• 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!

Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Scrabaholic said:
No, it is not a sidestep. If it isn't happening, why should there be more laws created? We have way too much govt. interference in our lives.
Click to expand...

Because at the end of the day -- humans depend on law and order. Just because something is extremely rare does not mean it doesn't, or cannot happen. In reality a woman who wants a very late term abortion in Canada is restricted from having one because she can't find a doctor to perform one. You don't seem to mind that -- you only seem to mind if the restriction is spelled out in the law.

That's a practice in hair-splitting. And, in my opinion, you're just mimicking the NOW meme because you think you have to.

Folks do very little individual thinking these days.

Just my two cents.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Northern Light said:
So far nobody has been able to take down Roe v. Wade despite yearly challenges. Whether the ruling is right or wrong is subjective but it seems like according to American law it's pretty iron clad. Better than the mob making oppressive laws based on emotional appeals.
Click to expand...

Plessy v. Ferguson lasted 64 years.

Slavery was upheld by the courts repeatedly and required a constitutional amendment to overturn.

There is no expiration date on a fights worth fighting.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Scrabaholic said:
All you need is a blood sample from the pregnant woman and the man in question.

https://dna-testing.ca/article/a-paternity-test-from-the-9th-week-of-pregnancy.html
Click to expand...

Your own link proves my point. The test can't be run until the 10th week of pregnancy. There is no way to test paternity in earlier without a tissue sample which would likely harm or kill the unborn child.

Also, as I said, I would support laws requiring that a man support a woman as soon as it is possible to establish paternity. Would you oppose such legislation?
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:
Because at the end of the day -- humans depend on law and order. Just because something is extremely rare does not mean it doesn't, or cannot happen. In reality a woman who wants a very late term abortion in Canada is restricted from having one because she can't find a doctor to perform one. You don't seem to mind that -- you only seem to mind if the restriction is spelled out in the law.

That's a practice in hair-splitting. And, in my opinion, you're just mimicking the NOW meme because you think you have to.

Folks do very little individual thinking these days.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

And you seem to mind if an unnessarry restriction is not spelled out by law.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

jmotivator said:
Your own link proves my point. The test can't be run until the 10th week of pregnancy. There is no way to test paternity in earlier without a tissue sample which would likely harm or kill the unborn child.

Also, as I said, I would support laws requiring that a man support a woman as soon as it is possible to establish paternity. Would you oppose such legislation?
Click to expand...

What unborn child? If there was a child, it's obvious that it could be tested.

So you need to establish that a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus is a child before engaging government to become more intrusive in women's reproductive roles.

And none of this support at prenatal stage for men is relevant. There is only one person who has any say at any stage prior to birth.

If they law changes then we'll have a different discussion.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

soylentgreen said:
So they are not living? Good to know.
Click to expand...

You really try hard to stay ignorant, don't you? You are incorrect, on conception they are a living organism, and the DNA of that organism is human --> so they are a living human.


But a conception it is nothing more than cells dividing. And you just claimed cells are not alive.
Click to expand...

Cell division is one of the characteristics of a living organism. Individual cells of multi-cell organism can exhibit some of the 7 characteristics required to be defined as a living organism, but not all 7, so those component cells are not living organisms. From conception the new life exhibits all 7 characteristics so it IS a living organism AND its DNA is human so it is a living human being.

While you simply make an arbitrary distinction because otherwise it is obvious that the distinction is nothing more than a red herring for the pro life group.
Click to expand...

No, I don't make arbitrary distinctions, I am using established scientific definitions which is the exact opposite of arbitrary. You on the other hand refuse to crack a book and learn the subject so your counterarguments are purely arbitrary, making your decisions purely on personal desire rather than careful inspection.

So you would force a woman to give birth to child produced by rape or incest ?
Click to expand...

I would choose to protect he life of a child conceived from rape or incest except when complications from pregnancy would cause death of the unborn child or the mother.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

minnie616 said:
There are non invasive paternity tests that determine paternity within the first trimester of pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but they can't be performed until the 10th week. Are you saying a woman doesn't need medical attention and support before the 10th week?

As I said, I think the law should require the father to support the mother from the moment that the paternity can be established. Would you oppose such legislation?
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

minnie616 said:
Roe v Wade has been reaffirmed many times.
It is precedent and it is settled law.

Now move forward.

Trumps Surpreme Court pick agrees that Roe v Wade is prescedent.....
In plain English ...that's means it is law....That law is set in stone.
It will not be questioned.

From this Fox News article:

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent' | Fox News
Click to expand...

Indeed, and rulings with precedent can also be overturned, either with a changing court, with new evidence, or a constitutional amendment. A Supreme Court ruling, even with precedent, isn't final.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Removable Mind said:
What unborn child? If there was a child, it's obvious that it could be tested.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't obvious. A medical procedure that would lead to the death of the patient doesn't mean the patient isn't alive. In fact, if the patient wasn't a alive then there would be no reason not to test!

So I will ask you: Why can't they do a DNA test on an unborn human before 10 weeks?

So you need to establish that a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus is a child before engaging government to become more intrusive in women's reproductive roles.
Click to expand...

They are a living organism and their DNA is human.. so they are a living human. So you want to mount an argument against biological definition of life, or do you against the existence of DNA?

And none of this support at prenatal stage for men is relevant. There is only one person who has any say at any stage prior to birth.
Click to expand...

You like to argue lack of relevance when you can't mount a reasonable counterargument. The point of the prenatal support was in connection to the argument that men don't need to support children they sired until birth, and I am arguing they should support children they sired from conception, and if they refuse then they should be compelled at least from the point that they can be determined to be the father.

If they law changes then we'll have a different discussion.
Click to expand...

Well, duh.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

jmotivator said:
No, it isn't obvious. A medical procedure that would lead to the death of the patient doesn't mean the patient isn't alive. In fact, if the patient wasn't a alive then there would be no reason not to test!

So I will ask you: Why can't they do a DNA test on an unborn human before 10 weeks?



They are a living organism and their DNA is human.. so they are a living human. So you want to mount an argument against biological definition of life, or do you against the existence of DNA?



You like to argue lack of relevance when you can't mount a reasonable counterargument. The point of the prenatal support was in connection to the argument that men don't need to support children they sired until birth, and I am arguing they should support children they sired from conception, and if they refuse then they should be compelled at least from the point that they can be determined to be the father.



Well, duh.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if a yet to be born human life has human DNA. What else would be it be? Could it be Shetland Pony DNA?

Simply being Human doesn't exempt any stage of human life from death.

All of this prenatal nonsense is nonsense. It's not rocket science. It really isn't.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

jmotivator said:
Indeed, and rulings with precedent can also be overturned, either with a changing court, with new evidence, or a constitutional amendment. A Supreme Court ruling, even with precedent, isn't final.
Click to expand...

It would take a Constitutional admendment to establish personhood for an unborn.

Even Mississippi , which is a very conservative state could not pass a state personhood amendment for their state Consitution.

Passing a personhood amendment for the US Constitution , would be almost impossible.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:
Because I don't find it unnecessary.
Click to expand...

And yet several states in the US do not have a gestational limit but the rate of abortions past viability is no higher in states that have no limits than states that limit abortions past viability to saving the life or irreparable damage to a major bodiliy function of the woman if the pregnancy continued.

Perhaps you think these laws are necessary too:
2. It’s against the law for a woman to drive a car in Main Street unless her husband is walking in front of the car waving a red flag (Waynesboro, Virginia)



1. You can be arrested or fined for harassing Bigfoot (Washington)
Click to expand...

http://justsomething.co/the-22-most-ridiculous-us-laws-still-in-effect-today-2/2/
 
Last edited:
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Removable Mind said:
It doesn't matter if a yet to be born human life has human DNA. What else would be it be? Could it be Shetland Pony DNA?
Click to expand...

Some of your fellow travelers seem to think so. I've met an absurd number of pro-abortionists who don't know the difference between human development and evolution! They use the "Look see? At this stage a pig and a human are identical!" as if it is smart.

See also the two people in this thread who can't comprehend the difference between living tissue and a living organism.

They are living human organisms.

Simply being Human doesn't exempt any stage of human life from death.
Click to expand...

Never said it did. I said being human endows them is inalienable rights.

All of this prenatal nonsense is nonsense. It's not rocket science. It really isn't.
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't rocket science, it is biology.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

jmotivator said:
Some of your fellow travelers seem to think so. I've met an absurd number of pro-abortionists who don't know the difference between human development and evolution! They use the "Look see? At this stage a pig and a human are identical!" as if it is smart.

See also the two people in this thread who can't comprehend the difference between living tissue and a living organism.

They are living human organisms.



Never said it did. I said being human endows them is inalienable rights.



Of course it isn't rocket science, it is biology.
Click to expand...

SO WHAT THAT THEY ARE LIVING HUMAN ORGANISMS? Everybody understands that. Do you believe that a human zygote is holy? Is that really the deal here for you?
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

minnie616 said:
And yet several states in the US do not have a gestational limit but the rate of abortions past viability is no higher in states that have no limits than states that limit abortions past viability to saving the life or irreparable damage to a major bodiliy function of the woman if the pregnancy continued.

Perhaps you think these laws are necessary too:


The 22 most ridiculous US laws still in effect today. #10 is just crazy... LOL! - Page 2 of 2
Click to expand...

Those are funny, but nonsensical laws.

As a society, we have to establish ethical limitations, which is what restricting late-term abortion, when it's not necessary for health reasons entails. It sets an ethical standard. It says, "this is who we are" and "this is what we find to be ethical."

You would be hard-pressed to find Canadian scientists cloning human beings, and yet, Canada has a law prohibiting it. Did Canada do the wrong thing in passing that law? Is it unnecessary because it's unlikely to happen?
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:
Those are funny, but nonsensical laws.

As a society, we have to establish ethical limitations, which is what restricting late-term abortion, when it's not necessary for health reasons entails. It sets an ethical standard. It says, "this is who we are" and "this is what we find to be ethical."

You would be hard-pressed to find Canadian scientists cloning human beings, and yet, Canada has a law prohibiting it. Did Canada do the wrong thing in passing that law? Is it unnecessary because it's unlikely to happen?
Click to expand...

This what decades of white christian men says that ethical limitations should be for women. Not as a society such established ethical restrictions have been created.

Zero restrictions work fine for several reason, but the most important one is that women understand the health risks involved in prolonging abortions. That's why the women in Canada have slightly higher percentage numbers of abortions 12 weeks and under than do American women in a zero restriction nation.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

HowardBThiname said:
Those are funny, but nonsensical laws.

As a society, we have to establish ethical limitations, which is what restricting late-term abortion, when it's not necessary for health reasons entails. It sets an ethical standard. It says, "this is who we are" and "this is what we find to be ethical."

You would be hard-pressed to find Canadian scientists cloning human beings, and yet, Canada has a law prohibiting it. Did Canada do the wrong thing in passing that law? Is it unnecessary because it's unlikely to happen?
Click to expand...

Apparently Canada wanted that " feel good law" on their books.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Removable Mind said:
This what decades of white christian men says that ethical limitations should be for women. Not as a society such established ethical restrictions have been created.

Zero restrictions work fine for several reason, but the most important one is that women understand the health risks involved in prolonging abortions. That's why the women in Canada have slightly higher percentage numbers of abortions 12 weeks and under than do American women in a zero restriction nation.
Click to expand...

Also , legal abortions are much for accessible and are a covered healthcare expense in Canada.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Removable Mind said:
This what decades of white christian men says that ethical limitations should be for women. Not as a society such established ethical restrictions have been created.
Click to expand...

Decades of "white christian men?" You didn't mention centuries of brown Muslim men and yet they traditionally oppose abortion even more stringently -- so stringently, in fact, that a woman who aborts can be killed as punishment.

Zero restrictions work fine for several reason, but the most important one is that women understand the health risks involved in prolonging abortions. That's why the women in Canada have slightly higher percentage numbers of abortions 12 weeks and under than do American women in a zero restriction nation.
Click to expand...


Canada actually has fewer restrictions than do many states in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom