• 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!

Illinois Governor Signs Bill Scrapping Third-Trimester Abortion Restrictions

And back to reality.

Third term abortions are done because of serious health issues of the mother or serious catastrophic defects (genetic and/or anatomic) of the fetus.

The person pregnant should decide whether to risk her life and maintain the pregnancy or not. To say otherwise is to take rights away from women.

What to do about a fetus with tragic defects (anatomic and/or genetic) is between a OBGYN and associated specialist that have been called in and the woman pregnant.

This whole thread seems to ignore that reality.

Hell, on other threads I indicated a possible alternative to abortion for those faced a fetus plagued with catastrophic defects was Perinatal Paliative Care....and I was told that was throwing the baby in the trash.....post birth abortion....killing the baby. I wonder if those on this thread think that Perinatal Palliative Care is a POSSIBLE acceptable alternative to abortion in these tragic cases.

FAQs | Perinatal hospice and palliative care

The other reason women have late term abortions are due to their own health issues. I have asked this before and I get alot of wildly thoughtless answers. When is abortion acceptable for the sake of maternal health?

The problem is that we have laypeople with agendas trying to make some sort of legal decision on this. If a person waits until they are in the throws of death to terminate pregnancy in order to reverse a physiologic process...that is illogical and not based on medicine.You never ever want to wait until the body is shutting down to make a decision. Look at the case in Ireland. The woman needed an abortion and it was finally allowed too late to save her life.
 
Fishking said:
You really are struggling with the definition of innocent and how it's applied, aren't you. This is precious.
Click to expand...

Hey...I am discussing how you are applying it. In the most meaningless way possible...I guess you are all up in arms when people pick flowers and throw away their couches? :lol:They are 'innocent' in the same way the unborn is, with the same lack of conscious ability to be innocent or evil. Empty.

You have yet to tell me why you value that 'innocence' of nothing, a vacuum. Please...I'm very interested.
 
Fishking said:
You're right...ISIS hasn't killed nearly so many. My bad.
Click to expand...

Well, feel free to picket SCOTUS in DC....and dont forget to throw some sheckles to ALL the pollsters that show that the majority of Americans are right onboard.

You're right! Silly hyperbole can be fun! "Fact not in evidence sir! Just passing thru to share some baseless histrionics!" Maybe I'll try having few whiskeys first next time...really heighten the moment!
 
Hamish Howl said:
Of course they do. Nobody can use your organs after you die unless you give permission prior to croaking. Even if that's necessary to keep a person alive.

So by your standards, women have less rights than a cadaver.
Click to expand...

Nope...those aren't my standards at all. Your comparison is just idiotic.
 
Lursa said:
Hey...I am discussing how you are applying it. In the most meaningless way possible...I guess you are all up in arms when people pick flowers and throw away their couches? :lol:They are 'innocent' in the same way the unborn is, with the same lack of conscious ability to be innocent or evil. Empty.

You have yet to tell me why you value that 'innocence' of nothing, a vacuum. Please...I'm very interested.
Click to expand...

More examples of dehumanization on your part by comparing babies to couches...quite telling.
 
Hamish Howl said:
Because you don't like it. :lol:

Okay.
Click to expand...

Nope...it's just trash. No one is harvesting anyone's organs by being pro-life. What they are saying is that the purposeful killing of an innocent human being is wrong. Glad I could clear something so basic up for you.
 
Fishking said:
Nope...it's just trash. No one is harvesting anyone's organs by being pro-life. What they are saying is that the purposeful killing of an innocent human being is wrong. Glad I could clear something so basic up for you.
Click to expand...

You're denying basic bodily autonomy. It's the same thing.
 
Fishking said:
Nope...it's just trash. No one is harvesting anyone's organs by being pro-life. What they are saying is that the purposeful killing of an innocent human being is wrong. Glad I could clear something so basic up for you.
Click to expand...

Hamish Howl said:
You're denying basic bodily autonomy. It's the same thing.
Click to expand...

I agree Fishking is not only denying bodily autonomy, but is also denying a doctor’s right to privacy regarding a medical procedure for his/ her patient and is denying religious liberty to the Jewish community , to pro choice Christians , and to other religious groups.

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 does Fishking believe his/ her belief 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:
Fishking said:
More examples of dehumanization on your part by comparing babies to couches...quite telling.
Click to expand...

LOL, so you have no rebuttal? Just 'na huh?'

By the way, you have only been hyperbolizing inaccurate emotional opinions. I have continued to try and engage in discussion, since this is a discussion forum.

And not only that, you did exactly what I predicted. :roll: You chose to pretend...or more sadly maybe even didnt understand the words...that I was referring to the capabilities of those listed, not comparing them to each other :doh

Why not answer my questions?

Lursa said:
Ah! Perhaps you can answer this then? I'll just recycle it here for you...no one ever seems to answer it, but perhaps you will?

Why do you value an attribute that is only emptiness? There's no ability to act, no intent. It's the same 'innocence' of a flower or a couch...a vacuum, nothing. Why do you give credit to something for literally 'nothing?' Why do you value that?​

And certainly, why do you value it more than women?

Note: often we do see the self-righteous outrage of those with poor reading comprehension; they respond with "you just compared the unborn to flowers and couches!" :roll: Er, no.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Of course I'm not. The unborn arent capable of guilt or innocence. If you can call them 'innocent,' then someone could also call them 'guilty' or 'evil.' All are completely meaningless in something that cannot act or even form intent.

The question was...why do you value that 'innocence' of nothing, a vacuum? Why do you value something that 'in reality,' is meaningless?
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Hey...I am discussing how you are applying it. In the most meaningless way possible...I guess you are all up in arms when people pick flowers and throw away their couches? :lol:They are 'innocent' in the same way the unborn is, with the same lack of conscious ability to be innocent or evil. Empty.

You have yet to tell me why you value that 'innocence' of nothing, a vacuum. Please...I'm very interested.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hamish Howl said:
You're denying basic bodily autonomy. It's the same thing.
Click to expand...

Yes...killing another human is the ultimate in the violation of bodily autonomy. Thanks for bringing that topic up.
 
minnie616 said:
I agree Fishking is not only denying bodily autonomy, but is also denying a doctor’s right to privacy regarding a medical procedure for his/ her patient and is denying religious liberty to the Jewish community , to pro choice Christians , and to other religious groups.

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



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




Why does Fishking believe his/ her belief 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:



The Moral Case – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Click to expand...

Nothing violates bodily autonomy more than killing someone.
 
Fishking said:
Yes...killing another human is the ultimate in the violation of bodily autonomy. Thanks for bringing that topic up.
Click to expand...

Well, it's sort of on par with your implication that women exist as incubators before anything else.
 
Hamish Howl said:
Well, it's sort of on par with your implication that women exist as incubators before anything else.
Click to expand...

Oh really? You put killing someone on part with not having a medical procedure done for 9 months? Just when I thought I couldn't read something more stupid, I read something more stupid.
 
Fishking said:
Oh really? You put killing someone on part with not having a medical procedure done for 9 months? Just when I thought I couldn't read something more stupid, I read something more stupid.
Click to expand...

Here you are, still insisting that women are appliances.
 
Hamish Howl said:
Here you are, still insisting that women are appliances.
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting the killing of an innocent is wrong. I know this is super tough for you.
 
Fishking said:
I'm suggesting the killing of an innocent is wrong. I know this is super tough for you.
Click to expand...

And forcing gestation on an innocent woman who lacks the social medical and financial support to confidently assure a safe pregnancy is wrong as well
 
Fishking said:
Nothing violates bodily autonomy more than killing someone.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what the definition of bodily autonomy is.

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.
 
minnie616 said:
You have no idea what the definition of bodily autonomy is.

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.
Click to expand...


I am not sure why this needs to be repeated. I guess some are unable to learn.

Keep up the good work.
 
minnie616 said:
You have no idea what the definition of bodily autonomy is.

Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long.
Click to expand...

Nope...I got it, and nothing does that more than killing someone.
 
Fishking said:
Nope...I got it, and nothing does that more than killing someone.
Click to expand...

And you are wrong.

Woman and men have bodily autonomy.

Others cannot use our bodies and our Bodily systems without our permission.
 
Last edited:
Fishking said:
Yes...killing another human is the ultimate in the violation of bodily autonomy. Thanks for bringing that topic up.
Click to expand...

Repeating something over and over doesnt make it true.

The unborn has zero bodily autonomy to violate. It is completely dependent on, its physiological functions intertwined with, the woman carrying it.

So now we see you value an 'innocence' of nothingness and a bodily autonomy that also does not exist.

Is there any way that you could support your position on more solid ground, like facts or legal impacts or social impacts? Something with less obvious (failed) emotional manipulation?
 
Fishking said:
I'm suggesting the killing of an innocent is wrong. I know this is super tough for you.
Click to expand...

But you have not explained why. It's a discussion, you are expected to make an argument. Why do you value that 'innocence' of a vacuum, nothingness, over the life and future of a woman? a woman who already has responsibilities to others, dependents, family, commitments and obligations to others, community, employer, society, etc?
 
Fishking said:
Nope...I got it, and nothing does that more than killing someone.
Click to expand...

Depends on who does the killing.

If I take my father off of life support..per his wishes.. I have certainly killed him.. there is no doubt. But I have also observed what was best for him and his wishes.. in other words..he retains his body autonomy...

Versus a government system that says.. "we know whats best for your father and so he needs to be on a feeding tube and a ventilator".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom