• 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 This Going Too Far?

Are These Additional Restrictions on Abortion Funding Going Too Far?

  • Total voters
    24
Redress said:
I am not sure I agree with this actually. It is to a certain extent a real problem with legalized abortion, but it is not that big a problem.
Click to expand...

I tend to believe that people who are already here have a greater impact on society than people who are not here.
 
X Factor said:
Not at all. A baby dies in every legal abortion we have right now. Not every woman who would have an abortion now, would get one if it was illegal and even fewer would actually die from back ally abortions even if they sought one out. The baby doesn't get the benefit those kind of odds.
Click to expand...

Since my point had to do with labeling of those you disagree with and you have not commented on anything remotely like that, yes, in fact my point did go over your head.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, pro-choice means just what it says: "pro-choice"... allowing one to have choices available. Anti-choice would be restricting the choices available. These sound like far more accurate terms, don't you think?
Click to expand...


Do you think abortion should be legal all the way until the baby is born or do you believe that at a certian point in the pregnancy abortion should be illegal?
 
jamesrage said:
Do you think abortion should be legal all the way until the baby is born or do you believe that at a certian point in the pregnancy abortion should be illegal?
Click to expand...

That's pretty irrelevant to my comment. Regardless of what I think should or should not be legal, the terms remain accurate. If, in the abortion debate, you believe that a baby should not be aborted during the 3rd trimester, for example, you are eliminating choices, therefore you are anti-choice.
 
Yes it goes to far plain and simple.
It is nothing but trying to score points on a hot issue, thats all it is and all it ever will be. Theres no logical backing of this while ignoring many other things taxes pay for.

Its a silly way and game being played in the attempt to BACKDOOR the justice system and take away granted rights.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Because....it's their baby too?
Click to expand...

I though the discussion was about abortions for rape and incest? I would not agree that the father of a baby in the case of rape or incest has any paternal rights.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, pro-choice means just what it says: "pro-choice"... allowing one to have choices available. Anti-choice would be restricting the choices available. These sound like far more accurate terms, don't you think?
Click to expand...

yes you are correct, those are the most accurate terms, many ways you can look at it but those are the most accurat and logical terms. They are clear cut and define the stance of each side pretty well..
 
X Factor said:
StillBallin75 said:
So are the effects of legalized alcohol. So you think we're really controlling who can get it? Are there still alcohol related problems?
Click to expand...

The proposition is that the impact to society would be a hell of a lot worse if it were completely prohibited. At least right now we don't have organized crime based around a bootlegging black market. For the record I've never touched alcohol in my short 20 yrs :mrgreen: that doesn't mean I think it should be completely banned though.
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
I though the discussion was about abortions for rape and incest? I would not agree that the father of a baby in the case of rape or incest has any paternal rights.
Click to expand...

Oh...well I thought your post was about men making abortion laws in general. My bad.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, pro-choice means just what it says: "pro-choice"... allowing one to have choices available. Anti-choice would be restricting the choices available. These sound like far more accurate terms, don't you think?
Click to expand...
Well that's interesting. You're going to have to put choicers in that box with us, since most of them have said there should be a limit on how far along a baby should be legally aborted. So, explain to me how they too aren't "anti-choice"?
 
Your Star said:
I tend to believe that people who are already here have a greater impact on society than people who are not here.
Click to expand...

We're only here for a short time. If our society is to have a future........we need offspring.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That's pretty irrelevant to my comment. Regardless of what I think should or should not be legal, the terms remain accurate. If, in the abortion debate, you believe that a baby should not be aborted during the 3rd trimester, for example, you are eliminating choices, therefore you are anti-choice.
Click to expand...

AKA pro-life.
 
Dutch said:
We're only here for a short time. If our society is to have a future........we need offspring.
Click to expand...

We aren't having a problem as a society producing offspring with abortion being legal. Your argument holds no merit.
 
I personally think the whole abortion debate is too focused on symptoms and not on causes. If you want to stop 50 million babies from being killed, you should first of all think about how to stop people from getting unwanted pregnancies in the first place, eliminating poverty, increasing sex education and/or abstinence, etc. People like to focus on the most emotionally-charged issues but nobody feels like addressing the root of the problem. Just like immigration, people like to talk about illegals taking away jobs, building fences, increasing ICE raids, but the root of the problem is that Mexico sucks. Nobody seems to be talking about these things, instead just focusing on the surface.
 
Dutch said:
We're only here for a short time. If our society is to have a future........we need offspring.
Click to expand...

Or immigrants. Personally I'm not sure if having a kid is such a good idea, maybe I'll change my mind when I get older.
 
Yep, the number 1 way to reduce abortions is to increase comprehensive sexual education that is mandatory.
 
Your Star said:
We aren't having a problem as a society producing offspring with abortion being legal. Your argument holds no merit.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. We wouldn't be robbing mexico and central america of it's child bearing young if we could produce enough of our own workers. Our immigration problem is a direct result of abortion.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I personally think the whole abortion debate is too focused on symptoms and not on causes. If you want to stop 50 million babies from being killed, you should first of all think about how to stop people from getting unwanted pregnancies in the first place, eliminating poverty, increasing sex education and/or abstinence, etc. People like to focus on the most emotionally-charged issues but nobody feels like addressing the root of the problem. Just like immigration, people like to talk about illegals taking away jobs, building fences, increasing ICE raids, but the root of the problem is that Mexico sucks. Nobody seems to be talking about these things, instead just focusing on the surface.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you except that sex ed has been going on for a long time now, it just doesn't seem to be helping, does it?
 
Redress said:
House abortion bill redefines rape, incest exceptions - Yahoo! News



Oddly, despite being pro-abortion rights, I do not have a problem with the concept of federal funds not being allowed to pay for abortions except under limited circumstances, which is the case now. This though seems to be taking things to a new level.

So what do you think? Is this taking things too far, or are these proposed new restrictions reasonable?
Click to expand...

The federal government shouldn't be funding medical anything procedures in this sense.
That should be up to the individual states to decide.
 
X Factor said:
I don't disagree with you except that sex ed has been going on for a long time now, it just doesn't seem to be helping, does it?
Click to expand...

The sex ed in our country sucks, and doesn't prepare kids for sexual activity.
 
Dutch said:
I beg to differ. We wouldn't be robbing mexico and central america of it's child bearing young if we could produce enough of our own workers. Our immigration problem is a direct result of abortion.
Click to expand...

WOw this was just as funny the first time I read it, very funny. "ROBBING" them LMAO, "Direct Result" LMAO
 
X Factor said:
Well that's interesting. You're going to have to put choicers in that box with us, since most of them have said there should be a limit on how far along a baby should be legally aborted. So, explain to me how they too aren't "anti-choice"?
Click to expand...

So, then you agree that the term "pro-abortion" doesn't apply, correct?
 
Your Star said:
The sex ed in our country sucks, and doesn't prepare kids for sexual activity.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, that's exactly what it's doing. Why would we want to promote that?
 
Dutch said:
I beg to differ. We wouldn't be robbing mexico and central america of it's child bearing young if we could produce enough of our own workers. Our immigration problem is a direct result of abortion.
Click to expand...

We aren't robbing Mexico of people, they are coming here because Mexico sucks, and if we made abortion illegal tomorrow, it would have no effect on illegal immigration. Your argument makes no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom