• 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!

Setting the record straight on late term abortion

forthecause said:
The study linked below seems to be widely regarded as the best information on the topic of late term abortion. In it you’ll find some inconvenient truths for the pro-abortion camp. Among those are: 1) there are (at least) several thousand late term abortions every year in the US conducted for flippant reasons, i.e. not having to do with fetal anomalies or the life of the mother being at risk; 2) at least a few thousand late term abortions are performed each year in the US simply because the mother is already a single mother and doesn’t want to be raising another child on her own. (The reasons for the other half of the unnecessary late term abortions aren’t any better); and 3) there is no shortage of abortion clinics offering late term abortions. .
Click to expand...

OK let's set the record straight:

The issue that initially angered conservative Christians was not abortion, but the denial of tax exemption to Christian schools formed to avoid desegregation. The 1973 legalizaion of abortion was either embraced by conservative Christian Churchs as a reduction of government interference into private lives or ignored.

Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation, had been searching without success for an issue around which to create a conservative power base. Conservative’s intransigent about de-segregation eventually ran afoul of the The Civil Rights Act and Green v. Connelly The IRS revoked the tax exempt status of segregated private church schools. The fury of conservative Christians over this “interference” by the government was the energy Falwell and Weyrich sought to harness.

But they were savvy enough to recognize that the blatent racism of segregated school would never gain legitimate political momentum. They needed a more politically acceptable issue. The increase in legal abortions after Roe v. Wade was causing conservative Christians and Catholics some alarm. Falwell and Weirich redirected the fury over government interference in Cristian schools to interference with religious belief and conservative Christians coalased around the anti-abortion “Pro-Life” message. But, the catalyst for their political activism was not, as often claimed, opposition to abortion. The real roots of Christian political power lie not in the defense of a fetus but in the defense of racial segregation.

After their early success in supporting a Pro-Life candidate in Iowa Wyrich and Falwell were estatic. They had their issue. Wyrich wrote, “The new political philosophy must be defined by us in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition. When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.”

The words "re-create this great nation" coming from a religious group that believes in Calvinist theology should be of concern to those of us who believe in a government based on Constitutional law.
 
weaver2 said:
OK let's set the record straight:
“The new political philosophy must be defined by us in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition. When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.”
Click to expand...


Making abortion an issue is the attempt by conservative religious leaders to use the energy and cohesiveness of the anti-abortion movement to politicize evangelicals to take part in politics and elect representatives that will promote their political, economic and religious beliefs.

To understand what Paul Weyrich had in mind when he said "When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.” go to John Calvin's writings:

“The Magistrate (government's head) is God’s vicegerent, the father of his country, the guardian of the laws, the administrator of justice, the defender of the Church.”
“But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow”
(from “The Institutes of Christian Religion”. John Calvin, 1536)
Click to expand...

Then read the mission statements of evangelical groups;

“Evangelicals believe that government is a gift from God for the common good. Good governance creates the conditions in which human beings fulfill their responsibilities as God’s image bearers and as stewards of God’s creation.” (Mission statement of the National Association of Evangelicals)
Click to expand...

Focus on the Family: God has ordained all social institutions, including the government, for the benefit of mankind and as a reflection of His divine nature. The Supreme Court's imposition of the doctrine of separation of church and state distorts the Founding Father's recognition of our unequivocally Christian nation and the protection of religious freedom for all faiths. (“Focus on the Family”position statement on Church and State)
Click to expand...

it is up to Christians to “restore once again to America a biblically based legal system that protects all human life from conception to natural death,” (Cultural Impact Team Resource Manuel)
Click to expand...


The anti-abortion movement is not unborn babies is about conservative religious power vs secular law.
 
Irredentist said:
That's not true, the Supreme Court upheld the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart.
Click to expand...

What’s not true? Roe v Wade doesn’t say that late term abortions have to be partial birth abortions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
year2late said:
So let us REALLY set the record straight on late term abortion.

From the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Facts are Important: Abortion Care Later in Pregnancy is Important to Women’s Health - ACOG

Abortion after 21 weeks accounts for slightly more than 1 percent of all abortions that occur in the United Statesi. Abortion later in the second trimester is very rare, and abortion in the third trimester is rarer still, accounting for less than one percent of abortions. The term “late-term abortion” has no medical definition and is not used in a clinical setting or to describe the delivery of abortion care later in pregnancy.
The need for an abortion later in pregnancy could arise for a number of reasons, including fetal anomalies or complications that threaten a woman’s health. Women, in consultation with their physicians, must be able to evaluate all appropriate treatments and make informed choices about what’s best for their health and their pregnancies. Depending on the circumstance, this might include abortion care, induction of labor, or cesarean delivery. Women’s access to accurate, full information and care must never be constrained by politicians.
Many abortions that occur later in pregnancy involve fetal anomalies incompatible with life, such as anencephaly, the absence of the brain and cranium above the base of the skull, or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavityii. In these cases, where death is likely before or shortly after birth, patients may decide whether to continue the pregnancy and deliver a nonviable fetus or have an abortion. In any case, the focus of medically-appropriate, compassionate care must be on the patient and what she feels is best for her health and her family.
Abortion later in pregnancy may also be necessary when complications severely compromise a woman’s health or life, conditions which may also reduce the possibility of fetal survival. These might include premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta. Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion
Click to expand...

None of the facts brought up in that passage contradict anything I’ve said or anything in the study I cited. Great job [emoji106]. The fact remains that the majority of late term abortions are NOT carried out for reasons relating to serious threats to the mother’s life or health or relating to fetal anomalies. And your little quote there doesn’t contradict that either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Scrabaholic said:
My uterus most certainly IS inside of my body. smh

The fetus is INSIDE OF AND ATTACHED TO a woman's body. Until it is outside of her body, it is not a person. That is FACT in law. (In my country)
Click to expand...

Oh and I suppose you learned that in medical school? Lol I’m trying to educate you a bit here.
And your claim that personhood ought to begin at birth doesn’t contend with the counter argument I laid out in the comment to which you’re supposed to be responding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Scrabaholic said:
I asked for a LINK to the STATUTE.

I have never defended the murder of children. Please do not lie about me.
Click to expand...

Go look up the statutes for yourself. And then you can look them up in other countries through history that have sanctioned the killing of slaves. You do realize the world is larger than America right? I don’t think you have to go statute digging to admit that there have doubtlessly been places and times when killing slaves was legal. So would you call that murder or not? To not call it murder just because the law hasn’t caught up yet is to play a silly semantic game. But you like word games don’t you scrabaholic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
vegas giants said:
Birth control fails. Do you support abortion if a woman used birth control and it failed?


What more could she have done?
Click to expand...

It’s extremely rare that a woman would get pregnant while properly taking birth control. Of course it happens, though, so if I were a woman on birth control I’d make sure I found a guy who I knew could be trusted to pull out. Even in the absence of any sort of birth control, pulling out properly results in pregnancy about 1 out of 1000 times. Add birth control and we’re talking about a vanishingly small probability. In those cases, however, I should hope that a sexually active woman would be watching herself carefully and ensuring that she knows about her pregnancy before the fetal stage of development, i.e. before personhood. That way, if she doesn’t want to put it up for adoption, she can abort it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
vegas giants said:
Then overturn it. You have had 40 years. Must be pretty popular to last that long
Click to expand...

Well the problem is that the handful of aforementioned radical loony toons includes the DNC leadership and the Supreme Court justices appointed by them, making it very difficult to make headway on the matter. Also, if a Republican seeks to take on Roe v Wade the entire left acts as if he’s trying to enslave women or something and the rhetoric and propaganda machine goes to 100% to make sure that effort stops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
weaver2 said:
So the Constitution and the Bible are wrong about establishing personhood. And yet you quote the Constitution and the Bible to justify your position.
Click to expand...

Lol the constitution says nothing about abortion. And when did I quote the Bible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
weaver2 said:
Late term abortion is not a medical term. There is no agreement as to the week which define late term. There is legal agreement that the 20th week mark does not define late term.

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Classification of Deliveries From 37 Weeks of Gestation

Early term: 37 weeks through 38 weeks
Full term: 39 weeks through 40 weeks
Late term: 41 weeks through 41 weeks
Postterm: 42 weeks and beyond
Data from Spong CY. Defining "term" pregnancy: recommendations from the Defining "Term" Pregnancy Workgroup. JAMA 2013;309:2445–6.
Click to expand...

Lol ok so Spong CY likes to call late term 41 weeks. The fact is that late term is NOT a medical term. You’re correct. So why are you trying to quote a gynecologist making, as the title of his own piece puts it, “recommendations” as to what the various terms should include. Idk why you’re so hung up on what it’s called. We’re talking about late second term and third term abortions. That’s called late term abortion. If you don’t want to call it that then call it whatever you want. It’s completely irrelevant what label you give to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Scrabaholic said:
"Up until the moment of birth" doesn't even make sense.
Click to expand...

Lol well I agree but that’s the dems for you. They rarely make any sense at all. The DNC party platform calls for the right to abort up until the moment of birth and their precious roe v Wade states there’s no point at all in the pregnancy when it’s a violation of the child’s rights to kill it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
prometeus said:
Initially there is a single cell, you call it a human being. Then it splits, is that two human beings?
Click to expand...

Oh lol I see what you mean. No, your cells are constantly splitting throughout your life. You’re not becoming more and more people as that happens. The dna is the same and though they’ve split, they’re still CONNECTED. You’re a human being when you’re a single cell and you’re a human being when you’re two and four and so on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
prometeus said:
Bull crap lie, or the usual from you.
Click to expand...

What lie? You can just keep accusing me of lying or you can actually try to SHOW that anything I’ve said is untrue. I realize the latter is harder but you might just end up learning something in the process. I gather learning isn’t really one of your interests though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
prometeus said:
So it is just as arbitrary as the rest of your ignorant drivel.
Click to expand...

I suppose all labels are ultimately arbitrary, but when there’s enough widespread agreement on the label calling it arbitrary is desperate hair splitting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
prometeus said:
Repeating the same crap over and over does not magically make it valid or true.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. Continuing to petulantly cry that it’s untrue that ~80% of Americans disagree with abortion after the first trimester doesn’t make that a valid criticism. You actually need DATA that support your petulance for it to be true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
forthecause said:
Lol the constitution says nothing about abortion.
Click to expand...

Correct, the Constitution does not say abortion is a right nor does it say it is prohibited or restricted. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

A person is not legally a person until birth. Pro-lifers have a huge battle ahead if they expect to change this. Meanwhile opposing abortion on a personal level is your business but imposing your beliefs on others and attempting to force them into law is not your business.

Against abortion? Fine, then don't have an abortion! Simple as that.
 
prometeus said:
Can you quote that part?

Yea, such an intelectual giant as yourself would know.
Click to expand...

Lol are you completely unfamiliar with the decision? It states essentially that there are zero federal restrictions on abortion at any point in the pregnancy and that, even in states that choose to put some restrictions after the point of viability, they must allow the abortion to take place of the woman can show her “health” is at risk, which can often be mental anguish or some other such nonsense.

It doesn’t take an intellectual giant to see that killing a fully formed baby is immoral and ought to be illegal. I suppose to an intellectual pea-brain like you, though, everyone seems to be intellectual giants lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
forthecause said:
Oh and I suppose you learned that in medical school? Lol I’m trying to educate you a bit here.
And your claim that personhood ought to begin at birth doesn’t contend with the counter argument I laid out in the comment to which you’re supposed to be responding.


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

I didn't say personhood "ought" to begin at birth. It *does* begin at birth. That is FACT.

You are denying that a woman's uterus is inside her body? Seriously???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom