• 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!

More Abortions Are Good For Society

Dayton3 said:
I think it is from the father of the Soviet Navy Gorshkov.
Click to expand...

More irrelevant content unrelated to the topic.

I think you just like to read your own words on the screen and may be so self-unaware you have no idea how embarrassing much of it is.
 
Lursa said:
Please feel free to list any negative effects of abortion on 'society.' There are none that I'm aware of.

If you claim depression and suicide "on a societal level", please link those to having abortions. Almost all peer-reviewed studies show that most women have no long term regret or other emotional issues.

Please support your claims.
Click to expand...

You’ll need to re-read my post. I never claimed abortions were directly linked to suicide. What I claimed is the throwing away of life connected to a shifting cultural paradigm.
I find it more effective to talk with women that have had abortions than a study. I’ve seen a lot of women dealing with feelings of remorse and confusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Stopandthink said:
You’ll need to re-read my post. I never claimed abortions were directly linked to suicide. What I claimed is the throwing away of life connected to a shifting cultural paradigm.
I find it more effective to talk with women that have had abortions than a study. I’ve seen a lot of women dealing with feelings of remorse and confusion.


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

Well that's nice that you have anecdotal experience.

But it's a discussion forum and you were describing how you believed society had been negatively affected. Your anecdote doesnt meet the bar for a counter-argument...for reasons I posted.

If you want to support your opinion in some other way, please do. Otherwise, I am not aware of any negative effects of abortion on society.
 
Stopandthink said:
The planet is capable of supporting us all.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

The unborn are human, what else would they be.
Click to expand...

Of course they are. I have never said otherwise.


Woman have elective abortions for all kinds of different reasons, it depends on the mindset at the time.
Click to expand...

Show me one woman who has aborted because of a "swing of mood".
 
Stopandthink said:
I find it more effective to talk with women that have had abortions than a study. I’ve seen a lot of women dealing with feelings of remorse and confusion.
Click to expand...

I have only known one woman who regretted her abortion. She was coerced into aborting illegally by an anti choice married minister, and almost died from complications.
 
To Pro-Lifers Only

Why do you always refuse to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the best of your ability based on proven facts and post totaly unbiased information from legitimate websites?

Why do you always refuse to accept the extremely obvious proven facts pro-choicers when they include totally unbased information from legitimate websites and links to them in their messages?

I will stop asking these questions when I get truthful answers.
 
Last edited:
Blue Donkey said:
To Pro-Lifers Only

Why do you always refuse to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the best of your ability based on proven facts and post totaly unbiased information from legitimate websites?

Why do you always refuse to accept the extremely obvious proven facts pro-choicers when they include totally unbased information from legitimate websites and links to them in their messages?

I will stop asking these questions when I get truthful answers.
Click to expand...

Off-topic. Can lead anywhere. (not that I believe you will get any honest answers)
 
Blue Donkey said:
There is nothing incorrect about knowing perfectly well what it means to be homosesxual. You are talking about bisexuals. I already addressed that.

So back to abortion . . .
Click to expand...
All that is clear is that you don't understand biology a homosexual man and a homosexual woman can still procreate. They probably would choose not to but that does not mean that they are prohibited or cannot procreate. Your statement was ridiculous. Admit it. Own it. Then we can go back to abortion...
 
Bodhisattva said:
All that is clear is that you don't understand biology a homosexual man and a homosexual woman can still procreate. They probably would choose not to but that does not mean that they are prohibited or cannot procreate. Your statement was ridiculous. Admit it. Own it. Then we can go back to abortion...
Click to expand...

I am not talking about biology. I am talking about the fact that homosexuals are only attracted to members of their own sex, so they would never want to have sex with the opposite one. If someone has sex with both a man and a woman, he/she is bisexual - the B in LGBT.
 
Stopandthink said:
The planet is capable of supporting us all.
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by “us all”. Do you mean everyone alive now? Everyone who’ll be born in the future? Everyone who might’ve been born but wasn’t? Be clearer.

Stopandthink said:
The unborn are human, what else would they be.
Click to expand...
They’re not necessarily human yet. Which is a big part of the problem.

Stopandthink said:
Woman have elective abortions for all kinds of different reasons, it depends on the mindset at the time.
Click to expand...
In my personal opinion, it’s never good to snuff out a potential life on a whim. Abortions should really only occur if the woman has a valid reason. BUT, it is the woman’s body, and thus her decision. The woman’s life is more important than the potential infant’s life, and if the infant’s birth is going to destroy hers, or if she never made the decision to become pregnant, then she deserves the choice to abort. And most women don’t just decide to conceive a child, then change their mind a few months later and decide to abort it (though I can see that’s what a lot of pro-lifers think is happening).


Sent from my iPhone using
 
Blue Donkey said:
I am not talking about biology. I am talking about the fact that homosexuals are only attracted to members of their own sex, so they would never want to have sex with the opposite one. If someone has sex with both a man and a woman, he/she is bisexual - the B in LGBT.
Click to expand...

Obviously.

The fact is that you said something different. Instead of owning a mistake in words... you are playing semantic games trying to get out of... making a mistake. Your initial statement was wrong. Own it and deserve some respect. Don't own it and be considered a hack. Your choice...
 
Blue Donkey said:
Before all of the conservative members who only care about the mere existence of unwanted people come in, I have to carefully explain the reasons for this.

Society can only get worse when there are more unwanted people. It can only get better when people can do more to help everyone instead of spend all their time with one unwanted kid. Biblically, everyone is responsible for helping out the poor and serving God. That - not going through with unwanted pregnancies to put more poor people on the planet - is helping society. If you are a Christian, you want to do what Jesus would do and commande. That is not adding people to the world. It is helping the people who already need what they can't get on their own.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time thinking Jesus would be into baby killing.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Obviously.

The fact is that you said something different. Instead of owning a mistake in words... you are playing semantic games trying to get out of... making a mistake. Your initial statement was wrong. Own it and deserve some respect. Don't own it and be considered a hack. Your choice...
Click to expand...

I was just trying to retirn to the original topic, abortion. DP has a Sex and Sexuality section for this stuff.
 
Integrityrespec said:
I have a hard time thinking Jesus would be into baby killing.
Click to expand...

Jesus said, "Let all of the little children come to me, for theirs is the kindgom in heaven."

You can take that to mean "mery killings" are Biblical if fetuses count as "little children" in the minds and hears of their moms;. Whose side are you on?
 
Integrityrespec said:
I have a hard time thinking Jesus would be into baby killing.
Click to expand...

Would King Herod have supported abortion, that’s the question?

Actually, there’s quite a lot of murdering of children in the Bible.
The story of the children of Bethel was always one of my favourites.

2 Kings 2:23

23 From there, Elisha went up to Bethel, and as he was walking up the road, a group of young men came out of the city and jeered at him, chanting, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24 Then he turned around, looked at them, and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Suddenly two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys
Click to expand...
 
Given how much boomers complain about millenials, you'd think they would be okay with abortions...

(that was sarcasm for those who cannot figure that out)
 
Blue Donkey said:
Obviously because they would never have sex with each other.
Click to expand...

Not only are homosexuals capable of having sex with the opposite sex for procreative purposes, there are other ways to make a baby that do not require sex. Invitro fertilization, surrogates (which generally use IVF, and sperm donations.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Which would only happen if people want babies, so it has nothing to do with abortion.
Click to expand...

Which is why in a homosexual dominated society, almost all pregnancies would be wanted, and abortions would be very, very small, at a base minimal for only true medical needs and/or the very rare instance of rape (which still could happen even if everyone were homosexual).
 
Blue Donkey said:
There is nothing incorrect about knowing perfectly well what it means to be homosesxual. You are talking about bisexuals. I already addressed that.

So back to abortion . . .
Click to expand...

No. You are confusing things here. Bisexual means you are attracted to both sexes, are willing to have intimate relationships with members of either sex. You do not have to be attracted to someone to have sex with them. Homosexuals are quite capable of having sex with the opposite sex for procreative purposes without being attracted to them, wanting to actually be in an intimate relationship with them.

And again, there is always IVF, which is a specific way of getting pregnant, which costs money and is intended. That means the demand for abortion would be low because abortion is more normal to occur with unintentional pregnancies than intentional pregnancies. Therefore, if everyone were homosexual, pregnancies in such a world would almost all be exclusively intentional (with some very, very rare exceptions), whether through IVF or through natural sex with someone they aren't attracted to but arrange to have sex with just to procreate.
 
Blue Donkey said:
I am not talking about biology. I am talking about the fact that homosexuals are only attracted to members of their own sex, so they would never want to have sex with the opposite one. If someone has sex with both a man and a woman, he/she is bisexual - the B in LGBT.
Click to expand...

You are confusing things here. They would not want to have intimate relationships with someone of the opposite sex, but could see the want of creating a baby or babies as higher than their want to not have sex with someone of the opposite sex. You are perfectly capable of having sex with someone you are not attracted to. Just having sex with both a man and a woman does not make a person bisexual. Bisexual is about attraction for intimate relationships, not sexual activity.
 
roguenuke said:
Not only are homosexuals capable of having sex with the opposite sex for procreative purposes, there are other ways to make a baby that do not require sex. Invitro fertilization, surrogates (which generally use IVF, and sperm donations.
Click to expand...

Again, if the goal is to procreate, they would not have elective abortions. So it is totally irrelvant to this topic.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Again, if the goal is to procreate, they would not have elective abortions. So it is totally irrelvant to this topic.
Click to expand...

It is relevant, because they would be the least likely to have abortions. That was the entire point of the post. Irony that a group that most conservative prolifers complain about, one of the reasons for that complaint specifically being "they don't procreate" (which is wrong, they simply don't procreate by accident, like heterosexuals and even bisexuals), also would be a pretty good solution to the abortion issue. It isn't a practical solution, just an ironic one.

But they can still have reasons to have abortions, including medical problems of either the mother or child. And it is possible (just much more unlikely) that there could be pregnancies from rape. Rape does not always involve sexual attraction. It could be used by homosexuals to exert power as well, or even to create a child. I'm not stating any sort of statistics on likelihood to happen here, only that it is possible (and even probable if our population was the same level) for homosexual men or women to rape someone of the opposite sex for reasons other than attraction (which is what determines someone sexuality, not who they choose to have sex with).
 
The reason a majoirty of Baptists (not myself, of course) oppose homosexuality is God made one man and one woman. Over and over agein the Bible specifically says men should have wives and women should have husbands. So they think sexual attraction to other members of your own gender is a sin. Because having sex outside of wedlock is obviously a sin and geneticists have repeatedly confirmed sexual orientation is not a choice, I draw the line at having children.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Because having sex outside of wedlock is obviously a sin and geneticists have repeatedly confirmed sexual orientation is not a choice,
Click to expand...

That one word just stands out. Obviously!!! No, the word you should have used is , religiously. Sex outside marriage is only a sin because a man want to be sure that his woman is pregnant with his sperm only. It is a sin in a patriarchal society where women are only a possession.

As in todays world women are no longer chattel but have equal rights. So sex outside of marriage is no longer a sin but instead a reasonable choice. Unless of course mindless obedience in an old book of dubious morality weighs more than the reality around you.


I draw the line at having children.
Click to expand...

Clarify please. Do you mean you draw the line at having children or you draw the line at gays having children?
 
Because this thread is only about abortion, it was a horrible idea to talk about anything related to sexual orientation here anyway, since we have a separate section for that. We never should have brought it up. But since you did, I must say this: Sin does not mean the same as "against the law" in a secular sense. It is 100% about violating GOD'S laws as they are CLEARLY described in the Bible. So as long as people sin extramarital sex will be a sin.That is extremely obvious to everyone who believeswhat the Bible says about sins. End of story.

Now, let's get back to abortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom