• 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!

Hands Down! Pro-Choice Supercedes Them!

DH Kirkwood said:
Shall I refrain from letting my seed hit the ground to prevent all the potential Einsteins from not ever having been born?
Click to expand...

Why, does your seed fertilize on its own?
Would your seed become an Einstein, let alone another human.......all by itself? :lol:
 
tosca1 said:
Why, does your seed fertilize on its own?
Would your seed become an Einstein, let alone another human.......all by itself? :lol:
Click to expand...

Would it become another Hitler or Dahmer? Odds are about the same.
 
tosca1 said:
:roll:

We've dealt with Hitler, and Bundy and Bin Laden, didn't we?

But, what would the world be like today if there weren't any Einsteins, or Flemings, or Spitzers, or Newtons, or Mozarts, or Franklins, or Harveys, or Archimedes, or Pasteurs, or Faradays, or Meischers, Bigelows, Rontgens, Herschels, etc...?
Click to expand...

Maybe you should ask all the victims and their families what their worlds would be like? *You* didnt deal with Hitler, for example, did you? Are you saying that Hitler had less impact on people than Einstein?

Overall, it would come out about equal.
 
tosca1 said:
Why, does your seed fertilize on its own?
Would your seed become an Einstein, let alone another human.......all by itself? :lol:
Click to expand...

I don't know why you're so fixiated on potential life in the first place. Lursa is right. Your justification for your emphasis on potential life rests on the possibility that we might be missing out on the next brilliant, furure-historical-figure, but we could just as easily end up a vile example of mankind's depravity.

A fertilized egg is no different to me than sperm. One might be higher up in the process of actually becoming a person, but the potential for life is not what I care about. When we talk about the conflict of the rights of persons, people, I think it's reckless to place as equally importance a human being that currently has the cognitive awareness of a literal houseplant. A moral crisis over choosing to cancel the development of an embryo makes about as much sense to me as being horrified by all the lives that were 'snuffed out' because we aren't all spending every milisecond punching out all the potential babies.

This mentality, in the mean-time, has gone as far as to hold back research that would save children who are thinking, feeling, and living today, children who are aware and have fears.
 
tosca1 said:
:roll:

We've dealt with Hitler, and Bundy and Bin Laden, didn't we?

But, what would the world be like today if there weren't any Einsteins, or Flemings, or Spitzers, or Newtons, or Mozarts, or Franklins, or Harveys, or Archimedes, or Pasteurs, or Faradays, or Meischers, Bigelows, Rontgens, Herschels, etc...?
Click to expand...

Dealt with them? With many more to come.

Not your body not your choice
 
tosca1 said:
What do you think I mean when I said this:


Women need not get pregnant!
They need not have to take the risk of dying in birthing a child.
Click to expand...


I'm asking you what you meant by that and by what means? What, exactly, was lame about the reply you called lame? Be specific. Repeating yourself is not an answer.


Your articles make this pathetic attempt to justify the murders not only even more lame, and shallow!
It's laughable!

Lol, it wasn't childbirth that got her nearly killed! She's got problems with blood clots in her lungs!

Read what it says:


Who can foresee complications? How do you know it was the baby that caused her blood clots?

So....what's up with her blood clots?
Click to expand...

Yes I am very aware she has had problems with blood clots before pregnancy and even with that fore-knowledge, she still nearly died when the nurse ignored her pleas for a heparin drip and CT scan because she was feeling symptoms. I didn't say the baby caused her clots, because I knew from reading my own link it was a problem. Pregnancy is freaking dangerous, even when someone is as wealthy as Serena and when pre-existing conditions are known and can be planned for.

The nurse in this article died in childbirth, at the hospital where she spent nearly her entire career. Again, a person who got pregnant on purpose, had means and education. From the article:
THE ABILITY TO PROTECT the health of mothers and babies in childbirth is a basic measure of a society’s development. Yet every year in the U.S., 700 to 900 women die from pregnancy or childbirth-related causes, and some 65,000 nearly die — by many measures, the worst record in the developed world.

American women are more than three times as likely as Canadian women to die in the maternal period (defined by the Centers for Disease Control as the start of pregnancy to one year after delivery or termination), six times as likely to die as Scandinavians. In every other wealthy country, and many less affluent ones, maternal mortality rates have been falling; in Great Britain, the journal Lancet recently noted, the rate has declined so dramatically that “a man is more likely to die while his partner is pregnant than she is.” But in the U.S., maternal deaths increased from 2000 to 2014. In a recent analysis by the CDC Foundation, nearly 60 percent of such deaths were preventable.

The reasons for higher maternal mortality in the U.S. are manifold. New mothers are older than they used to be, with more complex medical histories. Half of pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned, so many women don’t address chronic health issues beforehand. Greater prevalence of C-sections leads to more life-threatening complications. The fragmented health system makes it harder for new mothers, especially those without good insurance, to get the care they need. Confusion about how to recognize worrisome symptoms and treat obstetric emergencies makes caregivers more prone to error.
Click to expand...

The Last Person You’d Expect to Die in Childbirth — ProPublica

A woman with less means, other children to care for or other mitigating factors, gets to decide for herself whether she should carry on with a pregnancy.

Stop laying every blame :the baby!

Anyway, people can die crossing the street.....or, by eating!
Click to expand...

You're diverting. There was no blame placed on the baby anywhere in my reply. But I will address your cavalier attitude about the dangers of pregnancy, as demonstrated by the bolded text. Pregnancy is not eating or walking. To make that comparison is willfully, cruelly dismissive. Growing a baby is a complicated process and taxing on a woman's body. There can be serious unknown complications.


Uhhh......lighting a candle beside a dead mice, and dancing around the bed three times?


You tell me. I'm baffled. Why is that even a question? Are you referring to a human?

Can't the woman think?



Anyway, reading most of the pro-choice replies.....

Why do pro-choice people so much more gungho in the killings......than in prevention?
Click to expand...


If it's so easy not to get pregnant, and you believe so strongly in prevention, why don't you please share with us your suggested method?

Pro-choice, is not pro-abortion. year2late's reply stands.
Yeah, women do die and suffer severe consequences from pregnancy so they decide whether abortion is the right thing for them. They decide whether they have the personal, financial, and social resources to safely be pregnant...before even figuring out if she could raise another child. Her body her choice to decide whether to maintain the pregnancy.
Click to expand...
 
tosca1 said:
Your second article also gives a different story. It's not the childbirth that had put her at risk!
Williams is prone to these blood clottings. Her concern was also dismissed by the hospital employee.



For Serena Williams, Childbirth Was a Harrowing Ordeal. She’s Not Alone. - The New York Times



Obviously, despite her being prone to this pulmonary embolism, she still opted to give birth to her child.
It's the hospital employee's attitude towards her concern, which was the problem.
Williams has had a more serious pulmonary embolism before that:


Serena Williams reveals how blood clot left her 'on my death bed' | Sport | The Guardian




If doctors know of your medical history - they'd be more likely to be prepared to deal with it,
if and when it happens. Technology is getting better and better, everyday.


Williams - despite the risk of pulmonary embolism - still opted to deliver her child. Had it not been for what must've been frustrating dismissal by the hospital staff, it would've been dealt with a whole lot sooner.
Just shows you, even with a medical condition such as hers - it still is a happy ending for mom and child.


I don't see how this helps your argument in any way.
Click to expand...

Answered in my reply at #46.
 
year2late said:
And many women suffer severe consequences or death from pregnancy .

I was in "the best" situation to be pregnant. Good health, good age, stable employment, active, good social support....and of course great insurance with top notch access to medical care. I suffered several major complications and was required to have a c-section to boot. Because of having access to an OBGYN that knew me well he caught a subtle sign that would have been missed in a hurried clinic. I felt good. there was no reason for me to have sought immediate attention at the time. I likely would have had my kidneys fail or bed dead if this was not caught in such a timely matter.

I say this...because I was in the best situation to be pregnant. Six months off work left me heavily in debt, but I survived thanks to my really good medical team.

Women who chose abortion are frequently in the worst situation to be pregnant.
-unstable living situation (or barely making rent)
-poor access to medical care - reliance on hurried understaffed under resourced county medical clinics
-barely making ends meet -paycheck to paycheck - already scrambles to pay bills - trying to figure how to keep the power and the phone on this month...let alone not going homeless
- making decisions based on meeting basic survival needs.More than likely she would be forced to skip screening appointments because she "felt ok" but needed rent paid.
-already has a born child at home she is trying to keep secure. Facing losing shifts which would mean losing ability to pay rent and such is a real life fear

No one has to die?

Yeah, women do die and suffer severe consequences from pregnancy so they decide whether abortion is the right thing for them. They decide whether they have the personal, financial, and social resources to safely be pregnant...before even figuring out if she could raise another child. Her body her choice to decide whether to maintain the pregnancy.

Her body her choice...that is the core of Pro-Choice. BTW most prochoicers (like myself) chose no.
Click to expand...

tosca1 said:
Shallow response. Quite lame.
That kind of reasoning makes it seem like we don't have any critical thinking at all.


Women need not get pregnant!
They need not have to take the risk of dying in birthing a child.


That they end up pregnant anyway - many of them even repeatedly -

actually makes the deed of killing the unborn, even more evil!
Click to expand...
Not shallow at all....puts context into the mix.
 
tosca1 said:
It's the pro-choice attitude towards abortion that ......fascinates me.


They don't want to talk about prevention! They don't even wanna hear about it!

All they're thinking about is the killings. They just want the killings to go on.


It's like watching a different breed of people!
Click to expand...

At the present time there's little objection to birth control, so little need to discuss it. You understand, don't you, that with little objection, one just does the thing without announcing it far and wide. It's a different case with abortion when a woman has to fight a gauntlet of protesters simply to get to the door of a clinic. This subject should have been settled and put to rest long ago, but it seems people just cannot give up on forcing others to live according to their own standards. There is a failure to realize that you cannot control other people.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Quote Originally Posted by year2late View Post
And many women suffer severe consequences or death from pregnancy.
No one has to die?

Yeah, women do die and suffer severe consequences from pregnancy so they decide whether abortion is the right thing for them. They decide whether they have the personal, financial, and social resources to safely be pregnant...before even figuring out if she could raise another child. Her body her choice to decide whether to maintain the pregnancy.

To make this argument over whether its the right thing for them, about personal, financial and social resources opens the door for any crime you would like to commit. I don't want to support my children so I can just take their lives, whenever. Let's think back to the 1800's and apply this logic to slavery. I've gone broke and cannot afford to provide care for slaves, so eliminate them? No, murder is murder, spin it how you like but you are killing babies because its inconvenient. Try not getting pregnant.
Click to expand...

Since approximately half of all women getting abortions were using birth control, it seems they were trying to not get pregnant. Trying and failing requires taking the next step.
 
Logician Man said:
Conservatives use the same arguments as liberals for the 'legal' rights to have an abortion, and conservatives receive ' legal' abortions for the very same reasons liberals do.
Click to expand...

Abortion is not a conservative or a liberal issue. Women of both ideologies sometimes have an abortion. It's a question of right/wrong and morality. How you feel seems to be determined by your personal feelings. I have friends of both ideologies who favor or abhor the practice. It seems to be a conscious choice for personal reasons.
 
year2late said:
Well, I mean after all....a woman cannot get pregnant if she was REALLY raped, nature has a way of shutting that whole thing down.:lamo

I heard that from a Senator who heard it from a doctor.:2wave:
Click to expand...

If there was a list of stupid things people have said, that one should be in the top 5.
 
tosca1 said:
Why do pro-choice people so much more gungho in the killings......than in prevention?
Click to expand...

I have yet to see a pro choicer who is against contraception. I've seen many anti choicers speak against it. Some even think it should be illegal.

Pro choicers are also more likely to be in favour of programs to help women who cannot afford contraception. Many anti choicers say (Not with *my* tax money! forgetting that each dollar spent on helping women with contraception saves more dollars in the long run.)
 
tosca1 said:
Your second article also gives a different story. It's not the childbirth that had put her at risk!
Williams is prone to these blood clottings. Her concern was also dismissed by the hospital employee.
Click to expand...

Women are at risk of blood clots from pregnancy.

If you are pregnant, or you have just had a baby, you are at greater risk of developing a blood clot.

Blood clots in pregnant women tend to form in the deep veins of the legs or in the pelvic area. This condition is known as deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening event that occurs when a DVT breaks off and travels to the blood vessels of the lungs.



Blood Clotting & Pregnancy
Click to expand...
 
Scrabaholic said:
I have yet to see a pro choicer who is against contraception. I've seen many anti choicers speak against it. Some even think it should be illegal.

Pro choicers are also more likely to be in favour of programs to help women who cannot afford contraception. Many anti choicers say (Not with *my* tax money! forgetting that each dollar spent on helping women with contraception saves more dollars in the long run.)
Click to expand...

It is out of vogue to slut shame....so some will insist that most contraception is "abortofacient"
 
Lursa said:
Maybe you should ask all the victims and their families what their worlds would be like? *You* didnt deal with Hitler, for example, did you? Are you saying that Hitler had less impact on people than Einstein?

Overall, it would come out about equal.
Click to expand...

You want victim impact? Here are some of the survivors!

Melissa Ohden was born under less than ideal circumstances in 1977. Her birth mother decided to abort her through a saline abortion while about seven months pregnant. A saline abortion is different from most abortions in that it takes longer to complete. A fetus is surrounded with a solution that is meant to burn it to death and can take hours upon hours to completely work. According to Melissa, when this process did not work as planned, her infant body was thrown away. Melissa claims that a nurse found her crying in a garbage can and saved her life.


Gianna Jessen’s story is very much like Melissa Ohden’s, right down to the birth year, though the effect of abortion was much worse in Gianna’s case. Gianna’s mother was a 17-year-old girl who was not ready to have a child and decided to have a saline abortion in the third trimester. Gianna spent over 18 hours in the solution, but eventually forced a birth. Delivered at just over two pounds, she was put up for adoption. At a very early age, she was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the saline burning and her foster parents were told that basic tasks such as walking and talking would be incredibly difficult for her.

However, Gianna hasn’t let this stop her. Though her muscles throughout much of her life were very weak, she worked hard to exercise them and eventually ran the London Marathon. She maintains an active lifestyle and now spends much of her time as a speaker, motivating young people to make good choices.


Josiah is a young man living in Oklahoma who is now very involved in a movement called Abolitionism. While in years past the abolition movement fought things like slavery, their primary focus today is to completely eradicate abortion as an option for pregnant women. Josiah has plenty of reason to oppose it, as he was born as the result of a botched abortion in Korea and now has a maimed arm. He was adopted by a family in Oklahoma and is now grown and healthy.
Click to expand...
10 Abortion Survivors - Listverse


BARBARIC! Cold-blooded!

Pro-choice isn't any different than ISIS or the Taliban -

the only big difference is that while Islamists do it for religion, Pro-Choice do it for CONVENIENCE!
You treat the most vulnerable human being worst that you'd treat your garbage!
 
Last edited:
OKgrannie said:
At the present time there's little objection to birth control, so little need to discuss it. You understand, don't you, that with little objection, one just does the thing without announcing it far and wide. It's a different case with abortion when a woman has to fight a gauntlet of protesters simply to get to the door of a clinic. This subject should have been settled and put to rest long ago, but it seems people just cannot give up on forcing others to live according to their own standards. There is a failure to realize that you cannot control other people.
Click to expand...

Who fed this fascination I have looking at what seems to be a different kind of people?
I'm basing my observation with pro-choice opinion on this board!
 
OKgrannie said:
Since approximately half of all women getting abortions were using birth control, it seems they were trying to not get pregnant. Trying and failing requires taking the next step.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the sensible next step.....improve your protection!
Especially when one has already had an abortion, anyone who thinks with her brains will make sure
there isn't a second one! or, a third one!
 
Gina said:
I'm asking you what you meant by that and by what means? What, exactly, was lame about the reply you called lame? Be specific. Repeating yourself is not an answer.




Yes I am very aware she has had problems with blood clots before pregnancy and even with that fore-knowledge, she still nearly died when the nurse ignored her pleas for a heparin drip and CT scan because she was feeling symptoms. I didn't say the baby caused her clots, because I knew from reading my own link it was a problem. Pregnancy is freaking dangerous, even when someone is as wealthy as Serena and when pre-existing conditions are known and can be planned for.

The nurse in this article died in childbirth, at the hospital where she spent nearly her entire career. Again, a person who got pregnant on purpose, had means and education. From the article:


The Last Person You’d Expect to Die in Childbirth — ProPublica

A woman with less means, other children to care for or other mitigating factors, gets to decide for herself whether she should carry on with a pregnancy.



You're diverting. There was no blame placed on the baby anywhere in my reply. But I will address your cavalier attitude about the dangers of pregnancy, as demonstrated by the bolded text. Pregnancy is not eating or walking. To make that comparison is willfully, cruelly dismissive. Growing a baby is a complicated process and taxing on a woman's body. There can be serious unknown complications.





If it's so easy not to get pregnant, and you believe so strongly in prevention, why don't you please share with us your suggested method?

Pro-choice, is not pro-abortion. year2late's reply stands.
Click to expand...

Thus I asked: Can't a woman think?

If pro-choice keeps throwing this silly argument that contraceptives are not 100% safe (though studies show the success rate is still high ).....I'm thinking, what's stopping women from improving their protection?


Is there a limit to protection you can use? What's wrong with using two methods, or even three,
at the same time?

What's wrong with condom and IUD? Or, condom and the pill? You gotta have condom there - for STD!

With the proper - and, CONSISTENT - use of protection - a woman need not get pregnant!


Studies show that INCONSISTENT and IMPROPER use of protection is the main reason why
abortion rate is high! I'd given a source somewhere back there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom