• 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!

Seeking Clean Discussion and to Understand Pro-Choice Stance

minnie616 said:
False you are missing the point.

Abortion is a medical procedure.
We do not deny someone medical treatment because of personal responsibility.

A victim in a car crash gets treatment even if they were distracted and the crash was their fault.
We don’t deny medial treatment to a smoker who ends up with lung cancer.

As for personal responsibility over 67 percent of woman of childbearing years use artificial birth control consistently.

Another 23 percent are either pregnant (9 percent ) or cannot become pregnant because the not sexually active or have medical condition or procedure that made them sterile.

That leaves 10 percent who might use the rhythm method or another natural method of birth control but are concidered high risk.

When a woman uses birth control consistently she is saying no to an unplanned pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Ugh, another person missing the point. The analogy has nothing to do with denying someone medical treatment. It has to do with whether one person can be forced to use their body to keep another person alive. A pregnant woman usually has some responsibility for the fact that she is pregnant. A random organ donor match does not have any responsibility for the condition of the person who needs the organ.
 
foolardi said:
So according to your humble assessment I take it MADD { Mothers Against Drunk Drivers }
is a Conservative cause celebre.
You know like The Feminist Movement under Gloria Steinem.And Jane Fonda was
more conservative than Father Henry { as Liberal as they get }.
Click to expand...

You can say whatever you want about me, but at the end of the day, I am correct. These laws have been systemically introduced to undermine roe by strengthening the claim that a baby and fetus are one and the same.

This has been a concerted long game effort.
 
Tlrmln said:
Ugh, another person missing the point. The analogy has nothing to do with denying someone medical treatment. It has to do with whether one person can be forced to use their body to keep another person alive. A pregnant woman usually has some responsibility for the fact that she is pregnant. A random organ donor match does not have any responsibility for the condition of the person who needs the organ.
Click to expand...

Even if I caused an accident that hurt you so that you needed and organ and I was a perfect match, I would not be required to give you an organ or even blood.
 
wolfsgirl said:
Even if I caused an accident that hurt you so that you needed and organ and I was a perfect match, I would not be required to give you an organ or even blood.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. Better analogy, same result.
 
Tlrmln said:
Yes, exactly. Better analogy, same result.
Click to expand...

How is it the same result? I would not be required to use my body to keep you alive even if I caused your injuries, but I would be required to use my body to keep a fetus alive even if I was raped, thus having no responsibility for getting pregnant, under some of these laws.
 
Tlrmln said:
What's theological or philosophical about it, and anyway, why shouldn't legal issues include consideration of philosophical issues?
Click to expand...

I'll concede your point on philosophy.... but reject it entirely where it comes to theological beliefs - those are a matter purely between an individual and his/her creator. If your religious views tell you abortion is wrong, then don't have one - but no individual has the right to foist their religious beliefs onto the conduct of another - would you concede that point?
 
Cordelier said:
I'll concede your point on philosophy.... but reject it entirely where it comes to theological beliefs - those are a matter purely between an individual and his/her creator. If your religious views tell you abortion is wrong, then don't have one - but no individual has the right to foist their religious beliefs onto the conduct of another - would you concede that point?
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. There was no intent to imply any theological analysis in any of my posts. In fact, one of the main points is really to demonstrate that there is no valid non-theological reason to oppose all abortions.
 
wolfsgirl said:
How is it the same result? I would not be required to use my body to keep you alive even if I caused your injuries, but I would be required to use my body to keep a fetus alive even if I was raped, thus having no responsibility for getting pregnant, under some of these laws.
Click to expand...

I mean "same result" of applying the analogy to refute these abortion laws. i.e. the abortion laws are not justifiable, just like it would not be justifiable to take someone's kidney in the situation described in the analogy. My whole point here was to make the analogy stronger for this purpose, by making it MORE analogous to the abortion situation, yet still leading to the same conclusion.
 
Tlrmln said:
Ugh, another person missing the point. The analogy has nothing to do with denying someone medical treatment. It has to do with whether one person can be forced to use their body to keep another person alive. A pregnant woman usually has some responsibility for the fact that she is pregnant. A random organ donor match does not have any responsibility for the condition of the person who needs the organ.
Click to expand...

I think the fatal flaw of your argument is that you're assuming a fetus is a person. It isn't. Like I said earlier, if it were then citizenship would begin at conception. A fetus only becomes a person when it is born.
 
Tlrmln said:
I agree entirely. There was no intent to imply any theological analysis in any of my posts. In fact, one of the main points is really to demonstrate that there is no valid non-theological reason to oppose all abortions.
Click to expand...

Fair enough... Apologies if I've misconstrued your argument.

So what's your valid non-theological reason for opposing some abortions?
 
Crusader13 said:
I agree with you. What you're not understanding is that women cant just pull out of a process they've already consented to. If I sign a contract I don't get to just abandon it because I changed my mind. When a woman has sex, she's knowingly consented to her body being used. If women don't want to get pregnant, simply don't allow your body to be used. Going out of your way to trap an innocent child in your womb then killing it is not a right you get to demand.
Click to expand...

Consent to sex is NOT agreement to gestate and give birth should a pregnancy (rare compared to the number of sex acts that happen in a day) occur. Just like smoking is not agreement to not seek to have any resulting tumours removed from one's body.
 
Crusader13 said:
Stretch marks and a loose vagina is not even close to what a fetus has to endure in an abortion. You're talking about violently killing a person so another person doesn't have to be uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

The zef feels nothing when it is aborted.


Nobody is denying that pregnancy can be tough but clearly there's a dilemma here. Abortions being illegal means women need to be a bit more careful with their sexual choices and face up to the morning sickness. Abortions being legal means millions of dead bodies a year. Tell me which one is worse.
Click to expand...

The effects of pregnancy on women are worse.


Nobody is forced to be pregnant. There are countless ways to avoid pregnancy. One of them has a 100% success rate, the others have high 90s. There are so many options for women it's absolutely ridiculous to make the argument that abortion is a necessity. It's a convenience in 99.9999998% of cases.
Click to expand...

Mighty CONVENIENT that YOU will never, ever be pregnant, isn't it?
 
holbritter said:
you gave your permission when you engaged in an activity that you knew could have that result.
Click to expand...

Bovine excrement. Consent to sex is not agreement to gestate and give birth. Just like smoking is not agreeing to not have any resulting tumours removed from one's body.
 
Cordelier said:
I think the fatal flaw of your argument is that you're assuming a fetus is a person. It isn't. Like I said earlier, if it were then citizenship would begin at conception. A fetus only becomes a person when it is born.
Click to expand...

I'm not assuming that. In using the analogy, I would be granting it for the sake of argument. Again, the point of the analogy is to demonstrate that anti-abortion arguments are fallacious, even if we grant some of their premises.

Cordelier said:
Fair enough... Apologies if I've misconstrued your argument.

So what's your valid non-theological reason for opposing some abortions?
Click to expand...

I can't say that I have an airtight argument to that effect, or the other way around frankly. The best I could do is consider it a balancing/compromise position. Taking the most extreme example (and ignoring for purposes of this analysis, any risk to the mother) -- abortion 1 minute before delivery -- then arguably the interest of the mother in bodily autonomy for one more minute is outweighed by the interest of the fetus, who is one minute away from being an autonomous human being, in having a life for many years. To put it another way, the relative additional burden on the mother is negligible, especially considering the fact that the mother could have decided at any point over 6+ month period, to have an abortion sooner.

And then, from that extreme position, you can start counting back, and the balance will shift in favor of the mother's right to bodily autonomy until some conceptual line is crossed.

Right now, under US law, the conceptual line is viability. I don't have a huge problem with that.
 
foolardi said:
Not so sure about *dat.Think about why when a Drunk Driver commits a serious car accident
and a pregnant Mom loses her life,the charge is Double Murder.One for the Mom and the other
for the Baby she is carrying.
Click to expand...

Not in my country.


BTW, a pregnant woman is not a mom unless she has a born child.
 
wolfsgirl said:
Giving consent to sex is not giving consent to pregnancy.

I can consent to driving, but that does not mean I am consenting to a traffic accident. IF there is an accident I can have my car and body returned to original condition, I am not forced to live with a damaged body or car.
Click to expand...

But you are aware the possibility is there.

That's the problem today....people have no sense of personal responsibility.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Bovine excrement. Consent to sex is not agreement to gestate and give birth. Just like smoking is not agreeing to not have any resulting tumours removed from one's body.
Click to expand...

Another person without the personal responsibility gene intact. You know the possibility exists, therefore, you are accepting that risk. Same with smoking or anything you do with your body.
 
holbritter said:
Another person without the personal responsibility gene intact. You know the possibility exists, therefore, you are accepting that risk. Same with smoking or anything you do with your body.
Click to expand...

We can deny medical treatment to smokers????
 
Tlrmln said:
I'm not assuming that. In using the analogy, I would be granting it for the sake of argument. Again, the point of the analogy is to demonstrate that anti-abortion arguments are fallacious, even if we grant some of their premises.



I can't say that I have an airtight argument to that effect, or the other way around frankly. The best I could do is consider it a balancing/compromise position. Taking the most extreme example (and ignoring for purposes of this analysis, any risk to the mother) -- abortion 1 minute before delivery -- then arguably the interest of the mother in bodily autonomy for one more minute is outweighed by the interest of the fetus, who is one minute away from being an autonomous human being, in having a life for many years. To put it another way, the relative additional burden on the mother is negligible, especially considering the fact that the mother could have decided at any point over 6+ month period, to have an abortion sooner.

And then, from that extreme position, you can start counting back, and the balance will shift in favor of the mother's right to bodily autonomy until some conceptual line is crossed.

Right now, under US law, the conceptual line is viability. I don't have a huge problem with that.
Click to expand...

That's fair... I don't think you'd find too many ethical physicians who'd be willing to do an abortion on a viable fetus absent some extreme situation where the life or health of the mother was threatened.
 
wolfsgirl said:
Giving consent to sex is not giving consent to pregnancy.

I can consent to driving, but that does not mean I am consenting to a traffic accident. IF there is an accident I can have my car and body returned to original condition, I am not forced to live with a damaged body or car.
Click to expand...


Did you really just write that? :lamo I'm sure there are many people out there who are now permanently disabled from car accidents that would disagree with you.
 
holbritter said:
No. what's that got to do with it? Please understand what someone is replying to before responding.
Click to expand...

You want to deny women a medical procedure due to personal responsibility. Let's do that for smokers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom