• 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!

Argument in favor of pro-choice/abortion

But we'll have less if more low IQ women abortion, right?

Yes, and we will also have fewer criminals too. The overall crime rate began to decline after 1980. The rate of violent crime began to decline after 1991. Many potential violent street criminals who would have been in their late teens in 1992 had been aborted after the Roe vs Wade decision.
 
Hello! I've been researching a lot about abortions and such recently, trying to formulate a coherent and consistent opinion on the matter, and I'd like to see how my current stance holds up to scrutiny. My opinions are:

A fetus in the womb is undeniably human.
It may mostly look like a baby, just really small.
It may have its own DNA, and be a separate entity from the mother.
It may have a heartbeat.
It is alive.
However, it does not, nor should it, have personhood and rights.
"Alive" should not automatically mean "person".
The capacity to suffer should be the determining factor of personhood.
Non-human animals are not considered a "person" because even though they are alive, they do not have the self-awareness and capacity to suffer as a human does.
My dog is alive, but is not a "person".
The cow that is on my dinner plate in the form of beef was alive, but never a person.
The tree outside is alive but is not a person.
Humans have the highest awareness and capacity to suffer, therefore we have the most rights and "personhood".
The potential for personhood does not equal current personhood.
Personhood should be granted to the things that suffer from the lack of it, such as self-aware creatures that can feel emotional and or physical pain.

Therefore, a fetus that is not developed enough to feel pain or suffering does not have personhood. Thus, abortion is not wrong.

Does this sound like a good argument?

The best argument for abortion is that a woman has a right to self-determination of her own body... end of story.
 
The charge depends on how far along the development of the baby is. Some time in the second trimester, the fetus develops enough to feel pain. When that milestone is reached, I think it should have rights, and I think charging the criminal with a double murder is justified. The police and or government should be allowed to press charges. But the specifics should be determined by the affected party and what they decide will give them the most closure. If they don't want to press charges, then they shouldn't have to. If the baby didn't reach person hood yet, but the family wanted the baby, and pressing charges will give them closure, then they should be free to do so.
Do you believe abortions should also be illegal once in the 2nd trimester?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Re: Clarifying

Originally Posted by southwest88
If everything goes right [in the pregnancy], & there are no outside influences - drugs, alcohol, accident - there are still a substantial number (15 to 25%) of spontaneous miscarriages. (Drugs, BTW, includes things like Thalidomide, as well as doses of recreational drugs; & then there's Fetal Alcohol Syndrome - heavy drinking has enormous & permanent impacts on the fetus.)
end quote/



offspring - No, I was pointing out that fetuses die, sometimes for no apparent reason.

baby is still human - If a fetus miscarries early on, it's typically for genetic or developmental reasons. In blunter language, the fetus might not even look human. So count your blessings. If the development of the fetus is severely out of phase, the pregnancy likely terminates because communication between the fetal & the woman's biochemistry goes out of synch or fails altogether.

I'm just taken aback by your statement: "This isn't even true in the physical sense." - your response to what I said that an offspring of a human couple can only be a human.
I mean, it can't be a dog......or an insect.....it can only be human! It's only logical. And....
I think biology will support me on that.


All people die, at different stages in life (for various reasons) - a toddler, a pre-adolescent, at puberty, at pre-teen stage, or adulthood.....and lots die from old age! Some have congenital conditions, some are stricken with rare diseases.

Therefore, it's just part of life that some unborn die (at various stages of development, too).
Some even die at childbirth.
 
Last edited:
The definition of a person: a human being regarded as an individual. That isn't quite the same thing as just human.
:roll:

You're an individual. Are you a human? yes or no.




Definition of individual
c : being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole


a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: such as
(1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution
: a particular person


Indivisible | Definition of Indivisible by Merriam-Webster
 
I think you and I are defining "person hood" differently. When I say "person hood", I mean that it is a conscious being that can feel emotional and or physical suffering. That is what we normally give "person hood" to.

Which is a reaching spin by the pro-choice, in their effort to make the murder of the unborn,
acceptable to society.



Currently, we only give that to humans, because we are the only being that we know of that has our level of consciousness and self-awareness. It does not inherently mean "human". If we invented a self-aware A.I, or gorillas suddenly became able communicate with us on our level, even if they weren't as smart as us, I think they should still be protected and granted some level of person hood. But a fetus that isn't developed enough to feel physical or emotional pain does not have person hood, even if it is human. Thus, abortion isn't murder and should remain a constitutional right.

This is a way to strip away the fetus' humanity - because pro-choice know that what they want to do to the unborn, is something evil - something that shouldn't be done to a human being.


It's exactly like how Hitler dehumanized Jews, and slavers dehumanized Black people. :shrug:

Like I've stated before - whenever someone tries to dehumanize a people - you bet, they're up to
no good. They want to do something evil to those they've dehumanized.



By dehumanizing, they can sell their evil deed to become acceptable.
A lot of people hardly need any convincing when they're motivated by self-interest, or they lack critical thinking, and/or possess shallow moral values. Some even have psychopathic tendencies.

Btw......


The emergence of human consciousness: from fetal to neonatal life.

The fetus may be aware of the body, for example by perceiving pain. It reacts to touch, smell, and sound, and shows facial expressions responding to external stimuli. However, these reactions are probably preprogrammed and have a subcortical nonconscious origin. Furthermore, the fetus is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous sedation. Conversely, the newborn infant can be awake, exhibit sensory awareness, and process memorized mental representations. It is also able to differentiate between self and nonself touch, express emotions, and show signs of shared feelings.

The preterm infant, ex utero, may open its eyes and establish minimal eye contact with its mother. It also shows avoidance reactions to harmful stimuli.
The emergence of human consciousness: from fetal to neonatal life. - PubMed - NCBI



Pro-choice people refuse to give it the benefit of a doubt that the fetus feel pain.
They latch on to the unproven study that the fetus doesn't feel any pain.
It helps salve their conscience to believe that there is no pain when instruments start tearing that
flesh apart.
 
Last edited:
Which is a reaching spin by the pro-choice, in their effort to make the murder of the unborn,
acceptable to society.





This is a way to strip away the fetus' humanity - because pro-choice know that what they want to do to the unborn, is something evil - something that shouldn't be done to a human being.


It's exactly like how Hitler dehumanized Jews, and slavers dehumanized Black people. :shrug:

Like I've stated before - whenever someone tries to dehumanize a people - you bet, they're up to
no good. They want to do something evil to those they've dehumanized.



By dehumanizing, they can sell their evil deed to become acceptable.
A lot of people hardly need any convincing when they're motivated by self-interest, or they lack critical thinking, and/or possess shallow moral values. Some even have psychopathic tendencies.

Btw......



The emergence of human consciousness: from fetal to neonatal life. - PubMed - NCBI



Pro-choice people refuse to give it the benefit of a doubt that the fetus feel pain.
They latch on to the unproven study that the fetus doesn't feel any pain.
It helps salve their conscience to believe that there is no pain when instruments start tearing that
flesh apart.

LMAO why post so many lies when you cant back any of them up? DO you think it fools ANYBODY who is educated honest and objective prolife or prochoice? it doesnt...
It just cause posters who have integrity to laugh and mock them for the dishonest retarded claims they are and not take them seriously :lamo
 
Do you believe abortions should also be illegal once in the 2nd trimester?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

I'm open to that idea. But I also think "If it's not broke, don't fix it." The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, few occur in the beginning of the second trimesters, and a small number of abortions that are considered late term abortions occur after 24 weeks. If someone is seeking a late term abortion, it is more than likely for medical reasons. After all, why would someone who doesn't want a child, and doesn't want to be pregnant or have her life adversely affected in any way just keep the baby for 5 - 9 months for ****s and giggles. I don't see the need for further legislation on the issue because Roe v Wade already places heavy restriction on late term abortions, and aside from medical reasons, planned parenthood doesn't do abortions after 24 weeks. That also happens to be the time that fetuses are said to feel pain. Though, I'd argue that's cutting it close. If people wanted to make the limit 22 weeks, then I'd support that.
 
Which is a reaching spin by the pro-choice, in their effort to make the murder of the unborn,
acceptable to society.





This is a way to strip away the fetus' humanity - because pro-choice know that what they want to do to the unborn, is something evil - something that shouldn't be done to a human being.


It's exactly like how Hitler dehumanized Jews, and slavers dehumanized Black people. :shrug:

Like I've stated before - whenever someone tries to dehumanize a people - you bet, they're up to
no good. They want to do something evil to those they've dehumanized.



By dehumanizing, they can sell their evil deed to become acceptable.
A lot of people hardly need any convincing when they're motivated by self-interest, or they lack critical thinking, and/or possess shallow moral values. Some even have psychopathic tendencies.

Btw......



The emergence of human consciousness: from fetal to neonatal life. - PubMed - NCBI



Pro-choice people refuse to give it the benefit of a doubt that the fetus feel pain.
They latch on to the unproven study that the fetus doesn't feel any pain.
It helps salve their conscience to believe that there is no pain when instruments start tearing that
flesh apart.

I'm not sure how mentioning that person hood could be granted to non- human things if they had a high level of consciousness robs a fetus of humanity. But thank you for your input. Also, I do think that I fetus should have person hood at a certain point. Fetuses can develop enough to feel pain at around 24 weeks or so. It just so happens that the vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, long before this point. And also, Roe v Wade places heavy restrictions on late term abortions. Planned parenthood doesn't do abortions after 24 weeks unless it's medically necessary. So, as abortion currently stands in this country, there's not an issue about a fetus feeling pain or not. Though, I would support legislation moving the deadline to 22 weeks instead, just to be safe.
 
I'm open to that idea. But I also think "If it's not broke, don't fix it." The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, few occur in the beginning of the second trimesters, and a small number of abortions that are considered late term abortions occur after 24 weeks. If someone is seeking a late term abortion, it is more than likely for medical reasons. After all, why would someone who doesn't want a child, and doesn't want to be pregnant or have her life adversely affected in any way just keep the baby for 5 - 9 months for ****s and giggles. I don't see the need for further legislation on the issue because Roe v Wade already places heavy restriction on late term abortions, and aside from medical reasons, planned parenthood doesn't do abortions after 24 weeks. That also happens to be the time that fetuses are said to feel pain. Though, I'd argue that's cutting it close. If people wanted to make the limit 22 weeks, then I'd support that.
Your kinda dancing around on this. Your saying don't break it if it's not broken. If it's broken or not is debatable. In your OP you say your trying to determine if your opinion is consistent, coherent, and withstands scrutiny. Your opinion nor laws is consistent. They are both maternal bias.

You say an unborn human has no right to personhood when your talking about giving a mother the authority to terminate it's life. However when I point out that law can charge someone with murder of the unborn if they kill that unborn with her consent you do something sneaky (not purposely), you change it from the mothers rights to family rights.

Family includes fraternal rights as well as maternal ones, and siblings rights as well for that matter. If they also have a legal right to if the unborn lives or dies, how is it consistent to tell father's they have no say so if the woman aborts or not, and how can they be charged for exercising the same right to terminate the unborn child's life as the mother is legally entitled to do?

Now before you go into a tangent about a woman's body stuff let me save us both some time. I'm not asking you if a woman has the legal or moral right to do what she wants.

What I'm pointing out to you is that neither your opinion nor the laws is consistent on this topic. Your comment that if it's not broken don't fix it is untrue. It is broken and there's many father's out their who have had their children killed without their consent and the law does not protect that. There are also father's out their who are being forced into parental responsibilities again their will too.

All the law does is makes the mothers concerns the only ones of legal importance. Some father's sit in jail for not being able to keep up to the court mandated babysitting fees the state awards to mothers, other father's have children they are prevented from having a relationship with because the mother terminated the child, won't share the child, or tell the father that they have a child. All of which is legal according to the law. None of it however is consistent to anything other than giving the woman whatever she wants.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how mentioning that person hood could be granted to non- human things if they had a high level of consciousness robs a fetus of humanity.

If personhood refers to a human - how can we grant "personhood" to a non-human?



Also, I do think that I fetus should have person hood at a certain point.

The fetus is a person at the time of conception!
He is a human who's going through the natural stages of development!

Whether the fetus is just a blob - he is still human!
That's how all humans are - they start off as a blob! Lol. Don't we all look the same at that stage? :lol:
He is a human being on his first stage of development! We gotta start somewhere.
We go through stages of development, you know.
Just because you've passed that stage - or any stages in life - doesn't give you any special rights above
those who hadn't.


How weird is that you're willing to grant personhood - in other words, you're going to categorize a
non-human as human, and yet you're saying the offspring of a human couple can only be deemed human
at a certain point?

You're willing to categorize a dog like Rin Tin Tin, as human? Am I reading this right? :lol:
 
Last edited:
:roll:

You're an individual. Are you a human? yes or no.




Definition of individual
c : being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole


a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: such as
(1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution
: a particular person


Indivisible | Definition of Indivisible by Merriam-Webster

Why yes, I am. Those guys with the tin foil hats following me around ... pay no attention to them.
 
Re: Clarifying

I'm just taken aback by your statement: "This isn't even true in the physical sense." - your response to what I said that an offspring of a human couple can only be a human.
I mean, it can't be a dog......or an insect.....it can only be human! It's only logical. And....
I think biology will support me on that.

All people die, at different stages in life (for various reasons) - a toddler, a pre-adolescent, at puberty, at pre-teen stage, or adulthood.....and lots die from old age! Some have congenital conditions, some are stricken with rare diseases.

Therefore, it's just part of life that some unborn die (at various stages of development, too).
Some even die at childbirth.

an offspring of a human couple can only be a human. - Yah, the underlying template may have started out human. But I gave you the examples of fetuses affected by Thalidomide, by other drugs (opiates, usually), excessive alcohol. & bear in mind that in these cases, you only see the relatively mild outcomes - the seriously impacted fetuses typically die in utero, or were delivered dead. It's like someone who dies of cancer - cancer is apparently an unregulated growth issue - & you can ask the same question: Is the resulting cancer mass human? I tend to think not, because it kills the host, & therefore whatever agenda cancer may have, it's not to facilitate the life or health of the host.

All people die - Here, I'll go you orders of magnitude better: TMK, everything dies. Individuals, families, worlds, solar systems, galaxies, the universe (we think - there's still some discussion about whether the universe cycles endlessly, or not). Anything that does not die, we provisionally call God, or @ least a saint (possibly an angel, it's not really my field) - & of course, other religions have other categories. & Christianity typically considers the soul to be immortal, so that's our link to the eternal.
 
The fetus is a person at the time of conception!

LMAO More lies and ignorance. Factually not a person by legal definition, how many lies is this in one thread now? :shrug:
 
This is a way to strip away the fetus' humanity - because pro-choice know that what they want to do to the unborn, is something evil - something that shouldn't be done to a human being.


It's exactly like how Hitler dehumanized Jews, and slavers dehumanized Black people. :shrug:

Like I've stated before - whenever someone tries to dehumanize a people - you bet, they're up to
no good. They want to do something evil to those they've dehumanized.

It's dehumanizing to treat women like incubators and demand that we allow our health, our futures, our obligations and commitments, even our lives, be relegated to less than important than that of the unborn.

It's dehumanizing for (if) the govt to use force to demand women remain pregnant against our will.

And what's even worse? Women would suffer from this. Women would be harmed...physically and culturally and legally. Women are aware of how such a society (would) see and treat them.

The unborn know and suffer nothing.

So you are more than happy to punish women with bearing a child against their will....

Like I often write: you hold zero moral High Ground here.
 
Re: Clarifying

an offspring of a human couple can only be a human. - Yah, the underlying template may have started out human. But I gave you the examples of fetuses affected by Thalidomide, by other drugs (opiates, usually), excessive alcohol. & bear in mind that in these cases, you only see the relatively mild outcomes - the seriously impacted fetuses typically die in utero, or were delivered dead. It's like someone who dies of cancer - cancer is apparently an unregulated growth issue - & you can ask the same question: Is the resulting cancer mass human? I tend to think not, because it kills the host, & therefore whatever agenda cancer may have, it's not to facilitate the life or health of the host.

All people die - Here, I'll go you orders of magnitude better: TMK, everything dies. Individuals, families, worlds, solar systems, galaxies, the universe (we think - there's still some discussion about whether the universe cycles endlessly, or not). Anything that does not die, we provisionally call God, or @ least a saint (possibly an angel, it's not really my field) - & of course, other religions have other categories. & Christianity typically considers the soul to be immortal, so that's our link to the eternal.

Here's my take on it:

They do this very commonly, the pro-life people.

When they realize that their religious beliefs (for most) are not legally binding or persuasive, they look for something concrete on which to make a "solid" argument...so they look to science.

They believe that science decides it all...human DNA. And yet, science is completely objective, it applies no value, does not take individuals or society into consideration. Value and morals are subjective.

So the science aspect has nothing to do with ethics or morality...those are applied *subjectively*.

In other words, 'science' is the only solid thing they think they can grasp in the argument...yet it's not. Morals, values, laws are based on subjective and objective criteria and are themselves *subjective.* They want a black and white means to end abortion...and it's not possible.
 
The fetus is a person at the time of conception!

No, it is not. That is FACT.



How weird is that you're willing to grant personhood - in other words, you're going to categorize a
non-human as human, and yet you're saying the offspring of a human couple can only be deemed human
at a certain point?

Why are you lying about him? He did not say it's not human before a certain point. He said it's not a person.
 
No, it is not. That is FACT.





Why are you lying about him? He did not say it's not human before a certain point. He said it's not a person.

A person is a human. And, vice versa. That's a fact.
 
A person is a human. And, vice versa. That's a fact.

Its hilarious you think dishonesty like this will work and trying to change the lies you got caught posting already. LMAO
The fetus is a person at the time of conception!
Again why post so many lies?
in the future maybe actually know about a subject before posting about it. That way your posts wont be exposed for how monumentally uneducated they are on a certain topic and multiple posters wont completely kick the **** out of them for all to see. You're welcome
 
No, it is not. That is FACT.





Why are you lying about him? He did not say it's not human before a certain point. He said it's not a person.

Thank you! I'm glad my point was understood by others. At this point, I'm not going to engage this person anymore because I just don't think my point is going to get through lol.
 
All the world's a stage ...

A person is a human. And, vice versa. That's a fact.

You'd best not go to the US Supreme Court to make that argument. Person in law is a carefully defined category, & the fetus (in Roe v. Wade) doesn't qualify as a person in the legal sense until it's born.

You're entitled to your personal opinion, of course. But when you present to the Supreme Court, they're not noted for patience. They expect whoever comes before them to argue a case to be competent, & to understand law & legal terminology. If you don't meet the criteria, you'd likely get very short shrift from the court.
 
A person is a human. And, vice versa. That's a fact.

This is a forum where we discuss the laws revolving around abortion.

If you want to be understood by the other side, the correct terminology would be helpful.

Person in the eyes of the law is not a fetus. You may want personhood amendments to go through, but that does not make it true.
 
You made a false claim. Stand your ground laws do NOT allow you to shoot someone just for stepping on your land. Almost everyone knows this...

Yes, they do actually. Maybe not in broad daylight if some kids ball rolls into your yard, but if there's any doubt whatsoever that you were legitimately scared for any reason you can and will get away with it. There are countless examples of overzealous husbands and fathers accidentally shooting their wives or children because they thought it was someone breaking into their home. Then men are almost never charged with anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom