• 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!

pro-life[W:1119]

Re: pro-life

Scrabaholic said:
Anti choicers would force it to be born. It doesn't get a say in that either.

If it is in MY body, then it's MY choice whether to leave it there and put my body thru the trauma of gestation and childbirth or not.
Click to expand...

The child's body is its own, is it not? And if it cannot speak for itself, isn't it truly helpless? Who then is to stand for those who cannot defend themselves?
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
The carelessness is sex outside of marriage.
Click to expand...

Married couples seek abortion too.

In fact there was a study done regarding uuplanned pregnancies that were ended with an abortion among married couples and those couples with committed relationships.

44 percent of the time it was the man who first brought up an abortion.
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
The carelessness is sex outside of marriage.
Click to expand...

It's not careless, it's a wonderful thing shared between 2 people. Why on earth shouldnt we enjoy it?

Most people do use birth control. But unless it's surgical, no bc is 100%. Accidents happen.

What about the married couples that choose abortion? If they're not ready for kids yet, they're still using birth control and still may have accidents. And many married women have abortions.

When you consider how many times Americans have sex every day, the failure rate is still pretty small, and most of those women still choose to have their babies. The abortion rate goes down every year but believe me, people are not going to start having less sex. It's the strongest urge on the planet. And well worth enjoying.
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
The carelessness is sex outside of marriage. And I agree, the life is far more than just breathing. The life is life from the moment of conception.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with sex outside of marriage.
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
The child's body is its own, is it not? And if it cannot speak for itself, isn't it truly helpless? Who then is to stand for those who cannot defend themselves?
Click to expand...

If it can't speak for itself, then the woman's who's body it is inside of and attached to gets to decide for it.
 
Re: pro-life

Scrabaholic said:
If it can't speak for itself, then the woman's who's body it is inside of and attached to gets to decide for it.
Click to expand...

So if I'm I happen to be a mute person who can't write, does that mean that because I can't defend myself that whomever's home I live in should decide every aspect of my life?
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
So if I'm I happen to be a mute person who can't write, does that mean that because I can't defend myself that whomever's home I live in should decide every aspect of my life?
Click to expand...

No , it means your legal guardian could make medical decisions for you.
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
The carelessness is sex outside of marriage. And I agree, the life is far more than just breathing. The life is life from the moment of conception.
Click to expand...

No its not. Unwanted pregnancies happen within marriage.
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
So if I'm I happen to be a mute person who can't write, does that mean that because I can't defend myself that whomever's home I live in should decide every aspect of my life?
Click to expand...

A couple decades ago there was a criminal case of one homeless person who murdered another homeless person. The accused was mute and fully illiterate, raising the question of how could a trial be held when there was no way to even inform him of the charge, regardless of a lawyer appointed?

After some diversionary actions to keep the press off it, the guy was released on a PR bond and the case never brought to trial. The legal hurdles were just too great.
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
So if I'm I happen to be a mute person who can't write, does that mean that because I can't defend myself that whomever's home I live in should decide every aspect of my life?
Click to expand...

Are you INSIDE OF AND ATTACHED TO someone's body?
 
Shmuel Wyckoff said:
The only question up for debate when discussing abortion is whether a fetus is a human life. If a fetus is a human life then you have no right to kill it. The most consistent pro-life position is that life begins at conception. Once the child is conceived, it has different DNA from the mother, has a predetermined blood type that is separate from the mother, and is a completely separate being than the mother. What must first be established is that life begins at any time when the baby is in the womb rather than after it has exited the birth canal. If a baby has already been in the womb for nine months and is fully viable, but will be born overdue, what is the difference between that baby in the womb 5 minutes before it is born and 5 minutes after it is born? Obviously life can be established when the baby is still in the womb. If it is true that life begins at sometime during the pregnancy and not after birth, then the belief that life begins at conception is the most consistent position because anytime there is a line drawn during the pregnancy that rules the fetus as not a life, that line can be applied to adults. For example, if it is to be established that life begins at viability, then what would be the problem with killing people who are on life support? If the start of a heartbeat is established as the beginning of life, then what would be the problem with killing people who rely on artificial devices to keep up their heartbeat? The most consistent position is that life begins at conception.

The libertarian argument against abortion is compelling but flawed. The best pro-choice argument that I have heard is that even though a fetus is a human life the government should not be enforcing 'positive obligations' on women. The 'positive obligations' being the fact that the mother has to spend more money on different types of care and a different diet. This argument is flawed because the only way for the mother to relieve herself of these 'positive obligations' is to actively terminate a human life. Surely the government has the right to mandate that people not actively kill others even if there will be a 'positive obligation' enforced by the government.

A weaker pro-choice argument is that if the mother can't afford to raise a child she should be allowed to have an abortion. This is not valid because she can just transfer custody of the baby to adoptive parents or child protective services. Also the mother's right to not spend money does not trump the baby's right to life.

The only case in which an abortion would be ethical is when the baby is a direct threat to the mother's life. An abortion in this case is moral because the very existence of the baby threatens the mother's life and the baby should be legally viewed as potential murderer.
Click to expand...

Fetuses and embryos are NOT persons; therefore, they have none of the rights normally associated with "personhood".

Abortion is clearly a complicated moral issue, on which there is considerable disagreement. Some people reject abortion as an option for others, but would want to retain the option for themselves. This is why in a diverse society, the only viable option is for the individual to make the choice in consultation with her own morality, conscience, and faith.
 
jamesrodom said:
Fetuses and embryos are NOT persons; therefore, they have none of the rights normally associated with "personhood".

Abortion is clearly a complicated moral issue, on which there is considerable disagreement. Some people reject abortion as an option for others, but would want to retain the option for themselves. This is why in a diverse society, the only viable option is for the individual to make the choice in consultation with her own morality, conscience, and faith.
Click to expand...


How do you personally define person and personhood? A definition would be helpful in understanding your argument.
 
caritas said:
How do you personally define person and personhood? A definition would be helpful in understanding your argument.
Click to expand...

Let me help you with that.

U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 8

“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant”

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)
Click to expand...
 
So to be a person you have to be born and a member of the species homo sapiens? I'm guessing that means that you think homo sapiens that have not been born yet are not persons so they have no personhood correct.
 
caritas said:
So to be a person you have to be born and a member of the species homo sapiens? I'm guessing that means that you think homo sapiens that have not been born yet are not persons so they have no personhood correct.
Click to expand...

An unborn is not a person under U.S. law.

From an outline of the Roe vs Wade decision.


A fetus in not a PERSON under U.S. law.
Persons have rights under the Constitution, and it is clear that the authors of the Constitution and its amendments did not regard fetuses as persons.
In order to say that fetuses are persons under U.S. law, the Constitution would have to be amended to say so. Therefore the intentional killing of a fetus does not have same legal status as the killing of a person.
Click to expand...

Read more:

Roe v Wade - edited text


Roe v Wade - edited text
 
caritas said:
So to be a person you have to be born and a member of the species homo sapiens? I'm guessing that means that you think homo sapiens that have not been born yet are not persons so they have no personhood correct.
Click to expand...

Correct. That's what he posted. That's exactly what the US Legal Code that he posted spelled out.
 
caritas said:
How do you personally define person and personhood? A definition would be helpful in understanding your argument.
Click to expand...

A human being from the moment of birth onward.

Forget abortion for a moment, and consider whether fetuses and embryos ever have had legal recognition. With rare exceptions, the answer is 'no'. They can't inherit property. They're not counted in the federal census. Parents can take a tax deduction for the year in which a baby is born, but not the year in which a baby was conceived. Miscarriages don't result in the issuance of death certificates. Even when abortion was illegal, the crime of having or performing one was a misdemeanor, not a felony. Abortion was never considered 'homicide' or its equivalent.

The point is that there is general widespread agreement in society that fetuses and embryos aren't persons. It's really only in the realm of abortion that anyone ever argues otherwise. There is otherwise widespread, long-standing agreement and consensus as to the difference between a fetus and a person.
 
Last edited:
jamesrodom said:
A human being from the moment of birth onward.

Forget abortion for a moment, and consider whether fetuses and embryos ever have had legal recognition. With rare exceptions, the answer is 'no'. They can't inherit property. They're not counted in the federal census. Parents can take a tax deduction for the year in which a baby is born, but not the year in which a baby was conceived. Miscarriages don't result in the issuance of death certificates. Even when abortion was illegal, the crime of having or performing one was a misdemeanor, not a felony. Abortion was never considered 'homicide' or its equivalent.

The point is that there is general widespread agreement in society that fetuses and embryos aren't persons. It's really only in the realm of abortion that anyone ever argues otherwise. There is otherwise widespread, long-standing agreement and consensus as to the difference between a fetus and a person.
Click to expand...

There’s actually a long list of unintended consequences for giving the yet to be born personhood. Some years back I posted a list, which took two thread pages. The social impacts aren’t minor.
 
jamesrodom said:
A human being from the moment of birth onward.

Forget abortion for a moment, and consider whether fetuses and embryos ever have had legal recognition. With rare exceptions, the answer is 'no'. They can't inherit property. They're not counted in the federal census. Parents can take a tax deduction for the year in which a baby is born, but not the year in which a baby was conceived. Miscarriages don't result in the issuance of death certificates. Even when abortion was illegal, the crime of having or performing one was a misdemeanor, not a felony. Abortion was never considered 'homicide' or its equivalent.

The point is that there is general widespread agreement in society that fetuses and embryos aren't persons. It's really only in the realm of abortion that anyone ever argues otherwise. There is otherwise widespread, long-standing agreement and consensus as to the difference between a fetus and a person.
Click to expand...

I don't really like the way you put your argument. It seems like you are saying fetuses don't have rights because that is what the law says. The law is mutable and changes. For instance if someone in the US about 200 years ago could say that balck people are only 3/5ths of a person because that is what the law says. There was also as you put it wide spread agreement in society that blacks were not persons. The point I'm trying to make is just because the law says something doesn't automatically make it true. To me what makes someone a person should be based on something more scientific that is factual and not subject to opinion. The nazis didn't think jewish people were people either they were compared to vermin like rats.
 
caritas said:
I don't really like the way you put your argument. It seems like you are saying fetuses don't have rights because that is what the law says. The law is mutable and changes. For instance if someone in the US about 200 years ago could say that balck people are only 3/5ths of a person because that is what the law says. There was also as you put it wide spread agreement in society that blacks were not persons. The point I'm trying to make is just because the law says something doesn't automatically make it true. To me what makes someone a person should be based on something more scientific that is factual and not subject to opinion. The nazis didn't think jewish people were people either they were compared to vermin like rats.
Click to expand...

The unborn were never counted as persons in the US even before Roe.

Blacks were always counted as persons.

Slaves were counted as 3/5ths only for the U.S. census.

But they were always person. The unborn were never persons and never had any rights.
 
caritas said:
I don't really like the way you put your argument. It seems like you are saying fetuses don't have rights because that is what the law says. The law is mutable and changes. For instance if someone in the US about 200 years ago could say that balck people are only 3/5ths of a person because that is what the law says. There was also as you put it wide spread agreement in society that blacks were not persons. The point I'm trying to make is just because the law says something doesn't automatically make it true. To me what makes someone a person should be based on something more scientific that is factual and not subject to opinion. The nazis didn't think jewish people were people either they were compared to vermin like rats.
Click to expand...

Well, it's the law that reinforces our rights. Of course, the law is mutable and subject to change, but as I said, the overwhelming historical consensus is that rights were generally not granted to anyone/anything not yet born.

I'm very familiar with the analogies about Jewish people and African Americans, and they are mistaken. The two groups in question were considered inferior humans, but still human. Apples and oranges.

Certainly there are unjust laws, and it's true that something isn't true just because the law so indicates. But we are a society of laws and the relevant political argument is whether abortion should be legal.. The morality of abortion is another subject altogether, more appropriate for discussion in a religious or philosophical context.

<< To me what makes someone a person should be based on something more scientific that is factual and not subject to opinion. >>

But these aren't scientific or factual questions; they very much ARE the result of our opinions.
 
Last edited:
caritas said:
I don't really like the way you put your argument. It seems like you are saying fetuses don't have rights because that is what the law says. The law is mutable and changes. For instance if someone in the US about 200 years ago could say that balck people are only 3/5ths of a person because that is what the law says. There was also as you put it wide spread agreement in society that blacks were not persons. The point I'm trying to make is just because the law says something doesn't automatically make it true. To me what makes someone a person should be based on something more scientific that is factual and not subject to opinion. The nazis didn't think jewish people were people either they were compared to vermin like rats.
Click to expand...

So then you'd have to make your own case, with a legal basis, for the courts to consider personhood and rights for the unborn. (Not biological, those are known and already considered and rejected). SCOTUS considered the unborn in the past and did not find them equal nor recognize any rights for them. So...what you propose differently, that they consider, to re-evaluate their decision?

Those other you mentioned, blacks and women, were fully capable of exercising their rights once they were recognized. The unborn cannot exercise a single right independently. They cannot do so physically or practically or legally or even consciously...every single thing is intertwined with the mother, which demonstrates that the unborn are clearly not equal with born people.
 
caritas said:
I don't really like the way you put your argument. It seems like you are saying fetuses don't have rights because that is what the law says. The law is mutable and changes. For instance if someone in the US about 200 years ago could say that balck people are only 3/5ths of a person because that is what the law says. There was also as you put it wide spread agreement in society that blacks were not persons. The point I'm trying to make is just because the law says something doesn't automatically make it true. To me what makes someone a person should be based on something more scientific that is factual and not subject to opinion. The nazis didn't think jewish people were people either they were compared to vermin like rats.
Click to expand...

Do you have any insight into ANY "unintended consequences" of granting the yet to be born "personhood rights"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom