• 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

Re: No, abortion isn't murder

maquiscat said:
Yes they do. There are many women who want their pregnancy/child, but will still abort with sufficient medical evidence that the child will suffer and/or die, and/or the mother will die.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That’s why I said electively. I do not consider abortions for medical reasons as an elective abortion.
As you said they were very much wanted, but something medical went very wron with the pregnancy.


And that is why I encourage women to use the best birth control they can afford and can medically use. Unfortunately a lot of women can not use hormone birth control because of medical reasons.

Hopefully, research will bring newer more effective birth control with less side effects and the vast majority of pregnancies are wanted pregnancies. When that is the case than abortions will truly be rare.
 
Last edited:
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

GodlessBrandy said:
Well I think we should allow the abortion of all unwanted humans, regardless of age.
Click to expand...
As long as the bodily autonomy principle is in play, I don't see a problem with this. Oh wait we already do. It's called a death penalty.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

Oborosen said:
I'm not using emotional language. I'm describing what the fetus actually is and someone as arbitrary as one ruling. Can decide that a living creature doesn't possess rights, until it reaches a certain point.

I'm more than willing to agree that a woman should have her own bodily autonomy. Yet when a child is involved, it's no longer just concerning "her" body.
Click to expand...

Except that it is. When the offspring, regardless of stage of development, is not in her body, she does not get to choose to terminate it. So even as a fetus, if her genetic child is in a surrogate instead of her own body, then she does not have the principle of bodily autonomy as a basis for termination. Once the offspring is born, she again does not have that ability because bodily autonomy is not in play.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

Oborosen said:
Then why be so irresponsible, as to become pregnant in the first place?
Click to expand...
Who claims it is irresponsibility? Now I do believe that you did allow for cases of rape and medical threat to the mother's life. And IIRC you also noted that things can happen to make even the most strictly adhered to birth control can still result in pregnancy. So why assume irresponsibility?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
code1211 said:
You are the person that used the word "murder". I did not.
Click to expand...
No I am not. The OP did, and I responded to that. If you follow the sub thread back, you will find that this line is about how the labeling of abortion as murder is wrong.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
No I am not. The OP did, and I responded to that. If you follow the sub thread back, you will find that this line is about how the labeling of abortion as murder is wrong.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And I dismissed the specific consideration of the legality in my response to your post.

As with so many decisions rendered by our courts, morality plays little or no role in the decisions on abortion in consideration of the rights of the unborn. In short, there are no rights of the unborn.

The legal decisions on slavery and on abortion both demand that we define away the humanity of those injured by the practice. Personal injury presents a legal problem.

If no human is injured, then no consideration of morality is demanded or even justified. Problem solved!

The legally recognized name of the act that occurs when a slave or a fetus is killed is only a debating point if they are not recognized legally as "persons".

If either or both are considered to be "persons" legally, that changes everything related to the legality. The morality is, however, unchanged despite the word games employed to assuage one's conscience.
 
code1211 said:
And I dismissed the specific consideration of the legality in my response to your post.

As with so many decisions rendered by our courts, morality plays little or no role in the decisions on abortion in consideration of the rights of the unborn. In short, there are no rights of the unborn.

The legal decisions on slavery and on abortion both demand that we define away the humanity of those injured by the practice. Personal injury presents a legal problem.

If no human is injured, then no consideration of morality is demanded or even justified. Problem solved!

The legally recognized name of the act that occurs when a slave or a fetus is killed is only a debating point if they are not recognized legally as "persons".

If either or both are considered to be "persons" legally, that changes everything related to the legality. The morality is, however, unchanged despite the word games employed to assuage one's conscience.
Click to expand...

You are correct there are no rights for the unborn.

The unborn are human and humanity is not taken away from them.

Slaves were persons and rights were withheld.

Women were persons too and rights were withheld from women too.

Do you think humanity was taken away from women in the early days of the United States before they won the right to vote?

The unborn have never had rights.

At most they only represent the potentiality of life.

From Roe IX

some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. 65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. 66 Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Oborosen said:
Should someone not be responsible for anything at all?
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the point I was making? I'll repeat:

If women could will themselves to get or not get pregnant, there would be no need for fertility or abortion clinics.
 
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

Oborosen said:
When a woman willingly becomes pregnant, does that not count as allowing the child access and use to her body?
Click to expand...

Women who willingly become pregnant do not abort unless something goes wrong.
 
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

Oborosen said:
No, they don't posses a birth certificate. But a sheet of paper, or a plaque does not confirm life, or rights does it?

If so, all someone would need to do is shred the certificate of another and, that person is no longer considered as such.
Click to expand...

There would still be a registration of birth at the vital statistics office.
 
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

GodlessBrandy said:
What I find strange about the whole topic of unwanted pregnancies today is that this was a very rare thing in the past
Click to expand...

Given that abortions have been happening since women have been getting pregnant, I'd say that is not true.
 
Re: The legal basis of slavery

code1211 said:
Are you saying that individuals did not populate the legislatures and judiciary?
Click to expand...

"it was plantation society that ran the (US antebellum) South, for their own benefit & to perpetuate their hold on all important positions in the South. & hardly anyone (outside of plantation society) was a citizen there"

Sure, there were individual members of plantation society who were the legislators, judges, ministers, teachers, professors, government employees & on & on. But they all voted together, to further their class (for lack of a better word). Thus large slaveholders were exempt from the military draft in the CSA, taxation was never sufficient to actually carry out the war, crucial infrastructure (railroads, road networks, bridges, telegraph nets, etc.) was delayed or monies not appropriated for the purpose (this was the pattern throughout the South's history, BTW). The struggles over who would command troops outside of their originating state was partly due to exaggerated notions of personal merit & which state should have the glory/responsibility of leading, militarily.
 
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

Scrabaholic said:
Given that abortions have been happening since women have been getting pregnant, I'd say that is not true.
Click to expand...

Way to select a portion of my statement for no other reason that to show it out of context.

I never said there weren't abortions in the past what I said was they were not commonplace. Our parents, and their parents, and so forth, were able to manage pregnancies better than we do today. Most were even able to plan when they had children ( ie. 2 years apart ) with great success without all the benefits we have today in birth control.
 
A sense of decency

marke said:
Premies prove babies are babies long before the 9 month due date.
Click to expand...

Premature births, depending upon the degree of prematurity, are a tragedy. Yes, by expending a lot of care & attention & resources, NICU, respirators, monitors, etc. the baby may live - but if too premature, the child's life may never catch up with the development of children who were born @ full term. That's assuming that the woman & fetus can get to a hospital with an NICU, & has the staff & training & equipment & etc. to intervene & help the baby survive.

These children are not counters in some game of partisan one-upmanship - the stakes are very high for the individuals & families involved.
 
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

Deleted
 
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

GodlessBrandy said:
Way to select a portion of my statement for no other reason that to show it out of context.

I never said there weren't abortions in the past what I said was they were not commonplace. Our parents, and their parents, and so forth, were able to manage pregnancies better than we do today. Most were even able to plan when they had children ( ie. 2 years apart ) with great success without all the benefits we have today in birth control.
Click to expand...

Abortions were not rare in the past even when they were against the law.

In the early 1930s when abortions were against the law doctors performed about 800,000 abortions a year in the United States.

In 2014 there were less than 700,000 performed.
 
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

minnie616 said:
Abortions were not rare in the past even when they were against the law.

In the early 1930s when abortions were against the law doctors performed about 800,000 abortions a year in the United States.

In 2014 there were less than 700,000 performed.
Click to expand...

Can you post the source ? I've not been able to see good graphs
 
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

minnie616 said:
Abortions were not rare in the past even when they were against the law.

In the early 1930s when abortions were against the law doctors performed about 800,000 abortions a year in the United States.

In 2014 there were less than 700,000 performed.
Click to expand...

If you provide a reputable source for that claim, I will stand corrected, as far as the USA goes. I'm not American, nor did I mention America, so clearly I wasn't specifically referring to America.
 
Last edited:
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

minnie616 said:
Abortions were not rare in the past even when they were against the law.

In the early 1930s when abortions were against the law doctors performed about 800,000 abortions a year in the United States.

In 2014 there were less than 700,000 performed.
Click to expand...



bergignon said:
Can you post the source ? I've not been able to see good graphs
Click to expand...

GodlessBrandy said:
If you provide a reputable source for that claim, I will stand corrected, as far as the USA goes. I'm not American, nor did I mention America, so clearly I wasn't specifically referring to America.
Click to expand...



From Wiki:

By the 1930s, licensed physicians performed an estimated 800,000 abortions a year.[27]
Click to expand...

Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia

This graph is from 1960 to 2013

United States abortion rates, 1960-2013

The 2014 stat is the CDC stats. I will look that up.

A total of 652,639 abortions were reported to CDC for 2014.
Click to expand...

Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2014 | MMWR
 
Last edited:
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

minnie616 said:
This graph is from 1960 to 2013

United States abortion rates, 1960-2013
Click to expand...

That graph actually confirms what I said.

I said my parents and their parents before them and so on. Did you think I was referring to the last 30 years. What are you 12? And your mother was 18 when she had you?

As per your own evidence:

1960 abortions 292
1970 193,491
1980 1,553,890
1990 1,608,620

abortions didn't even start declining till 1991.
 
Last edited:
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

GodlessBrandy said:
That graph actually confirms what I said.

I said my parents and their parents before them and so on. Did you think I was referring to the last 20 years.

As per your own evidence:

1960 abortions per year 292
1970 193,491
1980 1,553,890
1990 1,608,620

abortions didn't even start declining till 1991.
Click to expand...

If you are talking about the graph from the 1960s to 2013 Johnston only counted the legal abortions.
In the 1960s the only abortions performed were in hospitals and they were when the woman’s life was danger.

Before Roe many women were hospitalized because they had “ back alley “ abortions.

Before 1973 the frequency of induced abortion in the United States could be as low as 200,000 and as high as 1,200,000 per year.

Abortions were legalized in dec of 1972.

Abortion rate declining in the mid 1980s.
 
Last edited:
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

minnie616 said:
If you are talking about the graph from the 1960s to 2013 Johnston only counted the legal abortions.
In the 1960s the only abortions performed were in hospitals and they were when the woman’s life was danger.

Before Roe many women were hospitalized because they had “ back alley “ abortions.

Abortions were legalized in dec of 1972.
Click to expand...

minnie616 said:
Abortions started declining in the mid 1980s.
Click to expand...

Not according to your chart.

My point stands unless you can show evidence to the contrary from a reputable source.

Our parents ( maybe not yours ), and their parents before them, were able to better manage pregnancies than people today despite all the birth controls that are currently available. Parents were able to space their children out ( usually 1.5-2 years apart ) with amazing success. As a result there were far fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions than there is today.
 
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

GodlessBrandy said:
Not according to your chart.

My point stands unless you can show evidence to the contrary from a reputable source.

Our parents ( maybe not yours ), and their parents before them, were able to better manage pregnancies than people today despite all the birth controls that are currently available. Parents were able to space their children out ( usually 1.5-2 years apart ) with amazing success. As a result there were far fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions than there is today.
Click to expand...

You are confusing the numbers of abortions with the rate of abortions.

Look at the rate of abortions on the chart I posted. There was slight increase in numbers but still a decrease in the rate since 1984.


As I said Before Roe ( when abortions became legal in the US in Dec1972) thousands of patients went to hospitals to have repairs for their “back alley” abortions.

Before Roe Vs Wade many girls/women were so desperate not to continue a pregnancy they either sought an illegal abortion or tried to self abort. The fact they were putting their own lives was less terrifing to them than continuing an unwanted pregnancy.

Many, many women's lives were in danger before Roe, before legal, safer abortions were an option in the US the women used illegal abortions. They were often done either by the patient herself or by an abortionist — often unknowing, unskilled and in an
unsanitary setting.

from a MD's Essay:
Repairing the Damage, Before Roe

I am a retired gynecologist, in my mid-80s. My early formal training in my specialty was spent in New York City, from 1948 to 1953, in two of the city’s large municipal hospitals.


There I saw and treated almost every complication of illegal abortion that one could conjure, done either by the patient herself or by an abortionist — often unknowing, unskilled and probably uncaring. Yet the patient never told us who did the work, or where and under what conditions it was performed. She was in dire need of our help to complete the process or, as frequently was the case, to correct what damage might have been done.

The patient also did not explain why she had attempted the abortion, and we did not ask. This was a decision she made for herself, and the reasons were hers alone. Yet this much was clear: The woman had put herself at total risk, and literally did not know whether she would live or die.

This, too, was clear: Her desperate need to terminate a pregnancy was the driving force behind the selection of any method available.



The familiar symbol of illegal abortion is the infamous “coat hanger” — which may be the symbol, but is in no way a myth. In my years in New York, several women arrived with a hanger still in place. Whoever put it in — perhaps the patient herself — found it trapped in the cervix and could not remove it.

<SNIP>



The worst case I saw, and one I hope no one else will ever have to face, was that of a nurse who was admitted with what looked like a partly delivered umbilical cord. Yet as soon as we examined her, we realized that what we thought was the cord was in fact part of her intestine, which had been hooked and torn by whatever implement had been used in the abortion. It took six hours of surgery to remove the infected uterus and ovaries and repair the part of the bowel that was still functional.



It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.



What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such.
Click to expand...

Read more:

Doctor Recalls Abortion Complications Before Roe v. Wade - The New York Times
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom