• 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
    87
Peter King said:
Your property is something entirely different than your body. You are talking about possessions where I am talking about the integrity of your body and your right to decide what happens inside your body. If you are idiotic enough to want to remove your kidney and you find a doctor that is willing to do it, be my guest. If you however want to do it to sell it, then the government may interfere because that is not meddling with the integrity of your body but with trade laws and rules.

The government has made the ownership of crack cocaine illegal because it is their right to make illicit drugs illegal. That is also not interfering with the integrity of your body but with regulating the use and abuse of controlled substances.

Forbidding an abortion is interfering with the integrity of the body and the steward of that body (the woman) to decide what happens inside her body.
Click to expand...
If this is your reasoning, I would argue that ingesting illegal drugs should not be illegal. Or is it that way already? I know little to nothing about drug laws.
 
Peter King said:
Your property is something entirely different than your body. You are talking about possessions where I am talking about the integrity of your body and your right to decide what happens inside your body. If you are idiotic enough to want to remove your kidney and you find a doctor that is willing to do it, be my guest. If you however want to do it to sell it, then the government may interfere because that is not meddling with the integrity of your body but with trade laws and rules.

The government has made the ownership of crack cocaine illegal because it is their right to make illicit drugs illegal. That is also not interfering with the integrity of your body but with regulating the use and abuse of controlled substances.

Forbidding an abortion is interfering with the integrity of the body and the steward of that body (the woman) to decide what happens inside her body.
Click to expand...

OK, not a bad answer but two things.

First, you're a libertarian when it comes to the human body, but not when it comes to personal property. Acknowledged. HOWEVER.... note that not everybody shares that view. Plenty of people are libertarian when it comes to body AND property, while others are not libertarian in either case (myself).

In actual fact, (second point) it's not legal to sell your kidney on ebay in the USA and it has little to do with trade regulations. It's the same reason it's not legal for me to go ask a doctor to end my life if I'm feeling depressed. It's the same reason it's not legal for me to have a doctor cut off my healthy leg just for fun.

We as a society in the US are not libertarian when it comes to the body. If you are, just understand that not everyone thinks the same way.

I noticed that you are Dutch - I believe things like euthanasia are legal in the Netherlands, so that libertarian attitude is more prevalent over there than in the United States.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I think to terminate a pregnancy minimizes that a lot more. You're taking the gift of life and saying "no thanks." That can't be right.
Click to expand...

Yeah...the mother's life means nothing. Not her life, not her chance to fulfill her potential. We'd rather be self-righteous and pretend that a fetus is better than her, and ignore that it could be physically or mentally defective...or even not be miscarried...but sure, let's just throw away the mother's rights on the chance that it will be born ok.
 
Lursa said:
WHat 'gift?' Someone has to recognize a gift. It may never even BE born. So of course it should not come before the woman...a fetus reducing a woman to a 2nd class citizen?
Click to expand...

Life is a gift. How many couples are out there that would love nothing more than to have a child but are unable? Therefore, it's a gift. That's my main problem with abortion. It's not that it's murder - I don't believe that it is. It's that you're throwing something precious away.
 
Lursa said:
Yeah...the mother's life means nothing. Not her life, not her chance to fulfill her potential. We'd rather be self-righteous and pretend that a fetus is better than her, and ignore that it could be physically or mentally defective...or even not be miscarried...but sure, let's just throw away the mother's rights on the chance that it will be born ok.
Click to expand...

Having a child will not ruin anyone's potential.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Having a child will not ruin anyone's potential.
Click to expand...

yes it could since you dont get to decide what that is, thats something subjective and you nor i can decide it for someone else
 
The Mark said:
If this is your reasoning, I would argue that ingesting illegal drugs should not be illegal. Or is it that way already? I know little to nothing about drug laws.
Click to expand...

Ingesting illegal drugs should not be illegal, owning drugs and being in possession of drugs should be the things that are illegal (as is trading in, supplying, smuggling etc.) but you should not arrest someone for the ingesting but owning of such drug.

It is the trade in drugs and owning of drugs you want to make impossible and prosecutable and the ingestion of said drug will also go down or will be made a lot harder.
 
AGENT J said:
yes it could since you dont get to decide what that is, thats something subjective and you nor i can decide it for someone else
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're referencing with the underlined pronoun.

Seriously, the only thing I understand from what you've written is that, in general, you don't agree with what I wrote.
 
Peter Grimm said:
1.)Life is a gift.
2.)How many couples are out there that would love nothing more than to have a child but are unable?
3.) Therefore, it's a gift.
4.) That's my main problem with abortion.
5.) It's not that it's murder - I don't believe that it is. It's that you're throwing something precious away.
Click to expand...

1.) i agree in general, dont change the abortion debate
2.) meaningless to abortion
3.) no just an opinion
4.) if something going against your opinion is a problem for you the world is going g to be a very bad place
5.) beliefs dont matter here, in the us it factually not murder but its good that opinion matches up here
6.) more opinion

or its somebody making the a moral decision :shrug:

your opinion is no better than theirs or mine and thats why their choice isnt up to you or me, its up to them
 
Peter Grimm said:
1.)I have no idea what you're referencing with the underlined pronoun.
2.)Seriously, the only thing I understand from what you've written is that, in general, you don't agree with what I wrote.
Click to expand...

1.) potential
2.) then you dont understand anything
i wasnt talking about me agreeing or disagreeing
i was pointing out the fact that your statement was false since you stated it as an absolute
its only your opinion, which like mine, is meaningless to the person who has the choice to make.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) i agree in general, dont change the abortion debate
2.) meaningless to abortion
3.) no just an opinion
4.) if something going against your opinion is a problem for you the world is going g to be a very bad place
5.) beliefs dont matter here, in the us it factually not murder but its good that opinion matches up here
6.) more opinion

or its somebody making the a moral decision :shrug:

your opinion is no better than theirs or mine and thats why their choice isnt up to you or me, its up to them
Click to expand...


I don't think abortion is murder. But it's like I said to Peter King.... we're not libertarians. You're telling me that my opinion or my belief don't matter... but they do - if they coincide with the opinions and beliefs of millions of other Americans (which happens to be the case).

We don't live in a country where you are responsible for you and I am responsible for me. We live in a society where we get in each other's business, and that's the reality of modern government like it or not.

You can't sell your kidneys on ebay.... government won't let you. Doesn't matter if it's not my right to tell you not to sell your kidneys for money, enough people think it's gross and wrong and therefore it's illegal.

You can't go and get your leg chopped off by a doctor. Same reason.

You can't go and get your life ended if you're depressed.... same reason.

The bottom line is: the government legislates morality all the time. There is a ton of precedent for it and I could go on and on. So if American Society, as a whole, thinks abortion is immoral, then we have every right in the world to make it illegal if we feel that benefits society as a whole.

Unless you're a staunch libertarian, that's how it is.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I think to terminate a pregnancy minimizes that a lot more. You're taking the gift of life and saying "no thanks." That can't be right.
Click to expand...

The problem is that making abortion illegal won't prevent abortions, it'll simply drive the practice back underground. Abortion was made legal to prevent the heartbreaking calamities that used to happen to desperate girls in back-alley 'clinics'. There were no rules about the term of pregnancy, no standards of practice or even cleanliness, no follow-up, no recourse, no hope.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) potential
2.) then you dont understand anything
i wasnt talking about me agreeing or disagreeing
i was pointing out the fact that your statement was false since you stated it as an absolute
its only your opinion, which like mine, is meaningless to the person who has the choice to make.
Click to expand...

It's alright, I wasn't trying to be rude I just didn't get what you were trying to say. I hope I got you in my other answer.
 
Grand Mal said:
The problem is that making abortion illegal won't prevent abortions, it'll simply drive the practice back underground. Abortion was made legal to prevent the heartbreaking calamities that used to happen to desperate girls in back-alley 'clinics'. There were no rules about the term of pregnancy, no standards of practice or even cleanliness, no follow-up, no recourse, no hope.
Click to expand...

Understood, but remember that was back in the day before the pill and so forth. Society was also a lot less forgiving about pre-marital sex. There's no reason to think it would be the same way today as it was 50 years ago.
 
Peter Grimm said:
1.)I don't think abortion is murder.
2.) But it's like I said to Peter King.... we're not libertarians.
3.) You're telling me that my opinion or my belief don't matter... but they do - if they coincide with the opinions and beliefs of millions of other Americans (which happens to be the case).
4.)We don't live in a country where you are responsible for you and I am responsible for me. We live in a society where we get in each other's business, and that's the reality of modern government like it or not.
5.)You can't sell your kidneys on ebay.... government won't let you.
6.) Doesn't matter if it's not my right to tell you not to sell your kidneys for money, enough people think it's gross and wrong and therefore it's illegal.
7.)You can't go and get your leg chopped off by a doctor. Same reason.
8.)You can't go and get your life ended if you're depressed.... same reason.
9.)The bottom line is: the government legislates morality all the time. There is a ton of precedent for it and I could go on and on. So if American Society, as a whole, thinks abortion is immoral, then we have every right in the world to make it illegal if we feel that benefits society as a whole.
10.)Unless you're a staunch libertarian, that's how it is.
Click to expand...

1.) i know i acknowledged that and and its good you agree with facts
2.) meaningless
3.) no they dont, neither do mine and neither do the millions of other americans since this is a rights issue. Millions also disagree with you too.
4.) you are free to have this opinion
5.) correct they dont
6.) i believe the reason is bio-hazard and endangerment to the public but no matter still meaningless to the debate at hand
7.) nope but not cause its "gross"
8.) noe but again not cause it gross
9.) again you are free to have this OPINION but its a rights issue so no, doesn't work so simple, see woman's rights, inority rights and interracial marriage.

in general yes you are free to try but since its a rights issue RvW smacks the idea down to the ground most times and youll have to prove that benefit and proof the rights being violated/taken away dont matter to that benefit

10.) more opinion

well thanks for that but getting back o our discussion

its factually not murder
your opinion about gifts and throwing that gift away, still meaningless to the debate

BUT you are free to have those opinions
 
Peter Grimm said:
1.)It's alright, I wasn't trying to be rude I just didn't get what you were trying to say.
2.)I hope I got you in my other answer.
Click to expand...

1.) i didnt think you were but thanks for the clarification, in print things can be tricky at times
2.) not sure what this means, do you see now that your statement as an absolute was false.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Having a child will not ruin anyone's potential.
Click to expand...

Patently wrong. If a woman does not have the $$ or support structure it can easily condemn her to not being able to finish high school or get into college, a menial job instead of a career, the ability to find the man of her choice (some men prefer not to be with women who have kids that arent theirs), not advancing in a career or profession.

And of course...it could kill her...that's a little inconvenience...or cause lifelong health complications or disease like diabetes.

But no, none of those things affects her abiilty to reach her potential in life. It can change it, delay it, or destroy it completely.
 
I am pro choice but I don't agree with what most people consider pro choice. To most people pro choice means a woman can decide to abort. I don't agree with that at all. It should be a decision by both parents.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Life is a gift. How many couples are out there that would love nothing more than to have a child but are unable? Therefore, it's a gift. That's my main problem with abortion. It's not that it's murder - I don't believe that it is. It's that you're throwing something precious away.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
This is the heart of the matter in many ways. So then why is it hard to recognize that what is a gift to one person can be a life-altering disaster for someone else?

Because obviously, some women absolutely do not view it as a gift.

So if you recognize that considering something a 'gift' can have an opposite side of the coin, then to me it's hypocritical and even morally wrong to demand women not have the option of abortion. (Which you said you do not, so this is to the generic 'them')
Click to expand...

You have no idea what the value of that fetus is....if precious or not. It could be a mental vegetable. That 'value' ONLY means something to the mother (or not). It has NO value outside of her perspective until born.

However we can quantify HER value, as a member of society...and as mentioned earlier, it behooves us ALL to enable her to reach HER potential in life.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) i know i acknowledged that and and its good you agree with facts
2.) meaningless
3.) no they dont, neither do mine and neither do the millions of other americans since this is a rights issue. Millions also disagree with you too.
4.) you are free to have this opinion
5.) correct they dont
6.) i believe the reason is bio-hazard and endangerment to the public but no matter still meaningless to the debate at hand
7.) nope but not cause its "gross"
8.) noe but again not cause it gross
9.) again you are free to have this OPINION but its a rights issue so no, doesn't work so simple, see woman's rights, inority rights and interracial marriage.

in general yes you are free to try but since its a rights issue RvW smacks the idea down to the ground most times and youll have to prove that benefit and proof the rights being violated/taken away dont matter to that benefit

10.) more opinion

well thanks for that but getting back o our discussion

its factually not murder
your opinion about gifts and throwing that gift away, still meaningless to the debate

BUT you are free to have those opinions
Click to expand...


You're giving me the libertarian argument. That's fine and I have respect for and understand that viewpoint, but we're not all libertarians. I'm not a libertarian, for example.

I believe the needs of a society are more important than the rights of an individual.
 
Lursa said:
You have no idea what the value of that fetus is....if precious or not. It could be a mental vegetable. That 'value' ONLY means something to the mother (or not). It has NO value outside of her perspective until born.

However we can quantify HER value, as a member of society...and as mentioned earlier, it behooves us ALL to enable her to reach HER potential in life.
Click to expand...

A child could be born with mental issues, that still doesn't make that child less valuable than an able-bodied child.

Hope I didn't miss your point.

The gift is the ability to have a child. Many couples are unable.
 
Peter Grimm said:
1.)You're giving me the libertarian argument.
2.)That's fine and I have respect for and understand that viewpoint, but we're not all libertarians. I'm not a libertarian, for example.
3.)I believe the needs of a society are more important than the rights of an individual.
Click to expand...

1.) nope, im giving you the facts and reality
2.) you are mistaken see #1
3.) at times society rights do take rank, never needs though as that is subjective. Maybe another country would suit you better if you rank subjective needs over rights and freedom
 
Lursa said:
Patently wrong. If a woman does not have the $$ or support structure it can easily condemn her to not being able to finish high school or get into college, a menial job instead of a career, the ability to find the man of her choice (some men prefer not to be with women who have kids that arent theirs), not advancing in a career or profession.

And of course...it could kill her...that's a little inconvenience...or cause lifelong health complications or disease like diabetes.

But no, none of those things affects her abiilty to reach her potential in life. It can change it, delay it, or destroy it completely.
Click to expand...

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