• 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

Scrabaholic said:
I didn't say anything about taking care of yourself. And no to forced abortion. That goes against a woman's bodily autonomy.
Click to expand...
Just trying to help you rationalize the slaughter.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
AlphaOmega said:
How about you read the thread that way you won't he ignorant of what we are talking about. The posts were discussed ad nauseum in this thread
Click to expand...

Point to one that indicates the first weeks of pregnancy are that problematic. It is usually the second trimester and beyond that present such grave issues
 
Logician Man said:
If, as you proclaim, ending a heartbeat is indeed 'murder'....why aren't police storming abortion clinics and arresting the doctors performing. and the females receiving, those 'legal' abortions, and shutting down those abortion clinics ? ( because the law does 'not' agree with you regarding abortion ). We are essentially at the point in this debate where your posts/claims are paramount to intellectual dishonesty, ignorance of facts, or both. Now, please answer the fair question, or your defeat will also be accepted....your call...
Click to expand...

Already told you. Police aren't storming abortion clinics for the same reason police weren't storming Nazi camps in 1940s Germany. There comes a time in human history when governments get things wrong, turn a blind eye to atrocities in order to please the masses, until millions of people die and we have that "whoa that was crazy well never do that again" discussion.

It's only a matter of time until abortion goes through the same fate.
 
Crusader13 said:
Already told you. Police aren't storming abortion clinics for the same reason police weren't storming Nazi camps in 1940s Germany. There comes a time in human history when governments get things wrong, turn a blind eye to atrocities in order to please the masses, until millions of people die and we have that "whoa that was crazy well never do that again" discussion.

It's only a matter of time until abortion goes through the same fate.
Click to expand...

The "whoa that was crazy well never do that again" already happened when people realized they value women's rights and lives . . .we won't be going back. We wont be treating women as lessers and second class citizens any time soon. That's why the majority of first world countries have pro-choice type laws and its third world and dictatorship countries that are more likely to have prolife laws because those people dont have rights and freedoms.
 
AGENT J said:
The "whoa that was crazy well never do that again" already happened when people realized they value women's rights and lives . . .we won't be going back. We wont be treating women as lessers and second class citizens any time soon. That's why the majority of first world countries have pro-choice type laws and its third world and dictatorship countries that are more likely to have prolife laws because those people dont have rights and freedoms.
Click to expand...

As if the govt using force (of law and otherwise) to make women remain pregnant against our will is moral in the slightest? :roll:
 
Crusader13 said:
Already told you. Police aren't storming abortion clinics for the same reason police weren't storming Nazi camps in 1940s Germany. There comes a time in human history when governments get things wrong, turn a blind eye to atrocities in order to please the masses, until millions of people die and we have that "whoa that was crazy well never do that again" discussion.

It's only a matter of time until abortion goes through the same fate.
Click to expand...

Incorrect about the top commentary. Police aren't storming abortion clinics and arresting doctors and females who receive abortions because SCOTUS has upheld Roe vs. Wade, which makes abortion a 'legal' procedure. The latter part of your post is merely speculation, AKA, putting the cart before the horse/wishful thinking.
 
JeenLeen said:
Thank you. I hadn't considered just the innate risk of death from a normal pregnancy.

I plan to think on this more, but I think that we do have some sort of obligation to try to maintain someone's life if it's linked to ours once that linkage occurs, as long as there's reasonable/minimal risk. Which I would think a pregnancy without extra risks would be.

I feel like there's a good counter-argument in something like "you have the right to not get pregnant, but once you are (whether intentional or not), you're responsible for the child just like you'd be responsible for a newborn. Whether the child is born or not doesn't change it being alive and in your care."
But I see you're not debating that. You're debating the risk to one's own life. I guess it'd be more akin to if one's house if on fire and it's not clear if it's safe to get to the nursery and grab the baby out of the crib. Is a mother guilty of neglect if they flee the house without attempting to grab the child? (I reckon there's a better analogy, but I think that fits a little bit in the 'life-threatening situation with unknown risk, but minimal risk as far as one knows'.)
Click to expand...

I disagree. Our responsibility to the lives of others is limited to those who do not threaten to kill us. That's why there are so many stand your ground laws, to officially absolve us of the responsibility to those who might kill us. The better analogy is that abortion is akin to someone breaking in to your house. That person might kill or injure you or it might turn out to be someone you really like. Should you have the right not to risk the former type by defending yourself preemptively? Liberals say yes.

I sort of disagree with the whole premise, though, that a fetus is a "human being". It doesn't "be", except in a fluid-filled sack within the confines of an ACTUAL human being, feeding, excreting, growing and with each day becoming a bigger and bigger threat to the life and well being of its host woman. Abortion rights are as fundamental as the right to defend yourself.

I also feel like there's some counter-argument in that, while we might not have a legal responsibility to risk our life for someone else's, there is a moral one. If I could save someone's life by simply risking my own, then I think I'd feel obligated to do so. (It'd be different if I knew for sure, or pretty sure, I'd die as well.) But I agree that an extra religious reason. Maybe I'd need to add that as another axiomatic belief.
Click to expand...

You certainly should. What is morality, though, if not a thought process designed to achieve the greatest good? If you agree that morality is as I said then you must agree that the morality of abortion is as variable as the reasons women have them. The greatest good is NOT always one thing, birth. That sort of thinking does not consider the various struggles and tragedies that compose the lives of some young women. It does not consider that there is but ONE person qualified to make that moral calculation, the woman whose very life is under threat.
 
From a foetal personhood standpoint, I support Zoe's Law and hope that one day it passes. (Obviously so that it has no broader implications for either abortion or the legal rights of pregnant women.)

Zoe's Law is a Bill that was introduced in Australia that seeks to recognise the death of a foetus killed during a criminal act. To date, legislation has not passed through.

BACKGROUND TO ZOE'S LAW
Brodie Donegan, was knocked down by the driver of a vehicle outside her home. At the time, she was 36 weeks' pregnant. She sustained significant injuries and delivered a stillborn baby. The parents called their stillborn baby ‘Zoe’.

The driver of the vehicle was charged with grievous bodily harm in respect of the injuries caused to Brodie but there was no separate charge available to charge her in respect of the
injury to the foetus.

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PrecedentAULA/2014/17.pdf
Click to expand...
 
AGENT J said:
The "whoa that was crazy well never do that again" already happened when people realized they value women's rights and lives . . .we won't be going back. We wont be treating women as lessers and second class citizens any time soon. That's why the majority of first world countries have pro-choice type laws and its third world and dictatorship countries that are more likely to have prolife laws because those people dont have rights and freedoms.
Click to expand...

LOL @ suggesting women would be second class citizens by not having the power to end a human heartbeat. I don't distinctly remember men having any such unchallenged legal privilege so why should women.
 
Crusader13 said:
LOL @ suggesting women would be second class citizens by not having the power to end a human heartbeat. I don't distinctly remember men having any such unchallenged legal privilege so why should women.
Click to expand...

Because the laws of the land say so, and that is the only factor that matters....end.....of.....story..
 
Crusader13 said:
LOL @ suggesting women would be second class citizens by not having the power to end a human heartbeat. I don't distinctly remember men having any such unchallenged legal privilege so why should women.
Click to expand...

You may feel free to end any life inside your own body
 
AlphaOmega said:
Yes provided there is a heartbeat. Sorry I'm just not into killing innocent defenseless human beings. What about you?
Click to expand...

Logician Man said:
And what would the punishment be for those females who terminated a pregnancy if it was your call to make ?
Click to expand...

I would be curious as well.

I would be curious what any prolifers thought about this.
 
year2late said:
I would be curious as well.

I would be curious what any prolifers thought about this.
Click to expand...

I clearly stated I would answer this as soon as logician man answers my question with an answer and not a response.
 
Crusader13 said:
1.) LOL @ suggesting women would be second class citizens by not having the power to end a human heartbeat.
2.)I don't distinctly remember men having any such unchallenged legal privilege so why should women.
Click to expand...

1.) NOT what i suggested at all. Its funning that you think lies and strawmen will ever work. you can laugh at facts all you like it doesnt change them it just exposes your views on this topic . .
2.) again because your insane strawman fails its not the topic at all

like i said The "whoa that was crazy well never do that again" already happened when people realized they value women's rights and lives . . .we won't be going back. We wont be treating women as lessers and second class citizens any time soon. That's why the majority of first world countries have pro-choice type laws and its third world and dictatorship countries that are more likely to have prolife laws because those people dont have rights and freedoms. Let us know when that changes :)
 
Serenity said:
From a foetal personhood standpoint, I support Zoe's Law and hope that one day it passes. (Obviously so that it has no broader implications for either abortion or the legal rights of pregnant women.)

Zoe's Law is a Bill that was introduced in Australia that seeks to recognise the death of a foetus killed during a criminal act. To date, legislation has not passed through.
Click to expand...

These sorts of laws are constructed to add creedence to the pro life arugment through legislative fiat; and to embrace the authoritarian police state that stacks charges to ensure an outcome of guilt.

I oppose this legislation on the grounds that it is anti-rational nonsense.
 
Lursa said:
As if the govt using force (of law and otherwise) to make women remain pregnant against our will is moral in the slightest? :roll:
Click to expand...

There is nothing moral about it, and it is absolutely cruel and unusual punishment.

Especially given the context of rape victims. And incest victims.

Not a single social conservative can actually defend their hideous ideology in this aspect.
 
AlphaOmega said:
Yes provided there is a heartbeat. Sorry I'm just not into killing innocent defenseless human beings. What about you?
Click to expand...

AlphaOmega said:
I clearly stated I would answer this as soon as logician man answers my question with an answer and not a response.
Click to expand...

So you are stalling yet again.

It is a straightforward question.
 
Serenity said:
From a foetal personhood standpoint, I support Zoe's Law and hope that one day it passes. (Obviously so that it has no broader implications for either abortion or the legal rights of pregnant women.)

Zoe's Law is a Bill that was introduced in Australia that seeks to recognise the death of a foetus killed during a criminal act. To date, legislation has not passed through.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see how that plays out if it passes.

Will you keep us informed here in the sub-forum if it does, any links to downstream effects?
 
Crusader13 said:
LOL @ suggesting women would be second class citizens by not having the power to end a human heartbeat. I don't distinctly remember men having any such unchallenged legal privilege so why should women.
Click to expand...

Because that heartbeat is inside a woman and has the potential to destroy her entire life. In a manner that cannot be predicted or prevented. If it could be, then aout 1000 women a yr in the US wouldnt die and another 70,000 suffer significant healthy consequences like kidney failure, stroke, aneurysm, pre-eclampsia, etc.
Maternal morbidity

Every year in the U.S., nearly 4 million women give birth, the vast majority without anything going amiss for themselves or their babies. But more than 135 expectant and new mothers a day — or roughly 50,000 a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — endure dangerous and even life-threatening complications that often leave them wounded, weakened, traumatized, financially devastated, unable to bear more children, or searching in vain for answers about what went wrong.

Each year in the U.S., 700 to 900 women die related to pregnancy and childbirth. But for each of those women who die, up to 70 suffer hemorrhages, organ failure or other significant complications. That amounts to more than 1 percent of all births. The annual cost of these near deaths to women, their families, taxpayers and the health care system runs into billions of dollars.

"There's this misconception that these complications are rare," said Kristen*Terlizzi, whose uterus, appendix and part of her bladder were removed in 2014 because of a life-threatening placenta condition called placenta accreta. Terlizzi co-founded the National Accreta Foundation, which works to prevent deaths caused by the condition. "We [women] get brushed off — 'The risk is not a big deal,' " she said. "But it is."


https://www.npr.org/2017/12/22/5722...-preventable-complications-are-growing-in-u-s
Click to expand...
 
Obscurity said:
There is nothing moral about it, and it is absolutely cruel and unusual punishment.

Especially given the context of rape victims. And incest victims.

Not a single social conservative can actually defend their hideous ideology in this aspect.
Click to expand...

Truthfully, I've never been able to get any of them to address it. At all.
 
wolfsgirl said:
If someone moves into my house without permission I can evict them, I can even kill them. Why should I not be allowed to evict or kill someone that moves into my body without my permission?
Click to expand...

Do you oppose illegal immigration?
 
Lursa said:
Truthfully, I've never been able to get any of them to address it. At all.
Click to expand...

Their argument:

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Except when it comes to the death penalty, of course. Or war.
 
Lursa said:
Because that heartbeat is inside a woman and has the potential to destroy her entire life. In a manner that cannot be predicted or prevented. If it could be, then aout 1000 women a yr in the US wouldnt die and another 70,000 suffer significant healthy consequences like kidney failure, stroke, aneurysm, pre-eclampsia, etc.
Click to expand...

A six week old fetus(?) doesn't have a heart formed yet. What they are looking for is simply an electrical pulse in the cardiac area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom