• 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!

Intelligent Abortion Exchange

What is your view on abortion?


  • Total voters
    42
This, right here, is why we cannot have civil discussions of abortion. You are either ignorantly or callously dismissing the dramatic physiological changes that the fetus imposes upon the mother's body-- the lifelong impacts upon her health and well-being. You would not accept that any human being has the "right" to do this to any other human being against their will, so why are you making such a gross exception to your moral and political philosophy for the sake of a developing fetus? Your argument is morally and logically inconsistent with your principles.




This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The moral underpinnings of your stated political philosophy are logically incompatible with the arguments you are making here. Other peoples' logical and moral inconsistencies have no bearing on this issue, and I would probably be on your side if we were discussing the issues on which most pro-choice people are less in favor of free choice.



This is morally acceptable in self-defense.



This is irrelevant and dishonest. Consent to sexual activity is not the same thing as consent to pregnancy and childbirth.



Other violations of human rights are irrelevant to the violation of human rights you are advocating.



This is morally acceptable in self-defense.



You have not presented any logical and morally consistent argument for why unborn children are an exception to every human being's right to self-defense.



This is laughably false. If you're not going to be honest, I feel no obligation to continue being civil.



I am a pro-choicer. I concede that the unborn child is a human being. I do not and will not "acknowledge" the blatantly false claim that the unborn child's status as a human being gives it rights that undermine the most basic and inalienable rights of the mother. The right to self-defense almost always involves another human being, and the fact that it involves another human being in no fashion invalidates a person's right to defend themselves from unwanted impositions on their body and its functions.



This does not invalidate the woman's continuing right to exercise control over her own body at all times.



It is far more demeaning to her body and self-esteem to deny her the full human rights that every free person is entitled to. The fact that you have the sheer, unmitigated gall to make this argument while you are advocating for slavery is disgusting and offensive.

Self defense is an inadequate response to why a mother is able to murder her child. From a common sense perspective it is obvious that all of us were once at that precious state in our lives. You make that the equivalent to a mother needing to defend her life. Also I never said motherhood wasn't important I only said that abortion ends the life of the child while pregnancy changes the life of the mother.But simply because a baby needs the mothers body doesn't give the mother a right to abort it .A man is not permitted to expose himself in public. Many places have laws against public urination. My hand is part of my body, but I am not free to use it to strike you or steal from you or to hurt an innocent child. The key question is whether what is done with one person's body brings significant harm to others. Clearly, abortion does.
 
There are no human beings who cannot meet these criteria (with the possible exception of brain dead living bodies, although this is why we can pull their plug). Your list was an appeal to emotion.

Just because you provide a list of human beings you believe "lacking" perfect qualities of humanity that YOU think other's would classify as "less than human" doesn't mean rational people like myself buy into that argument. :roll:

Everyone in your list exhibits the characteristics of human beings.

Clumps of developing cells do not, at least not during the early stages of ZEF development.


Again I am not appealing to emotion I am asking questions that your view leaves open. I again ask the question of why your view of what defines a human being justifies abortion. What you have described as nessesary to be a human is your subjective philosophy. And if the characteristics that you have discussed define value then whoever is more developed or more able to communicate is obviously worth more than those whose human characteristics aren't as advanced. Also you quote brain development as a necessary component, but the brain of fetuses are forming at 5 weeks after conception. This is often before many women consider abortion or realize they are pregnant. Solely because that child brain cannot perform your standard of cognitive ability does not justify abortion.
 
As a conservative, I am against the govt. banning abortion at any stage. It is for medical professionals to practice medicine, NOT lay people.

Pregnancy is not a benign condition. There are a LOT of effects it can have on a woman's body, including but not limited to, stretching it all out of proportion, causing it great pain and discomfort both in gestation and childbirth, loss of organ function ie. kidneys, calcium depletion causing teeth to rot, and death. These are only a few possible effects. No woman should be forced to go through gestation and childbirth against her will.
 
Again I am not appealing to emotion I am asking questions that your view leaves open. I again ask the question of why your view of what defines a human being justifies abortion. What you have described as nessesary to be a human is your subjective philosophy. And if the characteristics that you have discussed define value then whoever is more developed or more able to communicate is obviously worth more than those whose human characteristics aren't as advanced. Also you quote brain development as a necessary component, but the brain of fetuses are forming at 5 weeks after conception. This is often before many women consider abortion or realize they are pregnant. Solely because that child brain cannot perform your standard of cognitive ability does not justify abortion.

Forming is not the same as functional...which is the exact argument you seem to miss.

The cells are forming into a human being, but they are not a functional human being. Potential as opposed to actual.

Forgive me but your arguments are exactly why a rational discussion cannot work when dealing with this subject. The final fallback position for Pro-Life is always one of emotion. "You are killing a defenseless human being," despite all evidence to the contrary.
 
Self defense is an inadequate response to why a mother is able to murder her child.

Your use of the word "murder" is a blatant appeal to emotion and I reject it. The fetus causes irreparable physiological changes to the mother over the duration of the pregnancy; self-defense is absolutely justified, and your dismissal of this argument as protecting the mother's "lifestyle" or avoiding "inconvenience" shows a blatant disregard for biological reality and the rights of living, breathing human beings.

From a common sense perspective it is obvious that all of us were once at that precious state in our lives.

And if you were born after 1973, you survived that "precious state" despite your mother's lawful and moral right to end it. You were born because your mother consented to it.

But simply because a baby needs the mothers body doesn't give the mother a right to abort it .

Yes, yes, it does. The mother has the right to refuse to provide that service; the child cannot claim that it has a right to that service. It's funny how you so-called "libertarians" can argue that taxation is slavery because we don't have a right to welfare programs and then turn around and deny that forced gestation-- involuntary servitude-- is slavery. You are morally and logically inconsistent and that makes you a hypocrite.

A man is not permitted to expose himself in public.

You're seriously comparing being forced to wear clothes in public to being forced to carry and support an entire human being in your body for nine months?
 
Forming is not the same as functional...which is the exact argument you seem to miss.

The cells are forming into a human being, but they are not a functional human being. Potential as opposed to actual.

Forgive me but your arguments are exactly why a rational discussion cannot work when dealing with this subject. The final fallback position for Pro-Life is always one of emotion. "You are killing a defenseless human being," despite all evidence to the contrary.

You're missing the point. The human brain isn't completed developing until adulthood but what gives you the right to say that simply because the fetus's brain can not do what you consider good enough to be human we as a society can kill them. And also you have been calling the baby a clump of cells but if there is a forming brain it is quite obviously no longer just a clump of cells. What gives you the philosophical authority to say that a "genetically human organism" isn't worth protection because it doesn't meet your standards of functionality.
 
Your use of the word "murder" is a blatant appeal to emotion and I reject it. The fetus causes irreparable physiological changes to the mother over the duration of the pregnancy; self-defense is absolutely justified, and your dismissal of this argument as protecting the mother's "lifestyle" or avoiding "inconvenience" shows a blatant disregard for biological reality and the rights of living, breathing human beings.



And if you were born after 1973, you survived that "precious state" despite your mother's lawful and moral right to end it. You were born because your mother consented to it.



Yes, yes, it does. The mother has the right to refuse to provide that service; the child cannot claim that it has a right to that service. It's funny how you so-called "libertarians" can argue that taxation is slavery because we don't have a right to welfare programs and then turn around and deny that forced gestation-- involuntary servitude-- is slavery. You are morally and logically inconsistent and that makes you a hypocrite.



You're seriously comparing being forced to wear clothes in public to being forced to carry and support an entire human being in your body for nine months?

Let's look at the traditional self defense model. Is the unborn analogous to a dangerous aggressor? Is it trying to hurt the mother? No. The mother's body and the unborn are working in concert to create a safe environment for the nascent human life to develop and receive nourishment. Most pregnancies do not represent an immediate threat to women. The properly working reproductive system is working in accordance with it's purpose and not being invaded by a parasite or foreign pathogen. Unlike the home invader, the unborn is exactly where it is supposed to be given the predictable and understood developmental process that all human life goes through. Except in the cases of rape, the unborn is not only where it is supposed to be but is there as a direct result of the actions of the woman. This seems wildly different in nature than the kind of aggressor that we accept can be killed by our common intuitions. Self defense is a mechanism to prevent an act of evil but abortion itself is where a life is ending.
 
Let's look at the traditional self defense model. Is the unborn analogous to a dangerous aggressor? Is it trying to hurt the mother? No. The mother's body and the unborn are working in concert to create a safe environment for the nascent human life to develop and receive nourishment.

The fetus isn't "trying" to do anything, but it causes irreparable harm to the mother just the same. They are not "working together"; the fetus is taking from her, and this is only morally acceptable when it happens with her consent. Forcing her to gestate a child against her will is a violation of her right to life and her general liberty.
 
The fetus isn't "trying" to do anything, but it causes irreparable harm to the mother just the same. They are not "working together"; the fetus is taking from her, and this is only morally acceptable when it happens with her consent. Forcing her to gestate a child against her will is a violation of her right to life and her general liberty.

The fetus is a developing human being that, except in cases of rape, the woman invited on board when she chose to have sex. It is no different than when you give somebody permission to enter your home or if you intentionally produce an opportunity for persons you don't know or expect to enter your home or property. And if you do that, it is your responsibility to see that they are reasonably safe and not endangered by being in your home or on your property. if you allow somebody, even a perfect stranger, to enter your car and drive that person somewhere, that person is your responsibility and you are required legally and ethically to not intentionally endanger or harm that person.

The developing baby is not a parasite. He/she is an invited guest. He or she may be an unwelcome guest, but a guest he or she is, and the mother should respect her duty to see that the guest is not unnecessary endangered or harmed.
 
The fetus isn't "trying" to do anything, but it causes irreparable harm to the mother just the same. They are not "working together"; the fetus is taking from her, and this is only morally acceptable when it happens with her consent. Forcing her to gestate a child against her will is a violation of her right to life and her general liberty.
Are you honestly suggesting that they aren't working together. The mother provides nutrients and the child develops itself which is completely consistent. Secondly, why should an innocent individual be killed for the actions of its parents. The baby through a single decision will be kept from having any choice. Unlike self defense the baby(the agressor) has no choice or role in the mother's situations.
 
The fetus isn't "trying" to do anything, but it causes irreparable harm to the mother just the same. They are not "working together"; the fetus is taking from her, and this is only morally acceptable when it happens with her consent. Forcing her to gestate a child against her will is a violation of her right to life and her general liberty.

It also gives things back to the mother and can even help her health in certain cases.
 
I take issue with your argument in many respects. Firstly is your argument that the mother should not be forced to care for her child as it is comparable to slavery. This is simply false. Even when a child is born parents are responsible for the nourishment and wellbeing of the child. If they do not provide this they are liable to be charged for child abuse. Secondly, saying that a mother should't have to support a the baby is completely separate from abortion. If my neighbor states that i have to support him it is different for me to say no then to go to his house and murder him. Abortion isn't solely the withholding of support, it is the dismemberment or often the burning by saline of a human being.

Also you have provided no consistent argument on for why the unborn child can have no rights if it is a human being.

The will not be charged with abuse as long as they immediately place the child in the foster system.
 
It is obvious that in our world a respectful debate about heated issues like abortion are difficult to have without people calling each other phrases like sexist and "anti-women". In this thread I would like to hear a well thought out explanation on why you believe abortion is right or wrong and why it should either be legal or illegal in the United States. Please refrain from putting links into your arguments because it would be much more helpful if you would just embed any quotes you feel further your argument. It would also be beneficial if your arguments are based on factual evidence rather than any subjective feelings. I should also disclose that I am pro-life and may respond to arguments. Last thing I would like to know is how extreme your views are on either side. This includes whether you believe that abortion should be restriction-less even until the 3rd trimester or if are pro-lifers would give exemptions for any situations. Thanks for your thoughts :peace

How can we have an 'intelligent' conversation on the subject when the poll contains a stupid option?

Pro-choice up to the time of birth? Really? How about starting with how many times that happens. Let's see that data.

How about just the data on late term elective abortions, period.

You said 'facts,' but 'no links?' Why? Why should people believe facts without verification?

Not sure if there's even an 'intelligent' foundation demonstrated in your poll on which to base a discussion here. Let's see, because "my position" is based on such facts and I prefer to use them to support my position.
 
I am aware that it is very rare for women to die during childbirth in the U.S. but on extremely rare cases when both mother and child are going to die you don't agree with saving the mother?

No, it's not very rare. 87,000 women per yr in the US die or suffer extreme health consequences (stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, etc) during pregnancy or childbirth. And this is happening WITH abortion available to save their lives. (But didnt because not all circumstances are predictable or preventable).

Do you consider 87,000 women a yr 'insignificant?' IMO that is a significant risk.
 
And by removing I do not mean dismembering as they do in abortive techniques.

WHile this procedure is not common, why do you object to it?

It is only done on severely defective late term fetuses which will not survive anyway, or not for long. And there is no pain to the fetus, it is given a lethal injection. WHy does it matter after that if it is cut up? That is done in order to save damage and harm to the mother during extraction. Are you under the impression that the unborn suffers or is aware of anything?

You said you wanted to argue facts, not emotion. Again, I'm not sure you came here with enough facts for 'intelligent' discussion.
 
Fundamentally, pro-choice is a matter of human rights. We have a right to life that includes a right to bodily autonomy and self-defense; imposing on a woman's reproductive rights is imposing on her very right to life and thus must be rejected by any individual who believes in liberty. It is not possible for the unborn child to possess any rights without profound and unconscionable violations of a woman's basic human rights.

I support abortion-on-demand at any point during the pregnancy. I cannot, in good conscience, support anything less.

Why not till the child starts schooling? At least you have an idea then, whether it will be a bad apple.
 
CAPTAIN ADVERSE your reasoning was also troubling. From the moment of conception science has agreed that the fetus is now a human being. Secondly your reasoning implies that the stage of development of an individual or its ability to meet some arbitrary standard that society has set will give the child a right to live.

Science determines that the unborn is human, Homo sapiens. That is all. Science is objective and applies NO value.

People apply value. Value is subjective. And that's what our laws and rights and values and morals are: subjective. Based on our chosen governing structure and philosophy, we used judicial process, based on our Constitution, to determine that the unborn are not persons and not equal and we do not recognize any rights for them. It's not arbitrary, it's based on at least several criteria and attributes.

We saw similar decisions from the Supreme Court for blacks and women in this country, except with the opposite results.
 
Fundamentally, pro-choice is a matter of human rights. We have a right to life that includes a right to bodily autonomy and self-defense; imposing on a woman's reproductive rights is imposing on her very right to life and thus must be rejected by any individual who believes in liberty. It is not possible for the unborn child to possess any rights without profound and unconscionable violations of a woman's basic human rights.

I support abortion-on-demand at any point during the pregnancy. I cannot, in good conscience, support anything less.

I'm not going to read any further...but I want to associate myself completely with Korimyr's comments on the issue.
 
I voted Pro-Choice but to place restrictions on late term abortions.

My position is founded on an understanding of both science and human philosophy.

During the early period of development (Zygote and Embryo) the organism is not differentiated enough to be classified as a viable human being. Most specifically it lacks a functional central nervous system and brain which allows for the possibility of self-identity. This is the essential characteristic we use to philosophically classify one as a "human being." Lacking these characteristics there is no moral dilemma, the development can be artificially stopped via abortion. During this period the woman's right to choose is absolute.

Once the developing organism has sufficiently differentiated and developed a central nervous system with a brain it has reached the status of "human being" and should be protected and nurtured. If the mother has allowed the organism to reach this stage, then her right to choose must be balanced against the right of the developing fetus to life. Thus protections must be in place to prevent abortion unless the mother's life is somehow endangered. Even then, if it is possible to remove the viable fetus and save it, such action should be taken.

I do not assume that a spirit is infused at the time of conception rendering the organism a "human being." If so, logic would expect most if not all organisms would survive to birth rather than 75% miscarrying naturally. Seems a waste of "spiritual essence" if that were not the case. ;)

If you allow abortion, why not allow it two days later? The human is a process of life from impregnation to death and drawing a red line is always going to be arbitrary.
 
Self defense is an inadequate response to why a mother is able to murder her child.

Again, you wanted 'intelligent' discussion. Using the term 'murder' in relation to abortion is wrong and emotional rhetoric (just like the use of 'precious' and 'innocent'), so is the opposite of 'intelligent.'
 
You don't agree? The child cannot help that the mother couldn't control her urge. ;)

Why should women control their desire for sex?

And are you claiming women cannot, if they want to?

And what does choosing to have sex or not have to do with abortion?

Please make your answers specific.
 
It is obvious that in our world a respectful debate about heated issues like abortion are difficult to have without people calling each other phrases like sexist and "anti-women". In this thread I would like to hear a well thought out explanation on why you believe abortion is right or wrong and why it should either be legal or illegal in the United States. Please refrain from putting links into your arguments because it would be much more helpful if you would just embed any quotes you feel further your argument. It would also be beneficial if your arguments are based on factual evidence rather than any subjective feelings. I should also disclose that I am pro-life and may respond to arguments. Last thing I would like to know is how extreme your views are on either side. This includes whether you believe that abortion should be restriction-less even until the 3rd trimester or if are pro-lifers would give exemptions for any situations. Thanks for your thoughts :peace

Ill just cut and paste what i have posted in many other threads


I'm prochioce with limits. It based on trying for equal legal and human rights.
my stance is about my country and my fellow americans's freedom, laws, rights and liberties. It''s about womans rights VS ZEFs rights. Whats right for "me" doesnt need forced on others and as an american I refuse to be that type of hypocrite. Just cause I dont like abortion and wish it wasnt needed doesnt mean I should foolishly push it to be outlawed (which would do very little to stop it)

In reality on the abortion front, equal rights are impossible. The women currently has rights and unfortunately the ZEF has very little to none. BUT the issues is one will always have more rights than the other, in reality it doesnt work any other way. Since those are the only choices of course I obviously side with the already born, viable human being who is also a citizen over the unknown. Because thats what a ZEF is, an unknown, that is not already born viable or a citizen and may not even become one.

I could never condone the government forcing a women against her will to go through 9 months of pregnancy and then after that forcing her to give birth against her will. Both to these things can physically/mentally harm her and or kill her. To a women who doesnt want to do this, it certainly sounds like government torture to me. Does that come off dramatic? yes it does but in reality is it? what would you call forcing a women to do those things against her will? Also during those 9 months if she is being forced, her rights, freedoms, liberties and pursuit of happiness are also taken away from her against her will.


Im for:
improved sex education
improved technologies for birth control
improved access to and low cost/free birth control
improved access and better health care for families (orgs like PP etc.)
Improved social programs and jobs program for new families and single parents
complete overhaul of the foster care system. It cant handle the kids it has now im in no rush to add more until its fixed
Id be ok with but wouldnt push for a national cap (time frame on how late an abortion can be). Maybe like 20-21wkks but this cap would be a SOFT cap and each case would be circumstantial. Im good with Roe v. Wade. I personally like to legislate fetal rights at the time frame also.

It be great to have less abortions but that only comes with whats listed above not law enforcement.
And I know it will sound weird but abortion is actually pretty low percentage wise right now, Id like to see it lower but it is very low if compare a million abortions a year to the amount of sex people are actually having.

Id also expand and clear up fathers rights, there should be a similar time window where the father can opt out and he must be notified. If you want expansion on that ill gladly provided it.

Like I said its a little long but it was mostly cut and past. Basically Im Pro-choice with limits, ok with RvW, would bump it down to 20/21 weeks(earliest possible viability) if i could, would legislate fetal rights and paternal rights and expand the many sub systems. Foster care, healthcare social nets etc. Also had to shorten the quote to make mine fit
 
Why not till the child starts schooling? At least you have an idea then, whether it will be a bad apple.

Because you can't really argue that the woman has a "right" to 'abortion" once the child is no longer attached to her body.

While I don't think human rights should attach automatically at birth, I don't think it's right to wait years before giving a child legal protection.
 
Back
Top Bottom