• 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!

[W:103]Abortion is legal

And what about someone who lives in a comatose state. Is it an individual or not?
If what makes the difference between an individual and a not-individual is the ability of one’s organism to live indipendently, what about those who need some sort of external forces to live, like someone who lives in a comatose state?

A person who is comatose is not living inside a person and depending on that person’s life forces to keep it alive.

If a pregnant woman dies and the body no longer functions before the unborn is viable the unborn will not survive even if quickly removed and given life support and or / the very best medical care.
 
A person who is comatose is not living inside a person and depending on that person’s life forces to keep it alive.

If a pregnant woman dies and the body no longer functions before the unborn is viable the unborn will not survive even if quickly removed and given life support and or / the very best medical care.

Yes, if the fetus is a certain age...no matter what technology, it will not survive outside the womb.
 
Who supports your mothers right to have a abortion?

Abortion is legal and its a core right of women to use to decide on the size or shape of their family.

If I was to become a single mother, I would have a abortion. Why can a man walk away from being a father and the mother is forced to raise the child?

Do you also support that it's a woman's sole responsibility to pay for any choice she makes related to her body or the results of those choices?

She picked him. One would think that if a woman chose to spread her legs for someone she'd be a lot more careful about the type person he is.
 
A person who is comatose is not living inside a person and depending on that person’s life forces to keep it alive.

If a pregnant woman dies and the body no longer functions before the unborn is viable the unborn will not survive even if quickly removed and given life support and or / the very best medical care.

A person that is comatose is depending on someone else to do things for him/her that he/she would otherwise do if they weren't in a coma. Many of those things can be the difference between life an death. Does that mean, as a society, we should support "aborting" those in comas?
 
A person that is comatose is depending on someone else to do things for him/her that he/she would otherwise do if they weren't in a coma. Many of those things can be the difference between life an death. Does that mean, as a society, we should support "aborting" those in comas?

Abortion is the expulsion of fetal material before viabilty. Spontaneous abortion is the medical term for what many laypersons call a miscarriage. Comatose persons are viable and they are not inside a woman’s body nor are they physically dependent on that woman’s bodiliy functions for nourishment, oxygen and excreatment functions to stay alive.
 
Last edited:
Abortion is the expulsion of fetal material before viabilty. Spontaneous abortion is the medical term for what many laypersons call a miscarriage. Comatose persons are viable and they are not inside a woman’s body nor are they physically dependent on that woman’s bodiliy functions for nourishment, oxygen and excreatment functions to stay alive.

You're not expelling it when the process includes what amounts to a vacuum cleaner sucking it out.

That you equate something that happens without the control of anyone to something that involves a willful act proves you're an idiot.

A comatose person that relies on others to do things he/she should otherwise do if not in a coma isn't viable. By definition, they aren't existing independently. Viability doesn't refer only to an unborn child, it refers to anything or anyone that relies on others. Look it up.
 
You're not expelling it when the process includes what amounts to a vacuum cleaner sucking it out.

That you equate something that happens without the control of anyone to something that involves a willful act proves you're an idiot.

A comatose person that relies on others to do things he/she should otherwise do if not in a coma isn't viable. By definition, they aren't existing independently. Viability doesn't refer only to an unborn child, it refers to anything or anyone that relies on others. Look it up.

This is the abortion forum you are posting in.
You were comparing an unborn with born person on life support.
Your anology fails since viability of an unborn was described by the court as : the Court sustained a statute defining viability as a stage where the fetus's life ``may be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''.
 
Last edited:
Why can't a man abort his right to fatherhood then? Men may walk away emotionally and physically, but they will be legally bound by courts and wage garnishments to provide child support. Early term abortion within the first couple of weeks before major development is ok with me. Anything beyond that is barbaric and should not be a "right."

Aborting a fetus is wrong but sentencing a walking breathing human to the death penalty is ok? The republicans claim they want government out of their personal business but yet seem to want to force government to get involved in others personal business. What gives?
 
This is the abortion forum you are posting in.
You were comparing an unborn with born person on life support.
Your anology fails since viability of an unborn was described by the court as : the Court sustained a statute defining viability as a stage where the fetus's life ``may be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''.

That claim of viability applied to an unborn baby. You want to apply it to everything. A unborn baby that relies on the mother for survival is no different than a person in a coma who relies on others for the same thing.
 
That claim of viability applied to an unborn baby. You want to apply it to everything. A unborn baby that relies on the mother for survival is no different than a person in a coma who relies on others for the same thing.

It is diffent.
If a pregnant woman dies before the unborn is viable and she no no longer has bodiliy functions the unborn will not survive even if quickly removed and given the vest best medical infant/technological support available.

If the unborn was viable and the pregnant woman dies it can be quickly removed given medical infant/technological the infant will most likely survive the dad, a nurse, a grandparent or another person can care for the infant.
 
Last edited:
It is diffent.
If a pregnant woman dies before the unborn is viable and she no no longer has bodiliy functions the unborn will not survive even if quickly removed and given the vest best medical infant/technological support available.

If the unborn was viable and the pregnant woman dies it can be quickly removed given medical infant/technological the infant will most likely survive the dad, a nurse, a grandparent or another person can care for the infant.

It's not different when both require someone else for survival.

When you have to rely on some many "ifs", it invalidates your argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom