• 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!

[W:155] Can someone support women’s rights and oppose abortion?

mrjurrs said:
First, it is not a baby and second, it is not alive. A fetus is living during gestation, but it is not alive (couldn't survive outside the womb). Using the infinitesimally small number of abortions to occur in the last few weeks of pregnancy to prove your point is disingenuous at best. It also concerns me that a large portion of people supporting the 'sanctity of life' are completely willing to turn their collective backs on the child after it is born.
Click to expand...

A baby inside the womb is most definitely alive, a developing human being. The heart, brain, and spinal cord are clearly developing in the first four week. At eight weeks the fetus reacts to loud noises, can flex his/her feet and hands. The fact that a developing baby inside the womb cannot live outside the womb is irrelevant to that fact. A born baby cannot live outside the womb without somebody providing food, water, warmth, etc. for well over a year either. Therefore a born infant is no more viable than the one not yet born without appropriate care.

The number of abortions isn't a factor if the aborted baby is you or somebody destined to be a blessing to humankind however that might be.

Again I am not for outlawing abortion. But I do think a moral society knows that it is a human life that is being extinguished. And appropriate regulation for that is a moral choice.
 
AlbqOwl said:
A baby inside the womb is most definitely alive, a developing human being. The heart, brain, and spinal cord are clearly developing in the first four week. At eight weeks the fetus reacts to loud noises, can flex his/her feet and hands. The fact that a developing baby inside the womb cannot live outside the womb is irrelevant to that fact. A born baby cannot live outside the womb without somebody providing food, water, warmth, etc. for well over a year either. Therefore a born infant is no more viable than the one not yet born without appropriate care.

The number of abortions isn't a factor if the aborted baby is you or somebody destined to be a blessing to humankind however that might be.

Again I am not for outlawing abortion. But I do think a moral society knows that it is a human life that is being extinguished. And appropriate regulation for that is a moral choice.
Click to expand...

An unborn before it reaches viability will only live awithin woman’s body if her life’s functions do not stop.

If the woman dies and her body ceases to function the pre viable unborn will also die even if the unborn is quickly removed and given the very best medical care , technology care and personal care.

Only 1.3 percent of abortions occur past 21 weeks. 80 percent of those are due to catastrophic fetal defects.

The rest are to prevent irreparable damage to a major bodily function of the woman if the pregnacy continued.

Experts agree before 21 weeks a preemies will not survive since the lungs have no air sacs , they are the consistency of gelatin.

Only about 2 percent of preemies born at 22 weeks survive however the disabilities are very high and many never make it home from the hospital let alone make to their birthday.
 
minnie616 said:
An unborn before it reaches viability will only live awithin woman’s body if her life’s functions do not stop.

If the woman dies and her body ceases to function the pre viable unborn will also die even if the unborn is quickly removed and given the very best medical care , technology care and personal care.

Only 1.3 percent of abortions occur past 21 weeks. 80 percent of those are due to catastrophic fetal defects.

The rest are to prevent irreparable damage to a major bodily function of the woman if the pregnacy continued.

Experts agree before 21 weeks a preemies will not survive since the lungs have no air sacs , they are the consistency of gelatin.

Only about 2 percent of preemies born at 22 weeks survive however the disabilities are very high and many never make it home from the hospital let alone make to their birthday.
Click to expand...

Assuming your statistics are accurate, not one of them changes the fact that it is a living human being developing in the womb. And we, as a moral society, should never ignore that fact regardless of whether an abortion is medically indicated or not.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Assuming your statistics are accurate, not one of them changes the fact that it is a living human being developing in the womb. And we, as a moral society, should never ignore that fact regardless of whether an abortion is medically indicated or not.
Click to expand...

Nor should we ever, IMO, as a society ignore the fact that the pregnant woman is the one making a decision that affects her entire life, her livelihood (including ability to care for family), and could kill her...and there's no way of predicting that...every pregnancy is a significant risk to a woman's life and health.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Assuming your statistics are accurate, not one of them changes the fact that it is a living human being developing in the womb. And we, as a moral society, should never ignore that fact regardless of whether an abortion is medically indicated or not.
Click to expand...

It is not a human being. That is FACT.
 
AlbqOwl said:
A baby inside the womb is most definitely alive, a developing human being. The heart, brain, and spinal cord are clearly developing in the first four week. At eight weeks the fetus reacts to loud noises, can flex his/her feet and hands. The fact that a developing baby inside the womb cannot live outside the womb is irrelevant to that fact. A born baby cannot live outside the womb without somebody providing food, water, warmth, etc. for well over a year either. Therefore a born infant is no more viable than the one not yet born without appropriate care.

The number of abortions isn't a factor if the aborted baby is you or somebody destined to be a blessing to humankind however that might be.

Again I am not for outlawing abortion. But I do think a moral society knows that it is a human life that is being extinguished. And appropriate regulation for that is a moral choice.
Click to expand...

All cells are alive. They are all living tissue.

The heart, brain and spinal cord are not clearly developing in the 4th week. The endo-, ecto-, meso-derm are still in the process of migration. At 4 weeks the embryo has the gill slits of a fish embryo.

The fetus does not react to noise until it can hear at the 18th week.

At 8 weeks the embryo does not have feet and hands it has arm and leg buds which do not move because the nerve tissue of the central nervous system is not connected to the brain.

Only someone with an agenda promoting banning says a born baby that has a biologically designated care giver the second it is born is the same as a 22 week fetus that cannot live outside the uterus no matter what extraordinary medical measures are taken. What's irrelevant is claiming similarity.

That some great scientist, humanitarian, artist, etc might be aborted therefore abortion is immoral is the newest anti-abortion propaganda. It is not one of your better ones.

A moral society knows perfectly will that abortion stops a potential human life.

There is appropriate regulation of abortion in responsible states. Banning abortion after detection of electrical impulses in the mesoderm that will become the heart is irresponsible.

If you are not for outlawing abortion then why are you using all the latest anti-abortion memes in discussing your position on abortion?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Assuming your statistics are accurate, not one of them changes the fact that it is a living human being developing in the womb. And we, as a moral society, should never ignore that fact regardless of whether an abortion is medically indicated or not.
Click to expand...

What makes you assume that society doesn't know that what's being aborted is a potential human. And why is it that the conservative Christian anti-abortion movement demands that the rest of us wallow in guilt over the immorality of abortion when you anti-abortion women get abortions at exactly the same rate as the rest of society?
 
Scorps2000 said:
Yes, if it's a choice between the woman or the baby, but not if it's just a convenience...
Click to expand...

Oh spare us you moralistic superiority and condemnation. If men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament. F*** off. Until you are reincarnated as a woman you don't get to moralize about women and abortion.
 
mrjurrs said:
First, it is not a baby and second, it is not alive. A fetus is living during gestation, but it is not alive (couldn't survive outside the womb).
Click to expand...

Sure it is alive... don't be ridiculous. That is, unless you think that a person requiring life support to stay ALIVE is not alive because that person can not survive on their own...
 
AlbqOwl said:
A baby inside the womb is most definitely alive, a developing human being.
Click to expand...

I am genuinely shocked when people argue that a developing human, in the womb, is not alive.

It is as if they understand so little about biology that I almost can't take anything that they say seriously.
 
weaver2 said:
All cells are alive. They are all living tissue.

The heart, brain and spinal cord are not clearly developing in the 4th week. The endo-, ecto-, meso-derm are still in the process of migration. At 4 weeks the embryo has the gill slits of a fish embryo.

The fetus does not react to noise until it can hear at the 18th week.

At 8 weeks the embryo does not have feet and hands it has arm and leg buds which do not move because the nerve tissue of the central nervous system is not connected to the brain.

Only someone with an agenda promoting banning says a born baby that has a biologically designated care giver the second it is born is the same as a 22 week fetus that cannot live outside the uterus no matter what extraordinary medical measures are taken. What's irrelevant is claiming similarity.

That some great scientist, humanitarian, artist, etc might be aborted therefore abortion is immoral is the newest anti-abortion propaganda. It is not one of your better ones.

A moral society knows perfectly will that abortion stops a potential human life.

There is appropriate regulation of abortion in responsible states. Banning abortion after detection of electrical impulses in the mesoderm that will become the heart is irresponsible.

If you are not for outlawing then why are you using all the latest anti-abortion memes in discussing your position on abortion?
Click to expand...

The embryo becomes a fetus at eight weeks

B]

\
 
AlbqOwl said:
The embryo becomes a fetus at eight weeks
Click to expand...

That is not a fetus at 8 weeks. It is about a 20 week old fetus.

Don't you anti-abortion people ever look up anything on you own. The information is out there on reliable medical sites. Why do you cut and past crap from anti-abortion sites. They have an agenda and it doesn't involve truth.

52ecfb705a36b62c488d60e71aeb3a5a.jpg
schematic drawings

Computer-graphics-illustrating-human-embryonic-development-Carnegie-stage-12-17.jpg
schematic drawings
 
There are legitimate and sensible reasons to regulate abortions. The crap the anti-abortion men come up with is not it. Anti-abortion people are like unthinking lemmings running over the cliff because someone, you haven't a clue who, said lets run!!!!! So you all run over the cliff squeaking, " Immoral liberals love abortion, we're moral, we hate liberals and we hate abortion".

Here's what's funny. Every conservative Christian anti-abortion woman thinks her abortion is "different" and they are still more moral than pro-choice women.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Sure it is alive... don't be ridiculous. That is, unless you think that a person requiring life support to stay ALIVE is not alive because that person can not survive on their own...
Click to expand...

You misread what I said. A fetus is living in the womb, not a baby.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I am genuinely shocked when people argue that a developing human, in the womb, is not alive.

It is as if they understand so little about biology that I almost can't take anything that they say seriously.
Click to expand...

It is like they have to assign that developing human being to something not human in order to justify their passion for killing it at will regardless of reason.
 
weaver2 said:
That is not a fetus at 8 weeks. It is about a 20 week old fetus.

Don't you anti-abortion people ever look up anything on you own. The information is out there on reliable medical sites. Why do you cut and past crap from anti-abortion sites. They have an agenda and it doesn't involve truth.

View attachment 67266154
schematic drawings

View attachment 67266155
schematic drawings
Click to expand...

You apparently don't do your homework on it. Nor do you honestly report what people post. The fact you describe me as anti-abortion for instance is a good indication that you don't read carefully.
 
AlbqOwl said:
You apparently don't do your homework on it. Nor do you honestly report what people post. The fact you describe me as anti-abortion for instance is a good indication that you don't read carefully.
Click to expand...

When you post:
AlbqOwl said:
It is like they have to assign that developing human being to something not human in order to justify their passion for killing it at will regardless of reason.
Click to expand...

exactly what is it you expect people to believe about your position on legal abortion?


I don't suppose you see anything funny in posting " --Nobody deserves to be automatically judged guilty just because somebody accuses them. " directly below "It is like they have to assign that developing human being to something not human in order to justify their passion for killing it at will ...."
 
AlbqOwl said:
It is like they have to assign that developing human being to something not human in order to justify their passion for killing it at will regardless of reason.
Click to expand...

Nobody here is saying it's not human. Not.one.single.poster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom