• 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 hurts women

Nobody celebrates an abortion. We are not morbid. Do people celebrate funerals??

An abortion happens wheb unhappy women who are living miserable lives somehow make the decision killing a fetus is the answer.

It is quite sad and terrible.

LOL

Women enjoying sex and accidentally getting pregnant are "living miserable lives?" Quite the delusion there.

However an abortion may enable them to avoid a miserable life in the future, for themselves and their families.
 
LOL

Women enjoying sex and accidentally getting pregnant are "living miserable lives?" Quite the delusion there.

However an abortion may enable them to avoid a miserable life in the future, for themselves and their families.

Around 70% percent of the population has access to 1% of the resources. There are over 50 million people in poverty in the USA. The last thing anyone needs is for pro lifers to push people even more.
 
NITPICK: sometimes a fetus is female. You really should have used the word "woman" or "person" (a fetus is never either), instead of "female".

You're right...that's a nitpick. I guess I resist identifying fetuses sexually because it doesn't matter. Nothing changes by that determination unless you're a potential Chinese parent in the Eighties. Whatever sexuality that fetus has when they finally become a person, during pregnancy the fetus is part of a female.
 
Quite so, it's better just to kill them before you hurt them, lol.

Saves the kid from a terrible life at least...
 
LOL

Women enjoying sex and accidentally getting pregnant are "living miserable lives?" Quite the delusion there.

However an abortion may enable them to avoid a miserable life in the future, for themselves and their families.

They are choosing to end there child's life. You have to be mentally disturbed to think they actually want to do that. To make that choice voluntarily shows a miserable life.
 
I thought you said abortions were unwanted?

They are unwanted through human nature. It is not human natures intent for an abortion to be aborted. It takes an evil force again, for a mother to actually want to kill her children. Something has gone wrong, very very wrong.

Look at the animal kingdom.
 
They are unwanted through human nature.
NOT JUST HUMAN NATURE. You are not looking at a Big Enough Picture. All through Nature most species routinely generate more offspring than can be supported by Nature --and therefore most offspring Naturally die or get killed. A pair of oysters might have as many as 100 million offspring over several breeding seasons, but only 2 or 3 of them (as in "just plain ordinary two or three") are likely to survive to eventually have offspring themselves.

THEREFORE WHEN HUMANS ABORT OFFSPRING, that Choice can very often be traced to a lack of resources for supporting offspring (not to mention that that lack is often caused by abortion opponents). The key difference is that humans simply have greater ability (than oysters or most other species) to understand Natural phenomena such as the huge normal death rate for the offspring of most species.

FACT: Biologically, humans are not significantly more special than any other species. Humans are known to be susceptible to delusions of grandeur on that topic, but Facts are Facts --it is not human BIOLOGY that makes humans special. Meanwhile, Evolution has largely focused on biological interactions between species (eating, for example, involves accessing edible things, usually other life-forms).

It is not human natures intent
YOUR IGNORANCE GETS YOU NOWHERE. You cannot support that claim with the slightest bit of Objectively Verifiable Evidence. It is very Natural for life-forms to have offspring. It is Human-Natural to understand consequences of actions! And, often, to make Choices regarding those consequences. If you build a house that gets struck by lightning and burns to the ground, do you rebuild it or do you build in a different place? We know that different storms yield lightnings that usually strike different places, so it is probably safe enough to rebuild the house in the original place. But what if a flood had destroyed the house, instead? We know that floods usually strike the same places, and so building in a different place would be the wiser choice.

WITH RESPECT TO OFFSPRING, humans know they cannot survive without lots of support. Plus, we know that the world is overpopulated with humans, such that the more there are, the more difficult it is to obtain resources to support even-more humans. And we know that 2/3 of all human offspring Naturally die before birth. AND we know that the species is in no danger of extinction from a too-small gene pool.

THEREFORE ABORTION IS A TOTALLY RATIONAL OPTION. I've challenged various abortion opponents to provide even one reason why an average unborn human must survive in this day-and-age, and so far not a single reason has yet been offered. Will you be the first? (You can ignore the 2/3 that Naturally die before birth, and focus on the roughly 150 million pregnancies every year that don't Naturally miscarry. Otherwise the "average" unborn human would be included in the 2/3 that Naturally die!)
 
NOT JUST HUMAN NATURE. You are not looking at a Big Enough Picture. All through Nature most species routinely generate more offspring than can be supported by Nature --and therefore most offspring Naturally die or get killed. A pair of oysters might have as many as 100 million offspring over several breeding seasons, but only 2 or 3 of them (as in "just plain ordinary two or three") are likely to survive to eventually have offspring themselves.

THEREFORE WHEN HUMANS ABORT OFFSPRING, that Choice can very often be traced to a lack of resources for supporting offspring (not to mention that that lack is often caused by abortion opponents). The key difference is that humans simply have greater ability (than oysters or most other species) to understand Natural phenomena such as the huge normal death rate for the offspring of most species.

FACT: Biologically, humans are not significantly more special than any other species. Humans are known to be susceptible to delusions of grandeur on that topic, but Facts are Facts --it is not human BIOLOGY that makes humans special. Meanwhile, Evolution has largely focused on biological interactions between species (eating, for example, involves accessing edible things, usually other life-forms).


YOUR IGNORANCE GETS YOU NOWHERE. You cannot support that claim with the slightest bit of Objectively Verifiable Evidence. It is very Natural for life-forms to have offspring. It is Human-Natural to understand consequences of actions! And, often, to make Choices regarding those consequences. If you build a house that gets struck by lightning and burns to the ground, do you rebuild it or do you build in a different place? We know that different storms yield lightnings that usually strike different places, so it is probably safe enough to rebuild the house in the original place. But what if a flood had destroyed the house, instead? We know that floods usually strike the same places, and so building in a different place would be the wiser choice.

WITH RESPECT TO OFFSPRING, humans know they cannot survive without lots of support. Plus, we know that the world is overpopulated with humans, such that the more there are, the more difficult it is to obtain resources to support even-more humans. And we know that 2/3 of all human offspring Naturally die before birth. AND we know that the species is in no danger of extinction from a too-small gene pool.

THEREFORE ABORTION IS A TOTALLY RATIONAL OPTION. I've challenged various abortion opponents to provide even one reason why an average unborn human must survive in this day-and-age, and so far not a single reason has yet been offered. Will you be the first? (You can ignore the 2/3 that Naturally die before birth, and focus on the roughly 150 million pregnancies every year that don't Naturally miscarry. Otherwise the "average" unborn human would be included in the 2/3 that Naturally die!)

I have actually done the research and don't get my answers from the clouds.

The majority reason why women have an abortion is because they feel the baby would be an inconvenience to them. Perhaps they have a boyfriend that threatened to leave them, a boss that wouldn't promote them, etc..

The number of "medically necessary" abortions are few to none. In fact, the number of women that get an abortion because they don't want stretch marks or lose their figure is significantly higher than medically necessary abortions.
 
I have actually done the research and don't get my answers from the clouds.
THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP BLATHERING STUPID LIES? Is it because the only places you "research" are biased anti-abortion sources?

The majority reason why women have an abortion is because they feel the baby would be an inconvenience to them.
AND HOW DOES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES FOR SUPPORTING OFFSPRING? Consider a rich person, who could pay for all the resources imaginable, including things like a wet nurse and a nanny and multiple private tutors. Does the average woman living in a ghetto have those resources? No? Then why do you separate "convenience" from "resources"???

Perhaps they have a boyfriend that threatened to leave them, a boss that wouldn't promote them, etc..
OTHER FACTORS UNRELATED TO RESOURCES. First and foremost, offspring require resources. Period. And all through Nature, offspring die when resources are inadequate.

The number of "medically necessary" abortions are few to none.
ANOTHER STUPID LIE. There are thousands every year. However, when speaking relative to abortions for other reasons, medically necessary abortions are indeed comparatively rare.

In fact, the number of women that get an abortion because they don't want stretch marks or lose their figure is significantly higher than medically necessary abortions.
SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE GLAD OF. After all, to whatever extent "vanity" has a genetic component, those women are slowly weeding it out of the population!
 
They are unwanted through human nature. It is not human natures intent for an abortion to be aborted. It takes an evil force again, for a mother to actually want to kill her children. Something has gone wrong, very very wrong.

Look at the animal kingdom.

Once again, you are wrong. In nature, mother's often kill their offspring if their lives or the lives of older offspring are endangered by things like drought and famine. This is because nature always preserves the organism with the highest chance of surviving and reproducing. These are the older established reproductive adults, not the unborn, and not juveniles.

Also, some animals have mechanisms where, under stress, the female adsorbs (yes, spelled correctly) the fetuses she is carrying. Also in order to make sure she has the strength to survive to reproduce another day.

In nature, the reproducing female always takes precedence as the most valuable of commodities. Her life and future contributions to the gene pool are more important than one litter or one infant.
 
They are unwanted through human nature. It is not human natures intent for an abortion to be aborted. It takes an evil force again, for a mother to actually want to kill her children. Something has gone wrong, very very wrong.

Look at the animal kingdom.

If you really want to look at the animal kingdom.....really....since the animal cannot go to a Planned Parenthood......they do the deed after birth. Infanticide is not uncommon in the animal kingdom.

Her is a little something.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-some-mammals-kill-babies-own-kind-180953318/

https://www.quora.com/Do-any-other-animal-species-voluntarily-kill-their-unborn-or-newborn

Seems like desire for abortion might just be a way for the human animal to say that necessary resources are lacking to introduce a child into the home.
 
The number of "medically necessary" abortions are few to none. In fact, the number of women that get an abortion because they don't want stretch marks or lose their figure is significantly higher than medically necessary abortions.

Please cite your source.
 
I have actually done the research and don't get my answers from the clouds.

The majority reason why women have an abortion is because they feel the baby would be an inconvenience to them. Perhaps they have a boyfriend that threatened to leave them, a boss that wouldn't promote them, etc..

The number of "medically necessary" abortions are few to none. In fact, the number of women that get an abortion because they don't want stretch marks or lose their figure is significantly higher than medically necessary abortions.

According to this article 2.8 percent of abortions are medically necessary. (granted the stat is old, but I cannot imagine it is too different)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/

But abortion due to fear of stretch marks and figure loss significantly higher than medically necessary?

So please, back up your claims.

BTW, I am still waiting for you to back up your claim that Bush nearly eradicated AIDS. Could you work on that as well?
 
What's wrong with it?

Killing someone because you'd do a bad job and make their life terrible? It's a **** argument. There's plenty of other arguments to be made, but to say "Well I'd do a bad job and make their life bad, so might as well kill them instead" is just about as intellectually lazy and ignorant of an argument one could make.
 
Killing someone
A STUPID LIE. No unborn human is capable of qualifying as a "someone". The Fact Is (because scientific stuff is different from legal stuff), persons are made, not born, and the conversion of a human animal into a human person happens significantly after birth, and this is what happens when the conversion process is botched by ignorant abortion opponents who think that "normal human development is automatic when left alone".

It's a **** argument.
EXACTLY. Your anti-abortion argument is exactly that. Just like every other idiotic/worthless anti-abortion argument out there, relative to this day-and-age.

There's plenty of other arguments to be made,
NONE OF WHICH, FROM ABORTION OPPONENTS, ARE WORTH THE MENTAL EFFORT IT TOOK TO DEVISE THEM. There is NO Objectively Valid rationale to oppose abortion in this day-and-age.
 
Nobody celebrates an abortion. We are not morbid. Do people celebrate funerals??

An abortion happens wheb unhappy women who are living miserable lives somehow make the decision killing a fetus is the answer.

It is quite sad and terrible.

Really. Are you female? Does that very wide brush encompass females that were raped and do not wish to carry the child that results in that rape? How about incest victims that do not want to carry their dad's or their brothers kid that was planted there by force?
 
Killing someone because you'd do a bad job and make their life terrible? It's a **** argument. There's plenty of other arguments to be made, but to say "Well I'd do a bad job and make their life bad, so might as well kill them instead" is just about as intellectually lazy and ignorant of an argument one could make.

It's implied that they wouldnt give it up for adoption and would indeed make it's life a living hell. So yes, I'd consider never having that kid rather than that alternative. I see nothing wrong with that choice, if that is the mental perspective of the woman/couple. As a matter of fact, I do think it's for the best.
 
Last edited:
It's implied that they wouldnt give it up for adoption and would indeed make it's life a living hell. So yes, I'd consider never having that kid rather than that alternative. I see nothing wrong with that choice, if that is the mental perspective of the woman/couple. As a matter of fact, I do think it's for the best.

It just opens up a lot of other options. If one is going to be bad at something and in the commission of being bad at it, makes someone else's life worse; then it's better to just kill the other. That's the premise of this "better dead than possibly not chipper" argument.

As I said, there's plenty of other arguments to be had, but that specific argument is complete crap.
 
It just opens up a lot of other options. If one is going to be bad at something and in the commission of being bad at it, makes someone else's life worse; then it's better to just kill the other. That's the premise of this "better dead than possibly not chipper" argument.

As I said, there's plenty of other arguments to be had, but that specific argument is complete crap.

Why does it open up options for other people? Please explain that.

It's a personal decision that has very negative consequences for the mother, possibly a father, and it seems that the consequences for the unborn are negative either way.

Abortion is pretty specific. Pregnancy risks the life of the woman, for one thing.

I think what you're implying is that quality of life doenst matter, everyone is better off born. And that's not necessarily everyone's perspective.
 
Why does it open up options for other people? Please explain that.

It's a personal decision that has very negative consequences for the mother, possibly a father, and it seems that the consequences for the unborn are negative either way.

Abortion is pretty specific. Pregnancy risks the life of the woman, for one thing.

I think what you're implying is that quality of life doenst matter, everyone is better off born. And that's not necessarily everyone's perspective.

Most people would like a crack at life. The other option is death.
 
Back
Top Bottom