• 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!

Abortion Is Against Science And Common Sense, Its Murder

The 7% solution?

Oborosen said:
The right isn't telling anyone what they can do with their body. The topic of abortion has always concerned the life of the child, not the mothers body.
Click to expand...

Yah. But that's the whole point of fetal abuse laws. See How States Handle Drug Use During Pregnancy

"How States Handle Drug Use During Pregnancy
"by Leticia Miranda, Vince Dixon and Cecilia Reyes
"Published on September, 30, 2015

"Across the country, hundreds of pregnant women and new mothers have been accused of child abuse or other crimes when they or their newborns tested positive for controlled substances. Laws on drug testing of infants and new mothers vary, but the stakes are always high. In many places, women lose their children or end up in behind bars, sometimes even if the drug was prescribed. Here is a survey of state laws.

Related: How some hospitals are drug testing new mothers without consent, How Alabama’s meth lab law is unfairly punishing pregnant women, Mothers: tell us about drug testing at your hospital."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

The attempt is apparently similar to hanging the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. How could anyone act out under the watchful eye of the Lord? & with pretty much the same effect - the people who are law-abiding to begin with observe the laws, those who aren't, don't (may not - it's not guaranteed).

There are real issues here; the children of women who abuse drugs are themselves often addicted, & suffer withdrawal problems & further mental &/or developmental delays afterwards. But merely punishing the women & their babies doesn't begin to solve the issues. Other approaches need to be investigated - the purely punitive isn't working, & the problems are getting worse.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Abortion is against science and its against common sense, its murder plain and simple. We need to ban it altogether, this article hits the nail right on the head.
Penny Nance: World'''s tiniest surviving preemie shows abortion isn’t in line with science or common sense | Fox News
Click to expand...

holy instant failure LOL

the article itself is factually inaccurate based on . . . wait for it . . SCIENCE......
theres nothing in this article that factually puts "science" against abortion

ill never understand why people lie about certain issues . . if a person is prolife that fine by me, be prolife for yourself and dont try to force it on others. But lying about it is just stupid.
 
Oborosen said:
The topic of abortion has always concerned the life of the child, not the mothers body (health and life).
Click to expand...
thats the dumbest thing i read today
please do tell, how do you separate the two

:popcorn2:
 
"if a person is pro-life that's fine by me, be pro-life for yourself and don't try to force it on others."

Abortion is killing an unborn child, standing by doing nothing is not an option!!
 
Scorps2000 said:
"if a person is pro-life that's fine by me, be pro-life for yourself and don't try to force it on others."

Abortion is killing an unborn child, standing by doing nothing is not an option!!
Click to expand...

Factually incorrect. The unborn are NOT children. Proof ? Children have rights. The unborn do NOT have rights.
 
Oborosen said:
The right isn't telling anyone what they can do with their body. The topic of abortion has always concerned the life of the child, not the mothers body.
Click to expand...

Umm, where do babies come from again?

It is impossible to separate the two. It must gestate and grow inside a woman's body and then she's expected to care for it after birth, so it is her life that is deeply affected before the child is even born. More so if she doesn't want it, more so if the birth would physically harm her, more so if it is the product of rape. It is her life that is deeply affected, often for life. The two are inextricable.

But I get the basic right-wing premise is that 'the woman doesn't matter' (or should that be 'women don't matter' in general), so thanks for clearing that up.
 
So, if we force the woman to have the baby, because the premise of this thread is to ban all abortions, and even though a doctor may say that the fetus, if allowed to go to full term may kill the mother, or if in labor, the woman dies as a result or during birth...then the child will spend all of its life in jail for murder.

If you think that statement is ridiculous (and it is), then think again about banning all abortions as that is also a ridiculous premise.
 
year2late said:
Concern for the life of the fetus? Yes. Child? Not feeling it. If they were concerned about lives of children, assurance of high quality health care for all would be their mantra.
Click to expand...

Depends on how you come to the conclusion that a fetus has no value as a life?
 
Re: The 7% solution?

southwest88 said:
Yah. But that's the whole point of fetal abuse laws. See How States Handle Drug Use During Pregnancy

"How States Handle Drug Use During Pregnancy
"by Leticia Miranda, Vince Dixon and Cecilia Reyes
"Published on September, 30, 2015

"Across the country, hundreds of pregnant women and new mothers have been accused of child abuse or other crimes when they or their newborns tested positive for controlled substances. Laws on drug testing of infants and new mothers vary, but the stakes are always high. In many places, women lose their children or end up in behind bars, sometimes even if the drug was prescribed. Here is a survey of state laws.

Related: How some hospitals are drug testing new mothers without consent, How Alabama’s meth lab law is unfairly punishing pregnant women, Mothers: tell us about drug testing at your hospital."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

The attempt is apparently similar to hanging the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. How could anyone act out under the watchful eye of the Lord? & with pretty much the same effect - the people who are law-abiding to begin with observe the laws, those who aren't, don't (may not - it's not guaranteed).

There are real issues here; the children of women who abuse drugs are themselves often addicted, & suffer withdrawal problems & further mental &/or developmental delays afterwards. But merely punishing the women & their babies doesn't begin to solve the issues. Other approaches need to be investigated - the purely punitive isn't working, & the problems are getting worse.
Click to expand...

You're off the topic of abortion.
 
AGENT J said:
thats the dumbest thing i read today
please do tell, how do you separate the two

:popcorn2:
Click to expand...

In ways that someone like you would never believe, or at the very least understand.

:coffeepap
 
Logician Man said:
Factually incorrect. The unborn are NOT children. Proof ? Children have rights. The unborn do NOT have rights.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Just as a woman has a right to abort a fetus, so she has a right to carry it to term, unmolested by others. Although the fetus does not have rights of its own, the pregnant woman has rights; thus, the government properly protects her body, its contents, and her choice to bring the fetus to term.

Scott Peterson convicted of second-degree murder of his unborn son Conner.
 
trixare4kids said:
Wrong.

Just as a woman has a right to abort a fetus, so she has a right to carry it to term, unmolested by others. Although the fetus does not have rights of its own, the pregnant woman has rights; thus, the government properly protects her body, its contents, and her choice to bring the fetus to term.

Scott Peterson convicted of second-degree murder of his unborn son Conner.
Click to expand...

If, I'm wrong, please list the rights the unborn have. I'll wait for that list. Oh, never mind. I see you've already admitted 'the fetus does not have rights of it's own', AFTER you bolded the same in my post, then claimed I was wrong....Confused much ?
 
Last edited:
uptower said:
Umm, where do babies come from again?

It is impossible to separate the two. It must gestate and grow inside a woman's body and then she's expected to care for it after birth, so it is her life that is deeply affected before the child is even born. More so if she doesn't want it, more so if the birth would physically harm her, more so if it is the product of rape. It is her life that is deeply affected, often for life. The two are inextricable.
Click to expand...
You're probably the closest to having a point, then all the others on the thread.

Though I do see that you're already at your lowest when you try to poison the well like that.

But I get the basic right-wing premise is that 'the woman doesn't matter' (or should that be 'women don't matter' in general), so thanks for clearing that up.
Click to expand...



There are treatments available to keep her from actually becoming pregnant, barring the fact that the act of having unprotected sex. Consensually at the very least, is a choice that someone should not make lightly.

There are stipulations in the law for pregnancies that require an abortion. But the issue is that it's not only the woman's life that is there. That child has values as a life and just flippantly tearing it apart is not something that should be done without complete reason.
 
Logician Man said:
If, I'm wrong, please list the rights the unborn have. I'll wait for that list. Oh, never mind. I see you've already admitted 'the fetus does not have rights of it's own', AFTER you bolded the same in my post, then claimed I was wrong....Confused much ?
Click to expand...

I already did.
 
trixare4kids said:
I already did.
Click to expand...

No you didn't.You listed the rights of the mother, and the state. You clearly just posted above 'the fetus has NO RIGHTS of it's own. Make your mind up. Does the fetus have rights, or not ? If YES,list them. If not ( as is your claim above ), your point is moot, and dismissed. You clearly are very confused, as is evident by your own contradictions.
 
Last edited:
Logician Man said:
No you didn't. You just posted above 'the fetus has NO RIGHTS of it's own. Make your mind up. Does the fetus have rights, or not ? If YES,list them. If not ( as is your claim above ), your point is moot, and dismissed.
Click to expand...

Haha, you wish.
The fetus has rights; see the state of CA. vs. Scott Peterson.
Why do you suppose the state found him guilty of second degree murder?
For the fun of it?

But I've already mentioned all this above, so either learn to read or learn to tuck that big old tail feather of yours.

That fetus, you'd like to dismiss as having NO rights, has a name. His name is Conner Peterson.

ETA:
I say the above proudly as a PRO-CHOICE WOMAN.
See if you can figure out what this means taking my words into context.
 
Last edited:
trixare4kids said:
Haha, you wish.
The fetus has rights; see the state of CA. vs. Scott Peterson.
Why do you suppose the state found him guilty of second degree murder?
For the fun of it?

But I've already mentioned all this above, so either learn to read or learn to tuck that big old tail feather of yours.

That fetus, you'd like to dismiss has having NO rights, has a name. His name is Conner Peterson.
Click to expand...

Then why can't you list one right a fetus has, and why did you clearly post 'the fetus has NO RIGHTS of it's own' ?...If/when you get your confusion on this matter resolved,get back with me, and we can further discuss this. As it stands now, clearly you are taking two different stands by your very own words. So, it's not a matter of my reading comprehension, it's a matter of you figuring out which of your 2 'stated claims' you choose to go with. You can't have it both ways. ( fact )
 
Oborosen said:
In ways that someone like you would never believe, or at the very least understand.

:coffeepap
Click to expand...
thats what I thought!
Translation: you cant explain it cause its not possible. In the future avoid stupid statements that are factually not true and your post wont fail so hard and hilariously blow up in your face. Thanks for playing!
 
AGENT J said:
thats what I thought!
Translation: you cant explain it cause its not possible. In the future avoid stupid statements that are factually not true and your post wont fail so hard and hilariously blow up in your face. Thanks for playing!
Click to expand...

Please don't give advice that you aren't even capable of following.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom