• 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

EMNofSeattle said:
No, but abortion does all these things to the baby
Click to expand...

What gives the unborn more right to those things than the woman then? It would require taking those...as you just recognized...from the woman in order to enable them for the unborn.
 
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 do not not know why some Pro life people are so set against the proper terms of zygote, embryo or fetus.

Years ago when I started posted posting on this forum I decided to use the word unborn as a compromise. Of course when discussing a certin timeframe of the unborn I may use the correct medical term.

Yet even though I use the word unborn I am still accused of dehumanizing an unborn.

I have no reason to dehumanize an unborn.

I have 4 born children , I had two miscarriages, one an early miscarriage and the other at about 20 weeks.

Why do some pro life people think the only reason one could be pro choice is by dehumanizing an unborn?
 
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...
So basically when you have nothing intelligent or rational all you are left with is emotional drivel and ignorance.
 
Last edited:
prometeus said:
So basically when you have nothing intelligent or rational all you are left with is emotional drivel and ignorance.
Click to expand...

Fortunately I have examples like this to learn from

��
 
EMNofSeattle said:
...

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...

While I would never choose an abortion for myself I think it is important to protect the religious beliefs of the Jewish community and the beliefs of pro choice Christians. Our sincerely held beliefs mean as much to us as your religious beliefs mean to you.

Maybe you are unaware that the Jewish community does believe that before birth the unborn is thought of as an extension of the pregnant woman.

This is a quote from a member of our forum that posted on another thread.

Marxistleninist said:
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.”
Click to expand...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/abor...ion-pro-abortion-types-22.html#post1070134451

Why do think your believe is more important than the beliefs of the Jewish community or the beliefs of the pro choice Christians?

Pro choice allows pregnant women to follow their own religious tenets or their conscience.

From the RCRC:

Good policy allows people of all religions to follow their own faiths and consciences in their own lives. In reproductive health, rights and justice, we define religious liberty as the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family and her faith. The religious beliefs of others should not interfere.
Click to expand...


The Moral Case – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
 
Last edited:
Scrabaholic said:
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?
Click to expand...

You say that nobody is dehumanizing the unborn and then proceed to dehumanize all unborn.

Amazing.
 
code1211 said:
Seems to be.
Click to expand...

Do you know that as of 2015 the US has a lower abortion rate than Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France , Canada , and the United Kingdom ?

Abortion rates by country (list by country)

Over 67 percent of US women of child bearing years use artificial birth control consistently?

9 percent aren’t using BC because they are currently pregnant.

14 percent are not sexually active or they cannot become pregnant do to a medical condition or procedure.

That only leaves 10 percent who are high risk and they may be using a natural method of BC such as the rhythm method.
 
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...

People can be called various things that do not include references to their individual humanity.

I can accurately be referred to as a Hoosier, a Golden Gopher, a tax payer, retired, male, tall, white, old, conservative, American, Swedish, Irish, Colts Fan, College Graduate and, i suppose, many, many more.

ALL of these descriptors imply humanity. These are all correct terms and all address one particular aspect of me.

The term employed and the reason for employing that term are two different things. Some terms identify the person being discussed while other will identify the person doing the discussing. Use of the "N" word is a perfect example.

Typically, using terms like "ZEF" sanitizes away the idea that the thing discussed is a person in development. It's not the term itself that is objectionable, but rather the motivation for employing that term.

"ZEF" and "the unborn" mean exactly the same thing. Which sounds less human?
 
minnie616 said:
Do you know that as of 2015 the US has a lower abortion rate than Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France , Canada , and the United Kingdom ?

Abortion rates by country (list by country)

Over 67 percent of US women of child bearing years use artificial birth control consistently?

9 percent aren’t using BC because they are currently pregnant.

14 percent are not sexually active or they cannot become pregnant do to a medical condition or procedure.

That only leaves 10 percent who are high risk and they may be using a natural method of BC such as the rhythm method.
Click to expand...

Terrific!
 
minnie616 said:
Do you know that as of 2015 the US has a lower abortion rate than Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France , Canada , and the United Kingdom ?

Abortion rates by country (list by country)

Over 67 percent of US women of child bearing years use artificial birth control consistently?

9 percent aren’t using BC because they are currently pregnant.

14 percent are not sexually active or they cannot become pregnant do to a medical condition or procedure.

That only leaves 10 percent who are high risk and they may be using a natural method of BC such as the rhythm method.
Click to expand...

Terrific!
 
Re: Need more information

southwest88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

My point is there are two moral dilemmas involved. One is the situation a person can find themselves in which requires an abortion or not abortion decision and I have given examples. I posted information on the earliest birth mothers. It should be obvious someone that young giving birth and not having an abortion could easily ruin all chances of having other children when the female is old enough to do so safely. Doctors, clergy, many people can be involved, some very personally. Surely the individual I consider a victim is involved.

The other moral dilemma involves what right do I have as an individual and citizen of my state to dictate what a person has to do in those circumstances. It's hard to make laws that avoid hurting the victim. If the wife who was kidnapped and raped happened to be the wife of an Alabama legislator who recently passed anti-abortion legislation, what would he do? If it was the wife of someone closing down all the abortion clinics in Missouri and working to close down the last one, what would he think? What would the main victim want? I have enough sense to butt out of someone's personal business and not like abortion at the same time. No one died and made me king.
 
Opinions differ

code1211 said:
…

Typically, using terms like "ZEF" sanitizes away the idea that the thing discussed is a person in development. It's not the term itself that is objectionable, but rather the motivation for employing that term.

"ZEF" and "the unborn" mean exactly the same thing. Which sounds less human?
Click to expand...

ZEF is medical shorthand for the various stages of the fetus in utero, & that's all it means. Is the fetus a person in development? It may become one, but Roe holds that the fetus is not a person (in the legal sense) until it's either born or @ least reaches the age of viability. & bear in mind that 2/3s of all pregnancies in the US fail to continue to term, & the reasons for some of those are still not clearly understood.

If you want cozy G-rated discussions about abortion, with cracker-barrel & downhome kinds of vocabulary & imagery, it's very hard to find that in discussions about abortion. One reason is the legal documents & arguments (& vocabulary) pro & con, another is the medical information & procedures & vocabulary that inform the debate. & thirdly, people are very wedded to their opinions on the subject - based on religion, their ethics, & their life experiences. It's an explosive mixture, & quite often does explode, @ least in terms of arguments & rants.
 
code1211 said:
People can be called various things that do not include references to their individual humanity.

I can accurately be referred to as a Hoosier, a Golden Gopher, a tax payer, retired, male, tall, white, old, conservative, American, Swedish, Irish, Colts Fan, College Graduate and, i suppose, many, many more.

ALL of these descriptors imply humanity. These are all correct terms and all address one particular aspect of me.

The term employed and the reason for employing that term are two different things. Some terms identify the person being discussed while other will identify the person doing the discussing. Use of the "N" word is a perfect example.

Typically, using terms like "ZEF" sanitizes away the idea that the thing discussed is a person in development. It's not the term itself that is objectionable, but rather the motivation for employing that term.

"ZEF" and "the unborn" mean exactly the same thing. Which sounds less human?
Click to expand...

It dehumanizes in your mind. There is no such dehumanization that is implied. A human fetus is human. Period, end of story.

I believe it should be expected in a political discussion based on laws and medicine that proper terminology should be used.

If you do not believe that people who use the term fetus or ZEF do not believe a human fetus is human, that is your issue....not the speaker. It is rather odd that you rant on about this.
 
code1211 said:
Seems to be.
Click to expand...

In your eyes.

I think most women struggle with the ability to remain pregnant and still support herself and her born children. Most women who choose abortion are with poor financial, social, medical resources. That puts her in a situation where losing a shift or two without the ability to make up work may lead to homelessness or shelter life. This would put her and her born children at risk. Yes, most women who choose abortion already have a child they are struggling to care for. They may want to have a baby, but know how risky it would be for herself and her born children to remain pregnant. I do not see this as an easy decision.

How would you feel if you had serious medical needs and knew you had to rely on under equipped county clinics that were understaffed and inconvenient? If you had the choice to put off your condition until you were able to have better medical care and were not housing insecure....you would do it without question. What you want to do is make a woman value the life of her fetus over herself and her born children. That is her choice. Not yours.

I have consistently said that I would never have an abortion. But then I had the luxury of my convictions. I was job, housing, support structure secure with great insurance.
But I pause to think...what if I had a unwanted pregnancy 10 years ago when my son had serious issues and I was missing alot of work due to my mother's serious medical needs. I was THE person who they depended on. If I was pregnant....two people would seriously suffer. Given that my first pregnancy was plagued with complications that was a real possibility.
Would I consider abortion in that instance. I could not see sacrificing the health and well being of my mother and son. I want to say I would never in that instance...but crap.
 
code1211 said:
You say that nobody is dehumanizing the unborn and then proceed to dehumanize all unborn.

Amazing.
Click to expand...

When the poster clearly stated it was human, how is that dehumanizing?

Seriously.

How can you whine about dehumanizing when in the post you actually quoted the poster stated it was human. How can that be an argument?:lamo
 
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...

Calling it the proper medical term is NOT "dehumanizing". For pete's sake. "Baby" is a term of endearment. Are you being overly sappy when you use that term in a debate?
 
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...

Let us bring this back to the original post.

A woman had complications in pregnancy that endangered her life.
She ended up needing an urgent c-section to save her life.
The c-section was done right at the viability stage and the baby born luckily did not have serious complications other than severe prematurity. The reason some women decide to abort at this stage is because the fetus has catastrophic physical and/or severe genetic defects. This baby was born without such defects. So survival was all about being at the right place at the right time.

Because the woman had the baby at a top of the line institution known for handling the frailist if the frail preemies....this baby survived.

How many women live that near a major institution that has that level of neonatal intensive care? (yes, there are levels of NICU)

The reality for many is that at a lower level nursery, they would have attempted resuscitation within their abilities and attempted for a specialized neonatal transport to a suitable facility. But realistically, the time involved to give that baby a chance might be the death of that baby.

Now we should all ask ourselves....which party is trying to assure better access to health care for men, women, and children?
Which party was likely to support more of the science and medicine grants and such to help advance medical care so baby Saybie could survive?Which party is more apt to respect science....especially with consensus and peer review?

One thing a woman thinks about when she is considering abortion is her and her born children's health and welfare. Who is more apt to support better medical care and safety nets for men,women, and children?

Baby Saybie is alive not because of a miracle...she is alive because people tirelessly pushed for health care and advanced care facilities to be available .

We spent trillions going into war in Iraq (etc) in the bat if an eye ....it is amazing we have to think twice about making sure Americans have access to life saving health care and research.

Baby Saybie is with us because medical and scientific programs and training were supported to allow for her to live.

Science is a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Scrabaholic said:
Calling it the proper medical term is NOT "dehumanizing". For pete's sake. "Baby" is a term of endearment. Are you being overly sappy when you use that term in a debate?
Click to expand...

I guess that means that doctors are all dehumanizing the unborn too? You know, all those OBs and GYN docs using the proper medical terms? All chose their specific medical disciplines just so that they could dehumanize the unborn? :doh

Innaccuracy, ambiguity, and emotional appeals are for those that have no actual argument to make...so they grasp at minutiae. They think it looks like they are not conceding.
 
year2late said:
When the poster clearly stated it was human, how is that dehumanizing?

Seriously.

How can you whine about dehumanizing when in the post you actually quoted the poster stated it was human. How can that be an argument?:lamo
Click to expand...

Are you honestly asking how right-wingers brains work? Literally no one knows, but we definitely know that they don't seem to work well.
 
Re: Opinions differ

southwest88 said:
ZEF is medical shorthand for the various stages of the fetus in utero, & that's all it means. Is the fetus a person in development? It may become one, but Roe holds that the fetus is not a person (in the legal sense) until it's either born or @ least reaches the age of viability. & bear in mind that 2/3s of all pregnancies in the US fail to continue to term, & the reasons for some of those are still not clearly understood.

If you want cozy G-rated discussions about abortion, with cracker-barrel & downhome kinds of vocabulary & imagery, it's very hard to find that in discussions about abortion. One reason is the legal documents & arguments (& vocabulary) pro & con, another is the medical information & procedures & vocabulary that inform the debate. & thirdly, people are very wedded to their opinions on the subject - based on religion, their ethics, & their life experiences. It's an explosive mixture, & quite often does explode, @ least in terms of arguments & rants.
Click to expand...

Again, for about the millionth time, I am not arguing the legality of abortion.
 
year2late said:
It dehumanizes in your mind. There is no such dehumanization that is implied. A human fetus is human. Period, end of story.

I believe it should be expected in a political discussion based on laws and medicine that proper terminology should be used.

If you do not believe that people who use the term fetus or ZEF do not believe a human fetus is human, that is your issue....not the speaker. It is rather odd that you rant on about this.
Click to expand...

Abortion is important to me only because it ends human life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom