• 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!

Yes, Anti-Aborts are Crazy

To be considered a nut by people who are killing children. [emoji1787]
 
Aberration said:
To be considered a nut by people who are killing children. [emoji1787]
Click to expand...

An abortion does not kill a child. No one in this thread is taking killing children.

In the US one has to be born alive to be a person, a child, a human being , or an individual.

From the 2002 Born Alive Infant Protections Act:

Defines a "Born alive infant" as "Person, human being, Child, Individual".


Acknowledges human rights of any child born within the United States.
"Born Alive" is defined as the complete expulsion of an infant at any stage of development that has a heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, breath, or voluntary muscle movement, no matter if the umbilical cord has been cut or if the expulsion of the infant was natural, induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
An abortion does not kill a child. No one in this thread is taking killing children.

In the US one has to be born alive to be a person, a child, a human being , or an individual.

From the 2002 Born Alive Infant Protections Act:

Defines a "Born alive infant" as "Person, human being, Child, Individual".


Acknowledges human rights of any child born within the United States.
"Born Alive" is defined as the complete expulsion of an infant at any stage of development that has a heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, breath, or voluntary muscle movement, no matter if the umbilical cord has been cut or if the expulsion of the infant was natural, induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
Click to expand...

I am speaking about a living human being while you play games with words.

The Law also used to say Black people were property. And women were not much better. The law also says a tomato is a vegetable.

My argument relies upon reality. Yours relies upon the arbitrary definition of abstract constructs.
 
Aberration said:
I am speaking about a living human being while you play games with words.

The Law also used to say Black people were property. And women were not much better. The law also says a tomato is a vegetable.

My argument relies upon reality. Yours relies upon the arbitrary definition of abstract constructs.
Click to expand...

No, you are not talking about reality.

Miscarriages kill an. unborn(embryo/fetus.

An elective induced abortion kills an unborn/embryo/fetus.

Sometimes an unborn dies naturally and is not expelled in a timely manner or is dying or non viable ( will never survive for more than a few minutes or hours) and needs to removed by a doctor.

In cases like that it is also an abortion but not an elective one. It is used to prevent a life threatening infection in the womb.

The procedure to remove a dead/ dying/non viable fetus is still an abortion and is a part of our abortion stats even if non viable is expelled by induced labor or removed by c-section.

From the following:


There is a false belief that induction of labor early for a lethal anomaly is not an abortion. It is.

The end.

...

Why can’t they have a c-section?

First of all, a c-section for an early delivery of a non-viable fetus is still an abortion. #TheMoreYouKnow.

That people don’t grasp this is shocking. And why these discussions are best left to experts who don’t impose their own religion on patients.
Click to expand...

Read more:

Abortions at or after 24 weeks are sometimes needed medically. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. | Dr. Jen Gunter
 
Last edited:
Aberration said:
I am speaking about a living human being while you play games with words.

The Law also used to say Black people were property. And women were not much better. The law also says a tomato is a vegetable.

My argument relies upon reality. Yours relies upon the arbitrary definition of abstract constructs.
Click to expand...

The new Law does treat pregnant women no better than slaves. You got that much right.
 
Aberration said:
To be considered a nut by people who are killing children. [emoji1787]
Click to expand...

Are they children? Do they have rights at conception? If so, how do you apply those rights? What about pregnant women being incarcerated? We can't illegally jail someone who is not guilty of a crime. What about the fetus, which so many of you insist have rights at conception?

How about medical treatment? If the fetus is a person and has rights, how can we determine if it is consenting to the medical treatment of the mother when she goes to the doctor? What if the mother is going to church and forcing the fetus to accompany her? Religion is a freedom we have so the fetus ought to have the right to say no to this.

This is why the pro-birth position is a bunch of braindead nonsense and why I can't stand watching them talk on television or on the radio. No one challenges the absolute idiocy and legal chaos of their proposals in a sensible way.
 
calamity said:
Why do Right Wingers care so much about things not yet born and care so little about the actual people who are?

Someone has been brainwashing them. That's my hunch.
Click to expand...
What is political correctness other than brain washing? There are social consequences to bucking this standard. Those that comply with the PC have been brain washed.





Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
Aberration said:
I am speaking about a living human being while you play games with words.

The Law also used to say Black people were property. And women were not much better. The law also says a tomato is a vegetable.

My argument relies upon reality. Yours relies upon the arbitrary definition of abstract constructs.
Click to expand...

The law...the Supreme Court (a conservative court, 7-2 decision), also considered the unborn for equal status, and decided they were not equal and did not recognize any rights for the unborn. One clear difference is that blacks and women could actually exercise their right when recognized. The unborn have no such ability, their physiology is completely intertwined with the woman's.

Before birth, the unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.

They do not have a single right that they can exercise independently.​

Clearly they are not equal.
 
Aberration said:
I am speaking about a living human being while you play games with words.
Click to expand...
No, you are ignorantly babbling about matters you clearly have no knowledge about. Since when is a single cell a living human being? How about when it splits and becomes two identical cells? Are those two human beings or one? Do human beings need organs to live? Does that single cell have any? So forget the law which can and does change, stick with reality if you can.
 
prometeus said:
No, you are ignorantly babbling about matters you clearly have no knowledge about. Since when is a single cell a living human being? How about when it splits and becomes two identical cells? Are those two human beings or one? Do human beings need organs to live? Does that single cell have any? So forget the law which can and does change, stick with reality if you can.
Click to expand...

The human being exists as a single cell for how long?

If I am ignorantly babble about what I don’t know, please direct me to where the conversation was confined to that context of just a single cell?

Is your question about cells splitting serious? If so it’s a bit ironic given your earlier claims of my babbling in ignorance.

I was sticking with reality. That we are talking about killing human beings. The argument by Minnie was about the wording of the law versus reality.

Are you even following along? [emoji3166]
 
Lursa said:
The law...the Supreme Court (a conservative court, 7-2 decision), also considered the unborn for equal status, and decided they were not equal and did not recognize any rights for the unborn. One clear difference is that blacks and women could actually exercise their right when recognized. The unborn have no such ability, their physiology is completely intertwined with the woman's.

Before birth, the unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.

They do not have a single right that they can exercise independently.​

Clearly they are not equal.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked the concept of “equality under the law” was specifically because of natural inequalities.

The unborn are not the only people dependent because of biology. They are the only ones who have such a high probability of developing beyond those biological limitations that we legally allow to kill.
 
Peter King said:
Even most pro-choicers I know want limitations to elective abortions (when it comes to how many weeks it should be possible).
Click to expand...

It already is - after 24 weeks unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
 
Wan said:
And is it alive?

Keep in mind that an organism that is both alive and human is a live human.
Click to expand...

Fertilized eggs are destroyed every day. You want to go after those too??

Let's have every guy get a vasectomy. I like that idea.
 
calamity said:
WHo cares? It's not born. So, it has no rights. You know, since it lives inside of a born person and all. :roll:
Click to expand...

Your argument is specifically why this bill exists. Bam. Now they have rights.
 
jghiretire said:
Yours - it's perfectly find to let them be gunned down in school - or church - or a movie theater.
Click to expand...

Where has anyone argued it’s OK to gun down kids in schools or church’s or movie theaters?
 
jghiretire said:
Fertilized eggs are destroyed every day. You want to go after those too??

Let's have every guy get a vasectomy. I like that idea.
Click to expand...

Yes there are those who argue for the life of those fertilized eggs.
 
jghiretire said:
It already is - after 24 weeks unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
Click to expand...

Personally I think 24 weeks is a bit on the long side, if you know you are pregnant at week 6, I cannot see why you have to wait another 18 weeks to make a decision. 16-18 weeks seems long enough for regular elective abortions, between 16/18 and 22 for extreme cases (incest, rape, serious medical issues for the woman, serious defects of the fetus) and after 22 weeks just to save the mothers life or to abort a fetus who's defects are so severe that it would be a sin/immoral to allow it to be born.
 
Aberration said:
Last time I checked the concept of “equality under the law” was specifically because of natural inequalities.

The unborn are not the only people dependent because of biology. They are the only ones who have such a high probability of developing beyond those biological limitations that we legally allow to kill.
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed that it went beyond biology. Rights arent biological in nature. They are a man-made concept...as is equality.

Equality is a status they have 'not yet' attained. They cannot be equal...not under the law, not practically. Biology does not determine equality...recognition of rights for something that cannot exercise, understand, or are even aware, of rights is useless. Even minors are subject to restrictions on their rights due to lack of capability to consent, to understand their rights, etc.
 
Aberration said:
Yes there are those who argue for the life of those fertilized eggs.
Click to expand...

Then why aren’t there more pro lifers who are concerned about all the weeks old embryos incinerated in IVF clinics every day ?

Why is it ok to destroy the embryos that were not used in the IVF treatment ?

If you ( general you ) consider the embryo in the womb as human life.

Why don’t you think the extra embryos no longer needed for IVF can just be thrown away with the medical waste?

From the following :

The Paradox of the IVF Clinic and the Abortion Clinic: Are Some Embryos More Persons Than Others?


IVF treatments are performed in close to 400 centers nationwide. Over 60,000 babies are born each year through fertility treatments—including, as Daily Mail notes, some of Mitt Romney’s own grandchildren.

Many of these treatments involve the disposal of unused embryos, cultivated from fertilization through to weeks-old in development, that weren’t selected for implantation.

One IVF treatment might yield as many as 20 “surplus” embryos.

An ART Embryo Lab survey conducted by the CDC in 1999 found that labs employed a variety of techniques to handle surplus embryos. Fifty-even percent (57%) of labs report that they “immediately discard” them, through incineration as medical waste, for example;
Click to expand...


Read more:

The Paradox of the IVF Clinic and the Abortion Clinic: Are Some Embryos More Persons Than Others? - Big Think

And from the following:

Fertility clinics destroy embryos all the time. Why aren’t conservatives after them?

In contrast, all my husband and I had to do was sign a form. Our competence to choose the outcome of our embryo was never questioned. There were no mandatory lectures on gestation, no requirement that I be explicitly told that personhood begins at conception or that I view a picture of a day-five embryo. There was no compulsory waiting period for me to reconsider my decision. In fact, no state imposes these restrictions — so common for abortion patients — on patients with frozen embryos. With rare exceptions, the government doesn’t interfere with an IVF patient’s choices except to resolve disagreements between couples.

The disparity between how the law treats abortion patients and IVF patients reveals an ugly truth about abortion restrictions: that they are often less about protecting life than about controlling women’s bodies. Both IVF and abortion involve the destruction of fertilized eggs that could potentially develop into people. But only abortion concerns women who have had sex that they don’t want to lead to childbirth. Abortion restrictions use unwanted pregnancy as a punishment for “irresponsible sex” and remind women of the consequences of being unchaste: If you didn’t want to endure a mandatory vaginal ultrasound , you shouldn’t have had sex in the first place .
Click to expand...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...c033e6745d8_story.html?utm_term=.689ac414752a
 
Last edited:
Peter King said:
Personally I think 24 weeks is a bit on the long side, if you know you are pregnant at week 6, I cannot see why you have to wait another 18 weeks to make a decision. 16-18 weeks seems long enough for regular elective abortions, between 16/18 and 22 for extreme cases (incest, rape, serious medical issues for the woman, serious defects of the fetus) and after 22 weeks just to save the mothers life or to abort a fetus who's defects are so severe that it would be a sin/immoral to allow it to be born.
Click to expand...

Catastrophic fetal defects do not usually show up until 18 to 20 weeks on an ultrasound.

Doctors take ultrasounds of pregnant patients between 18 to 20 weeks to look for the defects.

That only gives the doctors a couple of weeks for more tests before the woman/ couple decides if wish to abort the pregnancy.

Only 1 percent of abortions occur after 21 weeks and 80 percent are because of catastrophic fetal defects.
 
minnie616 said:
Catastrophic fetal defects do not usually show up until 18 to 20 weeks on an ultrasound.

Doctors take ultrasounds of pregnant patients between 18 to 20 weeks to look for the defects.

That only gives the doctors a couple of weeks for more tests before the woman/ couple decides if wish to abort the pregnancy.

Only 1 percent of abortions occur after 21 weeks and 80 percent are because of catastrophic fetal defects.
Click to expand...

I know, that is why I said that serious defects and catastrophic defects should be allowed after the time for purely elective reasons.
 
Peter King said:
I know, that is why I said that serious defects and catastrophic defects should be allowed after the time for purely elective reasons.
Click to expand...

States can ban abortions in US after viability and not allow exceptions for catastrophic fetal defects.

The only exceptions are if the woman’s life or irreparable damage to one of her major bodily functions would occur if the pregnancy continued

There are only 4 clinic doctors and 3 clinics where abortion are allowed after 20 weeks.

So actually, no purely elective abortions take place past 20 weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom