• 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

minnie616 said:
Even when abortion was against the law , abortion was never murder.
Click to expand...

It did not have to class abortion as a murder for it to class abortion as a crime.

It did define a crime and did recommend a punishment as any other crime, including murder, would do.
 
maquiscat said:
The only protection that would be removed is that of homicide, not murder. A person cannot be murdered if the conditions of homicide are legal to do. Murder is defined by the law only. Homicide is defined by the one killed. Either, both or neither may be applied to a given killing.

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

So true. Change the considered parallel to be "double parking".
 
maquiscat said:
Then I stand by my point. They are the exact same principle, and as such, unless the distinction is needed, are interchangeable. Just like father and dad, or man and male are usually interchangeable, but sometimes the distinction needs to be made, so too here.

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

Bodily autonomy and Bodily integrity are similar but there is a distinct difference when force is used against a person.
 
minnie616 said:
Many doctors will always view abortions as medical procedure that doctors should be able to offer their patients who are in need of one.

Criminalizing abortion takes away a doctors rights to offer a medical procedure to his/ her patients.

From :



Read more :

When Abortion Was a Crime
Click to expand...

"...in need of one."

I may be "in need of" an engagement ring if I am planning to get married.

If my plan to gain the engagement ring includes ending a human life, does my "need" justify that ending?
 
code1211 said:
"...in need of one."

I may be "in need of" an engagement ring if I am planning to get married.

If my plan to gain the engagement ring includes ending a human life, does my "need" justify that ending?
Click to expand...

I am curious. During the Great Depression, abortion was both illegal and frequent. Do you think the fact that they were lacking in reliable resources to care for themselves (let alone a family) would have been acceptable to you? You flippantly compare need for abortion to "need" of an abortion.

I mean one is a silly ring...and the other is founded in fear for the security of yourself and family.
 
code1211 said:
"...in need of one."

I may be "in need of" an engagement ring if I am planning to get married.

If my plan to gain the engagement ring includes ending a human life, does my "need" justify that ending?
Click to expand...

Your analogy is false.

We are talking about a medical procedure not a materialistic item.

It is important to remember that Roe was about Doctors rights as much if not more than the woman’s right to privacy.

“The attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated."

Roe v. Wade And Doctors' Rights - Business Insider
 
Last edited:
maquiscat said:
Oh really?
While the article does note it's based under common law crimes, the fact remains that the man was charged, and recurved a sentence, thus it is illegal. And Maryland is not the only state. Fact remains, suicide and the attempt thereof is illegal.

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

It's not illegal in my country.

Suicide is the act of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally. Suicide was decriminalized in Canada in 1972, while physician-assisted suicide was decriminalized in 2015.

Suicide in Canada | The Canadian Encyclopedia
Click to expand...

ETA: Found this on suicide in the US:

Historically, various states listed the act of suicide as a felony, but these policies were sparsely enforced. In the late 1960s, eighteen U.S. states had no laws against suicide.[138] By the late 1980s, thirty of the fifty states had no laws against suicide or suicide attempts but every state had laws declaring it to be a felony to aid, advise or encourage another person to die by suicide.[139] By the early 1990s only two states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification.[citation needed] In some U.S. states, suicide is still considered an unwritten "common law crime," as stated in Blackstone's Commentaries.

Suicide legislation - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

I did not know what a common law crime is, so had to look it up:

Common law offences are crimes under English criminal law and the related criminal law of other Commonwealth countries. They are offences under the common law, developed entirely by the law courts, and therefore have no specific bases in statute.

Common law offence - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

ETA again: Regarding your link, it says that some think that prosecuting attempted suicide can help get people into treatment. That is not necessary. Here, they can be held involuntarily as a danger to themselves or others. It seems really silly to me to give people a criminal record for something like this.


BTW, technically, I am correct. I said suicide is not a crime. I did not say attempted suicide. ;)
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
"...in need of one."

I may be "in need of" an engagement ring if I am planning to get married.

If my plan to gain the engagement ring includes ending a human life, does my "need" justify that ending?
Click to expand...

Can the lack of an engagement ring destroy your health? Kill you? Keep you from properly feeding and housing your children, elderly, disabled dependents? Keep you from fulfilling your obligations and commitments to employer, community, society?
 
year2late said:
I am curious. During the Great Depression, abortion was both illegal and frequent. Do you think the fact that they were lacking in reliable resources to care for themselves (let alone a family) would have been acceptable to you? You flippantly compare need for abortion to "need" of an abortion.

I mean one is a silly ring...and the other is founded in fear for the security of yourself and family.
Click to expand...

Why the edit?

I am not discerning the difference in this distinction on the personal level that differs from the example of the need of an engagement ring:

"need for abortion to "need" of an abortion" or "need for looting to "need" of an engagement ring"

That aside, though, I am not arguing against the legal right to have an abortion. I am only citing the various issues of morality and ethics that are routinely shunted aside to support the legality.

There are similar considerations in the ending of any human life whether it's Second Amendment stuff, capital punishment or granting driver's licenses.

When these things are legal and used by people, human beings will perish as a result.

When human life will certainly end due to the decision made, it seems the decision should include fair consideration including all of the ideas involved.

Is this not a reasonable approach in making such a decision?
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
Your analogy is false.

We are talking about a medical procedure not a materialistic item.

It is important to remember that Roe was about Doctors rights as much if not more than the woman’s right to privacy.

“The attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated."

Roe v. Wade And Doctors' Rights - Business Insider
Click to expand...

Why do Pro-Choice ideologues ALWAYS de-humanize the human that is not yet born?

Once again, I am not arguing about the legality of the procedure. I freely admit that this is legal. I am not arguing to make this illegal. You can stop drilling. You already struck oil.

I am only addressing the moral and ethical questions that surround this idea. There are various things that are legal that will result in the ending of human life. ALL of these things involve various cost benefit considerations.

Some of the costs and benefits include the resulting evolution in our societal understanding of morals and ethics in regard to the sanctity (or lack of importance) of life.

Here is a good explanation of how rationalization is both a justification and a habit. Once we start doing it, it gets easier. Supporting a rationalization replaces making a good choice.

YouTube
 
code1211 said:
Why do Pro-Choice ideologues ALWAYS de-humanize the human that is not yet born?

Once again, I am not arguing about the legality of the procedure. I freely admit that this is legal. I am not arguing to make this illegal. You can stop drilling. You already struck oil.

I am only addressing the moral and ethical questions that surround this idea. There are various things that are legal that will result in the ending of human life. ALL of these things involve various cost benefit considerations.

Some of the costs and benefits include the resulting evolution in our societal understanding of morals and ethics in regard to the sanctity (or lack of importance) of life.

Here is a good explanation of how rationalization is both a justification and a habit. Once we start doing it, it gets easier. Supporting a rationalization replaces making a good choice.

YouTube
Click to expand...


Who needs to dehumanize an unborn?

I don’t.

When talking about morals and ethics I value both the unborn and born.

During my first pregnancy I became extremely ill as a complication of my pregnancy.
I had to stay home I was so weak from the sickness.
My kidneys were damaged .

My husband and I wanted a little one.
So he took over cooking his own meals, all the housework , the laundry , driving me to doctor appointments, supporting me emotionally, physically, and financially.

I became so anemic from my pregnancy complications that my my doctor was worried I might bleed to death during delivery. He had the delivery room ready for a complete blood transfusion.

When they wheeled me in , I did not know if I would live to see my little one or even know if I had a boy or a girl.

I am the mother of four children.

During my first pregnancy it was easy for me to make my decision to put the little one first but if I was sick with one of my other pregnancies while I had a toddler or two at home who were dependent on me ,I don’t know what I would have done. I would have had to give my born child / children to someone else to raise during my because I was physically unable to care for a little one, I could barely manage to make it a few hours on my own.

I know what I went through and I the love, the help , the financial support of my husband, family and friends.

I don’t think I would have made it had it not been for all their help and support.

Each pregnant woman knows her situation the best.

I trust her and her doctor to choose what is best .

As a reminder over 60 percent of women who seek abortions are already raising at least one born child.
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
Why do Pro-Choice ideologues ALWAYS de-humanize the human that is not yet born?

Once again, I am not arguing about the legality of the procedure. I freely admit that this is legal. I am not arguing to make this illegal. You can stop drilling. You already struck oil.

I am only addressing the moral and ethical questions that surround this idea. There are various things that are legal that will result in the ending of human life. ALL of these things involve various cost benefit considerations.

Some of the costs and benefits include the resulting evolution in our societal understanding of morals and ethics in regard to the sanctity (or lack of importance) of life.

Here is a good explanation of how rationalization is both a justification and a habit. Once we start doing it, it gets easier. Supporting a rationalization replaces making a good choice.

YouTube
Click to expand...

Ok, someone's wife is kidnapped, escapes about six months later and is five months pregnant. A doctor determines both the mother and the unborn are in good shape. I see more than one moral issue involved, but I only want to focus on one. Does the state have the moral right to dictate what a person in that situation has to do? I read Roe v Wade as if it prohibits states from making laws that prohibit abortions, because it's believed to be an individual's decision. Individuals are recognized as having power in the 10th Amendment.

The moral issue isn't whether it's noble or moral to have a child conceived by rape, but whether the will of the state should dictate what a person in that circumstance has to do. I see no evidence the dumbasses in state governments think things thru well enough to make logical laws in some cases. Politics often interferes with sound judgment.
 
Need more information

Gary said:
Ok, someone's wife is kidnapped, escapes about six months later and is five months pregnant. A doctor determines both the mother and the unborn are in good shape. I see more than one moral issue involved, but I only want to focus on one. Does the state have the moral right to dictate what a person in that situation has to do? I read Roe v Wade as if it prohibits states from making laws that prohibit abortions, because it's believed to be an individual's decision. Individuals are recognized as having power in the 10th Amendment.

The moral issue isn't whether it's noble or moral to have a child conceived by rape, but whether the will of the state should dictate what a person in that circumstance has to do. I see no evidence the dumbasses in state governments think things thru well enough to make logical laws in some cases. Politics often interferes with sound judgment.
Click to expand...

Roe tries to balance the woman's, doctor's, & state's interests. Find a good summary of Roe, the woman can freely elect to have an abortion in the first trimester (before fetal viability), & after that if the woman's health or life is in danger because of the pregnancy.
 
Gary said:
Ok, someone's wife is kidnapped, escapes about six months later and is five months pregnant. A doctor determines both the mother and the unborn are in good shape. I see more than one moral issue involved, but I only want to focus on one. Does the state have the moral right to dictate what a person in that situation has to do? I read Roe v Wade as if it prohibits states from making laws that prohibit abortions, because it's believed to be an individual's decision. Individuals are recognized as having power in the 10th Amendment.

The moral issue isn't whether it's noble or moral to have a child conceived by rape, but whether the will of the state should dictate what a person in that circumstance has to do. I see no evidence the dumbasses in state governments think things thru well enough to make logical laws in some cases. Politics often interferes with sound judgment.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right!

Considering all of the reasons to make a decision is usually a good thing.

Making a just decision involving the continuation or ending of human life is and should be excruciatingly difficult.
 
code1211 said:
Absolutely right!

Considering all of the reasons to make a decision is usually a good thing.

Making a just decision involving the continuation or ending of human life is and should be excruciatingly difficult.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt it is an easy decision.

It must be very difficult.
 
code1211 said:
Why do Pro-Choice ideologues ALWAYS de-humanize the human that is not yet born?
Click to expand...

Nobody is dehumanizing the zef (it is NOT a human being, that is FACT), least of all Minnie, who's post you quoted. It's human, nobody here is saying otherwise. This has been explained over and over again, ad nauseum. So why are you lying?
 
code1211 said:
Why do Pro-Choice ideologues ALWAYS de-humanize the human that is not yet born?

Once again, I am not arguing about the legality of the procedure. I freely admit that this is legal. I am not arguing to make this illegal. You can stop drilling. You already struck oil.

I am only addressing the moral and ethical questions that surround this idea. There are various things that are legal that will result in the ending of human life. ALL of these things involve various cost benefit considerations.

Some of the costs and benefits include the resulting evolution in our societal understanding of morals and ethics in regard to the sanctity (or lack of importance) of life.

Here is a good explanation of how rationalization is both a justification and a habit. Once we start doing it, it gets easier. Supporting a rationalization replaces making a good choice.

YouTube
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that we get accused of dehumanizing when we use correct terms. It is a zygote, embryo, or fetus. Are those bad words?

We get called out for using "pregnancy" rather than "baby"
We get called out for using "fetus" rather than "baby"

I will put it to you this way. If someone is using the correct terms....and you are having issue with that....perhaps the issue is not with the person using the correct terms.
 
year2late said:
The funny thing is that we get accused of dehumanizing when we use correct terms. It is a zygote, embryo, or fetus. Are those bad words?

We get called out for using "pregnancy" rather than "baby"
We get called out for using "fetus" rather than "baby"

I will put it to you this way. If someone is using the correct terms....and you are having issue with that....perhaps the issue is not with the person using the correct terms.
Click to expand...

Well you are in fact using such terms in order to dehumanize the baby.

Because people use the term baby during pregnancy routinely in colloquial speech, and so when you go over scientific it is for the purpose of describing the baby in such terms it sounds like an extension on the mother and not his/her own being which he/she is
 
Lursa said:
Can the lack of an engagement ring destroy your health? Kill you? Keep you from properly feeding and housing your children, elderly, disabled dependents? Keep you from fulfilling your obligations and commitments to employer, community, society?
Click to expand...

No, but abortion does all these things to the baby
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Well you are in fact using such terms in order to dehumanize the baby.

Because people use the term baby during pregnancy routinely in colloquial speech, and so when you go over scientific it is for the purpose of describing the baby in such terms it sounds like an extension on the mother and not his/her own being which he/she is
Click to expand...

I know exactly why I use the term. I make no effort to dehumanize a human fetus.

I would thank you not to lie about my intent.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Well you are in fact using such terms in order to dehumanize the baby.

Because people use the term baby during pregnancy routinely in colloquial speech, and so when you go over scientific it is for the purpose of describing the baby in such terms it sounds like an extension on the mother and not his/her own being which he/she is
Click to expand...

I call my car my baby
 
Precise language is important

EMNofSeattle said:
Well you are in fact using such terms in order to dehumanize the baby.

Because people use the term baby during pregnancy routinely in colloquial speech, and so when you go over scientific it is for the purpose of describing the baby in such terms it sounds like an extension on the mother and not his/her own being which he/she is
Click to expand...

dehumanize the baby - Yah, well, we're just following the US Supreme Court's holding in Roe v. Wade. The SC doesn't talk about babies in utero, it talks about fetuses (or zygotes or embryos). For generic purposes, I tend to say fetuses. The choice of words is so as not to have to explain over & over what I mean by fetus (versus baby). & if you're going to argue Roe, you might as well get the terminology straight - otherwise you will wind up having to constantly explain which stage of development you're talking about.

colloquial speech is just that - it's informal conversation. The issues around abortion are weighty enough, that I think we should probably do without colloquialism & try to use the language of the courts/doctors - again, because otherwise you have to keep explaining which stage of development you're talking about.

Is the fetus his/her own being which he/she is? That's one of the issues in contention; you don't get to merely assert it & treat it as a done deal. & even if we pretend it's true for argument's sake; in the operating room, it doesn't make much difference. If the fetus is dead or dying & must be removed for the life of the pregnant woman, there is no way to guarantee that the fetus will survive the operation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom