• 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!

Most conservative males keep reposting nonsense they know is not true about abortion.

Felis Leo said:
If he managed to show you such an instance, Scrabaholic, would your worldview and moral outlook switch from being adamantly pro-Choice to being adamantly pro-Life?
Click to expand...

Why would that make anybody switch?
I dont know anybody pro choice that supports that nor does it have anything to do with "prochoice"

now with that said even if a person like that truly exists they are an individual, not representative of pro-choice,

Just like the insane nutters that want abortions outlawed in all cases or only have the exception of extreme risk of live to the mom represent prolife :shrug:
 
AGENT J said:
Why would that make anybody switch?
I dont know anybody pro choice that supports that nor does it have anything to do with "prochoice"

now with that said even if a person like that truly exists they are an individual, not representative of pro-choice,
Click to expand...

Completely true. I just have no idea why it is being brought up as some point in favor of a pro-choice worldview.

AGENT J said:
Just like the insane nutters that want abortions outlawed in all cases or only have the exception of extreme risk of live to the mom represent prolife :shrug:
Click to expand...

I do not see how someone who wishes to protect what they believe are viable unborn infants consistently and under all circumstances except those that may endanger the mother can be considered "insane." I might not agree with them, but I do not consider people who are consistently adamant about the defense of the unborn as having taken leave of their senses. They simply value the potential lives of the unborn over the current circumstances of the mother.
 
weaver2 said:
I would like to reply to your post in addition to Scrabaholic.

If someone showed me an incident where a doctor had killed a normal, viable infant shortly after delivery I would have the police investigate because infanticide is illegal in every state and is severely punished. Dr. Gosnell of Philadelphia illegally performed infanticide in his clinic. He is serving a lifetime sentence. Knowing this does not change my opinion that women have the legal right right to get a professional and private abortion.
Click to expand...

Well certainly, that is infanticide.

weaver2 said:
The rumor that doctors are killing normal viable infants shortly after delivery began when Virginia and New York sought to change anti-abortion legislation delaying treatment of a late term medical emergency so that an abortion could not be approved before the infant was born after which the doctor could be charged with negligence or murder if the infant died if extreme medical measures were not applied to the infant. The delay was accomplished by requiring three doctors be consulted and give legal consent before the attending doctor could treat a medical emergency in a late term pregnancy. The change sought would allow the attending doctor to use his professional education, experience and judgment in deciding treatment without getting the consent of two other doctors.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your explication, but my point was whether or not idea of "up-to-birth" abortions of an otherwise viable fetus being born to an otherwise healthy mother in a case in which the mother's physical health is not at risk should be legally appropriate. There are some here who argue that it is, if for no other reason than its ostensible incredible rarity.

weaver2 said:
Healthy, late term viable babies were not being killed as a convenience to women as claimed by anti-abortion lobbyists. These late term medical emergencies in which the mother or fetus were at risk of death happen to women who along with their family are looking forward to a new baby. These are pregnancies in which the mother may die or the fetus is dead or will die shortly after birth because of gross congenital defects. In most cases is is necessary to abort the fetus as early as possible before the bones of the skull have hardened. The birth or abortion of a fetus that is dead or will die soon is not treated with painful and extreme medical measures in a effort to keep alive that which will not live. The baby if alive is kept warm, comfortable and painless until it dies. The parents may wish to hold the baby until it dies.

Nothing in this scenario amounts to doctors killing a baby. Nothing amounts to callousness on the part of the mother and family. Nothing implies abortion for the convenience of it. And nothing would change my position from pro-choice to anti-abortion.

Stay informed of what is actually happening instead of relying on information from conservative sites.
Click to expand...

Two things, weaver2. First, I am nominally pro-choice. That is, I am pro-choice insofar as that I believe women should be allowed to make the very important decision of whether they keep their unborn child for the sake of their own health and wellbeing. That is because there is as yet no such thing as a zero-risk pregnancy. Something can always go wrong, even with the healthiest mother and a viable fetus in which complications arise leading to the mother losing here life. But that is the only reason I am pro-choice. I do not, for example, subscribe to the argument of the lack of personhood of unborn children as justification for why it is appropriate to kill unborn fetuses. However, I am perfectly fine with legal restrictions upon abortion after the fetus has reached the point of viability, and am unmoved by any argument for killing the fetus beyond either (1) a clear and present danger to the life of the mother or (2) evidence has arisen that the fetus will have no quality of life upon being born, or may be dead soon after birth.

Second, I have read and continue to read a variety of sources on the subject, not just listening to the conservative pro-life position of the Daily Wire, as is my wont. I have come to believe that the only good justification for abortion for a woman to choose whether or not to keep the child is if she believes she is healthy enough to keep the pregnancy. That is where the conversation starts and ends for me.
 
Felis Leo said:
1.)Completely true. I just have no idea why it is being brought up as some point in favor of a pro-choice worldview.
2.)I do not see how someone who wishes to protect what they believe are viable unborn infants consistently and under all circumstances except those that may endanger the mother can be considered "insane."
3.)I might not agree with them, but I do not consider people who are consistently adamant about the defense of the unborn as having taken leave of their senses.
4.) They simply value the potential lives of the unborn over the current circumstances of the mother.
Click to expand...

1.) well i cant say for sure but my guess would be because SOME dishonest people act like its common place and pro choice people support it. Its kind of the whole point of this thread. Now with that said though i already condemned the OP falsely grouping " conservatives males" though .. . thats part of the problem and not part of the solution. Its just extremists that are the issues

2.) i most certainly do because what you said is not "exactly" what i said. I mentioned two groups
A.) banned under all circumstance
B.) only extreme risk of live (meaning no other risk matters)

those people are nutters to me because theres no logical and non-hypocritical way to support it

3.) and thats just it, it may be consistent but its only consistent in ignoring the woman's life and rights they they claim are so important for the unborn
4.) I agree but your wording is ff and doesnt reflect the reality that many also deny (the hypocritical part)

They simply value the potential lives (and perceived rights) of the unborn over the current life, actual rights and perceived rights of the mother.


But let me be VERY clear. There are many prolifers (no matter the level from light - extreme) that admit this reality, i respect their honesty and integrity whether I agree or not.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Yes, the "oh, you agreed with me on one extreme circumstance, therefore you agree with all circumstances". Sorry, the world isn't black and white like that. There are always gray areas and some are "darker" than others.

a "belief" is rarely a statement of fact. If it's inhumane to kill a 10 minute old baby, then it's inhumane to kill a baby 10 minutes before its birth. You have yet to provide "evidence" otherwise.


You did many things. A refutation was not one of them.
Click to expand...



Scrabaholic said:
Show one instance of killing a "baby" 10 minutes before it's birth.
Click to expand...

Felis Leo said:
If he managed to show you such an instance, Scrabaholic, would your worldview and moral outlook switch from being adamantly pro-Choice to being adamantly pro-Life?
Click to expand...



It would be impossible to abort 10 minutes before birth since the only way ensure an abortion is to inject a fatal injection through the woman’s abdomen and into heart or head of the of the fetus and making sure the heartbeat has stopped ( that often takes 20 minutes to a couple of hours ) before inducing ontractions or starting an extraction of the dead fetus.

Once the fetus is in the birth cannel the injection is not possible.

Abortions are planned days in advance because it usually takes 3 or 4 or more days to complete the procedure.

The latest a planned abortion can safely take place is 36 weeks ( extremely rare I’ve only read one case over 32 weeks and that one was at 34 or 35 weeks IIRC) .

During the last month of pregnancy ( 40 weeks is full term ) if the woman’s life or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued the only option doctors have is a stat C-section and hope both survive the surgery.

But of course some people seem to like to make ridiculous claims.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
Well certainly, that is infanticide.



I appreciate your explication, but my point was whether or not idea of "up-to-birth" abortions of an otherwise viable fetus being born to an otherwise healthy mother in a case in which the mother's physical health is not at risk should be legally appropriate. There are some here who argue that it is, if for no other reason than its ostensible incredible rarity.



Two things, weaver2. First, I am nominally pro-choice. That is, I am pro-choice insofar as that I believe women should be allowed to make the very important decision of whether they keep their unborn child for the sake of their own health and wellbeing. That is because there is as yet no such thing as a zero-risk pregnancy. Something can always go wrong, even with the healthiest mother and a viable fetus in which complications arise leading to the mother losing here life. But that is the only reason I am pro-choice. I do not, for example, subscribe to the argument of the lack of personhood of unborn children as justification for why it is appropriate to kill unborn fetuses. However, I am perfectly fine with legal restrictions upon abortion after the fetus has reached the point of viability, and am unmoved by any argument for killing the fetus beyond either (1) a clear and present danger to the life of the mother or (2) evidence has arisen that the fetus will have no quality of life upon being born, or may be dead soon after birth.

Second, I have read and continue to read a variety of sources on the subject, not just listening to the conservative pro-life position of the Daily Wire, as is my wont. I appreciate your explication, but my point was whether or not idea of "up-to-birth" abortions of an otherwise viable fetus being born to an otherwise healthy mother in a case in which the mother's physical health is not at risk should be legally appropriate. There are some here who argue that it is, if for no other reason than its ostensible incredible rarity.
Click to expand...


I appreciate your explication, but my point was whether or not idea of "up-to-birth" abortions of an otherwise viable fetus being born to an otherwise healthy mother in a case in which the mother's physical health is not at risk should be legally appropriate. There are some here who argue that it is, if for no other reason than its ostensible incredible rarity.
Click to expand...

I guess I didn't make my point about that clear. It isn't happening. This meme about killing a baby shortly after birth started with the legislation in VA and NY to change an anti-abortion sponsored law that was essentially a delaying tactic. It's an argument against something that isn't happening for 2 reasons: It's illegal(Dr. Gosnell is in prison for performing such operations) and doctors don't normally jeopardize their reputation, income, freedom by aborting the normal healthy viable fetus of a healthy women the third trimester. If the mothers health was in danger a C section would be done on a fetus that was viable and it's life would be preserved.

The argument for making abortion legal up to time of birth has been twisted to claim pro-choice women are for infanticide for convenience's sake. The argument is actually for removing current and future restrictions to abortion in order to leave the decision up to the doctor, the woman and her family without interference from anti-abortion barriers like the law requiring consent from three or more doctors before doing what the attending physician thought was medically appropriate.

I do not, for example, subscribe to the argument of the lack of personhood of unborn children as justification for why it is appropriate to kill unborn fetuses. However, I am perfectly fine with legal restrictions upon abortion after the fetus has reached the point of viability, and am unmoved by any argument for killing the fetus beyond either (1) a clear and present danger to the life of the mother or (2) evidence has arisen that the fetus will have no quality of life upon being born, or may be dead soon after birth.
Click to expand...

The conservative male attitude that women are stupid, depraved and so careless of life they must have their pregnancies controlled isn't just demeaning it simply isn't true. A women who says she is not in a position to take care of a baby has thought about the future of the child and has come to the decision that bringing that child into the world is not in the best interests of the child and gets and abortion has made a decision that is rational and humane not depraved, stupid and needing control.
 
weaver2 said:
The conservative male attitude that women are stupid, depraved and so careless of life they must have their pregnancies controlled isn't just demeaning it simply isn't true. A women who says she is not in a position to take care of a baby has thought about the future of the child and has come to the decision that bringing that child into the world is not in the best interests of the child and gets and abortion has made a decision that is rational and humane not depraved, stupid and needing control.
Click to expand...

Most of the men that insist that they need to enact laws telling women when and when not an abortion is appropriate seem to have very little understanding of the time, health, emotional energy and financial issues of pregnancy, gestation, child care, lactation, pre and post natal care and their responsibility to the rest of her family for preserving the emotional and financial stability and security of herself and her family. They seem to think a tiny potential of life has more value and has the right to commandeer the stability, security and happiness of the less valuable lives already existing and in need of protection.

What makes the life of an embryo more sacred than the life of an entire family already living in the real world?
 
Last edited:
weaver2 said:
So, if one states "screw it" with a certain elan prior to 20 weeks then an abortion is OK. But if a fetus is aborted at 20 weeks because it is anencephalic that's immoral and women should be punished?
Click to expand...
ok? OK? really? When did I say that? I just said i respected her decision. That doesn't make it less immoral. It doesn't change the situation at all. It is still not okay, and I would vote to ban it BECAUSE of her decision. What it means i don't hold her in ill regard. I still wish the best for her. But certainly, her decision, isn't "okay".

But people who like to take fringe cases, and make them seem like the norm, that is what I do not respect. If you want argue this, then at least call it what it is so that people know your stance; you want abortion to be legal for any reason, and you don't have a single care for either the baby itself, the motivations of the woman, or what period of time it's done. Whether it's due to her heart failure(a real reason to have an abortion), or because she simply wants more time to play video games, it's all the same to you. Just say it like that, so that people actually know your stance, and stop pretending you're trying to be humane. That I actually i have a modicum of respect for.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Show one instance of killing a "baby" 10 minutes before it's birth.
Click to expand...
It was an example for argument's sake. I was not pretending that this was the majority of cases, and I am fully aware that most abortions are done far earlier. The question was: Are you okay with killing a "baby" 10 minutes before its birth for no other reason than for her to spend more time being idle? If you're willing to give a straight answer, unlike many others here, please do so.

For me, it's easy, my answer is "no".
 
Scrabaholic said:
So, she aborted because she didn't want to have to deal with a child for the rest of her life. That is not "for no reason". EVERY woman who aborts has a reason, even if you and other anti choicers don't agree with the reason.
Click to expand...

"no reason" means "no medical or necessary reason to do so". I.e. she just didn't want to deal with it. I'm fully aware that *you would not define it as such, but i do, and will continue to do so. I stand by my words, it's for "no reason". You will take it, or leave it.
 
weaver2 said:
Most of the men that insist that they need to enact laws telling women when and when not an abortion is appropriate seem to have very little understanding of the time, health, emotional energy and financial issues of pregnancy, gestation, child care, lactation, pre and post natal care and their responsibility to the rest of her family for preserving the emotional and financial stability and security of herself and her family. They seem to think a tiny potential of life has more value and has the right to commandeer the stability, security and happiness of the less valuable lives already existing and in need of protection.

What makes the life of an embryo more sacred than the life of an entire family already living in the real world?
Click to expand...

Well that would be odd, most men who oppose abortion are married. They have wives, and jobs, and bills to pay. Surely such men understand far more about the costs of a baby, than a single, young guy in a college fraternity.

as to answer your question, it doesn't make it MORE sacred. As a long time pro-lifer, I've never seen anyone say that the fetus takes a higher priority than the wife. This wouldn't even make any sense. If her life is in danger, she must be protected first. Even the most pro-life country in the west, Poland, does NOT put the life of fetus above the life of the woman, and if the life is in danger, legally, they're allowed to have an abortion. What you are arguing against, no one is saying.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Well that would be odd, most men who oppose abortion are married. They have wives, and jobs, and bills to pay. Surely such men understand far more about the costs of a baby, than a single, young guy in a college fraternity.

as to answer your question, it doesn't make it MORE sacred. As a long time pro-lifer, I've never seen anyone say that the fetus takes a higher priority than the wife. This wouldn't even make any sense. If her life is in danger, she must be protected first. Even the most pro-life country in the west, Poland, does NOT put the life of fetus above the life of the woman, and if the life is in danger, legally, they're allowed to have an abortion. What you are arguing against, no one is saying.
Click to expand...

If you are making a law outlawing abortion except for two conditions that you approve of and ignoring the considered reasons a woman has made about carrying a pregnancy to term you are most certainly making the distinction that a woman and her family are less worthy of a decent life, liberty from poverty and the pursuit of happiness than the potential life of an embryo of fetus.
 
weaver2 said:
If you are making a law outlawing abortion except for two conditions that you approve of and ignoring the considered reasons a woman has made about carrying a pregnancy to term you are most certainly making the distinction that a woman and her family are less worthy of a decent life, liberty from poverty and the pursuit of happiness than the potential life of an embryo of fetus.
Click to expand...

Well....we're on not on the same page, but we're certainly on the same chapter.

It is true, that what one considers a "decent life" is indeed placed on a lower priority than the very real life of an unborn baby. Why, you ask? Because everyone has a right to life, including the unborn. I realize that only 150 years ago, not even slaves had such a right, so consider it a "universal suffrage" that includes the unborn, if you will. They have a right to be born, and a right means that no government or individual can take it away without consequence. What is considered a "decent life", a life with Air conditioning, a life with TV, a life with a new car, is not a right, but a privilege. You only have a right to a life. Whether it's a good, or "decent", or bad life, is entirely up to you and your decisions. However, your decisions cannot affect the right of another to be born in the normal, healthy fashion.

Now, that's the ideology of the pro-life movement in general. In practicality, it's not simple. There is always times when a woman isn't a healthy, and when, without an abortion, both the mother and the baby are at risk of dying together. Ideology is one thing, but practicality is another. While there are certainly allowances on the practical side, the ideology simply doesn't see a willful, vain abortion as anything other than a denial of life. Every other right is subserviant to this because, without life, there are no other rights. A baby who is to be born a girl, cannot have rights if she is aborted in the womb.

You support abortion to defend women....yet, all around the world, it's women who are being aborted, because most societies place more importance on the males, than the females(i.e., China).
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
"no reason" means "no medical or necessary reason to do so". I.e. she just didn't want to deal with it. I'm fully aware that *you would not define it as such, but i do, and will continue to do so. I stand by my words, it's for "no reason". You will take it, or leave it.
Click to expand...

Then you are lying. There is always a reason. If you mean without medical reason, then say so instead of saying "no reason".
 
DarkWizard12 said:
ok? OK? really? When did I say that? I just said i respected her decision. That doesn't make it less immoral. It doesn't change the situation at all. It is still not okay, and I would vote to ban it BECAUSE of her decision. What it means i don't hold her in ill regard. I still wish the best for her. But certainly, her decision, isn't "okay".

But people who like to take fringe cases, and make them seem like the norm, that is what I do not respect. If you want argue this, then at least call it what it is so that people know your stance; you want abortion to be legal for any reason, and you don't have a single care for either the baby itself, the motivations of the woman, or what period of time it's done. Whether it's due to her heart failure(a real reason to have an abortion), or because she simply wants more time to play video games, it's all the same to you. Just say it like that, so that people actually know your stance, and stop pretending you're trying to be humane. That I actually i have a modicum of respect for.
Click to expand...


I understood exactly what you just said. You respected the decision of a woman that said "Screw it" and got an abortion because she didn't want a child, you don't hold her in ill regard and wish her the best . After which you lied about the goals and objectives of pro-choice women and denigrated women who get abortions because of family responsibilities or finances by saying they are lying about their reason.

I have never taken a fringe case and claimed it was a norm. That's one of the more un-attractive techniques of the anti-abortion crowd. And I have stated my case pretty completely and pretty often and it doesn't include abortion for any reason, any time, or without regard to the fetus.

You have just proved my point that anti-abortion males keep posting crap like the above that they have been told is not true.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
You support abortion to defend women....yet, all around the world, it's women who are being aborted, because most societies place more importance on the males, than the females(i.e., China).
Click to expand...

Women are never aborted. There are no women in uteruses. Ever.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Then you are lying. There is always a reason. If you mean without medical reason, then say so instead of saying "no reason".
Click to expand...

There is always a reason to crap in public, including simply "because I want to". That doesn't mean no reasonable person wouldn't go "you did that for no reason".

I'm not changing my language to make you feel better about it. I've given you my answer, you will either take it or leave it, and any further post by you on this matter I will only ignore.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Well that would be odd, most men who oppose abortion are married. They have wives, and jobs, and bills to pay. Surely such men understand far more about the costs of a baby, than a single, young guy in a college fraternity.

as to answer your question, it doesn't make it MORE sacred. As a long time pro-lifer, I've never seen anyone say that the fetus takes a higher priority than the wife. This wouldn't even make any sense. If her life is in danger, she must be protected first. Even the most pro-life country in the west, Poland, does NOT put the life of fetus above the life of the woman, and if the life is in danger, legally, they're allowed to have an abortion. What you are arguing against, no one is saying.
Click to expand...

If you accept only risk of death and non-viable fetus as the only reasons for abortion you are putting a higher value on the potential life than on the already existing life, because you have deemed dishonest any reason a woman gives other than the death risk and fetal viability.
 
weaver2 said:
I understood exactly what you just said. You respected the decision of a woman that said "Screw it" and got an abortion because she didn't want a child, you don't hold her in ill regard and wish her the best . After which you lied about the goals and objectives of pro-choice women and denigrated women who get abortions because of family responsibilities or finances by saying they are lying about their reason.
Click to expand...
Wait wait wait....who said every woman who gets an abortion is pro choice? Why would you think that? Sounds ridiculous.
I have never taken a fringe case and claimed it was a norm. That's one of the more un-attractive techniques of the anti-abortion crowd.
Click to expand...
Lursa has, and often group yours and her posts together, as I find you both equally unreasonable.
And I have stated my case pretty completely and pretty often and it doesn't include abortion for any reason, any time, or without regard to the fetus.
Click to expand...
That's your opinion, not mine. You've been rather inconsistent, unreasonable, and uncharitable even. The majority of your reasoning simply does not follow, for the reasons I laid out.
You have just proved my point that anti-abortion males keep posting crap like the above that they have been told is not true.
Click to expand...
like what, exactly? What did I say was untrue, and describe it for me, why it is untrue.
 
weaver2 said:
If you accept only risk of death and non-viable fetus as the only reasons for abortion you are putting a higher value on the potential life than on the already existing life, because you have deemed dishonest any reason a woman gives other than the death risk and fetal viability.
Click to expand...
There are numerous reasons. Why would you think it is only limited to risk of death, or the like? They're too numerous to list, and they are only tangents anyway, so no point in discussing them.

They did not change the problem in any way, that you're simply too permissive. If you allow a completely unreasonable case of a woman to abort a *very* late term baby, for no other reason than that she wanted to, to be legal, then I think most would agree that it's too permissive, and really just screwed up that you would agree, there is no humanity in a completely healthy and viable fetus to be born. You've stated as much, although you like to wrap it around in rhetoric and say things like "you don't actually know why they're getting abortions!" please....that's a full endorsement by you that you are absolutely okay with a woman doing such a thing. Just say it. Don't try to drum up random sob stories to make you feel like the humane one. Just say you're fine with a girl killing a baby 10 minutes before birth, because she wants to go home and play video games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom