• 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 ProLife? ProChoice? ProChoice With Limits?

What is your stand on abortion?


  • Total voters
    45
I am ProChoice with limits. I think that the fetus begins to feel and register pain once the thalamus, cortex, and spinal cord are all connected. At the point the fetus actually has spatial awareness and can sense pain, all bets are off as the woman has had ample time to decide what to do with the fetus before then. The accepted time limit on this, medically, is 22 weeks. In the interest of caution and compassion, I would prefer to see the limit set at 18 weeks.
This is very similar to my position.

However, I tend towards considering a fetus at any stage a potential person, if not a current one, so I dislike all abortions, barring ones where the life of the mother is at risk.

Despite that, I consider it none of my business what other persons decide, so I ascribe to Jallman's position for all but myself, really.
 
I reject the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as weasel terms that try and avoid the use of the word "abortion". I am in favor of a woman's right to have an abortion and am not afraid to actually phrase it that way.

I agree thats the best way to put and your right they are weasel terms.I dont think there are many people who are anti-life or anti-choice.
 
I don't like the term pro-choice, however I support Roe v. Wade.

  • First trimester - abortion on demand.
  • Second trimester - abortion laws are up to the individual state.
  • Third trimester - no abortion unless there are extraordinary circumstances(life of the woman, condition of the fetus).

I support woman's reproductive rights.

Same. And other words, as well.
 
I don't like the term pro-choice, however I support Roe v. Wade.

  • First trimester - abortion on demand.
  • Second trimester - abortion laws are up to the individual state.
  • Third trimester - no abortion unless there are extraordinary circumstances(life of the woman, condition of the fetus).

I support woman's reproductive rights.

I have largely similar views - I remember however when I used to confuse the titles of the groups. :3oops:

  • First trimester - abortion on demand. I also believe a man should have the option at this early stage to say he does not wish to be involved and that the costs of upbringing should not be put on him if he so chooses.
  • Second trimester - no abortion unless there are extraordinary circumstances(life of the woman, condition of the fetus). In exceptional cases, a man may be able to put the case that he does not wish to be involved however as he has had quite a while to reconcile or rethink, he cannot now escape full financial commitment unless exceptional circumstances are involved.
  • Third trimester - no abortion unless there are extraordinary circumstances(life of the woman, condition of the fetus). Similarly - a man is now in no position to argue that he does not wish to be involved or pay his full share towards the upbringing of his child.
 
Couple issues on this...

Personally, I'm Pro-Life with exceptions. Politically I'd likely go Pro-Choice with limitations.

As I've said in other issues here, this comes down to me as a matter of faith. No, not "faith" as in religion. Faith in regards to when one BELIEVES that life truly begins. The issue here is there's no real definitive way one can say with absolute 100% definitive certainty without a shadow of a doubt that [blank] is a point that the fetus can be considered human. ANY designation of such is an artificial label placed on by society to fit its own purposes. As such, I believe you must give reasonable protection BOTH to the woman and her rights over her own body AND the unborn child and their rights over their own body as well.

  • In the first half of pregnancy, IE up to the first four and a half months, a woman may elect to have an abortion up to two times. After that point it follows the same rules as during the second half of pregnancy.
  • In the second half of pregnancy, IE the last four and a half months, a woman may ONLY elect to have an abortion if there's clear evidence the mother's physical life is in danger.

In regards to the "clear evidence" of the mothers life being in danger, I think there should be a certification that is given to doctors to determine this situation. I believe that every situation where that call is made should be reviewed by a board, and if that board finds that the doctor acted negligently they could lose their certification and potentially their liscense. This prevents instances like Tiller where he declares the woman in danger for flimsy reasons to go forward with the act.

Additionally, since there is an escape clause for the essentially "pro-life" second half that errs on the side of the fetus, so too is there one for the essentially "pro-choice" first half that errs on the side of the female.

Finally, in regards to punishment I'm not as concrete on. My thinking currently would say that performing late term abortions BY A THIRD PARTY should be treated as murder. I believe that incidents where it can be clearly proven the mother perpetrated the illegal abortion herself could fall under manslaughter, with forced counseling or forced scheduled birth control injections being the typical penalty. I think in the latter case it should not be persued by law unless there is ample evidence from the beginning that it is likely that the mother intentionally forced miscarriage. However as I said, I'm not positive my views on this.

I think in general and in theory this should be a state issue, and is what I would be fine with on a state level, but I think realistically at this point the likelihood of this going to the states rather than federal is slim.

Also I think there should be a way in the first half of the pregnancy that the man can rescind all legal rights to the child and reduce child support to 25% of what it would normally be. If the man honestly is not made aware of the child until after that point then he has 1 month to make his decision regarding the child. I think if its found that the woman had willingly hid the pregnancy from him until after that point then he has the ability to opt out 100% from paying child support if he wishes.

This way men, similar like women, have an ability to divest themselves of a portion of the responsability of the child during that first half of the pregnancy. However, with acknowledgement to the needs of the child the man is not able to remove himself fully from the equation unless the mother is found to be fraudulent regarding her situation. Additionally it still puts the woman in greater control as she can still choose to have the child if the husband pulls out where as the husband has no real ability or say if the woman pulls out. If we ever get to such a point that it is a reasonably safe surgery to remove a fetus and transplant it into a male or artificial surrogate then my stance would change. However since technology is not near that right now my stance would be as stated above.
 
Last edited:
Pro-choice without any limits here. The woman's rights are absolutely paramount without exception.

And you would hold the father totally responsible as well, WOULDN'T YOU?
 
Couple issues on this...

Personally, I'm Pro-Life with exceptions. Politically I'd likely go Pro-Choice with limitations.

As I've said in other issues here, this comes down to me as a matter of faith. No, not "faith" as in religion. Faith in regards to when one BELIEVES that life truly begins. The issue here is there's no real definitive way one can say with absolute 100% definitive certainty without a shadow of a doubt that [blank] is a point that the fetus can be considered human. ANY designation of such is an artificial label placed on by society to fit its own purposes. As such, I believe you must give reasonable protection BOTH to the woman and her rights over her own body AND the unborn child and their rights over their own body as well.

  • In the first half of pregnancy, IE up to the first four and a half months, a woman may elect to have an abortion up to two times. After that point it follows the same rules as during the second half of pregnancy.
  • In the second half of pregnancy, IE the last four and a half months, a woman may ONLY elect to have an abortion if there's clear evidence the mother's physical life is in danger.

In regards to the "clear evidence" of the mothers life being in danger, I think there should be a certification that is given to doctors to determine this situation. I believe that every situation where that call is made should be reviewed by a board, and if that board finds that the doctor acted negligently they could lose their certification and potentially their liscense. This prevents instances like Tiller where he declares the woman in danger for flimsy reasons to go forward with the act.

Additionally, since there is an escape clause for the essentially "pro-life" second half that errs on the side of the fetus, so too is there one for the essentially "pro-choice" first half that errs on the side of the female.

Finally, in regards to punishment I'm not as concrete on. My thinking currently would say that performing late term abortions BY A THIRD PARTY should be treated as murder. I believe that incidents where it can be clearly proven the mother perpetrated the illegal abortion herself could fall under manslaughter, with forced counseling or forced scheduled birth control injections being the typical penalty. I think in the latter case it should not be persued by law unless there is ample evidence from the beginning that it is likely that the mother intentionally forced miscarriage. However as I said, I'm not positive my views on this.

I think in general and in theory this should be a state issue, and is what I would be fine with on a state level, but I think realistically at this point the likelihood of this going to the states rather than federal is slim.

Also I think there should be a way in the first half of the pregnancy that the man can rescind all legal rights to the child and reduce child support to 25% of what it would normally be. If the man honestly is not made aware of the child until after that point then he has 1 month to make his decision regarding the child. I think if its found that the woman had willingly hid the pregnancy from him until after that point then he has the ability to opt out 100% from paying child support if he wishes.

This way men, similar like women, have an ability to divest themselves of a portion of the responsability of the child during that first half of the pregnancy. However, with acknowledgement to the needs of the child the man is not able to remove himself fully from the equation unless the mother is found to be fraudulent regarding her situation. Additionally it still puts the woman in greater control as she can still choose to have the child if the husband pulls out where as the husband has no real ability or say if the woman pulls out. If we ever get to such a point that it is a reasonably safe surgery to remove a fetus and transplant it into a male or artificial surrogate then my stance would change. However since technology is not near that right now my stance would be as stated above.

Z, it's human because the genetics will not develop into anything else.
 
And you would hold the father totally responsible as well, WOULDN'T YOU?

Actually, no. I think that men ought to be able to, prior to birth, sign off their parental responsibility for the price of an abortion. That way, the woman knows that she is 100% financially responsible and has the option to use that money to either abort or sign up for adoption or whatever she wants to do.
 
Actually, no. I think that men ought to be able to, prior to birth, sign off their parental responsibility for the price of an abortion. That way, the woman knows that she is 100% financially responsible and has the option to use that money to either abort or sign up for adoption or whatever she wants to do.

:rofl

..............
 
I'm pro-life. The exception I would make would be along medical lines. Mother's life is endangered, severe birth defects (not like Down Syndrome, autism...it has to be biologically non-viable), etc. Other than that, life is life.

Now you could ask as to how far I'd really take this. The SCOTUS ruled abortion legal and thus it's legal. And I'm not willing to start a revolution over it; so you can take that as it may be.
 
Back
Top Bottom