has to be. She killed her baby and it causes great emotional pain and self doubt. When she makes up silly arguments to justify her own guilt this helps the cause of the egghead. She becomes a pawn in their big game. Some people pick up the fight just because they hear a convincing argument by one of these murdering moms that tugs at their heart string. Most of the population isn't affected by abortion one way or the other. It's really odd that so many fight so hard to have the right to kill a baby when most of them never will. It's very bizarre. What theory do you have?

vasuderatorrent
 
Grendel said:
Who are these "elitists" that you believe are planning mandatory abortions, and what have they said or done that make you think they are going to force people to have abortions? Or is this just more hysterical nonsense?
Click to expand...

"The men who are not interested in philosophy absorb it's principles from the cultural atmosphere around them - from schools, colleges, books, magazines, newspapers, movies, televisions, etc. Who sets the tone of a culture? A small handful of men: the philosophers. Others follow their lead,either by conviction or default. For some 200 years, under the influence of Immanuel Kant, the dominant trend of philosophy has been directed to a single goal: the destruction of man's mind, of his confidence in the power of reason. Today, we are seeing the climax of that trend."

Rand, Ayn. Philosophy: Who Needs It. New York. New American Library, 1982. Page 8

978-0451138934

Amazon.com: Buying Choices: Philosophy: Who Needs It (The Ayn Rand Library Vol. 1)

vasuderatorrent
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Philosophers. The higher ups in universities. Once a woman is convinced by these eggheads to have an abortion she is a soldier for life for the cause of pro-death. She has to be. She killed her baby and it causes great emotional pain and self doubt. When she makes up silly arguments to justify her own guilt this helps the cause of the egghead. She becomes a pawn in their big game. Some people pick up the fight just because they hear a convincing argument by one of these murdering moms that tugs at their heart string. Most of the population isn't affected by abortion one way or the other. It's really odd that so many fight so hard to have the right to kill a baby when most of them never will. It's very bizarre. What theory do you have?

vasuderatorrent
Click to expand...

Don't feel bad though. Have you ever seen a conservative fight for the benefit of the extremely wealthy businessman at their own expense? Most of us are helpless victims to the intellectual class. Humans are social creatures. We crave acceptance and a sense of belonging. It's in our genes to be trusting of authorities. It has a survival function.
 
I'm going to ignore the obvious ridiculousness of the OP and actually try to crazily address it in a serious way...

If we reach such a point in the United States that overcrowding is leading to significant health and living issues that result in a high mortality rate for all ages due to sickness, lack of resources, and lawlessness running rampant then I could see an attempt to make having additional children a reasonable on to make within the given scope of society.

That said, such a situation is about as likely to occur as a unicorn leaping out of my ass leaving a rainbow trail
 
maquiscat said:
The only time that an abortion should ever be "mandatory", i.e. without the woman's express consent, is when she in incapable of both giving and refusing consent (coma or other similar conditions) and the legal next of kin makes the decision.
Click to expand...

You should probably pick the last option. 201-1000 years.

vasuderatorrent
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm going to ignore the obvious ridiculousness of the OP and actually try to crazily address it in a serious way...

If we reach such a point in the United States that overcrowding is leading to significant health and living issues that result in a high mortality rate for all ages due to sickness, lack of resources, and lawlessness running rampant then I could see an attempt to make having additional children a reasonable on to make within the given scope of society.

That said, such a situation is about as likely to occur as a unicorn leaping out of my ass leaving a rainbow trail
Click to expand...

China had an one child only policy for several decades. Abortions were mandatory in China. It might still be that way. This isn't far fetched at all. We already think abortion is ok. It wouldn't be that difficult to implement without controversy. When I say controversy I mean rioting and violence. I am not referring to massive blog post and people holding signs in front of the White House. Government treats this type of protesting as no protesting at all.

vasuderatorrent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom