• 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!

Is President Obama Right in This?

Read the below and respond acordingly

  • Yes, I think we can discuss abortion without rancor

    Votes: 9 33.3%
  • No, I think the issue is too divisive

    Votes: 8 29.6%
  • I think we can do better, but it will always be an angry debate

    Votes: 10 37.0%

  • Total voters
    27
If a human life does not begin at conception, when does it begin? What is the precise moment in the pregnancy that the fetus is endowed with humanity? What proof have we of that endowment?

All of the cells of the human body are alive. The sperm is alive and the egg is alive. The question is at which point is it a unique, independent human life. And to me, that point is where the child can live outside of the womb. This, in most instances is after the first trimester, though the child will still require an incubator. This parallels an injured person in a vegetative state. They are alive with the use of machinery, yet on their own dead. The mother serves as the machinery maintaining the life of the baby until the second trimester. At this point the nerve system begins to develop in earnest and real development occurs. The lungs of babies do not even begin to develop until month seven, as there is not adequate room in the womb until the point prior to delivery. However, with medical assistance the child can survive quite easily at this point.
 
Sperm or unfertilized eggs are potential human, but no one is laments over their regular destruction. No one puts those above animals or objects. After conception it becomes different. I guess this state of "potential human worthy of discomfort over their death, but unworthy of legal protection" doesn't exist for me and I just can't wrap my brain around it. Unless you can somehow explain it to me, we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Sperm or unfertilized eggs are potential human, but no one is laments over their regular destruction. No one puts those above animals or objects. After conception it becomes different. I guess this state of "potential human worthy of discomfort over their death, but unworthy of legal protection" doesn't exist for me and I just can't wrap my brain around it. Unless you can somehow explain it to me, we'll have to agree to disagree.

The sperm and unfertilized eggs are carrying it to an extreme.

AS far as the can't wrap your brain around it thing...earlier in this thread some one pointed something out that I in a way that finally let me wrap my brain around the anti abortion concept and why you all are so not open to compromise(not that we are either). It just never really sank in that if abortion is essentially murder, there is no compromise position. it seems self evident once you think about it, but it is incredibly hard to step away from the way we see the world, to see it as some one else does.
 
Sperm or unfertilized eggs are potential human, but no one is laments over their regular destruction. No one puts those above animals or objects. After conception it becomes different. I guess this state of "potential human worthy of discomfort over their death, but unworthy of legal protection" doesn't exist for me and I just can't wrap my brain around it. Unless you can somehow explain it to me, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Why is different after conception? All conception is essentially, is the introduction of DNA from the male, to the female. There is recombination and cell differentiation. If one were to take a female egg and add another set of DNA, you could grow a frog or lamb for that matter. One could add the DNA of a heart cell, and the egg would divide and become two heart cells and so on. It is at the point that the cells differentiate to the point where they grouped and programed to become heart, brain, and so on that we actually see true human life. Now this is scientifically speaking. If one simply compares the development of anyother animal and the human, you will see that at certain stages it is near impossible to tell the difference between a chicken and human baby. Regardless, I am not trying to change your mind, it is much more enjoyable with your differing opinion. Thus, I agree to disagree.
 
The sperm and unfertilized eggs are carrying it to an extreme.

AS far as the can't wrap your brain around it thing...earlier in this thread some one pointed something out that I in a way that finally let me wrap my brain around the anti abortion concept and why you all are so not open to compromise(not that we are either). It just never really sank in that if abortion is essentially murder, there is no compromise position. it seems self evident once you think about it, but it is incredibly hard to step away from the way we see the world, to see it as some one else does.

I can wrap my brain around the argument that aborting a child is no different than removing a cyst or getting a hair cut. That argument is based on the idea that thing being removed is not human and therefor has no value or protection by law. There for, just as no one has a right to dictate to a woman how she cuts her hair or clips her toenails, no one has the right to say what she can or can't do with this non-human lump of cells in her. I can understand that. I can wrap my brain around it. I disagree with it completely, but it makes internal sense to me.

When you add personal opposition to abortion, that's when I can't wrap my brain around it. You recognize that the thing being removed in much more than toenails or cysts. You're uncomfortable with killing it. But you refuse to protect it. To me if someone has a personal moral objection to abortion, its most likely because they believe it ends a human life. And I can't understand how they believe that should fall into choice.

I understand you don't believe it ends a human life. You call it potential human. But I don't understand and can't wrap my brain around how you make that distinction. Obviously as I said, you don't have problems with eggs and sperms being destroyed - no one does. But they are potential huamns. Its only after conception that discomfort sets in for you and for many folks. My personal interpretation has been that most people recognize that at that point we're no longer talking about a lump of genetic material. We're now talking about that sacred spark of human life.

I appreciate the discussion. And I do always try to examine the otherside. But there are a few positions I just fail to understand. Pro-choice mixed with personal discomfort or opposition to abortion is one of those positions I don't think I'll ever be able to fully comprehend.
 
I can wrap my brain around the argument that aborting a child is no different than removing a cyst or getting a hair cut. That argument is based on the idea that thing being removed is not human and therefor has no value or protection by law. There for, just as no one has a right to dictate to a woman how she cuts her hair or clips her toenails, no one has the right to say what she can or can't do with this non-human lump of cells in her. I can understand that. I can wrap my brain around it. I disagree with it completely, but it makes internal sense to me.

When you add personal opposition to abortion, that's when I can't wrap my brain around it. You recognize that the thing being removed in much more than toenails or cysts. You're uncomfortable with killing it. But you refuse to protect it. To me if someone has a personal moral objection to abortion, its most likely because they believe it ends a human life. And I can't understand how they believe that should fall into choice.

I understand you don't believe it ends a human life. You call it potential human. But I don't understand and can't wrap my brain around how you make that distinction. Obviously as I said, you don't have problems with eggs and sperms being destroyed - no one does. But they are potential huamns. Its only after conception that discomfort sets in for you and for many folks. My personal interpretation has been that most people recognize that at that point we're no longer talking about a lump of genetic material. We're now talking about that sacred spark of human life.

I appreciate the discussion. And I do always try to examine the otherside. But there are a few positions I just fail to understand. Pro-choice mixed with personal discomfort or opposition to abortion is one of those positions I don't think I'll ever be able to fully comprehend.

Granted, but you say that you are against abortion, yet you responded to me that if the mother were in danger of dying you are not opposed. How is this different from those who say it should remain a limited choice?
 
Granted, but you say that you are against abortion, yet you responded to me that if the mother were in danger of dying you are not opposed. How is this different from those who say it should remain a limited choice?

A miscarriage that ends the mother's life invariably ends the baby's life, also. Hence there's no point in opposing termination, and something to gain by intervening.

Not hard to figure out, is it? Naturally, such circumstances should be documented and reviewed to ensure proper safeguards were followed. We wouldn't want so-called doctors faking up medical trauma just to murder babies, would we?
 
Because in the case of the mother's life being in danger, we're now talking about balancing two individual's right ot life. In that case, mom is sentient so she gets to make the call.

Abortions without the mother's life being endangered are about the woman's right to choose vs the child's right to life. Life takes precedence as it is the most critical and fundemental of rights.
 
Here is your evidence: Cell Cycle in the Fucus Zygote Parallels a Somatic Cell Cycle but Displays a Unique Translational Regulation of Cyclin-Dependent Kinases

If you have any questions, just ask.

It is not about a child being born, it is about whether or not a fetus takes over and supercedes the rights of the mother. Is the mother nothing more than a vessel and when she becomes one does all of her personal rights disappear for those of the fetus?

You're right. It's not about a child being born. It's about killing a child to stop it from being born. Of course the fetus' right to life supercedes the non-existent right of the incubator to kill it.

She still has the right to free speech, to keep and bear arms, to be secure in her property and person, to have a trial by jury, etc etc etc. Since she does not have a right to commit murder, she cannot murder the unique individual inside her.
 
A miscarriage that ends the mother's life invariably ends the baby's life, also. Hence there's no point in opposing termination, and something to gain by intervening.

Not hard to figure out, is it? Naturally, such circumstances should be documented and reviewed to ensure proper safeguards were followed. We wouldn't want so-called doctors faking up medical trauma just to murder babies, would we?

What miscarriage? A woman may be too physically weak to give birth, weak heart.....number of reasons. The baby can be birthed without the mother surviving. This has happened numerous times. The question was if the baby lives and mother dies, do you allow the abortion.
 
You're right. It's not about a child being born. It's about killing a child to stop it from being born. Of course the fetus' right to life supercedes the non-existent right of the incubator to kill it.

She still has the right to free speech, to keep and bear arms, to be secure in her property and person, to have a trial by jury, etc etc etc. Since she does not have a right to commit murder, she cannot murder the unique individual inside her.

So, is it then wrong to remove a vegetative person from life-support? Do not say it is different, because the mother is nothing more than life-support until the child is developed enough to live outside the body. Either human life is sacred and untouchable or it is not. If you pick and choose where the sanctity begins an ends then you cannot used the sanctity of life as your basis.
 
I appreciate the discussion. And I do always try to examine the otherside. But there are a few positions I just fail to understand. Pro-choice mixed with personal discomfort or opposition to abortion is one of those positions I don't think I'll ever be able to fully comprehend.

I understand that you don't understand how the thought process on my side works. I have enjoyed the conversation alot, and appreciate your input and explanations.
 
I understand that you don't understand how the thought process on my side works. I have enjoyed the conversation alot, and appreciate your input and explanations.

Likewise. I enjoyed it too. We'll probably never agree on the issue, but it was nice to see a discussion on the issue that didn't devolve down to people shouting, "Baby killer!" and "Misogynist!" at each other.
 
So maybe there is hope.
 
I can.

A woman that don't want to be pregant has the freedom to choose to abstain from sexual acts that permit the egg to become thoroughly acquainted with a sperm.

If they mess up, it's not the baby's fault, it's theirs.

It's not rocket science.

Abortion kills a living human.



It's funny to see people's definition of life.

Abstinence is a great thought, but in practice.. doesn't really work all that well.. read up the studies on Bush's abstinence programs in public school.

I don't agree with late term abortions of an ACTUAL baby. (10 fingers, 10 toes, penis, or vagina) kind of thing.

The removal of a clump of cells that are dividing in some woman's womb... well... not so much the same as the cute cuddly little baby that comes out of a woman's birth canal...

Sorry, but those of us that look at this problem logically will never see a bunch of cells dividing as a human baby. Just not going to happen. :lol:


Continue on though, it's funny watching you guys say... "IT IS TOO A LIFE!!!" and others say "IS NOT!!!" I feel like we're all accomplishing so much on this one.
 
I don't agree with late term abortions of an ACTUAL baby. (10 fingers, 10 toes, penis, or vagina) kind of thing.
fingers, toes, sex organs and much more are there by 8 weeks gestation. It is an ACTUAL baby.

Seriously--google "8 week fetus" in google images. It even looks like a baby with skinny arms and a big head.
 
Last edited:
What miscarriage? A woman may be too physically weak to give birth, weak heart.....number of reasons.

Okay. I won't quibble.

But the underlying urgent medical condition should be REAL, not an excuse to murder the baby.

The question was if the baby lives and mother dies, do you allow the abortion.

All righty, I failed to see that interpretation. No one is required to sacrifice their life for another, that's a voluntary act, so therefore it's morally acceptable for a mother to kill the child within her if that child is going to cause her mortal or even, I'd allow, crippling injury.

The situation you describe is rare and usually preventable with proper prenatal care, and, oh, by the way, under no circumstances does what I just say construe any justification for Intact D&C, since that procedure is completely unnecessary and the LIVING baby can be extracted faster and easier by a simple c-section, with less stress to the mother.
 
So, is it then wrong to remove a vegetative person from life-support? Do not say it is different,

Welcome to the First Amendment, I get to choose what I say, not you.

It's different.

With no intervention a healthy baby growing inside a healthy mother will produce a healthy live birth.

A zucchini on electro-mechanical life support or requiring intensive constant manual care with zero prognosis for recovery has no future to speak of. Supporting that husk demands the expenditure of other human lives for as long as it's permitted to consume resources.
 
It's funny to see people's definition of life.

I haven't defined life.

Give me a while and maybe I can dig up a Mel Brooks Moment. Maybe not.


Abstinence is a great thought, but in practice.. doesn't really work all that well.. read up the studies on Bush's abstinence programs in public school.

Didn't say a thing about abstinence.

I'm not Bill Clinton, I know what the meaning of "is" is, and what "sex" is, too.

I don't agree with late term abortions of an ACTUAL baby. (10 fingers, 10 toes, penis, or vagina) kind of thing.

What if the baby has both penis and vagina, is that different?

What if the baby has 12 fingers, or 8?

The removal of a clump of cells that are dividing in some woman's womb... well... not so much the same as the cute cuddly little baby that comes out of a woman's birth canal...

Oh. By "clump of cells" your euphemizing "baby" so you can now discuss KILLING the "baby" without hurting your own sensibilities.

Sorry, but those of us that look at this problem logically will never see a bunch of cells dividing as a human baby. Just not going to happen. :lol:

I do examine the problem logically.

That's all I've used. That, and the proper words to promote the meaning I'm expressing.

Why can't you do that?

Continue on though, it's funny watching you guys say... "IT IS TOO A LIFE!!!" and others say "IS NOT!!!" I feel like we're all accomplishing so much on this one.

Well, you people can't admit the truth, because you'd have to then take the next step, and admit you're wrong.

Abortion kills a life.

It's that simple.
 
Well, I thought of this instead of Mel Brooks. Good enough for ya?

Monty Python: The Meaning of Life

Harry Blackitt: Look at them, bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed.
Mrs. Blackitt: What are we dear?
Harry Blackitt: Protestant, and fiercely proud of it.
Mrs. Blackitt: Hmm. Well, why do they have so many children?
Harry Blackitt: Because... every time they have sexual intercourse, they have to have a baby.
Mrs. Blackitt: But it's the same with us, Harry.
Harry Blackitt: What do you mean?
Mrs. Blackitt: Well, I mean, we've got two children, and we've had sexual intercourse twice.
Harry Blackitt: That's not the point. We could have it any time we wanted.
Mrs. Blackitt: Really?
Harry Blackitt: Oh, yes, and, what's more, because we don't believe in all that Papist claptrap, we can take precautions.
Mrs. Blackitt: What, you mean... lock the door?
Harry Blackitt: No, no. I mean, because we are members of the Protestant Reformed Church, which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid-sixteenth century, we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue.
Mrs. Blackitt: What d'you mean?
Harry Blackitt: I could, if I wanted, have sexual intercourse with you...
Mrs. Blackitt: Oh, yes, Harry.
Harry Blackitt: ...and, by wearing a rubber sheath over my old feller, I could insure... that, when I came off, you would not be impregnated.
Mrs. Blackitt: Ooh.
Harry Blackitt: That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas...
[sniff]
Harry Blackitt: ... and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom. Oh, no. I can wear French Ticklers if I want.
Mrs. Blackitt: You what?
Harry Blackitt: French Ticklers. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress.
Mrs. Blackitt: Have you got one?
Harry Blackitt: Have I got one? Uh, well, no, but I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'
Mrs. Blackitt: Well, why don't you?
Harry Blackitt: But they - Well, they cannot, 'cause their church never made the great leap out of the Middle Ages and the domination of alien Episcopal supremacy.
 
Last edited:
I haven't defined life.

Give me a while and maybe I can dig up a Mel Brooks Moment. Maybe not.




Didn't say a thing about abstinence.

I'm not Bill Clinton, I know what the meaning of "is" is, and what "sex" is, too.



What if the baby has both penis and vagina, is that different?

What if the baby has 12 fingers, or 8?



Oh. By "clump of cells" your euphemizing "baby" so you can now discuss KILLING the "baby" without hurting your own sensibilities.



I do examine the problem logically.

That's all I've used. That, and the proper words to promote the meaning I'm expressing.

Why can't you do that?



Well, you people can't admit the truth, because you'd have to then take the next step, and admit you're wrong.

Abortion kills a life.

It's that simple.

I'm questioning the ability to call a mass of cells dividing a life.

By defining life such as that.. we could call cancer life. Both are non-thinking clumps of cells that divide and are a mass.

:roll:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom