• 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
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.

You cannot really argue she has a "right" other than granted by law to kill any human being. And the law is arbitrary. Even under your argument that the attachment to the woman's body as defining, will generally forbid abortion as of a certain day of pregnancy. That is very arbitrary.
 
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.

Why should they control themselves? Well, so that they do not have to kill a human being. A bit like controlling oneself in traffic.
 
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.

Well, why ask me about something that was clearly and concisely explained in the post you quoted? :confused:
 
Well, why ask me about something that was clearly and concisely explained in the post you quoted? :confused:


Because the explanation was maybe clear and concise, but not very operational. As a matter of fact, it was quite the opposite really in making something seem clear and concise that is not that at all. It starts to go wrong with the proposition that the named criteria were important or even relevant, goes on to negate the genetic definition of species and then implies statistical determination of development to judge individual situations as a competent legal means. In short it is maybe concise and clear, but mainly in its demonstration of crooked rationalization.
 
Because the explanation was maybe clear and concise, but not very operational. As a matter of fact, it was quite the opposite really in making something seem clear and concise that is not that at all. It starts to go wrong with the proposition that the named criteria were important or even relevant, goes on to negate the genetic definition of species and then implies statistical determination of development to judge individual situations as a competent legal means. In short it is maybe concise and clear, but mainly in its demonstration of crooked rationalization.

Having previously discussed this issue with you in other threads I have already come to the same conclusion I drew about the OP in this thread. That it is impossible to have a rational discussion about this issue with people whose entire argument is based on emotion.

Anyone who conflates a group of developing human cells as equivalent to a functional human being is clearly seeing the issue irrationally. :2brickwal

:inandout:
 
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

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

I bolded the part of your quote I am replying to.

I do not know where you got your abortion info from but...
Saline solution abortions have not been used in the US in many years.

Also dismemberment abortions occur during the second trimester.

The reason? Because it is safer for the woman.
Otherwise she most like likelywould have to go through two (2) or three ( 3 ) days of very painful contractions to deliver the dead fetus.
The US does not allow c -section abortions.
 
Having previously discussed this issue with you in other threads I have already come to the same conclusion I drew about the OP in this thread. That it is impossible to have a rational discussion about this issue with people whose entire argument is based on emotion.

Anyone who conflates a group of developing human cells as equivalent to a functional human being is clearly seeing the issue irrationally. :2brickwal

:inandout:

That is exactly your problem. Your argument is based solely on emotional bias and to make yourself feel better, you clad it in rationalizations and base it in arbitrary axioms.
 
The first part of the quote was a mistake and was addressed to someone else I apologize. Secondly yes science is clear. Leading embryology books confirm this. For example, Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud write, “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” Prior to his abortion advocacy, former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was perplexed that anyone, much less a medical doctor, would question this. “This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t part of the common knowledge,” he wrote in his book Life in the Making. Again the development of the brain is your standard in which you claim is necessary to be human. And what to you is the true difference between a human life and human being? What follows by your reasoning is that those who do not have your standard of sentience is not worth protection. So if sentience is your standard than the mentally ill or disabled who may not be able to feel or perceive something subjectively may not have the same right to life. The phrase “just a clump of cells” is meaningless – at what point does a human being cease to be a “clump of cells”? We are all “clumps of cells” - just larger than we were when we were in our mothers' wombs! The fetus is a genetically distinct human person – even as a single cell, that fetus is alive and is a person with the complete genetic information of the adult. The only thing that is required to allow that fetus to grow into an adult human is time and nutrition.
If a fetus is not a person, when does it become a person? And what is added to the fetus to make it into a person? What else could the offspring off two humans be but a human person?
The argument that because a child is incapable of certain things – living without its mother, or reason – is also ludicrous. There are many people who are rightly and correctly called “persons” who can't do these things; infants, the handicapped, the very old, the injured. Is a person who is mentally retarded not a person because he cannot reason and interact? Newly born infants cannot survive without their parents – in fact, much older infants cannot survive without their parents. Does this mean they are not people too?
All of these arguments attempt to establish a definition of “person” which is at odds with the traditional view (namely, a person is made in the image and likeness of God) and which does not make consistent logical sense. All of these arguments simply seek to justify the selfish murder of children for no reason other than convenience by attempting to deny personhood to those who have it.
Another form of this argument is the view that late term abortions are not permissible but early ones are. This is a flawed argument simply because where is the line drawn? On what basis is the distinction made? What is the difference between (for example) a twelve-week and a twenty-week fetus which means one can be destroyed and murdered and the other cannot? There is no distinction except age – an entirely arbitrary choice. Is it right to murder someone who is 59 but not 60, for example?

Actually both a 12 week gestational fetus and a 20 week gestational fetus can be legally aborted.
In the case of the 20 week old gestational it would be very rare and a case of maternal or fetal health concerns.
Once a fetus is viable or has reached 24 weeks gestation ( viability of a pregnancy is individually determined by a doctor and can be as early as 22 weeks gestation but usually around 24 weeks gestation ) than abortions are very limited and extremely rare ( according to a 2003 Fox News article only about 100 abortions in the US occur annually ) to save the life of the woman.
 
You cannot really argue she has a "right" other than granted by law to kill any human being.

I can and I have. Maybe you should read my posts again until you understand them. My arguments are not an appeal to the authority of the law, they are an appeal to the underlying moral principles that all of our laws are supposed to be based upon.

And the law is arbitrary. Even under your argument that the attachment to the woman's body as defining, will generally forbid abortion as of a certain day of pregnancy. That is very arbitrary.

The fact that the law itself is rarely morally consistent is not an effective argument against my belief that it should be.
 
I can and I have. Maybe you should read my posts again until you understand them. My arguments are not an appeal to the authority of the law, they are an appeal to the underlying moral principles that all of our laws are supposed to be based upon.



The fact that the law itself is rarely morally consistent is not an effective argument against my belief that it should be.

As is the argument not persuasive that a woman should be allowed to kill a human whose existence she is responsible for.
 
As is the argument not persuasive that a woman should be allowed to kill a human whose existence she is responsible for.

Only because you thick-headed ****s aren't willing to admit what the fetus does to the woman while she's pregnant.
 
Only because you thick-headed ****s aren't willing to admit what the fetus does to the woman while she's pregnant.

Sounds like she should be more circumspect in taking her fun.
 
Sounds like she should be more circumspect in taking her fun.

Of course, because all this "pro-life" bull**** always boils down to a misogynistic crusade to punish women for expressing their sexuality. It amazes me that women still fall for your nonsense.
 
As is the argument not persuasive that a woman should be allowed to kill a human whose existence she is responsible for.

Biology is responsible.
Sex among humans is used more often for bonding and pleasure than it is used for procreation.
 
Of course, because all this "pro-life" bull**** always boils down to a misogynistic crusade to punish women for expressing their sexuality. It amazes me that women still fall for your nonsense.

Are pro-life women misogynistic?
 
Of course, because all this "pro-life" bull**** always boils down to a misogynistic crusade to punish women for expressing their sexuality. It amazes me that women still fall for your nonsense.

Punish women that are doing, what they evolved to do?
 
Biology is responsible.
Sex among humans is used more often for bonding and pleasure than it is used for procreation.

Not that the two evolved apart. It feels good, because that is what drives people to do things.
 
More often than not, yes.

So women like Josie and Nota are sexist against women?

It has nothing to do with punishing women for expressing their sexuality or whatever other nonsense, but with women killing their own flesh and blood.
 
So women like Josie and Nota are sexist against women?

I have not seen either of them express misogynistic sentiments in their arguments against abortion.

It has nothing to do with punishing women for expressing their sexuality or whatever other nonsense, but with women killing their own flesh and blood.

Did you even read the post I was replying to?
 
As is the argument not persuasive that a woman should be allowed to kill a human whose existence she is responsible for.

Biology is responsible.
Sex among humans is used more often for bonding and pleasure than it is used for procreation.

Pregnancy is NOT the main purpose of sex for humans.

1. A biological argument that suggests that the primary purpose of sex is not pregnancy is that human women do not go into heat.

Another augment is

2. If the main purpose for is procreation, then all or most acts of sex should result in pregnancy.

There is only a 5 percent chance that one time unprotected sex will result in pregnancy.
Also about half of the human's life span the female is infertile and will not be able to become pregnant.



Since most female mammals will not mate,without the possibility of procreation than it would stand to reason that....since women, female dolphins and female monkeys ,still mate even when of procreation that would prove that pregnancy is NOT the main purpose of sex for animals with higher intelligence .

Dolphins ,monkeys, and humans have sex for pleasure but most other animals have it for procreation.

Most animals have sex purely for the purpose of reproduction. The claim that dolphins have sex for pleasure is true for a very specific definition of "sex for pleasure,"
which is copulation between the male and female of a species not for the purpose of reproduction.

Most animals cannot afford to waste the energy that is put into the sexual act unless it leads to the production of offspring. For most animals,
it seems that there is no biological advantage in engaging in sex when there is no possibility that their genes will be passed through the production of offspring.

Therefore, Females of most animal species give off detectable signals when they are fertile: a change in appearance, a distinctive smell, specific sounds or behaviors to signal to their partner that they are fertile.
If fact, most females will push their mate away or ignore him when they are not fertile.

UCSB Science Line


In other words it is NOT FACT that Procreation is the main reason for human sex.
It cannot be proved that is the reason people have sex.
Far more people use sex for pleasure than they use it for procreation.
 
Last edited:
1. A biological argument that suggests that the primary purpose of sex is not pregnancy is that human women do not go into heat.

Actually when women most want sex is when they are ovulating. So you really could say women go into heat. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Actually when women most want sex is when they are ovulating. So you really could say women go into heat. :shrug:

Of course I meant to say pregnancy is NOT the main purpose of sex.

I never heard that.
 
Of course I meant to say pregnancy is NOT the main purpose of sex.

I never heard that.

Well women even give off a scent that men pick up on when they are ovulating. Human beings are not really all that different from other mammals.

I would also disagree with you on your point. Biologically speaking reproduction is pretty much the only reason sexual organs exist.
 
All of this talk about what women "evolved to do" is really overlooking the key point that they are human beings with self-determination and human rights. Men are "evolved to do" a lot of things but society still recognizes that they are free to make their own medical decisions for themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom