• 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!

Openminded, looking for intelligent arguments.

Removable Mind said:
I'm not lost in the discussion about viability. I stand by the necessity to maintain scientific terminology as the sole authority to create and maintain "labels " which are indeed a viable instrument in our judicial system.

And if the government decides it has the right to infringe on women's reproductive role as it has done for so many years prior to and to some degree since Roe v Wade - it will, but out of using mythology, not medical science or technology as the excuse to intervene - just like it always had.

Mythology remains to be perhaps the single most powerful tool government uses to increase its power among certain societies. It's always been my hope that our nation would rise above this sad reality - but as times becomes more desperate the government will solicit more dissmeminators of mythology into it highest seats of authority to make sure it recharges its greatest power of control.

Conceptions are considered as a sacrosanct event in the eyes is of the majority of people. Mind boggling but true. Babies come from the god of all creation. That's the wackados job in government to keep shoving that myth into the minds of as many people possible to perpetuate the myth.

Labels do seem to tone down the myths. For how long? After see just how desperate our nation has become, it's difficult to say. Meanwhile, women's only hope is they intervene on their own behalf in great number to eradicate mythology from it's current use in government.
Click to expand...

Sir.. you are wrong.

You are going to lose a discussion of viability.. when technology gets to the point that at any age of gestation.. a zygote, embryo fetus, etc.. is viable. Which is coming. So if you have tied abortion to viability and definitions of periods of gestation... reproductive rights will be lost.

You also are going to lose in discussion of when you begin to discuss your definition and when its a child and life. I have been involved in fetal research. And the actions of even the early stages of development (well during the time abortion is legal) show purpose. In fact in early stages of development there are purposeful movements to say move away a constricting umbilical cord.
the reality is that those that support reproductive rights have been lucky that the whackadoos tend to in general be ignorant of the science. If they were knowledgeable.. they would definitely have more sympathy for their cause.
 
jaeger19 said:
Sir.. you are wrong.

You are going to lose a discussion of viability.. when technology gets to the point that at any age of gestation.. a zygote, embryo fetus, etc.. is viable. Which is coming. So if you have tied abortion to viability and definitions of periods of gestation... reproductive rights will be lost.

You also are going to lose in discussion of when you begin to discuss your definition and when its a child and life. I have been involved in fetal research. And the actions of even the early stages of development (well during the time abortion is legal) show purpose. In fact in early stages of development there are purposeful movements to say move away a constricting umbilical cord.
the reality is that those that support reproductive rights have been lucky that the whackadoos tend to in general be ignorant of the science. If they were knowledgeable.. they would definitely have more sympathy for their cause.
Click to expand...

I don't tie viability to any relevance to the topic of development. Individuals within governments obviously do. But the question is: Why?

But I'm guessing that You know why. It's apparently embedded in your beliefs.

Do you Have any scientific evidence as to the "purpose of movement" by early stage embryo/fetuses when most abortions occur? Just a reminder that is over 90% at 12 weeks and under.

If you make close inspection of those stages are developed, you would find that such stage aren't developed enough, or to the point where a "purposeful" movement would be strategically necessary. That would make nature very clever, indeed.
 
jaeger19 said:
Seriously dude.. you lost.. let it rest. You are right.. his actions alone did not create a child.. that why HE and the WOMAN are equally responsible.

And financial/legal responsibility follows generally causal responsibility. That's where "you do the crime.. you do the time" comes from.

Getting into a car does not make one partly responsible for the car accident.

Getting into the car drunk and both deciding to put their foot on the gas and speed? It does. WHETHER YOU INTENDED TO GET IN AN ACCIDENT OR NOT.

The man is not an innocent bystander in this but an active participant. HE decided to have sex with a woman in which a child could be created. That's why he bears responsibility.

And no. you don't have to intend the crime to be found guilty of a crime.

the drunk driver doesn't have intent to mow down that school kid crossing the road. But they still are liable.
Click to expand...

Driving drunk is already a crime ?

In criminal court the prosecution must prove "mens rea" and "actus rea" Actus rea means you have to have committed the crime. Mens rea means you have to have intended it. This is why criminal insanity is a defense as the prosecution can not prove intent.

You seem to be having trouble understanding causality and legal responsibility.


Getting into a car does not make one partly responsible for the car accident.
Click to expand...

You were the one that tried to use the argument - without sex no baby is possible. The same applies to the above example. If one did not get into a car then no accident is possible.

The man is partially responsible for an unintended pregnancy but, a child has not been created at this point so you can not claim the man is "responsible" for creation of the child any more than getting into a car is responsible for an accident.

It is the decision to carry an unintended pregnancy to term (Intent and action) that carries the responsibility for the creation of the child. Without this action a child will not be created.

The man is an innocent bystander if he is having sex under the auspices that "procreation" is not the intended outcome. Contraception is being used and there is no plan to have a child.

There is a possibility of an accident - unintended pregnancy but this is not the creation of a child.

The possibility of a child only exists on the basis of carrying a pregnancy to term.

If there was an agreement in place that sex was not for procreation then the man is innocent. There was no intention to create a child.

On the other side of the coin the woman who violates this agreement is guilty of at minimum "negligence" and at the other end "Willful deceit".
 
jaeger19 said:
Getting into a car does not make one partly responsible for the car accident.
Click to expand...
Yet by your reasoning, or rather the total lack of it you have to add another variable such as drinking.

The man is not an innocent bystander in this but an active participant.
Click to expand...
So is the not drunk driver.

HE decided to have sex with a woman in which a child could be created.
Click to expand...
Yet in most instance nothing is created but pleasure.

That's why he bears responsibility.
Click to expand...
According to you, but not in the eyes of the law.

And no. you don't have to intend the crime to be found guilty of a crime.
Click to expand...
No, that is not how it works.
 
jaeger19 said:
You are going to lose a discussion of viability.. when technology gets to the point that at any age of gestation.. a zygote, embryo fetus, etc.. is viable.
Click to expand...
You have no clue what is viability. It is not a function of technology but one of development.

You also are going to lose in discussion of when you begin to discuss your definition and when its a child and life.
Click to expand...
By your declaration?

I have been involved in fetal research.
Click to expand...
Yea, it shows.
 
jaeger19 said:
I have been involved in fetal research. And the actions of even the early stages of development (well during the time abortion is legal) show purpose. In fact in early stages of development there are purposeful movements to say move away a constricting umbilical cord.
the reality is that those that support reproductive rights have been lucky that the whackadoos tend to in general be ignorant of the science. If they were knowledgeable.. they would definitely have more sympathy for their cause.
Click to expand...

You have demonstrated little knowledge of science and certainly you have demonstrated a lack of logic in relation to your claims of financial responsibility.

I will give you credit for not trying to claim defacto that the zygote is a human.

I am not a purist - meaning that I believe that at some point during the pregnancy a living human exists such that IMO it is amoral to abort. The legal question is a different kettle of fish.

At what point during the pregnancy would you suggest that a human exists, such that it should have rights, including the right to life.
 
thinkagain said:
What a crock of hooey.

1) As is stated in your article - all kinds of experts have all kinds of different definitions of personhood.

You even mention that "some people" view personhood as starting later than "childhood".

On this basis one can not defacto state the term "Child" does not mean "person".
Click to expand...
She has no problem with calling children below a certain age non persons. She recognizes one is a developmental term while the other word isnt.

So yeah overall, a child does not have to be a person. Word definition sophistries you been engaging jaeger with in a attempt to tie a bunch of words together are meaningless. This is not something to be arguing over thinkagain.

You have a good one. Bye.
 
Last edited:
GEIxBattleRifle said:
She has no problem with calling children below a certain age non persons. She recognizes one is a developmental term while the other word isnt.

So yeah overall, a child does not have to be a person. Word definition sophistries you been engaging jaeger with in a attempt to tie a bunch of words together are meaningless. This is not something to be arguing over thinkagain.

You have a good one. Bye.
Click to expand...

I correct your nonsensical semantics(word sophistry ?) and faulty logic and you accuse me of semantics.

Absurd.
 
beachdoc said:
For the fourth time in my life I feel compelled to investigate and reconsider my stance on abortion.

A little background. For the last 6 or so years I've settled the argument in my head this way. After seeing the difficulty associated with trying to figure out when "personhood" starts, I managed to justify that even if abortion is wrong in every circumstance, a proper respect for the right to human autonomy, especially over body, which should be one of the most essential and inalienable rights, requires that even if we grant personhood to a fetus we could not tell a woman she could not evict, in the same way that if homeless man came to your house and needed food and shelter for the next 9 months to survive you would not be required to do so and could evict him even if it meant he would die. This meant I wasn't okay with abortions after viability. Anyhow, this has been helpful for me over the last 6 years. As a libertarian it played to my strong sense of personal rights. As a medical professional (OB/Gyn) who has personally seen many miscarriages, it allowed me to recognize the moral and ethical significance of that loss as well.

Unfortunately for me, a thought entered my brain. Essentially that thought is this. My analogy I had used assumed a stranger. Obviously, a mother's obligation to her child is much different than a stranger's obligation to another stranger.

It has caused me to doubt my previous moral construct for answering the questions.

If you guys could answer, do you think I should throw out this construct? If so, I'd love to her the arguments you make to yourself to answer the two salient questions. 1) Is abortion wrong? 2) Should abortion be illegal? These are truly two separate questions.

Look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your help.
Click to expand...

1) Is abortion wrong? I personally believe abortion is morally wrong. Now people will argue well it's legal so doesn't that make it okay? I'm sure most people will see the err is this line of thinking. There are several factors that make abortion wrong. My biggest problem with abortion is at what point do you consider a fetus a baby? After about 5 weeks the baby's/fetus' (whatever you prefer to call it at this point) heart begins to beat, at 10 weeks the baby has fingernails and toenails, and at 18 weeks you can begin to feel movement from your would-be child. So the question is, at which point do you think this baby is alive? I personally believe that the "ball of cells" is alive and has more a right than any to live.
There are very difficult scenarios when it comes to abortion like victims of rape, but that's a small minority of aborted babies, so I'll reserve my opinion on that for now. But the overwhelming majority of abortions are from perfectly healthy young women, who see this child as an inconvenience and what it to go away. That baby didn't force itself into the womb which is the problem I see with your analogy. The homeless guy can fend for himself and you did not let him in. A baby you let into your body and is the most innocent of all life.

2) Should abortion be illegal? Yes. If a woman doesn't want a child don't have sex and if you do choose to have sex and you end up pregnant you can still give that child up for adoption. And my rational for this answer is stated above, but beyond that look at how abortion came to be. If you asked anyone in the modern world 100 years ago if killing unborn babies should be a right to women they would've called you crazy. This reminds me of another important point, the people who support and have supported abortion have made up words and euphemisms so the public can swallow it much easier. The word "abortion" is the nice way of saying killing and sucking out the remains of a dead baby. Which when put in its proper definition anyone can see how horribly wrong it is. They'll call the baby anything from a bundle of cells, a fetus, to an embryo. But the fact remains if this child were left alone it would eventually grow, become a citizen, go to school, find a job, potentially marry and have children, and one day die on its own after living a life of its own, regardless of if it's mother wanted it or not.
 
Scrabaholic said:
For the reason I already gave. It's a form of self defense against the effects of pregnancy.
Click to expand...

That's like saying I shot my neighbor because he had the flu and it was self defense against the effects of the flu. Do you honestly believe that nonsense?
 
Ajkeyo said:
1) Is abortion wrong? I personally believe abortion is morally wrong.
Click to expand...
Good, that is your right. Do you also believe that anyone else should believe like you?

Now people will argue well it's legal so doesn't that make it okay?
Click to expand...
Have you ever considered it from the opposite side? Why is it legal and what was the basis of making it legal? Can you reason against that?

There are several factors that make abortion wrong.
Click to expand...
But that is only your belief not fact. There are several factors that make abortion OK and those are facts.

My biggest problem with abortion is at what point do you consider a fetus a baby?
Click to expand...
Your problems are not relevant. A fetus is always a fetus and a baby is always a baby. Does that clear it up for you?

After about 5 weeks the baby's/fetus' (whatever you prefer to call it at this point)
Click to expand...
Hoe about just calling it what it actually is?

heart begins to beat, at 10 weeks the baby has fingernails and toenails, and at 18 weeks you can begin to feel movement from your would-be child.
Click to expand...
Yea so?
What is the significance of any of that?

So the question is, at which point do you think this baby is alive?
Click to expand...
Was the ova and the sperm alive?

I personally believe that the "ball of cells" is alive and has more a right than any to live.
Click to expand...
Good for you. Live by it and stay out of other people's lives.

There are very difficult scenarios when it comes to abortion like victims of rape, but that's a small minority of aborted babies
Click to expand...
So if it is done seldom than it is OK? Where do you draw the line?

so I'll reserve my opinion on that for now.
Click to expand...
I doubt you have a valid one.

But the overwhelming majority of abortions are from perfectly healthy young women, who see this child as an inconvenience and what it to go away.
Click to expand...
Why is any of that your concern? What do you really know about any of those women? When was the last time you did something just because it was inconvenient?

A baby you let into your body and is the most innocent of all life.
Click to expand...
Emotional drivel. Who told you the fetus was let in?

Should abortion be illegal? Yes.
Click to expand...
Who died and left you in charge to make that determination for everyone? Why do you want to force you belief on others?

If a woman doesn't want a child don't have sex
Click to expand...
Really? So it is not just ignorance that fuels your belief but misogyny too. Punish the bitch.

and if you do choose to have sex and you end up pregnant you can still give that child up for adoption.
Click to expand...
Here is a clue for you. Adoption is an alternative to raising a child not to parenthood or pregnancy?

And my rational for this answer is stated above
Click to expand...
Please do not delude yourself. You did not have any.

but beyond that look at how abortion came to be. If you asked anyone in the modern world 100 years ago if killing unborn babies should be a right to women they would've called you crazy. This reminds me of another important point, the people who support and have supported abortion have made up words and euphemisms so the public can swallow it much easier. The word "abortion" is the nice way of saying killing and sucking out the remains of a dead baby. Which when put in its proper definition anyone can see how horribly wrong it is. They'll call the baby anything from a bundle of cells, a fetus, to an embryo. But the fact remains if this child were left alone it would eventually grow, become a citizen, go to school, find a job
Click to expand...
And become a mass murderer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom