• 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!

Banning abortion after 20 weeks passed by the House

FutureIncoming said:
IF YOU "JUST SAW" THAT, why did you not supply a link so that others can see the extent to which you have (or have not) distorted describing the data?
Click to expand...

Because i thought you had already researched the topic.
 
Lursa said:
Sooooo, you missed the key word there. "elective."

Now...how many of that 13,000 are elective? Hmm?

Those 13,000 would be "medically necessary" abortions. Are you also against those?
Click to expand...

Elective means by choice. If the human is viable it certainly is iffy.
 
Lursa said:
Factually, medically, wrong. There have been none at 20 weeks.

Not only that, the odds of a fully functioning brain and lungs are also nil...lifetime damage is the rule for the super-early (21+weeks) preemies.

But that's better than dead, right? Quantity before quality of life?
Click to expand...

I rechecked. You are right. The report in Spiegel was for the 21st week.
 
joG said:
Elective means by choice. If the human is viable it certainly is iffy.
Click to expand...

When abortions are for medial defects or to prevent irreparable damage to a woman’s bodily functions the abortions are therapeutic abortions not elective abortions.
 
minnie616 said:
When abortions are for medial defects or to prevent irreparable damage to a woman’s bodily functions the abortions are therapeutic abortions not elective abortions.
Click to expand...

Killing a human is therapeutic? That is cute. ;)
 
joG said:
Because i thought you had already researched the topic.
Click to expand...
DATA TENDS TO CHANGE WITH TIME. Old statistics are not always current statistics. If others see the particular data you claimed (without evidence) to have found, then you might actually have supported the claim with evidence. Or you might have been exposed as a fraud. Guess which we can assume, when all we have is your word for something-or-other?
 
FutureIncoming said:
DATA TENDS TO CHANGE WITH TIME. Old statistics are not always current statistics. If others see the particular data you claimed (without evidence) to have found, then you might actually have supported the claim with evidence. Or you might have been exposed as a fraud. Guess which we can assume, when all we have is your word for something-or-other?
Click to expand...

I rechecked, when someone that seems to be more knowledgeable than you or more interested and found that it was not in the 20th week. It was in 20st. The link is in Spiegel and in German. I have been told not to post foreign language links. So you must look it up for yourself.
 
joG said:
I rechecked, when someone that seems to be more knowledgeable than you or more interested and found that it was not in the 20th week. It was in 20st. The link is in Spiegel and in German. I have been told not to post foreign language links. So you must look it up for yourself.
Click to expand...
YOU CAN RUN A PAGE THROUGH GOOGLE TRANSLATE. And then link to the translated page. The translation might be imperfect, but the numbers won't be altered by the translation.
 
joG said:
Elective means by choice. If the human is viable it certainly is iffy.
Click to expand...

Glad you know the definition of elective. So you do not support medically necessary abortion? The mother's health doesnt matter?
 
minnie616 said:
When abortions are for medial defects or to prevent irreparable damage to a woman’s bodily functions the abortions are therapeutic abortions not elective abortions.
Click to expand...

Yes but it's "iffy...as long as she lives or the unborn survives, their condition doesnt matter, quantity over quality of life you know. That is how some people prioritize.

Ethically it's hard to justify IMO.
 
joG said:
Killing a human is therapeutic? That is cute. ;)
Click to expand...

What makes you think a therapeutic is cute?

They are sad ...they were wanted pregnancies that the fetus had major defects or would cause irreparable harm to a major bodiliy function of the woman if the pregnancy continued.

From the following:

Therapeutic Abortions ... Medical conditions which cause pregnancy to pose substantial risk to maternal health such as cardiac or cardiovascular anomalies, cardiovascular disease, renal disease, malignancy, and severe diabetes mellitus

The certain diagnosis of:
Chromosomal abnormalities inconsistent with normal life in the fetus
Major structural defects such as severe neural tube defects, severe cardiac abnormalities, severe ventral wall defects, or other severe structural defects
Major metabolic abnormalities such as sickle cell disease, Tay Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, or major biochemical abnormalities
Click to expand...

https://www.oxhp.com/secure/policy/abortions_therapeutic_and_elective.pdf
 
minnie616 said:
What makes you think a therapeutic is cute?

They are sad ...they were wanted pregnancies that the fetus had major defects or would cause irreparable harm to a major bodiliy function of the woman if the pregnancy continued.

From the following:

[ QUOTE=]

Therapeutic Abortions ... Medical conditions which cause pregnancy to pose substantial risk to maternal health such as cardiac or cardiovascular anomalies, cardiovascular disease, renal disease, malignancy, and severe diabetes mellitus

The certain diagnosis of:
Chromosomal abnormalities inconsistent with normal life in the fetus
Major structural defects such as severe neural tube defects, severe cardiac abnormalities, severe ventral wall defects, or other severe structural defects
Major metabolic abnormalities such as sickle cell disease, Tay Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, or major biochemical abnormalities
Click to expand...

Certainly it's disrespectful of the lives of women and those babies who may suffer the rest of their lives.

But hey, more boots on the ground is more important, dont you think? /sarcasm
 
The problem with abortions is that actions have consequences for everyone. It isn't just the woman who faces consequences of a baby, men are legally responsible for the child's well being as well.

At what point is the fetus considered a human? That question cannot be answered morally. Is a mature baby (at birth) more human than a pre-mature baby? Even fetuses at the cellular level meet the medical definition of a living organism, and it has human DNA. Just 4 weeks into pregnancy the heart starts to develop and beat. Abortions because of a mistake is entirely unjust to the developing human that is terminated.
 
Cable_Extreme said:
The problem with abortions is that actions have consequences for everyone. .
Click to expand...

Abortions have zero consequences for anyone but the woman, who may suffer health damage or even death from the procedure, altho today that is much less common.

Abortion has no negative effects on society at all.

As for the morality of it, what is moral about forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will?

The value of the unborn is subjective...just as it was for blacks and women earlier in our history. SCOTUS examined blacks and women and recognized them/us as equal and as such recognized our rights. They examined the unborn as well and did not recognize them as equal to born people. Thus they have no rights.

To me it seems fair, since legally you cannot treat the unborn and born equally. Do you believe that the unborn are more entitled to a potential future than women?
 
Cable_Extreme said:
The problem with abortions is that actions have consequences for everyone.
Click to expand...
THE SAME IS TRUE FOR OPPOSITION TO ABORTION. Why are you working to help the collapse of our civilization?

Cable_Extreme said:
It isn't just the woman who faces consequences of a baby, men are legally responsible for the child's well being as well.
Click to expand...
NOT RELEVANT TO UNBORN HUMANS. They are provably so very different from "babies" that the two types of entity should never be confused with each other.

MEANWHILE, ABORTION OPPONENTS SHIRK THEIR CULTURAL RESPONSIBILITY. We live in a culture where folks who want things are generally expected to pay for those things. But abortion opponents want others to pay for what abortion opponents want. They insist that those mouths-to-feed must be born, but do they support their blatherings with funding? Not in the slightest!

Cable_Extreme said:
At what point is the fetus considered a human?
Click to expand...
IT IS 100% HUMAN FROM BEFORE CONCEPTION. And that fact means nothing. Simply because the US constitution-plus-Amendments use the word "person" throughout, and don't use the word "human" even once. Person rights matter! That's why modern politicians accept the possibility of peaceful interactions with non-human persons.

MEANWHILE, any focus on "human rights" is just an excuse for Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy, and thinking that non-human persons can be shot on sight, simply because, to those Stupidly Prejudiced Idiots, only human-ness matters. WRONG!

Cable_Extreme said:
That question cannot be answered morally.
Click to expand...
THE QUESTION IS A WORTHLESS RED HERRING. Not to mention that compared to "ethics", the concept of "morals" is obsolete, provably Arbitrary and therefore worthless. Just go to a bunch of different cultures and ask whether or not it is moral to drink alcohol, or to eat pork, or for a woman's head to be uncovered, and see the worthless arbitrariness for yourself.

Cable_Extreme said:
Is a mature baby (at birth) more human than a pre-mature baby?
Click to expand...
AT BIRTH IT IS A LEGAL PERSON. While it cannot possibly qualify tor personhood status in the same way that an intelligent extraterrestrial alien might qualify, the Law does not care, and arbitrarily assigns personhood at birth. Human-ness is irrelevant. Prior to birth, however, the Law and all the scientific data are perfectly synchronized with each other; in no sense can an unborn human qualify as a person.
 
FutureIncoming said:
THE SAME IS TRUE FOR OPPOSITION TO ABORTION. Why are you working to help the collapse of our civilization?
Click to expand...

How is it collapsing our civilization? So serious

NOT RELEVANT TO UNBORN HUMANS. They are provably so very different from "babies" that the two types of entity should never be confused with each other.
Click to expand...

When do humans become humans? How are they very different? Why is it that premature babies aren't less human than fully matured ones? The problem is you cannot differentiate a fetus from a born baby as both meet the definition of a living thing, and both have DNA. Even after 4 weeks the baby develops a beating heart. They may be slightly different but they are developing in a similar way that we all develop until we are around 25... It isn't like we stop developing right out of the womb.

MEANWHILE, ABORTION OPPONENTS SHIRK THEIR CULTURAL RESPONSIBILITY. We live in a culture where folks who want things are generally expected to pay for those things. But abortion opponents want others to pay for what abortion opponents want. They insist that those mouths-to-feed must be born, but do they support their blatherings with funding? Not in the slightest!
Click to expand...

Not relevant to me.

IT IS 100% HUMAN FROM BEFORE CONCEPTION. And that fact means nothing. Simply because the US constitution-plus-Amendments use the word "person" throughout, and don't use the word "human" even once. Person rights matter! That's why modern politicians accept the possibility of peaceful interactions with non-human persons.
Click to expand...
Definition play doesn't prove a fetus is a human or not, this is a moral matter, not a English technicality.

MEANWHILE, any focus on "human rights" is just an excuse for Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy, and thinking that non-human persons can be shot on sight, simply because, to those Stupidly Prejudiced Idiots, only human-ness matters. WRONG!
Click to expand...

This is ironic, you are pointing out master race Idiocy while trying to prove fetuses aren't humans.

THE QUESTION IS A WORTHLESS RED HERRING. Not to mention that compared to "ethics", the concept of "morals" is obsolete, provably Arbitrary and therefore worthless. Just go to a bunch of different cultures and ask whether or not it is moral to drink alcohol, or to eat pork, or for a woman's head to be uncovered, and see the worthless arbitrariness for yourself.
Click to expand...

Compared to ethics? Ethics are simply moral principles.

AT BIRTH IT IS A LEGAL PERSON. While it cannot possibly qualify tor personhood status in the same way that an intelligent extraterrestrial alien might qualify, the Law does not care, and arbitrarily assigns personhood at birth. Human-ness is irrelevant. Prior to birth, however, the Law and all the scientific data are perfectly synchronized with each other; in no sense can an unborn human qualify as a person.
Click to expand...

At birth it is a legal person? Why is it then we can remove a baby premature and have it continue to develop outside of the womb? If a woman is heavily pregnant and her water breaks, would you be willing to abort the baby because it hasn't been born yet and doesn't meet your definition of a legal person?
 
Cable_Extreme said:
How is it collapsing our civilization? So serious
Click to expand...
READ THE LINKS I PROVIDED. AND DON'T TELL STUPID LIES ABOUT WHAT I WROTE. I asked why you are working to help collapse our civilization. I said nothing about any such collapse happening right now.
Opposition to abortion is directly related to causing global human population to increase faster than ever, while production of planetary resources fails to keep pace (and in fact is deliberately restricted by companies that know decreased Supply and increased Demand leads to increased profits, and therefore those companies try to eliminate competition). Remember than in the 1950s a man's salary was generally sufficient to support a family, while today both spouses often have to work 2 jobs each, to support a family. The change is directly related to the ratio of population to resource-production. The growing mis-match always leads to collapse.

Cable_Extreme said:
When do humans become humans?
Click to expand...
I TOLD YOU THE QUESTION IS IRRELEVANT. Only personhood matters. Why are you ignoring Facts? Why are you continuing to spout worthless blather?

Cable_Extreme said:
Not relevant to me.
Click to expand...
OH? If you oppose abortion and fail to donate to, say, orphanages, or you vote for politicians who want to cut support for struggling families, then what I wrote is most certainly relevant to you!

Cable_Extreme said:
This is ironic, you are pointing out master race Idiocy while trying to prove fetuses aren't humans.
Click to expand...
A STUPID LIE. Stupid lies qualify for that label because of the ease by which theos lies can be proved to be lies. You cannot quote me writing even once sentence hinting that unborn humans are anything less than 100% human entities. You COULD quote me saying that their human-ness doesn't matter in the slightest, because I have indeed said something like that, because the statement is provably True.

Cable_Extreme said:
Compared to ethics? Ethics are simply moral principles.
Click to expand...
FALSE. Ethics is a system with a completely different foundation than morals. Morals always are arbitrarily declared. Ethics, however, can be derived from an Objectively True foundation-statement.

Cable_Extreme said:
At birth it is a legal person?
Click to expand...
YUP. SEE FOR YOURSELF.

Cable_Extreme said:
Why is it then we can remove a baby premature and have it continue to develop outside of the womb?
Click to expand...
THE REMOVAL IS CONSIDERED EQUIVALENT TO BIRTH. Simple!

Cable_Extreme said:
If a woman is heavily pregnant and her water breaks, would you be willing to abort
Click to expand...
IT IS HER CHOICE, not mine. Since I am pro-choice, I would not gainsay her choice.

Cable_Extreme said:
the baby
Click to expand...
NOT A BABY BEFORE BIRTH. Did you not see the evidence, regarding the Huge Difference That Birth Makes?

Cable_Extreme said:
because it hasn't been born yet and doesn't meet your definition of a legal person?
Click to expand...
FACTS ARE FACTS. Laws assigning personhood to humans at birth have existed for lots longer than any Objectively Verifiable scientific data about persons, generically. The Fact Is, the Law and the science are not synchroinzed with respect to the attaining of personhood by an average young human. While there are some folks who want to do that (and thereby legalize infanticide), I'm against it on the grounds that, simply because different humans develop at different rates, it would involve setting up a huge bureaucracy, which had the purpose of testing every child at intervals, to see whether or not Is It A Person Yet? On the other hand, abortion opponents want to make the Law even more inconsistent/unsynchronized with the scientific data about personhood, and cannot provide even one good reason why such a thing might be a good idea, when it involves basically enslaving and dehumanizing pregnant women, turning them into toilets for the benefit of pure-animal non-person human entities.
 
Last edited:
FutureIncoming said:
Remember than in the 1950s a man's salary was generally sufficient to support a family, while today both spouses often have to work 2 jobs each, to support a family. The change is directly related to the ratio of population to resource-production. The growing mis-match always leads to collapse.
Click to expand...

Opposition to abortion you say is bad because of overpopulation? Why would that be any worse than killing babies? You suggest that the only solution to overpopulation is to abort unborn babies. That is a false dichotomy. There are other means to reduce overpopulation such as having a vasectomy or increasing birth control (preventative measures) technology etc...

I TOLD YOU THE QUESTION IS IRRELEVANT. Only personhood matters. Why are you ignoring Facts? Why are you continuing to spout worthless blather?
Click to expand...

Ignoring facts? The way things are now isn't necessarily correct, hence the reason for debate. You say when a baby is born it is a human, but before it is born it is not. That is in no way based in reality as biologically a baby that has just been born is pretty much the same as a baby about to be born. Beating heart, Brain activity, metabolism, human DNA etc....

OH? If you oppose abortion and fail to donate to, say, orphanages, or vote for politicians who want to cut support for struggling families, then what I wrote is most certainly relevant to you!
Click to expand...

No, I feel tax revenue should go towards supporting that. I'm already donating 10% of my income to the government. As you said some people have to work 2 jobs to stay ahead of debt. Be consistent with your points.


A STUPID LIE. Stupid lies qualify for that label because of the ease by which theos lies can be proved to be lies. You cannot quote me writing even once sentence hinting that unborn humans are anything less than 100% human entities. You COULD quote me saying that their human-ness doesn't matter in the slightest, because I have indeed said something like that, because the statement is provably True.
Click to expand...

Statement isn't provably true, unborn babies are living homo sapiens. The meet the medical definition of a living thing, they have human features, DNA, and are pretty identical to newly born babies biologically towards the later cycle of pregnancy.


FALSE. Ethics is a system with a completely different foundation than morals. Morals always are arbitrarily declared. Ethics, however, can be derived from an Objectively True foundation-statement.
Click to expand...

[Ethics | Define Ethics at Dictionary.com Moral Principles

IT IS HER CHOICE, not mine. Since I am pro-choice, I would not gainsay her choice.
Click to expand...

I would contest her choice if it negatively effected my life., If you wanted an Abortion since you and her couldn't provide for the kid, but she chose to have it, you would be financially ruined. You cannot allow abortions on the basis of choice and lack of potential care, but then deny the argument for men as well.
NOT A BABY BEFORE BIRTH. Did you not see the evidence, regarding the Huge Difference That Birth Makes?
Click to expand...
You are quoting an opinionated source, it is not facts.

FACTS ARE FACTS. Laws assigning personhood to humans at birth have existed for lots longer than any Objectively Verifiable scientific data about persons, generically. The Fact Is, the Law and the science are not synchroinzed with respect to the attaining of personhood by an average young human. While there are some folks who want to do that (and thereby legalize infanticide), I'm against it on the grounds that, simply because different humans develop at different rates, it would involve setting up a huge bureaucracy, which had the purpose of testing every child at intervals, to see whether or not Is It A Person Yet? On the other hand, abortion opponents want to make the Law even more inconsistent/unsynchronized with the scientific data about personhood, and cannot provide even one good reason why such a thing might be a good idea, when it involves basically enslaving and dehumanizing pregnant women, turning them into toilets for the benefit of pure-animal non-person human entities.
Click to expand...

It isn't enslaving women and dehumanizing them. It is the natural process of their body based on the decisions they made. They may not want a kid, but the fact is a life is inside them that is innocent, did not ask for them to have sex and create them but it is a product of that interaction none-the-less. Not only is it killing a human being, but it is depriving them of ANY life at all.
 
Last edited:
Cable_Extreme said:
You are quoting an opinionated source, it is not facts.
Click to expand...

If you came to this sub-forum for an actual back-and-forth discussion that isnt canned and never changes, dragged up from a compendium of mostly useless & irrelevant information to your particular perspective, please take the time to converse with a variety of posters here.

I hope you will and I hope it will be mutually constructive.
 
Cable_Extreme said:
The problem with abortions is that actions have consequences for everyone. It isn't just the woman who faces consequences of a baby, men are legally responsible for the child's well being as well.

At what point is the fetus considered a human? That question cannot be answered morally. Is a mature baby (at birth) more human than a pre-mature baby? Even fetuses at the cellular level meet the medical definition of a living organism, and it has human DNA. Just 4 weeks into pregnancy the heart starts to develop and beat. Abortions because of a mistake is entirely unjust to the developing human that is terminated.
Click to expand...

The zygote, embryo or fetus is human. Period.

It becomes a person when it leaves the mother's body born alive.

Until that point decisions made are the mothers...unless she becomes incapacitated and unable to answer for herself. Then it falls on the legal next of kin or DPOA.

I would hope that while pregnant the woman would consult with the man who got her pregnant...but she is not obliged to.

Think of it this way.....would you want a woman to make your health care decisions for you ?
 
year2late said:
The zygote, embryo or fetus is human. Period.

It becomes a person when it leaves the mother's body born alive.

Until that point decisions made are the mothers...unless she becomes incapacitated and unable to answer for herself. Then it falls on the legal next of kin or DPOA.

I would hope that while pregnant the woman would consult with the man who got her pregnant...but she is not obliged to.

Think of it this way.....would you want a woman to make your health care decisions for you ?
Click to expand...

Do I want a woman to make healthcare decisions for me? No hence why I support Pro-life.
 
year2late said:
The zygote, embryo or fetus is human. Period.

It becomes a person when it leaves the mother's body born alive.

Until that point decisions made are the mothers...unless she becomes incapacitated and unable to answer for herself. Then it falls on the legal next of kin or DPOA.

I would hope that while pregnant the woman would consult with the man who got her pregnant...but she is not obliged to.

Think of it this way.....would you want a woman to make your health care decisions for you ?
Click to expand...

You do realize those two statements are in complete contradiction of themselves? No surprise with the pro abortionists though...
 
Cable_Extreme said:
Do I want a woman to make healthcare decisions for me? No hence why I support Pro-life.
Click to expand...

I dont really understand your response.

Parents make healthcare decisions for their kids all the time.

In the case of abortion, those decisions are completely up to the woman carrying.

But as a man or woman, unless you give consent to someone else legally (or it's decided by the courts), you have the complete wherewithal to make your own healthcare decisions.

I dont understand what this has to do with abortion, can you explain?
 
Elvira said:
You do realize those two statements are in complete contradiction of themselves? No surprise with the pro abortionists though...
Click to expand...

No they are not.

Person and human have different meanings. One is biologically-based and the other has a legal definition.

They are not the same. All persons are human, but not all humans are persons (meaning the unborn).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom