• 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

Removable Mind said:
1.3 percent @ 21 weeks is NOT fully developed. And more importantly, the report fails to describe the circumstances for the 21 week plus abortions. How many were still-born, severely deformed with very small chance of surviving, or the welfare of the woman was in jeopardy?

For an authority of any kind to make a report on late term abortions there are probably valid, legal reasons for those abortions.

Considering the source the article might as well have come from LifeNew.com.
Click to expand...

Thank you for addressing gestational age.

If 21 weeks was fully developed......why are premature infants admitted to neonatal intensive care units (35-37 weeks and below) routinely?
 
prometeus said:
Even more fundamental is defining what "person" is in a way that is universally accepted and I do not think hat there is a good chance of that.

Again that entirely depends on the definition of person and you are not offering one.

It is only extremism to you, but there are arguments for that position that are as valid as your not offered arguments in your earlier assertion in this post.
Click to expand...

You seem very defensive.

I agree the divergence of views on personhood is itself important, as is what that means for us ethically and socially.

I'm not sure what your second point means. Are you arguing there are good philosophical arguments for personhood beginning, say, at birth? Or do you disagree there can be good arguments for it beginning at conception or early in pregnancy? My point was very catholic - I admitted there are good philosophical arguments for mainstream pro-life and mainstream pro-choice positions.

If you wish to formulate an argument that it is okay to abort a fetus (without some sort of extraordinary circumstances) when it is as much a person as you or I, then go ahead. It seems like an implausible position to me, and one likely to put off even mainstream pro-choicers. Such an ethical position would have to put overwhelming emphasis on personal autonomy, and have next to know role for social obligation, interpersonal bonds, and so on.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
And you think personhood happens between conception and third trimester.

My mainline Protestant religion teaches me that life/ensoulment begins at birth with the breath of life.
Roe agrees that personhood begins at birth.

Most Jewish sects and Mainline Protestant Religions also believe that spiritual life ( ensoulment/ living soul) does not occur until birth.
They believe that life begins with the breath of life.



In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, about the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”


Roe did address this in part IX of Roe vs Wade.




Quote from Roe part IX
Click to expand...

Why do you keep quoting Roe vs Wade at me? It isn't directly relevant, and I'm not even an America. SCOTUS and its rulings mean little to me.

Can I start quoting British law to you? Here is the Abortion Act 1967:

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith -

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or

(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or

(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated

(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

Amazingly, it isn't directly relevant to the discussion, but it is as relevant to me, or more so, than Roe.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Why do you keep quoting Roe vs Wade at me? It isn't directly relevant, and I'm not even an America. SCOTUS and its rulings mean little to me.

Can I start quoting British law to you? Here is the Abortion Act 1967:

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith -

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or

(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or

(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated

(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

Amazingly, it isn't directly relevant to the discussion, but it is as relevant to me, or more so, than Roe.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing the British law Abortion Act of 1967

I am curious what percent of BritIsh abortions occur in the first trimester?
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Why do you keep quoting Roe vs Wade at me? It isn't directly relevant, and I'm not even an America. SCOTUS and its rulings mean little to me.

Can I start quoting British law to you? Here is the Abortion Act 1967:

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith -

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or

(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or

(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated

(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

Amazingly, it isn't directly relevant to the discussion, but it is as relevant to me, or more so, than Roe.
Click to expand...



While I could not find any stats about the percentage of British abortions that took place during the first trimester (in the US it over 91 percent ) I did find stats for the

Percentage of Pregnancies Aborted by Country
(countries listed by percentage)

compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston
last updated 13 September 2015

It lists that 2014 the United Kingdom had 20.2 percent pregnancies aborted
And in the US the year before (2013) the United States had 20.2 percent pregnancies aborted.

Interestingly our abortion laws are very similar including the health concerns regarding abortions.

Except in the US our states are able to add some of their rules such as having waiting periods , ultrasounds paid the woman and yes , in US abortions are not paid for the federal government except for Medicaid patients who were raped, incest , or whose life is seriously at risk from the pregnacy.
 
Sorry I forgot to post link for the Johnston percentage of pregnancies aborted by country



Percentage of Pregnancies Aborted by Country
(countries listed by percentage)

compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston
last updated 13 September 2015

It lists that 2014 the United Kingdom had 20.2 percent pregnancies aborted
And in the US the year before (2013) the United States had 20.2 percent pregnancies aborted.

Percentage of pregnancies aborted by country (listed by percentage)
 
Wessexman said:
You seem very defensive.
Click to expand...
You got that wrong too. I just pointed out the lacking in your arguments.

I'm not sure what your second point means. Are you arguing there are good philosophical arguments for personhood beginning, say, at birth?
Click to expand...
Yes and none for before.

Or do you disagree there can be good arguments for it beginning at conception or early in pregnancy?
Click to expand...
See above.

My point was very catholic
Click to expand...
Since the entire world is not, it renders it irrelevant.
 
prometeus said:
Wessexman said:
My point was very catholic
Click to expand...
Since the entire world is not, it renders it irrelevant.
Click to expand...

By that logic, since the entire world does not consist of women, then an argument constructed in the interest of women is irrelevant.

Nice virtue signaling, champ. Maybe you'll get a participation trophy.
 
Wessexman said:
You make some good points. I think the fundamental issue is whether or not the fetus is a person, and from what point. There are good philosophical arguments for it becoming a person at multiple points from conception to third trimester. There are pro-choice extremists (a few here) who think it doesn't matter whether the fetus is a person - the woman's right to her trumps its right to life even in that situation. But even most pro-choicers would balk at that, so the key issue is when it becomes a person. A lot of the reason people talk past each other in these debates is because people have different beliefs on this issue. For example, it is one thing to say it is an invasion of a woman's right to privacy to say she can't abort what is not yet a human person inside of her, it is something else to say her privacy means she can kill a full human being, as much a person as you or I, in her womb.
Click to expand...

When is a human being complete to become a "full human being?"

When should it become a 'person?' Your opinion, please. And then how you weight that against this: Death during the pregnancy/childbirth process can happen to EITHER unborn or woman. Unpredicted, unplanned. Who has the authority to judge that the value of the unborn's life is higher? Or the woman's? Right now, it is the woman's. But it can never be equal for both.

Here is what I base my opinion on it. While I value the unborn, I value women (any born person) more because:

After birth is when someone's rights can be upheld without violating the rights of someone else (without due process). Before birth, the unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.
 
Celebrity said:
By that logic, since the entire world does not consist of women, then an argument constructed in the interest of women is irrelevant.

Nice virtue signaling, champ. Maybe you'll get a participation trophy.
Click to expand...
Certainly you will for bringing this drivel into the discussion.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

JayDubya said:
And that's why pro-aborts don't have a point.

They rely on this falsehood. Your kid's body is not your own body.
Click to expand...

No one disagrees with "Your kid's body is not your own body." Your problem is that one's own body is not the kid's body, and the kid has no right to be implanted in the woman's flesh. Without permission, it's just like the thing of a man who is legally incompetent because of insanity - one has the right to use force to get it out.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

JayDubya said:
And that's why pro-aborts don't have a point.

They rely on this falsehood. Your kid's body is not your own body.
Click to expand...

And, once the child is born, that principal applies. Until then, however, the lines are a little more blurry than you're letting on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom