• 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

The proof is there, just ask your parents. lol

Well if it's just anecdotal evidence that you want, my mother was an OB/GYN nurse from the late 50s thru the 80's. I asked her, she disagrees with you.
 
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

You seem to think that parents and grandparents and their parents etc had the same concept of children or a family unit we have today.

Like my parents who both came from a family of 11 ( 11 on my mother's side, 11 on my father's ) large family's were the norm in their day. I come from a family of 7. Small family units of less than 5 did not even become a thing until the last 40 years. Large families were managed, nowadays parents, for the most part, fall into parenthood.

Sooooo, according to you, they were NOT so good at preventing pregnancies 'back then' as you previously claimed. :roll:

The last thing we need today is people having huge families they cant support. "Managing" today? Who can afford cell phones for 11 kids? A woman constantly pregnant cant keep much of job outside the home and today, most *families* need that 2nd income. Society is very very different today...we dont 'need' to mass produce more mouths to feed and drains on resources.

(Another anecdote: in my 20s I dated guys from families with 14 kids, 12 kids, and 7 kids...yup Catholics, which I'm not...and of those 3, 2 of their mothers were dead by their mid-40s.)
 
Anti choice laws are a threat to my religious freedom as a Jew … because according to classical Jewish text and most rabbinic interpreters, a developing embryo or fetus is not ‘an unborn child’ or ‘person,’ but has the legal status of an appendage of the pregnant woman. It is part of her body, not a separate person, until the moment that a majority of a viable baby capable of independent life has been born.”

It would be interesting, if any of these states were to actually pass some of these laws criminalizing elective abortion, to see that challenged in the higher courts.

Religious freedom...which most of those red states backed to try and prevent gay marriage.

And maybe alot of women would convert all of a sudden :)
 
Separated them by bestowing the same protections upon them.

They have an interesting methodology to their segregationist actions.

Yes, the state chose to do so. There are laws that are unConstitutional but stand because they are never challenged in the higher courts. The people of CA have chosen not to challenge this law...it's certainly appealing to be able to punish someone to the greatest extent of the law when they kill a woman and the fetus that she and her family were looking forward to welcoming and loving.
 
Re: No, abortion isn't murder

Again I never said there weren't abortions, I never said they were sanitary.

Avoiding answering the question is not answering.

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.

Abortions rates were very high during the depression
In the 1930s, for example, abortion was widespread and extremely common. There was still tremendous risk involved, given that penicillin and antibiotics were not available until the Second World War. But even at this time, abortion was increasingly safe, relatively speaking.

The Great Depression produced an economic crisis that sharpened the need of women to control childbearing. Due to the 1920s campaign to make birth control available, by 1937, 80 percent of American women approved of using birth control. Moreover, the labor movement and socialist movements of that era produced an environment that largely supported women's reproductive rights. The fact that Russia following the 1917 revolution had been performing safe, legal abortions influenced radical doctors in the U.S.

In 1939, 68 percent of medical students in the U.S. reported that they would be willing to perform abortions if they were legal.

Many did. As Leslie Reagan describes in her excellent book When Abortion Was a Crime, clinics operated in open defiance of the law, and were often run by trained doctors, nurses and midwives. One such clinic in Chicago performed about 2,000 abortions a year between 1932 and 1941

When abortion was illegal

Similarly many women today are job and housing insecure. Many have substandard access to health care. While we are not in a depression, many women have many of the same concerns.
 
Simply not true. It's Fox News FFS! Science is part and parcel of abortion as well as neonatal care. Science tells us that survival at that premature age is between 20 and 30% despite the best care possible. Sco=iece tells us that NO baby born before 20 weeks has ever lived. Science tells us that a Canadian baby held the earliest surviving premie record for something like 30 years despite massive advances in neonatal ICBU care. The only thing special about this child is her very low birth weight.

Once the egg and sperm come together, you have formed a new human life. There's no dispute on that front. Human embryos and fetuses are human life. Different set of DNA, independent body parts and nervous system from the mother and father. Survival outside of the womb is a different concept. That does not dispute the concept that embryos and fetuses are human life.

I believe most pro-choicers acknowledge that a fetus is a human life, but argue that only born humans have constitutional rights, and being attached to the mother, means her rights trump the so-called rights of the fetus/baby/whatever.
 
Once the egg and sperm come together, you have formed a new human life. There's no dispute on that front. Human embryos and fetuses are human life. Different set of DNA, independent body parts and nervous system from the mother and father. Survival outside of the womb is a different concept. That does not dispute the concept that embryos and fetuses are human life.

I believe most pro-choicers acknowledge that a fetus is a human life, but argue that only born humans have constitutional rights, and being attached to the mother, means her rights trump the so-called rights of the fetus/baby/whatever.
The issue goes beyond whether or not the born have rights. Indeed the mother's rights do trump the ZEF's right, if it is in her body. Bodily autonomy is the key, not whether the ZEF is a human life or a human being. If we apply the principle that saving a human life trumps bodily autonomy, then that same principle allows us to harvest organs from the dead and even "spares", such as kidneys, from the living, so that we can save a human life.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
American's are way too hung up on this issue. Religion is way too involved. The is no abortion law in my Country, hasn't been since 1988, and it's completely funded by healthcare.

Prior to 1969 abortion was illegal.
In 1969 abortion was legalized under certain circumstances.
In 1973 abortion was legal.
In 1988 abortion law of any kind whatsoever was deemed Unconstitutional.

In my Country, the Supreme Court ruled in 1988, that any law regarding abortion ( for or against ) be struck down as Unconstitutional. Because it is as senseless to force a woman to carry a baby against her will, as it would be to force a woman to abort a child that she wants.

Abortion is a huge issue in the USA, but it's not a huge issue in other Countries.
 
The issue goes beyond whether or not the born have rights. Indeed the mother's rights do trump the ZEF's right, if it is in her body. Bodily autonomy is the key, not whether the ZEF is a human life or a human being. If we apply the principle that saving a human life trumps bodily autonomy, then that same principle allows us to harvest organs from the dead and even "spares", such as kidneys, from the living, so that we can save a human life.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

For starters, Pro-Lifers are not arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to use their own body parts or that the government should be forcing women to have their body parts removed. The argument here is whether or not, you should be allowed to destroy another human life. A fetus shouldn't be confused with a heart, liver, and so forth. It's another human life inhabiting another person's body.

There's a famous saying, it's not freedom, when you compromise other people's freedoms. In the case of pregnancies, we have two lives here. Unless we're talking about self-defense reasons -- the mother's health/life or the child's life --, there's no reason at all for abortions. I simply cannot accept the concept of abortion for inconvenience factors. Personal responsibility needs to be taken into consideration.
 
For starters, Pro-Lifers are not arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to use their own body parts or that the government should be forcing women to have their body parts removed. The argument here is whether or not, you should be allowed to destroy another human life. A fetus shouldn't be confused with a heart, liver, and so forth. It's another human life inhabiting another person's body.

There's a famous saying, it's not freedom, when you compromise other people's freedoms. In the case of pregnancies, we have two lives here. Unless we're talking about self-defense reasons -- the mother's health/life or the child's life --, there's no reason at all for abortions. I simply cannot accept the concept of abortion for inconvenience factors. Personal responsibility needs to be taken into consideration.

Your 'argument' was settled a long time ago when SCOTUS upheld Roe vs. Wade, making the point moot. The impregnated female is 'legally' entitled to do with her own body, and any other entity that relies on her body to exist to do what she pleases, including terminating any entities that may be within her body. That includes aborting said entities.
 
For starters, Pro-Lifers are not arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to use their own body parts or that the government should be forcing women to have their body parts removed. The argument here is whether or not, you should be allowed to destroy another human life. A fetus shouldn't be confused with a heart, liver, and so forth. It's another human life inhabiting another person's body.

There's a famous saying, it's not freedom, when you compromise other people's freedoms. In the case of pregnancies, we have two lives here. Unless we're talking about self-defense reasons -- the mother's health/life or the child's life --, there's no reason at all for abortions. I simply cannot accept the concept of abortion for inconvenience factors. Personal responsibility needs to be taken into consideration.

I will repeat my situation.

My pregnancy was initially unwanted. Clearly unplanned.

I was expected to have an easy pregnancy. I was the right age, excellent health, great insurance, great doctor and medical facilities. Excellent social support. Housing secure. Job securel

Because I had the LUXURY of decent medical care/secure job/secure/house/strong social ties....I thought I could make it work.

Despite projections, my pregnancy was full of complications. I had several serious complications that threatened my life/health/everything. On top of that another major issue cropped up that required me to a c-section .

Why is this important? What you call "an abortion for convenience" is a woman saying she lacks the personal, medical, and social resources to remain pregnant, let alone raise a child.

A woman who is under resourced would more than likely NOT have had the positive outcome that I did. I was able to go to a great OBGYN from the begining....that knew me. Because I was not in a rushed office with poor connections and resources. He saw a subtle sign that I am confident a rushed or less experienced MD would have missed. When he saw that subtle sign, he did further tests that showed my kidneys were compromised. I told to immediatly stop work and to have my only outings to be for medical reasons.

The salient points.

Because I had good insurance, I was not relegated to busy county clinics that probably would have found my signs too late.
Because I had good credit, I was able to absorb 10s of thousands of debt that I incurred being off for nearly 6 months (cobra payments were a bitch)
Because I had a good social structure, I had people helping me out and taking me to all of my required appointments to prevent further damage to my body.

Pregnancy is risky. And it is more risky if your are under-resourced.
What you consider "abortion for convenience" is frequently a woman weighing what her financial/medical/social resources match up with health and housing security.
 
Your 'argument' was settled a long time ago when SCOTUS upheld Roe vs. Wade, making the point moot. The impregnated female is 'legally' entitled to do with her own body, and any other entity that relies on her body to exist to do what she pleases, including terminating any entities that may be within her body. That includes aborting said entities.

The Supreme Court is wrong.

A Fetus is not the woman's body. It's somebody else's body.
 
The Supreme Court is wrong.

A Fetus is not the woman's body. It's somebody else's body.

You will need to take your 'opinion' up with SCOTUS. As to your second point, as stated in my previous post, it is irrelevant. Reason ? The woman, per the law, has the' legal' right to remove any entity she so desires that is living within her body. Correct ?
 
The Supreme Court is wrong.

A Fetus is not the woman's body. It's somebody else's body.

You do not understand bodily autonomy.

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over whom or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.
 
Last edited:
The Supreme Court is wrong.

A Fetus is not the woman's body. It's somebody else's body.

A fetus is growing within the woman's body. using her biological resources and with the ability to cause great harm.
 
Pregnancy is risky. And it is more risky if your are under-resourced.
What you consider "abortion for convenience" is frequently a woman weighing what her financial/medical/social resources match up with health and housing security.

Sex is optional. You want to have sex, go for it, but there are consequences for that action. Both good and bad.

Adoption is ALWAYS an option. You feel, you cannot accept the responsibilities of raising a child, allow another family the opportunity.

Giving birth to a child is risky, but so is having an abortion. That is putting your body at risk as well and potential future children.

Statistically speaking, 98% of all abortions are not due to rape, incest, or the health or the life of the mother at stake. It's about being unready to raise a child.

Let me repeat: We're not talking about people who are experiencing medical complications and continuing the pregnancy will result in serious damage to the woman's body or her life.

I am not saying pregnancy is easy, but one must look at the other side of the equation: the life of the child. This is something pro-choice America doesn't care about.
 
You do not understand bodily autonomy.

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over whom or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.

Do you support legalization of all drugs?

And for the record, I have no issue at all with anybody using their bodily functions and do not support the government inferring with someone's body. But when you support killing another human life, I do have major issues. Sorry, but that's how I feel.
 
Sex is optional. You want to have sex, go for it, but there are consequences for that action. Both good and bad.

Adoption is ALWAYS an option. You feel, you cannot accept the responsibilities of raising a child, allow another family the opportunity.

Giving birth to a child is risky, but so is having an abortion. That is putting your body at risk as well and potential future children.

Statistically speaking, 98% of all abortions are not due to rape, incest, or the health or the life of the mother at stake. It's about being unready to raise a child.

Let me repeat: We're not talking about people who are experiencing medical complications and continuing the pregnancy will result in serious damage to the woman's body or her life.

I am not saying pregnancy is easy, but one must look at the other side of the equation: the life of the child. This is something pro-choice America doesn't care about.

How do you know it is something pro-choicers don't care about ?. Do have have any definitive, credible proof your claim is factual, or are you just stating an 'opinion' and presenting it as 'fact' ? Be careful with your response, because I have definitive 'proof' your statement is 100 percent false.
 
Sex is optional. You want to have sex, go for it, but there are consequences for that action. Both good and bad.

Adoption is ALWAYS an option. You feel, you cannot accept the responsibilities of raising a child, allow another family the opportunity.

Giving birth to a child is risky, but so is having an abortion. That is putting your body at risk as well and potential future children.

Statistically speaking, 98% of all abortions are not due to rape, incest, or the health or the life of the mother at stake. It's about being unready to raise a child.

Let me repeat: We're not talking about people who are experiencing medical complications and continuing the pregnancy will result in serious damage to the woman's body or her life.

I am not saying pregnancy is easy, but one must look at the other side of the equation: the life of the child. This is something pro-choice America doesn't care about.

And one possible consequence is abortion. If you do not agree with that, then do not have one.


In terms of your flippant "there is always adoption" ignores the real risk that woman face during pregnacy and childbirth.

A woman has control over her own body. You may not like it, but she does.
 
And one possible consequence is abortion. If you do not agree with that, then do not have one.


In terms of your flippant "there is always adoption" ignores the real risk that woman face during pregnacy and childbirth.

A woman has control over her own body. You may not like it, but she does.

You're ignoring the health risks of having an abortion. That's no walk in the park either.

Once again, a woman can control her body parts. BUT an abortion is about killing an innocent human life, and removing it from their body.
 
How do you know it is something pro-choicers don't care about ?. Do have have any definitive, credible proof your claim is factual, or are you just stating an 'opinion' and presenting it as 'fact' ? Be careful with your response, because I have definitive 'proof' your statement is 100 percent false.

In this conversation, no weight is given to the human being inside of another human being. None at all, and on top of that is treated like a cancer cell.
 
Back
Top Bottom