• 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!

Why do those who oppose abortion hate it

sangha said:
I dont. In fact, I rejoice whenever the anti-freedom crowd tells obvious lies. It gives me yet one more opportunity to point out how dishonest they are
Click to expand...

You telling obvious lies somehow points out how dishonest someone else is...
 
Scrabaholic said:
I'm curious, what changed your mind on the issue? I was once anti-choice, too.
Click to expand...

I don't know about him but for me it was simply a matter of growing up, learning actual facts about the issue, exposure to the world and realities. In the beginning I think i was more indifferent and just followed somebody but that all changed once i learned about the subject and its actual meaning and consequences. Then once having my own daughter that definitely cemented things for me. I could never support treating her as a lesser to the extent that many prolife views would and forcing her to do things against her will and endangering her life.
 
AGENT J said:
I don't know about him but for me it was simply a matter of growing up, learning actual facts about the issue, exposure to the world and realities. In the beginning I think i was more indifferent and just followed somebody but that all changed once i learned about the subject and its actual meaning and consequences. Then once having my own daughter that definitely cemented things for me. I could never support treating her as a lesser to the extent that many prolife views would and forcing her to do things against her will and endangering her life.
Click to expand...

For me, it was watching a friend almost die from an illegal abortion. It made me realize that women *would* abort, whether I liked it or not, and it needed to be legal and safe. When I got into debating the issue and doing research, it just cemented my pro choice position.
 
Scrabaholic said:
For me, it was watching a friend almost die from an illegal abortion. It made me realize that women *would* abort, whether I liked it or not, and it needed to be legal and safe. When I got into debating the issue and doing research, it just cemented my pro choice position.
Click to expand...

Yeah theres just no parts of me that could ever stomach others forcing my daughter to risk her health and life against her will vs an unknown. I say unknow only because of the question of viability. If my daughter got pregnant when she was younger, decided she didn't want to have it, it wasn't worth the risk, was scared but then then the government came in, forced her to do so and she died there's no way for me to justify that rights violation or for me. :shrug:
 
sangha said:
when we point out that they are anti-freedom and anti-rights?
Click to expand...

Do they? I had always thought they would feel for those affected as the do for anyone who can't kill someone that seems to block their plans. Maybe tinged with a little surprise that the aborter does not realize that that is what she or he is arguing doing.

;)
 
Scrabaholic said:
I'm curious, what changed your mind on the issue? I was once anti-choice, too.
Click to expand...

I used to be religious, and I used to have a religious belief that life began at conception. Many years after having gained my skepticism (I never say "lost my faith" because I didn't lose anything), I was able to study the sciences with a clear mind and learned that there really isn't an operational brain to speak of until later stages of pregnancy, the brain being where "personhood" resides.

I am still quite against late-term abortions, as that line gets a little cloudy for me later on, but these really don't happen unless it's a life-of-the-mother issue. And I don't think they are actually legal from an elective standpoint (Roe didn't make them legal; PP vs Casey might have, I'm not sure).

The only possible scenario I can think of where a woman might elect to have a late term abortion is where she didn't know she was pregnant until the third trimester. People for whom this is a reality obviously don't take care of themselves well and are likely bad candidates for motherhood... and we cannot force a person to give birth against her will. A doctor can easily invemt a medically necessary reason. So abortion is probably the least harmful option in this case, even though the third trimester is generally passed the point of viability and the ethical dividing line for me.
 
Last edited:
Scrabaholic said:
For me, it was watching a friend almost die from an illegal abortion. It made me realize that women *would* abort, whether I liked it or not, and it needed to be legal and safe. When I got into debating the issue and doing research, it just cemented my pro choice position.
Click to expand...

I am pro-choice, but this argument has always rung hollow with me. Using the same logic, we should justify bank robbery, because people are still going to try it and people can get hurt during bank robberies.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
I used to be religious, and I used to have a religious belief that life began at conception. Many years after having gained my skepticism (I never say "lost my faith" because I didn't lose anything), I was able to study the sciences with a clear mind and learned that there really isn't an operational brain to speak of until later stages of pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Having studied the sciences with a non-religious mind, that isn't a "religious belief." The lifespan of every sexually reproducing organism on this planet begins at fertilization.

There is no reason to ascribe the temporary lack of neurological systems because you haven't built them yet because you're too young to have done so... with any kind of special significance. And that is what the pro-abortion position does, it ascribes meaning to being too young to have reached developmental milestones, as though this makes one inferior somehow.

Do not think that this meaning comes inherently from science; it is meaning you choose to add, and you could choose not to.
 
JayDubya said:
Having studied the sciences with a non-religious mind, that isn't a "religious belief." The lifespan of every sexually reproducing organism on this planet begins at fertilization.

There is no reason to ascribe the temporary lack of neurological systems because you haven't built them yet because you're too young to have done so... with any kind of special significance. And that is what the pro-abortion position does, it ascribes meaning to being too young to have reached developmental milestones, as though this makes one inferior somehow.

Do not think that this meaning comes inherently from science; it is meaning you choose to add, and you could choose not to.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I edited and added a bit that you might not have seen before quoting me.

"Personhood" resides in the brain. Before the brain is developed, there really is no personhood, anymore than a person who is brain dead after an accident whose body is being kept alive on life support.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Sorry, I edited and added a bit that you might not have seen before quoting me.

"Personhood" resides in the brain. Before the brain is developed, there really is no personhood, anymore than a person who is brain dead after an accident whose body is being kept alive on life support.
Click to expand...

"Personhood" is exclusively legal and subjective and means nothing inherently.

A brain dead patient is dead; that is a fatal pathophysiological state from which there is no recovery. Comparing this to a temporary, entirely normal and healthy physiological state for a young human is frankly bizarre. We do not generally say that a human has no rights because of a temporary state; if we did, anesthesia patients would be fair game.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
"Personhood" is exclusively legal and subjective and means nothing inherently.

A brain dead patient is dead; that is a fatal pathophysiological state from which there is no recovery. Comparing this to a temporary entirely normal and healthy state for a young human is frankly bizarre.
Click to expand...

There is very little difference between a mass of cell residing in a uterus and a mass of cells residing in my balls. Potential has neither legal nor moral consideration.

If it did, you would be committing a Hitler-esque type genocide every time you flogged your dolphin.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
There is very little difference between a mass of cell residing in a uterus and a mass of cells residing in my balls.
Click to expand...

Oh. You went and said the dumbest thing pro-aborts ever say. Welp, so much for trying. :shrug:

If you don't know the difference between an organism and an orgasm, you didn't study much science.
 
sangha said:
when we point out that they are anti-freedom and anti-rights?
Click to expand...

You need to alter the question. Not all who oppose abortion are anti-freedom and anti-rights. The question you want to ask is why do those who want abortion illegal hate it.....

Opposing abortion does not automatically mean the individual wants it illegal.
 
sangha said:
when we point out that they are anti-freedom and anti-rights?
Click to expand...

Came here foolishly expecting that this was an honest question by someone honestly wanting to have an understanding of the other sides point.

realized it was simply a clickbait headline leading to a worthless post with a biased premise that has no interest in asking an honest question or having an intelligent discussion.

They dislike that you point out they are anti-freedom and anti-rights because from the viewpoint and mindset in which they approach the issue, such accusations appear illogical and nonsensical.
 
Last edited:
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Sorry, I edited and added a bit that you might not have seen before quoting me.

"Personhood" resides in the brain. Before the brain is developed, there really is no personhood, anymore than a person who is brain dead after an accident whose body is being kept alive on life support.
Click to expand...

Ok you can hold the position that a human is not a person until it has a brain. Just to make it clear, We still recognize humans with anencephaly as humans despite not having brains.

Click on your own free will. http://www.delhidailynews.com/thumb/435/270/1400167622Anencephaly.jpg
 
sangha said:
There is a difference between advocating and lying, but it is a difference too subtle for those whose depraved immorality motivates them to deprive others of their freedom
Click to expand...
Do you consider living a life a freedom? Do you consider it one of, if not the highest, higher freedoms of those living? Do you consider it a higher freedom to take that freedom from another?

And dispense with your hogwash about a child in the womb not being a "person" in legal terms. That worn out sophistry is only there as it helps you, and others with their own, truly depraved mentality, to feel okay with the genuine immorality which you cannot bring yourself, with all your feints at nuance and subtlety, to acknowledge.
 
sangha said:
when we point out that they are anti-freedom and anti-rights?
Click to expand...

Probably because that's just part of the propaganda on the pro-choice side.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
There is very little difference between a mass of cell residing in a uterus and a mass of cells residing in my balls. Potential has neither legal nor moral consideration.

If it did, you would be committing a Hitler-esque type genocide every time you flogged your dolphin.
Click to expand...
I am quite sure that you understand, or if you actually thought beyond the shallows that you would understand, what you described is a silly and non equal equation.

One cannot drink a glass of oxygen and later a glass of hydrogen and that be considered water. They have to be together and in the right combination. A human developing fetus, a child at that stage, has to have sperm and egg come together for there to become a dividing and developing life with the potential to become what you are right now.

Potential does have legal ramifications. Wrongful death lawsuits take into consideration the future potential. "1) loss of income, and 2) loss of parental guidance. The jury may consider the decedent's earnings at the time of death, the last known earnings if unemployed, and potential future earnings." So potential can, and does, come into play. Wrongful Death Overview - FindLaw
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I am quite sure that you understand, or if you actually thought beyond the shallows that you would understand, what you described is a silly and non equal equation.
Click to expand...

Godwinning masturbation is a solid indicator someone has checked out and isn't going to be participating in salient discussion.
 
JayDubya said:
Godwinning masturbation is a solid indicator someone has checked out and isn't going to be participating in salient discussion.
Click to expand...
True, but I know having referred my students, when researching at least two sides to controversial topics, to debate websites to get ideas from people thinking of these matters in detail, that logical counters should be made else they be taken as winners for the wrong side. So, while I do debate often even those who are not really here for any reason than to attempt to apply a soothing salve to their conscience, if they still have or ever had one, it is also for to assist others that might be debating this topic in their own minds.

That being said, I agree, some here are not worth the bother and this kind of signalling might just be the true tip off.
 
sangha said:
when we point out that they are anti-freedom and anti-rights?
Click to expand...
This statement just shows a lack of knowledge of the debate.
the abortion debate fundamentally starts at whether you consider a fetus worthy of rights themself.

the debate has nothing to do with woman's freedom or right's, that part of the discussion is beyond the impasse. In order to get to that part of the argument you already have to assume a premise in which you both do not agree on, so naturally the argument is pointless.
 
JayDubya said:
Oh. You went and said the dumbest thing pro-aborts ever say. Welp, so much for trying. :shrug:

If you don't know the difference between an organism and an orgasm, you didn't study much science.
Click to expand...

GEIxBattleRifle said:
Ok you can hold the position that a human is not a person until it has a brain. Just to make it clear, We still recognize humans with anencephaly as humans despite not having brains.

Click on your own free will. http://www.delhidailynews.com/thumb/435/270/1400167622Anencephaly.jpg
Click to expand...

Gaugingcatenate said:
I am quite sure that you understand, or if you actually thought beyond the shallows that you would understand, what you described is a silly and non equal equation.

One cannot drink a glass of oxygen and later a glass of hydrogen and that be considered water. They have to be together and in the right combination. A human developing fetus, a child at that stage, has to have sperm and egg come together for there to become a dividing and developing life with the potential to become what you are right now.

Potential does have legal ramifications. Wrongful death lawsuits take into consideration the future potential. "1) loss of income, and 2) loss of parental guidance. The jury may consider the decedent's earnings at the time of death, the last known earnings if unemployed, and potential future earnings." So potential can, and does, come into play. Wrongful Death Overview - FindLaw
Click to expand...

JayDubya said:
Godwinning masturbation is a solid indicator someone has checked out and isn't going to be participating in salient discussion.
Click to expand...

If you don't hold dear any notion of a "soul", a person only exists in their conscious and subconscious thought. Your great-great-great-grandfather is no longer a person.

Likewise, before a "person" has any experiences, they aren't really a person. Now, I agree that a fetus in utero has experiences and responds meaningfully to stimuli, at least at later stages of development. At early stages, however, response to stimuli is notional at best and not really meaningful, much like a brain dead coma patient. The person has yet to begin at this stage. You might as well be talking about sperm.

Again, though, this way of thinking is only possible if one doesn't believe in the concept of a soul. Which I dont, because I'm not superstitious.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
If you don't hold dear any notion of a "soul", a person only exists in their conscious and subconscious thought. Your great-great-great-grandfather is no longer a person.
Click to expand...

As it is merely a legal / political construct, person has no intrinsic meaning. I don't think any living human being should be excluded from personhood.

Souls are religious concepts with no scientific backing and no basis for claims about the real world or law.

A human being's lifespan still begins at fertilization, though, and that is a scientific fact.

At early stages, however, response to stimuli is notional at best and not really meaningful, much like a brain dead coma patient. The person has yet to begin at this stage. You might as well be talking about sperm.
Click to expand...

Again, this is a profoundly ignorant comparison.

Sperm cells are part of a man's body. They get cast off, much like your skin cells do. They aren't even complete diploid cells, only haploid, and unlike your skin cells, if and only if they come in contact with another haploid gamete cell from a woman do they perform a special task that creates a new organism.

Comparing raw materials, the gametes, mere parts of your body, to the finished product, a new and distinct Homo sapiens with his or her own body, is absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom