• 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:
I wonder if your omission of the word “natural” was intentional or just a convenient error. You can read John Locke if you’d like to learn more about the concept of natural rights. The natural rights of ALL people are not provided by any government. They are yours by virtue of the fact that you exist. Our government is committed, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, to protecting everyone’s natural rights, no matter how old or young or what color.


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

If you think there is such a thing as natural rights, go for a walk in nature and tell that 500lbs of wranged up grizz chasing you that he can't kill you and eat you for dinner.
 
forthecause said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that RvW was decided 7-2 by a mostly conservative bench?
 
forthecause said:
Relevance? Are you saying you’re against the law of the land laid out in roe? Why not overturn it then?


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

Roe allows for abortions after viability if her life is in danger or if irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued.

Letme say this very carefully ....after 24 weeks the skull of the fetus is too large and solidified for a normal 2ed trimester dismemberment abortion. Contractions must be induced which usually last longer ( 2 to 3 days ) and are much more painful than normal labor pains since the fetus is dead; or an intact D and E must be performed to remove the dead fetus.

The risk of continuing a pregnancy must be greater than the risk of performing an abortion for the woman in order for one of the 4 clinic doctors to perform an abortion past 24 weeks.

Doctors from all the US refer their patients with these extreme ( cases where the fetus is non viable or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued ) cases to one of the 4 clinic doctors in the United States.
 
Scrabaholic said:
If you think there is such a thing as natural rights, go for a walk in nature and tell that 500lbs of wranged up grizz chasing you that he can't kill you and eat you for dinner.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
forthecause said:
I wonder if your omission of the word “natural” was intentional or just a convenient error. You can read John Locke if you’d like to learn more about the concept of natural rights. The natural rights of ALL people are not provided by any government. They are yours by virtue of the fact that you exist. Our government is committed, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, to protecting everyone’s natural rights, no matter how old or young or what color.


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

The DOI is not a part of the United States Constitution.

John Locke said " all men are born equally free" and hold certain " natural rights"...

The key word is born.
 
forthecause said:
You must have somehow completely missed the whole section on the reasons women gave for their late term abortions and the percentages of them providing each reason.
Also, there is disagreement over which weeks constitute late term. After 20 weeks seems to be a pretty common characterization of late term and it’s the one the author goes with.


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

What I hear most often is post viability.
 
forthecause said:
Sorry, infanticide is something I can’t just “get over,” and if you’re a constitutional conservative you should be ashamed to be shirking the most basic constitutional protection of the most innocent and vulnerable in our society.
Abortion is very clearly a left-right issue today.
Census rules aren’t law. They’re just procedural codes.
Celebrating conception day is a little...awkward...if you catch my drift.


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

Wait, you talk about having been to medical school and you think abortion is infanticide?
 
Scrabaholic said:
If you think there is such a thing as natural rights, go for a walk in nature and tell that 500lbs of wranged up grizz chasing you that he can't kill you and eat you for dinner.
Click to expand...

:lol: I sure hope that this is a joke.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Sure it is... a baby, a child... same thing.
Click to expand...

Call it that if you want or it makes you feel more comfortable , but, remember this; abortion is legal; the Supreme Court declared that women did have a right right to privacy; and doctors could provide abortions without being criminalized. Also remember that the anti-abortion movement was started and is run by male religious leaders who are trying to make the government write laws institutionalizing their religious beliefs about women, their position and their obligation.
 
weaver2 said:
Call it that if you want or it makes you feel more comfortable , but, remember this; abortion is legal; the Supreme Court declared that women did have a right right to privacy; and doctors could provide abortions without being criminalized. Also remember that the anti-abortion movement was started and is run by male religious leaders who are trying to make the government write laws institutionalizing their religious beliefs about women, their position and their obligation.
Click to expand...

R v W was a mistake. No one should have the right to take away a potential life.
 
iguanaman said:
So I can put you on the list of foster parents for Down's syndrome children who's mother was denied an abortion?

My daughter has Down syndrome. The anti-abortion movement is using her to restrict both of our reproductive rights.
Click to expand...

Read his previous posts on this subject. He has no interest in being an adoptive parent to any child that might have been otherwise aborted. Typical of many so-called pro-lifers that are so adamant about protecting the unborn but don't give a crap about children after birth.
 
Scorps2000 said:
R v W was a mistake. No one should have the right to take away a potential life.
Click to expand...

The draconian laws prior to Roe vs. Wade - and the more recent ones passed in states like Alabama - were a much bigger mistake. Those laws seek to make criminals out of women and their doctors for making a private decision which is none of anyone else's concern.

Also the Alabama anti-abortion law provides no exceptions for incest, rape, or defects. Put yourself in this position. Would you want to be forced to give birth if you were raped or sexually molested by a member of your own family and became pregnant?

What if the fetus has a near-certain chance of being born with Down's Syndrome or being in a vegetative state? To me it would be cruelty to give birth to something that has no chance of developing normally or being a productive citizen.
 
Indie guy said:
The draconian laws prior to Roe vs. Wade - and the more recent ones passed in states like Alabama - were a much bigger mistake. Those laws seek to make criminals out of women and their doctors for making a private decision which is none of anyone else's concern.

Also the Alabama anti-abortion law provides no exceptions for incest, rape, or defects. Put yourself in this position. Would you want to be forced to give birth if you were raped or sexually molested by a member of your own family and became pregnant?

What if the fetus has a near-certain chance of being born with Down's Syndrome or being in a vegetative state? To me it would be cruelty to give birth to something that has no chance of developing normally or being a productive citizen.
Click to expand...

In Alabama you can still get an abortion. That stupid law will never be allowed to take effect
 
Indie guy said:
The draconian laws prior to Roe vs. Wade - and the more recent ones passed in states like Alabama - were a much bigger mistake. Those laws seek to make criminals out of women and their doctors for making a private decision which is none of anyone else's concern.

Also the Alabama anti-abortion law provides no exceptions for incest, rape, or defects. Put yourself in this position. Would you want to be forced to give birth if you were raped or sexually molested by a member of your own family and became pregnant?

What if the fetus has a near-certain chance of being born with Down's Syndrome or being in a vegetative state? To me it would be cruelty to give birth to something that has no chance of developing normally or being a productive citizen.
Click to expand...

Again, taking away a potential life is my concern, it shouldn’t be allowed.
Any reasonable person would agree with an exception for "incest, rape, or health of the mother"
Where do you draw the line for "no chance"?
 
Scorps2000 said:
Again, taking away a potential life is my concern, it shouldn’t be allowed.
Any reasonable person would agree with an exception for "incest, rape, or health of the mother"
Where do you draw the line for "no chance"?
Click to expand...

The reasonable person allows for abortion on demand to viability
 
vegas giants said:
In Alabama you can still get an abortion. That stupid law will never be allowed to take effect
Click to expand...

I expect it to be heavily challenged in a legal battle but Alabama is ruled by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which is one of the more socially conservative appeals courts in the nation. So it's really anyone's guess if this law will remain in tact.

We also have to understand that southern states like Alabama are wrapped up in social conservatism and religious faith. Even if this law were not to be enacted or not enforceable, the fact remains that a fair share of people in the south tend to be strongly opposed to abortion in almost all circumstances. Heartbeat bills in states like Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, and Louisiana also have a fair amount of support.
 
Scorps2000 said:
Again, taking away a potential life is my concern, it shouldn’t be allowed.
Any reasonable person would agree with an exception for "incest, rape, or health of the mother"
Where do you draw the line for "no chance"?
Click to expand...

So you would support abortion if a woman was raped or incested but wouldn't support it if the fetus was confirmed to be malformed and would be born with severe birth defects? The way I see it that would be cruelty to both the parent and the child.
 
Scorps2000 said:
Again, taking away a potential life is my concern, it shouldn’t be allowed.
Any reasonable person would agree with an exception for "incest, rape, or health of the mother"
Where do you draw the line for "no chance"?
Click to expand...

Well, if you listen to the pro-life crowd....a zygote, embryo, or fetus is essentially the same "value" as a born child. So if you follow that "logic" why is a fetus conceived from rape any different that one conceived from love or lust? So the take away from this, is that those who believe this want to show empathy for the woman who was raped and want to punish the woman who had contraceptive failure - essentially slut shaming.

Where the health of the mother is concerned....pregnancy is a risk. Always has been. There are things a woman can do to mitigate those risks. Stable home life, good and reliable access to high quality health care. Financial security. Housing security - clean and safe. Job security - so she does not make decisions whether to go to the doctor or take a shift so she does not lose her home. GOod overall health .
A woman can decide if she is in a position to safely be pregnant (let alone care for an additional child)

The sad thing is ….the most reliable contraception (IUD's for example) have pro-lifers calling them abortion inducing and they demonize them vocally and politically.
 
Scorps2000 said:
R v W was a mistake. No one should have the right to take away a potential life.
Click to expand...

And you think that before Roe v Wade there were no abortions? Think again.

If abortion is legal it can be regulated, controlled and safe. If you make it illegal you don't stop abortions you simply make them unregulated, uncontrolled and a death sentence for many women at the hands of an untrained, unlicensed, unscrupulous abortionist.

Interestingly; no-one can punish or jail or fine a woman that gets a legal abortion. However, if abortion is made illegal the women that get abortions can be publicly punished, shamed, jailed, fined. A very satisfying prospect to those that feel so inclined.

The anti-abortion movement has nothing to do with saving babies. It has a great deal to do with women making their own decisions about reproduction.
 
Scorps2000 said:
R v W was a mistake. No one should have the right to take away a potential life.
Click to expand...

Who says? What authority?

Apparently, not our govt, who makes laws based on the Constitution. Where in the Const does it protect the unborn?
 
Scorps2000 said:
Again, taking away a potential life is my concern, it shouldn’t be allowed.
Any reasonable person would agree with an exception for "incest, rape, or health of the mother"
Where do you draw the line for "no chance"?
Click to expand...

Why those exceptions? Is it still not a 'potential life?' What is the distinction?

And why is it 'your concern?' Please be specific. How does your 'concern' override a woman's decision on what's best for her life, her health, her future, her ability to care for the family she's already responsible for (kids, elderly, disabled), her obligations and commitments to employer, community, society, etc? Do you somehow "know better?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom