• 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!

[W: 594] A great question for pro abortion types

Re: A great question for pro abortion types

year2late said:
I think a stronger point is that it is not just about raising a child in an unhealthy environment...a woman of limited means in this society may be thrust into that unhealthy environment herself if the pregnancy puts her into a position of not being able to support herself. Many of the women who chose abortion are "working poor" taking whatever the shifts they can get to meet rent for that month. They get put into the unfortunate position of working or following the doctor's orders. If it was you and you "felt fine" but were facing eviction, would you work or not pay the rent? That is kind of how it can be. Then if her job gets eliminated...as an employer, would you hire a woman who was already showing - especially if the job was physical labor? And this is all forgetting te fact that she will likely get emergency Medicaid which well probably send her to overburdened county clinics for her frequent medical appts.

Now mind you....as a pragmatist...I would rather see a woman have the ability to get the contraception most apt to prevent pregnancy (long term implantables/IUD) and currently those that are too rich for Medicaid and too poor for insurance cannot come close to affording the price tag of 800 to 1000 dollars - which is about twice the cost of an early abortion.
Click to expand...

You make valid points. My concern is not about if ] it is about when.
To follow up, it ought be affordable for any woman who would choose an IUD. I have no doubt a balance sheet, if put that somewhat calloused way, would show unwanted, aborted, or given up babies are a much bigger expense than the simple act of an IUD implant.
Prevention is shown to be less expensive than treatment in any case, isn't it?

Regards,
CP
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

year2late said:
Although our founding fathers did speak to ending pregnancies on various occasions.

REVOLUTIONARY SPIRITS: Faith, Politics, Opinion: The Founding Fathers and Abortion in Colonial America
Click to expand...

Our Founding Fathers spoke of many things as individuals. They were quite philosophical and wise. That they didn't include their musings in the Constitution does seem to show my point that the procedure wasn't seriously considered as an alternative to child birth or listed as a valued essential right in the Constitution. That is the tell.

Regards,
CP
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

concernedpuma said:
You make valid points. My concern is not about if ] it is about when.
To follow up, it ought be affordable for any woman who would choose an IUD. I have no doubt a balance sheet, if put that somewhat calloused way, would show unwanted, aborted, or given up babies are a much bigger expense than the simple act of an IUD implant.
Prevention is shown to be less expensive than treatment in any case, isn't it?

Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

And not just about less expense (due to a baby she cannot afford)...but risk to the woman's life and potential homelessness for her and her family.
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

concernedpuma said:
Our Founding Fathers spoke of many things as individuals. They were quite philosophical and wise. That they didn't include their musings in the Constitution does seem to show my point that the procedure wasn't seriously considered as an alternative to child birth or listed as a valued essential right in the Constitution. That is the tell.

Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

Possibly because they thought the health choices of an individual were none of their business.

Our founding fathers were not a timid lot. If they thought strongly about it....it would have been said.;)
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

Logical1 said:
Which is greater, the life of the baby or a womans "rights"??????
Click to expand...
Me not deciding what a women does or doesn't do with her body is more important than anything else/ You will have a voice I'll listen to when you show me your adoption papers ,of someone that is so into this issue that you adopted before the baby was born.
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

year2late said:
Possibly because they thought the health choices of an individual were none of their business.

Our founding fathers were not a timid lot. If they thought strongly about it....it would have been said.;)
Click to expand...

Possibly. That may be why suicide isn't a Federal law. But, you and I both know that was a male dominated Convention and abortion was likely not in their lane. I concede that.
That being written, it seems somehow a stretch when the Constitution is held up as providing rights to all abortion.
Please understand that I am not against necessary, early abortion. My largest and real concern is for viable beings that can be, and unfortunately are, destroyed and intertwined with Women's Rights. To use the genuine interest of Women's equality as a shield for a late term abortion is bastardizing a legitimate cause.

Regards,
CP
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

concernedpuma said:
Possibly. That may be why suicide isn't a Federal law. But, you and I both know that was a male dominated Convention and abortion was likely not in their lane. I concede that.
That being written, it seems somehow a stretch when the Constitution is held up as providing rights to all abortion.
Please understand that I am not against necessary, early abortion. My largest and real concern is for viable beings that can be, and unfortunately are, destroyed and intertwined with Women's Rights. To use the genuine interest of Women's equality as a shield for a late term abortion is bastardizing a legitimate cause.

Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

I do not think it specifically speaks to abortion....but it does speak to rights given to those that are born.
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

year2late said:
I do not think it specifically speaks to abortion....but it does speak to rights given to those that are born.
Click to expand...

Certainly so, but if the living(born at or before the signing) was their very limited concern, the entire citizenry deserving of rights would have all died of old age somewhere early in, or perhaps the mid- 19th century. Our Founding fathers looked beyond their own mortality, and nonetheless wrote no script about aborting, right?
That puts us in the Living Document discussion, where some assume a Constitutional right based on Contemporary, and possibly temporary right to even late term abortion. That is where the trails separate. The Supreme Court has often overstepped their mandate and ruled for the purpose of noisy crowds. I would say that has happened as far back as Income tax and selective service, just to name a couple..
Not necessarily against either, but I don't find those decisions in the Constitution either. Do you see what I mean?

Regards and respect,
CP
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

concernedpuma said:
Certainly so, but if the living(born at or before the signing) was their very limited concern, the entire citizenry deserving of rights would have all died of old age somewhere early in, or perhaps the mid- 19th century. Our Founding fathers looked beyond their own mortality, and nonetheless wrote no script about aborting, right?
That puts us in the Living Document discussion, where some assume a Constitutional right based on Contemporary, and possibly temporary right to even late term abortion. That is where the trails separate. The Supreme Court has often overstepped their mandate and ruled for the purpose of noisy crowds. I would say that has happened as far back as Income tax and selective service, just to name a couple..
Not necessarily against either, but I don't find those decisions in the Constitution either. Do you see what I mean?

Regards and respect,
CP
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that when you speak to late term abortion, they are frequently done because of severe fetal anomalies. After the twentieth week diagnostic ultrasounds are performed and results of genetic testing may be available. When bad news comes in, that gives the family (remember later term abortions are done usually on pregnancy that was welcome news)precious little time to decide what to do. Can you imagine being pregnant knowing the happy healthy baby you envisioned was never to be? The remaining months could be agonizing. Personally, I think I would opt for perinatal hospice and deliver "normally". But since I was never placed in that position, I do not know.

Years back our neighbor got the news of Tay Sachs. They were understandably distraught. A few weeks later the ultrasound - turns out the fetus had a severe heart malformation. She and her husband went away for several weeks and it was clear she was no longer pregnant. Did she miscarry or abort? I have no clue. I just am thankful that I never faced such an issue. I had an unexpected problematic pregnancy, but a healthy baby.
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

year2late said:
Keep in mind that when you speak to late term abortion, they are frequently done because of severe fetal anomalies. After the twentieth week diagnostic ultrasounds are performed and results of genetic testing may be available. When bad news comes in, that gives the family (remember later term abortions are done usually on pregnancy that was welcome news)precious little time to decide what to do. Can you imagine being pregnant knowing the happy healthy baby you envisioned was never to be? The remaining months could be agonizing. Personally, I think I would opt for perinatal hospice and deliver "normally". But since I was never placed in that position, I do not know.

Years back our neighbor got the news of Tay Sachs. They were understandably distraught. A few weeks later the ultrasound - turns out the fetus had a severe heart malformation. She and her husband went away for several weeks and it was clear she was no longer pregnant. Did she miscarry or abort? I have no clue. I just am thankful that I never faced such an issue. I had an unexpected problematic pregnancy, but a healthy baby.
Click to expand...

Believe me when I write that I am very sensitive and mourn those losses. I know of pitiful cases, I do. My heart genuinely breaks in those terrible circumstances.
That being written, when those cases are used by some(not you) to bolster the argument that all abortion must be accepted just doesn't follow. To use those terrible and rare cases as a tool for argument for Abortion on demand(esp.. with regard to any late term abortion) is to use heartbreak in a self serving way and surely exposes the user to being known as exactly what they are.

Regards and Good Evening friend,
CP
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

concernedpuma said:
My counter point = That you care about only living people(as you have determined) clearly doesn't calculate those who died or were born just as you were writing. You know you are using a variable, right?

Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

Absolutely for the dead people. Why on earth does that matter? To whom?

As for the just born...they are 100% included...so all good there.
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

concernedpuma said:
Point 1 = no argument. I'm not sure you can allow in a thought contrary to your mantra. I believe you wrote at some point that you had some psychology study; an inflexible mind set has a definition and you will then know what that is called.
Click to expand...
LOL...I'm not the one in need of psychological examination.

There are only 3 possibilities:

1) My position: I value the unborn, but I value all born women more. (I value all born people more)

2) valuing born women, but valuing the unborn more

3) valuing both equally. While that may be 'in someone's head' philosophically, it is not practical or possible in real life so in a discussion about an issue and change...to hold that view is delusional. Those are the people that, *after realizing the fact that they cant be treated equally legally*, must choose one or the other, or deny away in self-indulgent delusion.

Which do you choose? 1, 2, or 3?

(I guess there is a 4: not caring about born or unborn...I suppose that may exist)
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

concernedpuma said:
How often must you be told that the Constitution was never intended to address abortion? Truthfully, excepting a generous interpretation, the Federally codified term abortion, as a medical procedure, still hasn't appeared, has it?

Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

HOw often do you have to be told that that doesnt matter? Do you think the Supreme Court that decided RvW didnt know what is/is not "covered" in the Constitution? Or chose to disregard the intent of the FFs? :doh LOL, not that that mattered when SCOTUS made all blacks equal, which a good many FFs never intended, that's for sure.

That they and the rest of us are not aware of how the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 13th, and 14th all protect women and support legal abortion?

And the 9th probably addresses this silly "argument" that you keep bringing up and continue to ignore :shrug: If you dont understand how it applies, just ask :roll:

The Ninth Amendment, or Amendment IX of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that states that there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned, and even though they are not listed, it does not mean they can be violated.*
*
Kids
Click to expand...


Good lord, I keep linking to a kid's law site! At least try to understand.
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

concernedpuma said:
How often must you be told that the Constitution was never intended to address abortion? Truthfully, excepting a generous interpretation, the Federally codified term abortion, as a medical procedure, still hasn't appeared, has it?

Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

And yet when the Justices wrote the Roe decision they did take the Constitution , and The laws of the Colonial days into consideration. In fact in Roe part IX they wrote :

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.
Click to expand...



Roe v. Wade | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
Last edited:
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

concernedpuma said:
Possibly. That may be why suicide isn't a Federal law. But, you and I both know that was a male dominated Convention and abortion was likely not in their lane. I concede that.
That being written, it seems somehow a stretch when the Constitution is held up as providing rights to all abortion.
Please understand that I am not against necessary, early abortion. My largest and real concern is for viable beings that can be, and unfortunately are, destroyed and intertwined with Women's Rights. To use the genuine interest of Women's equality as a shield for a late term abortion is bastardizing a legitimate cause.

Regards,
CP
Click to expand...



Women do not nor can they electively choose a late term abortion ( past viability )in the Untited States.

Currently (as of 2013) there are are only 4 clinic doctors in the United States who perform abortions past 21 weeks gestion.
By the way the youngest preemies to ever survive was 21 weeks 5 days gestation.

Only about 1.3 percent of abortions occur past 21 weeks and 80 of those are because of catastrophic fetal defects.

From Romper:

In 2013, there were four doctors in the country who performed abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, according to Slate. (Current numbers could be even lower.)...

Only 1.3 percent of abortions happen at, or after, 21 weeks, she said, and 80 percent of those are the results of catastrophic defects with the fetus.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately a few are aborted because irreparable damage to a major bodily function of the woman would occur if the pregnancy continued. Examples are stroke,heart attack , paralysis from the neck down, kidney damage or liver damage.
 
Last edited:
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

concernedpuma said:
Our Founding Fathers spoke of many things as individuals. They were quite philosophical and wise. That they didn't include their musings in the Constitution does seem to show my point that the procedure wasn't seriously considered as an alternative to child birth or listed as a valued essential right in the Constitution. That is the tell.

Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

But they didn't make it illegal, did they?
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

Lursa said:
LOL...I'm not the one in need of psychological examination

There are only 3 possibilities:

1) My position: I value the unborn, but I value all born women more. (I value all born people more)

2) valuing born women, but valuing the unborn more

3) valuing both equally. While that may be 'in someone's head' philosophically, it is not practical or possible in real life so in a discussion about an issue and change...to hold that view is delusional. Those are the people that, *after realizing the fact that they cant be treated equally legally*, must choose one or the other, or deny away in self-indulgent delusion.

Which do you choose? 1, 2, or 3?

(I guess there is a 4: not caring about born or unborn...I suppose that may exist)
Click to expand...

It is unusual for you to be so closed off in discussion. But, I see you didn't include a 1A = Valuing both equally(Freudian perhaps?). Maybe that is your blind side.
It narrow minded, easy, and tidy for your to extend your care more for the wishes of the already born, than the unborn. That presentation is cold and in a way invalid. Bearing in mind that since our last exchange, many of both sexes have died. That you can so easily step away from the rights to life that were visited on you and I is surprising.
There are voices I have heard and that resonate with me on just this little slice of a board. I am afraid your all or nothing at all bull headed approach isn't one of them. Still...
Regards,
CP
 
Logical1 said:
The question is-----------if the baby aborted is not human, why are organs being harvested from them. That doesnt seem to compute.

Any logical comments?
Click to expand...

We buy and sell dead animal meat all the time. you can go into your local grocery store and select any type of meat you want. Don't we think the scientific community deserves the same privileges as us?

The ultimate question is this, does that aborted child's remains become the cure for cancer or does her birth eventually lead to the cure for cancer? We will never know the significance of that child either way.
 
charliebrown said:
We buy and sell dead animal meat all the time. you can go into your local grocery store and select any type of meat you want. Don't we think the scientific community deserves the same privileges as us?

The ultimate question is this, does that aborted child's remains become the cure for cancer or does her birth eventually lead to the cure for cancer? We will never know the significance of that child either way.
Click to expand...

Unless you begin labeling fetus cuts, I don't see how you could be more gruesome. Do you?
Regards,
CP
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

minnie616 said:
And yet when the Justices wrote the Roe decision they did take the Constitution , and The laws of the Colonial days into consideration. In fact in Roe part IX they wrote :





Roe v. Wade | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...

They took consideration of colonial mores into consideration? How in the world did they manage to travel back in time? You refer to a single decision re. Roe v. Wade by one court that can be, and likely will be, overturned. Until there is a more concise, and less prejudicial decision that shows Abortion specifically accepted, encouraged, or mandated Constitutionally, the argument depends too much on fatuous agenda interpretation.
Regards,
CP

Regards,
CP
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

concernedpuma said:
They took consideration of colonial mores into consideration? How in the world did they manage to travel back in time? You refer to a single decision re. Roe v. Wade by one court that can be, and likely will be, overturned. Until there is a more concise, and less prejudicial decision that shows Abortion specifically accepted, encouraged, or mandated Constitutionally, the argument depends too much on fatuous agenda interpretation.
Regards,
CP

Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

I highly doubt Roe will be overturned.

Roe has been revised and reaffirmed ten times.
The latest was 2016 during the Whole Women’s Healthh vs Hellerstedt Case.

When Justice Kavanaugh was interviewed by Congress before he became Confirmed he said that Casey was precedent on precedent.

Let’s review that when Casey V Planned Parenthood was decided and many conservatives were hopeful that Roe would be overturned , it was not overturned. In fact the best the Conservative justices could give their conservative base was the made up undue burden clause.

Which actually came back to bite Texas conservatives a few years ago who tried to pass laws requiring all abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Look up :Whole woman’s Health v Hellerstedt


From the following:


Because the make-up of the Court had changed and become more conservative since Roe was first decided, many people believed that the Court might use this case to overturn Roe altogether.

In a 5-4 decision the Court reaffirmed its commitment to Roe and to the basic right of a woman to have an abortion under certain circumstances.

Justice O’Connor, who authored the majority opinion, argued that stare decisis required the Court to not overturn Roe. Stare decisis is the general principal that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from.

(However, the doctrine of stare decisis is not always relied upon. From time to time, the Court overrules earlier precedent that the Justices believe had been wrongly decided.) O’Connor argued that a generation of women had come to depend on the right to an abortion. Nonetheless, certain restrictions were upheld.

As a result of the case, a woman continues to have a right to an abortion before the fetus is viable (before the fetus could live independently outside of the mother’s womb). The Court held that states cannot prohibit abortion prior to viability. However, the states can regulate abortions before viability as long as the regulation does not place an “undue burden” on the access to abortion. After fetal viability, however, states have increased power to restrict the availability of abortions.
Click to expand...

Landmark Supreme Court Cases | The Casey Case: Roe Revisited?
 
Last edited:
concernedpuma said:
Unless you begin labeling fetus cuts, I don't see how you could be more gruesome. Do you?
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

Actually, they do label the cuts!!!! I agree it is a gruesome description, but it is an accurate description.
 
Re: A great question for pro abortion types

concernedpuma said:
Nope. They reserved that for the States to decide.
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

Only *after viability,* not before.

And no healthy viable fetuses are aborted, except perhaps to save the life of the mother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom