• 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 and elections

joG said:
Caring means socialisation.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that people of all religions, no religion, most philosophies, and all political ideologies are capable of caring and that a focus on it's members/citizens' well-being is always present.
 
joG said:
I don't see how abstinence campaign has much to do with socialisation and I'm unsure, how education should work, where the socialisation of the population advocates behavior that carries the risk of pregnancy.
Click to expand...

I am asking you for a pragmatic approach.

How would your idea work?
 
joG said:
Pro-choice is not the same as having an unwanted pregnacy one aborts. Abortion could be without any sanctiins, while getting oneself into the situation one has one is severely punished. That leaves the girl's body hers to dispose of and only the creation of human life only to be discontinued would be criminal.
Click to expand...

You did not mention men. It does take two. Or, in your view, is it only the woman who is responsible?
 
year2late said:
With all the brouhaha over Moore's issues with teenage girls....the narrative became about abortion. So voters were faced with supporting someone who went after underage teen girls (as a thirty something) or someone who is pro-choice.

I have often thought that the pro-life movement does little to decrease abortions on a larger scale. Individuals may be effected, but not larger groups of people.

I am emphatically pro-choice, but personally am against abortion. So I am interested in seeing the numbers of abortion decrease.

So my question is this.....in real life....what political ideology has the greatest history of and REALISTIC capacity for reducing actual numbers of abortions?
Click to expand...

Pro-choice, without a doubt.

Historically, the pro-choice are the only ones who advocate and fund sex education, accessible birth control, pre-natal care, and child care. Pro-choice countries have seen their abortion rates fall over the decades, not because people are having less sex, but because people are having fewer unwanted or unsupportable pregnancies. Look at literally any country in the decade before they legalized abortion, and then 20 years after. The difference is obvious. The pro-choice movement is a truly inclusive movement of all choices, and as a result, pro-choice policy tends to better the outcomes of all women, regardless of their choice.

Historically, anti-choice policy is tightly correlated with restrictive access to birth control, a lack of safety net for poor mothers, and just a general lack of any health care for women at all, along with a culture that is somewhat rape-permissive. This should be obvious, since anti-choice policy is basically a type of chattel slavery, and anyone who sees women as chattel doesn't care much about their medical needs or their sexual consent. In these countries, abortion rates actually tend to rise, because unwanted pregnancy rates are so incredibly high, and women are not actually chattel -- they are people with their own independent will, and they will not stop aborting just because some patriarch tells them to. They just resort to illegal abortions instead, because ultimately the risks of doing so are less than the risks of being an impoverished possibly homeless mother, or being forever tethered to her rapist, or risking her life on a pregnancy her body cannot support. Look at Romania's anti-choice years, or modern-day Poland, if you want some examples. Both have astronomical abortion rates. Polish women are estimated to abort 50% of all pregnancies they ever have.
 
Last edited:
The ideology that emphasizes comprehensive sex education and provides easy access to birth control. The results are demonstrable.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Pro-choice, without a doubt.

Historically, the pro-choice are the only ones who advocate and fund sex education, accessible birth control, pre-natal care, and child care. Pro-choice countries have seen their abortion rates fall over the decades, not because people are having less sex, but because people are having fewer unwanted or unsupportable pregnancies. Look at literally any country in the decade before they legalized abortion, and then 20 years after. The difference is obvious. The pro-choice movement is a truly inclusive movement of all choices, and as a result, pro-choice policy tends to better the outcomes of all women, regardless of their choice.

Historically, anti-choice policy is tightly correlated with restrictive access to birth control, a lack of safety net for poor mothers, and just a general lack of any health care for women at all, along with a culture that is somewhat rape-permissive. This should be obvious, since anti-choice policy is basically a type of chattel slavery, and anyone who sees women as chattel doesn't care much about their medical needs or their sexual consent. In these countries, abortion rates actually tend to rise, because unwanted pregnancy rates are so incredibly high, and women are not actually chattel -- they are people with their own independent will, and they will not stop aborting just because some patriarch tells them to. They just resort to illegal abortions instead, because ultimately the risks of doing so are less than the risks of being an impoverished possibly homeless mother, or being forever tethered to her rapist, or risking her life on a pregnancy her body cannot support. Look at Romania's anti-choice years, or modern-day Poland, if you want some examples. Both have astronomical abortion rates. Polish women are estimated to abort 50% of all pregnancies they ever have.
Click to expand...

I believe this as well.

It is pragmatism.

I have yet to see an argument from the pro-life crowd that does not depend on convincing a woman she is an evil person for even considering abortion. Does anybody think this is a helpful tactic to decrease the abortion rates? Seems just the opposite.
 
year2late said:
I believe this as well.

It is pragmatism.

I have yet to see an argument from the pro-life crowd that does not depend on convincing a woman she is an evil person for even considering abortion. Does anybody think this is a helpful tactic to decrease the abortion rates? Seems just the opposite.
Click to expand...

Hell, they think she's evil just for having sex. They talk about her would-be child as if it were a punishment, actively willing it to destroy her life. They back legislation that takes away reduced cost pre-natal and child assistance for poor mothers, actively trying to impoverish and starve the children they fought so hard to force these women to have.

So many of them think women should suffer or have their fertility destroyed trying to carry doomed pregnancies that will never result in a baby, and yet they also think a woman who is raped (as long as it was "real rape," whatever the **** that means) should be allowed to abort.

Why? Because if the woman didn't enjoy the conception, that absolves her of the "crime" that they think is worthy of punishment: having sex under her own control.

Anti-choice policy has never been about anything other than punishing women who don't allow men to control their bodies and relationships. If children get hurt in the process, that's just collateral damage to them.
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Hell, they think she's evil just for having sex. They talk about her would-be child as if it were a punishment, actively willing it to destroy her life. They back legislation that takes away reduced cost pre-natal and child assistance for poor mothers, actively trying to impoverish and starve the children they fought so hard to force these women to have.

So many of them think women should suffer or have their fertility destroyed trying to carry doomed pregnancies that will never result in a baby, and yet they also think a woman who is raped (as long as it was "real rape," whatever the **** that means) should be allowed to abort.

Why? Because if the woman didn't enjoy the conception, that absolves her of the "crime" that they think is worthy of punishment: having sex under her own control.

Anti-choice policy has never been about anything other than punishing women who don't allow men to control their bodies and relationships. If children get hurt in the process, that's just collateral damage to them.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that they seem to truly believe that the zygote, embryo, or fetus is equal to the born person. I respect that POV, although I emphatically do not believe it. But what they are looking at is unfettered procreation amoungst people that are least able to financially care for the child. So why not take your belief and actually look towards helping this permanent underclass you want to create? If you want no abortions.....then help these women who cannot afford to care fore themselves let alone another child? What the women need is not a package of diapers and a parenting class.....they need assurance that they will be able to assure the health and welfare of their offspring up until adulthood.

If the prolifers want to actively and politically stop abortions...why not be there for the born child?
 
year2late said:
The funny thing is that they seem to truly believe that the zygote, embryo, or fetus is equal to the born person. I respect that POV, although I emphatically do not believe it. But what they are looking at is unfettered procreation amoungst people that are least able to financially care for the child. So why not take your belief and actually look towards helping this permanent underclass you want to create? If you want no abortions.....then help these women who cannot afford to care fore themselves let alone another child? What the women need is not a package of diapers and a parenting class.....they need assurance that they will be able to assure the health and welfare of their offspring up until adulthood.

If the prolifers want to actively and politically stop abortions...why not be there for the born child?
Click to expand...

I really don't think they believe that at all. That's why so many of them think it's ok to kill fetuses if the woman didn't enjoy the conception, but not any other time -- not even if it's hurting her. What sort of sense does that make, if they actually believe a fetus is a person? That's basically arguing that you can kill an innocent bystander if their mother assaults you. It's completely illogical.

I think all that crap about personhood is just their excuse, honestly. I don't buy it at all.

Creating an underclass is the entire point of it. They don't like women having power over their own lives. And if you look at every policy they support, you will see that the only thing they have in common is that they disempower women. They don't protect life, or protect children, or protect healthy pregnancies -- they don't support any of those things consistently. The only consistent thread is disempowering women.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
I really don't think they believe that at all. That's why so many of them think it's ok to kill fetuses if the woman didn't enjoy the conception, but not any other time -- not even if it's hurting her. What sort of sense does that make, if they actually believe a fetus is a person?

I think all that crap about personhood is just their excuse, honestly. I don't buy it at all.

Creating an underclass is the entire point of it. They don't like women having power over their own lives. And if you look at every policy they support, you will see that the only thing they have in common is that they disempower women. They don't protect life, or protect children, or protect healthy pregnancies -- they don't support any of those things consistently. The only consistent thread is disempowering women.
Click to expand...

I have tried to pin them down on that...if the unborn is just like a born person to them, how do they rationalize abortion in cases of rape, incest, or some medically-prompted cases?

You cant kill a toddler that's the product of rape or incest. You cant kill a 3 month old to harvest an organ to save its mother.

There are a few that are consistent on this point, but they are in the minority.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
I really don't think they believe that at all. That's why so many of them think it's ok to kill fetuses if the woman didn't enjoy the conception, but not any other time -- not even if it's hurting her. What sort of sense does that make, if they actually believe a fetus is a person?

I think all that crap about personhood is just their excuse, honestly. I don't buy it at all.

Creating an underclass is the entire point of it. They don't like women having power over their own lives. And if you look at every policy they support, you will see that the only thing they have in common is that they disempower women. They don't protect life, or protect children, or protect healthy pregnancies -- they don't support any of those things consistently. The only consistent thread is disempowering women.
Click to expand...
If they are true believers.....they would assure that once born, the child had what it needed to live in a safe and secure environment.
 
Lursa said:
I have tried to pin them down on that...if the unborn is just like a born person to them, how do they rationalize abortion in cases of rape, incest, or some medically-prompted cases?

You cant kill a toddler that's the product of rape or incest. You cant kill a 3 month old to harvest an organ to save its mother.

There are a few that are consistent on this point, but they are in the minority.
Click to expand...

Yup. But of course, the truly consistent ones are also the ones who seem the most likely to be abusive or violent, because the only way to argue that there are no circumstances under which abortion should ever be performed is to demote women to the level of inanimate objects who aren't even entitled to life-saving medical care. The people here who believe that are known to attack and verbally abuse posters, and the ones in real life often have some pretty messed up behaviors in their history.

So the argument is almost always against either an irrational and intense misogyny, or some sort of sick abusive nightmare. Both tend to put me off my appetite.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yup. But of course, the truly consistent ones are also the ones who seem the most likely to be abusive or violent, because the only way to argue that there are no circumstances under which abortion should ever be performed is to demote women to the level of inanimate objects who aren't even entitled to life-saving medical care. The people here who believe that are known to attack and verbally abuse posters, and the ones in real life often have some pretty messed up behaviors in their history.

So the argument is almost always against either an irrational and intense misogyny, or some sort of sick abusive nightmare. Both tend to put me off my appetite.
Click to expand...

I hadnt really thought of it that way. I have further thoughts on it but dont want to go off on a tangent in the thread.
 
joG said:
Trust is bad. Control is better.
Click to expand...
joG said:
Caring means socialisation.

Controlling does work, if society is so structured. It won't stop all aberrant behavior. But the larger number of people respond to peer group pressure and transparency. The thing is that we don't appreciate being monitored.
Click to expand...
Lursa said:
This is really a fascinating study in valuing the unborn to the extent of according it rights that supersede those of all the other (born) people in a society. Giving up most or all personal liberties in order to ensure the full gestation of the unborn. (who would then immediately start losing those "rights" as soon as they were born)
Click to expand...
year2late said:
I am asking you for a pragmatic approach.

How would your idea work?
Click to expand...

I'd love to know too. I'm also interested in his perspective that people should give up most or all their personal liberties in order to ensure the gestation of the unborn. Interested in the justification for that.
 
year2late said:
With all the brouhaha over Moore's issues with teenage girls....the narrative became about abortion. So voters were faced with supporting someone who went after underage teen girls (as a thirty something) or someone who is pro-choice.

I have often thought that the pro-life movement does little to decrease abortions on a larger scale. Individuals may be effected, but not larger groups of people.

I am emphatically pro-choice, but personally am against abortion. So I am interested in seeing the numbers of abortion decrease.

So my question is this.....in real life....what political ideology has the greatest history of and REALISTIC capacity for reducing actual numbers of abortions?
Click to expand...

I think that the Clinton mantra of “safe, legal, and rare” could be a template that might bring much of the left and right
together on this issue.

But I have a question for those who would overturn Roe: if it happens, and states can prohibit abortions, who goes to jail? What is the thinking in the pro-life community?
 
joG said:
Continuous observation by chaperones work best.
Click to expand...

How do you do that???

That assumes that you never let the potential "perps" ;) out of your sight EVER.
 
year2late said:
With all the brouhaha over Moore's issues with teenage girls....the narrative became about abortion. So voters were faced with supporting someone who went after underage teen girls (as a thirty something) or someone who is pro-choice.

I have often thought that the pro-life movement does little to decrease abortions on a larger scale. Individuals may be effected, but not larger groups of people.

I am emphatically pro-choice, but personally am against abortion. So I am interested in seeing the numbers of abortion decrease.

So my question is this.....in real life....what political ideology has the greatest history of and REALISTIC capacity for reducing actual numbers of abortions?
Click to expand...

It is rather simple. You support life and advocate for it. You don't advocate for death.

Liberals too many times advocate for the wrong thing. Conservatives were the ones that led the way in decreasing death from Grid, Ebola, Sars, swine, etc...

I don't believe in human eugenics.
 
Bucky said:
It is rather simple. You support life and advocate for it. You don't advocate for death.

Liberals too many times advocate for the wrong thing. Conservatives were the ones that led the way in decreasing death from Grid, Ebola, Sars, swine, etc...

I don't believe in human eugenics.
Click to expand...

Why not take a look at Ronald Reagans inaction in the early stages of AIDS. He and his administration were warned ad nauseum about what was happening. Pandering to the Moral Majority led the way alright.............just not the way you are thinking.
 
year2late said:
Why not take a look at Ronald Reagans inaction in the early stages of AIDS. He and his administration were warned ad nauseum about what was happening. Pandering to the Moral Majority led the way alright.............just not the way you are thinking.
Click to expand...

The majority of people getting aids were liberals. Are you not denying this? Aids was caused by liberal policies and procedures and spread by people of liberal lifestyles.

AIDS was nearly eradicated during the George W. Bush administration.

Reagan took a smart approach to the outbreak. It was the liberal aisle that wanted to cage like animals anyone that had HIV or AIDS...Treat them like lab rights.
 
Bucky said:
The majority of people getting aids were liberals. Are you not denying this? Aids was caused by liberal policies and procedures and spread by people of liberal lifestyles.

AIDS was nearly eradicated during the George W. Bush administration.

Reagan took a smart approach to the outbreak. It was the liberal aisle that wanted to cage like animals anyone that had HIV or AIDS...Treat them like lab rights.
Click to expand...
Holy crap....this is the biggest whopper of them all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Bucky said:
The majority of people getting aids were liberals. Are you not denying this? Aids was caused by liberal policies and procedures and spread by people of liberal lifestyles.

AIDS was nearly eradicated during the George W. Bush administration.

Reagan took a smart approach to the outbreak. It was the liberal aisle that wanted to cage like animals anyone that had HIV or AIDS...Treat them like lab rights.
Click to expand...

say_wha.gif
 
Bucky said:
The majority of people getting aids were liberals. Are you not denying this? Aids was caused by liberal policies and procedures and spread by people of liberal lifestyles.

AIDS was nearly eradicated during the George W. Bush administration.

Reagan took a smart approach to the outbreak. It was the liberal aisle that wanted to cage like animals anyone that had HIV or AIDS...Treat them like lab rights.
Click to expand...
How the **** did you come up with this retarded crap?
Then again, considering your past posts it seems only par for the course.
 
Bucky said:
The majority of people getting aids were liberals. Are you not denying this? Aids was caused by liberal policies and procedures and spread by people of liberal lifestyles.

AIDS was nearly eradicated during the George W. Bush administration.

Reagan took a smart approach to the outbreak. It was the liberal aisle that wanted to cage like animals anyone that had HIV or AIDS...Treat them like lab rights.
Click to expand...

You left out 'on Neptune'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom