• 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!

"The Unborn"

ecofarm said:
I mean if a woman requests an abortion in the third trimester, why will doctors not do it?
Click to expand...

You assume that she is asking for no other reason than she must be lazy, stupid, uncaring or any of the above. Where as if she had a good reason then the doctors would not refuse.
 
Angel said:
I'm adamantly Pro-Choice.

Now, I admire law-abiding citizenship. But what if you were the law-abiding citizen you so passionately are back in 1850s America when Dred Scott came down, or 75 years earlier when the Constitution defined a racial minority as a fraction of human being? Would you cite the social contract and wait for the Civil War?
Click to expand...

If I thought I knew the answer I would work within the system to effect change. Let that change work its way though that system, then accept the outcome at the other end or resign myself that the system itself was no longer viable and work to change it.

That isn't the way I feel about this. What I feel about abortion is applicable to my own seed. As I stated, I do not remotely pretend to be smart enough to tell another man what he should think about his own siring, and not at all remotely considering telling a woman what she should do with her own body and what is within it.
 
Marrybore said:
We have to remember, the main issue here is not, are pro-life men trying to control women, or are pro-choicers trying to justify murder, but, "is this unborn child really human"?
Click to expand...

That isn't actually the case. The legal questions are two, and while whether a fetus is a human being or not might enter into it they aren't the main questions, which are:

1) Before the law does the fetus have rights?

2) If it does, do those rights supersede those of the woman carrying it?

That's the crux or it.
 
soylentgreen said:
You assume that she is asking for no other reason than she must be lazy, stupid, uncaring or any of the above. Where as if she had a good reason then the doctors would not refuse.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you'd prefer to answer: Why don't any women ask for an abortion in the third trimester? There must be cases where a dead beat dad is obviously gonna make things difficult, and it comes to a point where the deal is off with him. Why not flush.
 
ecofarm said:
Perhaps you'd prefer to answer: Why don't any women ask for an abortion in the third trimester? There must be cases where a dead beat dad is obviously gonna make things difficult, and it comes to a point where the deal is off with him. Why not flush.
Click to expand...

Again you must be basing this all on some terrible assumptions. That being that abortion is done simply for the convenience of the parent. Again you imply that women get abortions for no good reason. This time that they are simply trying to please a man.

If you could actually provide a good reason to get an abortion in the third term other than the life of the child or woman is threatened then do so.
 
soylentgreen said:
Again you must be basing this all on some terrible assumptions. That being that abortion is done simply for the convenience of the parent. Again you imply that women get abortions for no good reason. This time that they are simply trying to please a man.

If you could actually provide a good reason to get an abortion in the third term other than the life of the child or woman is threatened then do so.
Click to expand...

The reason women and doctors don't is it's kind of a person.
 
Angel said:
Yes, I do. Either that or "person" is an irrelevant concept.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. A foetus is regarded by many people as not being a person. Human, yes, but not an actual person.
Why are you so sure it is a person?
 
soylentgreen said:
Consider that none of the pro life group can actually give a well reasoned argument for their position. They either vilify women or make suggestion that women are not capable or intelligent enough to make such decisions. They care very little for living a life as shown by their arguments that a womans right to live her life as she chooses is only of little concern to them when compared to keeping a pregnancy going. It is the pro life group that shows little concern for science or for facts. They more rely on emotional pleading and the direct lie of pretending fully formed babies are being murdered. They rely on misinforming. Calling a fetus a baby or child in order to gain an emotional advantage or referring to abortion as murder when it is not. Not to mention referring to pro choice as pro abortion another bit of misinformation. And of course there is always the argument by pro life that they know what god wants better than any other.


And then there is your own example of misleading information. You use the word innocent as an emotional plea because there is no other reason to consider the word innocent being used here. They are innocent only in that they have done absolutely nothing and on that basis a banana is also innocent.


If you think you can come up with an argument you deem reasonable for the pro life side then by all means give it a try. Otherwise you are just fence sitting by ignoring the fact that pro life people have no good reasons to support themselves.
Click to expand...

Well, is the foetus a person - that is, on equal level with its mother?
If it is a person, then it is indeed basically a baby. As you said, it's as innocent as a banana - just like a newborn baby.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Everyone who graduated from high school knows for a fact life begins at conception, but no human life becomes a person until birth, and until an offspring is born, it has no legal rights. Students who also take biology in high school learn all about the beginning of life in mammals. Required government classes include memorizing every amendment that applies to abortion rights. So nobody who claims life begins at birth or personhood begins at any point earlier is being honest.
Click to expand...
So, you think personhood begins after birth.
I asked Angel these questions and he seemed think the foetus is definitely a person, or "the term person is an irrelevant concept".
Leaving aside legality for the moment, do either of you know whether the foetus is a person? What even is a "person"?
 
I'd like to assure everyone that "person" is a legitimate concept.

A person (plural people or persons) is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility.[1][2][3][4] The defining features of personhood and consequently what makes a person count as a person differ widely among cultures and contexts.[5]...

Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law, and is closely tied to legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to common worldwide general legal practice, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability. Personhood continues to be a topic of international debate, and has been questioned during the abolition of slavery and the fight for women's rights, in debates about abortion, fetal rights, and in animal rights advocacy.[6]
Click to expand...
Person - Wikipedia

Note, not "human being" because that's not relevant.

Great ape personhood - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
ModernDiogenes said:
That isn't actually the case. The legal questions are two, and while whether a fetus is a human being or not might enter into it they aren't the main questions, which are:

1) Before the law does the fetus have rights?

2) If it does, do those rights supersede those of the woman carrying it?

That's the crux or it.
Click to expand...

Yes, those would be the next questions.
You also have to be careful about the (1). If the foetus is a human being, the law is perhaps irrelevant, and should be changed (maybe).
I think the (2) is probably the main point. It's what everyone is arguing about.
 
bongsaway said:
No we shall not try this again, you have your beliefs and mine are not the same as yours. I'm not trying to convince you to switch over to my thinking but you sure are persistent about trying to get me to have the same beliefs you do because you insist there is a god.

There's nothing to misunderstand, there's the old testament and then there's all the other versions of 'the bible.' Just because something has been written somewhere does not make it fact. There's a whole bunch of books that fall under the heading of fiction, in my opinion, all versions of 'the bible' fall under that heading. Unless you can show up at my house with your god with you, there is nothing you can do to prove to me he she or it exists.
Click to expand...
You're all at sea, mate. No one here is talking about religion. Slip out the back way. I'll cover for you.
 
Lursa said:
Most people would learn something in all that time then, for example, when they grow up, rather than continuing to incite dissent and disagreement. They would learn from their mistakes.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, Ma'am, there'a a barn to clean out.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Yes. The same document that has been amended numerous times over 230+ years. The same document that is the foundation of our legal system. The same document that does not recognize fetuses as people.

Irrelevant to the fact that America’s largest physician’s group does not consider fetuses “human beings” or “babies”. There’s nobody more qualified than trained medical doctors to make that determination.

You’re the one with an opinion.
Click to expand...
You gotta lay off that music, man.
 
ecofarm said:
The reason women and doctors don't is it's kind of a person.
Click to expand...

So you have gone away from the idea that women should be demonised or that they act only for convenience.

Have you considered that women who decide not to get an abortion no matter at what stage, already feel that way about what is growing in them.
 
Marrybore said:
Well, is the foetus a person - that is, on equal level with its mother?
If it is a person, then it is indeed basically a baby. As you said, it's as innocent as a banana - just like a newborn baby.
Click to expand...

Equal level, are you being deliberately ridiculous? Are you suggesting that when doctors are confronted with a situation of considering an abortion that they simply flip a coin to see who gets killed, the mother or the fetus.

Can you even give me one clue as to what "equal" might mean in this case? They are both of the same gender? they are both income earners? they are both white? If you try they are both a life nonsense, then please explain why the doctors do not flip a coin to decide who gets aborted.

Therefor innocent is merely an adjective used to create an emotional plea.

It is not a person in any legal sense and has no rights on that basis. And again we get to the point of pro choice. Which is that it is the woman who has the right to decide whether to get an abortion or whether to have a baby. So whether it is a person or a baby is something only a pregnant woman can decide.
 
Marrybore said:
The point is, is a foetus a person?
Is that really what you believe?
Click to expand...
Angel said:
Yes, I do. Either that or "person" is an irrelevant concept.
Click to expand...
Marrybore said:
That's interesting. A foetus is regarded by many people as not being a person. Human, yes, but not an actual person.
Why are you so sure it is a person?
Click to expand...
Angel said:
Sorry for the delay. I've enjoyed our exchange of posts. My next question to you would have been: A pregnant cow, a pregnant cat, and a pregnant woman all walk into a bar...all bring a concealed fetus with them. Are they all concealing the same thing? Or is each concealing something different from what the other two are concealing? If each of these fetuses is different and distinct from the other fetuses, then "fetus" does not capture the identity of these critters.

But our exchange has inspired a new thread, which I hope to post in the next day or so, and we can continue this discussion there, yes?
Click to expand...
Incoming today, I hope.
 
The inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are endowed by our Creator, NOT government.
While the individual man who was involved in the pregnancy may have a voice, it is the Woman alone, who has the sovereign Right to make the choice for reasons relative to the effect on Her own Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.
There should be no laws forcing or preventing Doctors from performing abortions, against their beliefs, nor should there be any laws forcing a Woman to exercise a choice not of her own making or preventing a Woman from exercising a choice of her own making in the decision to bring a life into the world or not.
I have no problem with religious groups denigrating their OWN members for the choices they make, if they feel it promotes keeping or increasing their membership.
 
Marrybore said:
Yes, those would be the next questions.
You also have to be careful about the (1). If the foetus is a human being, the law is perhaps irrelevant, and should be changed (maybe).
I think the (2) is probably the main point. It's what everyone is arguing about.
Click to expand...

Well, the answer to the first is; yes, at the point where it is viable, and to #2, yes again as the courts have ruled that laws banning third trimester abortions are Constitutional.

Before that there is standing precedent as well. So the fetus may have rights, by the do not supersede the woman's rights carrying it until the point where it is viable outside the womb [in most cases, the it has been determined to be the third trimester].

And that is the law in most states as it currently stands. Where it is being challenged, with these "fetal heartbeat" laws we'll have to see where the court comes down on those.
 
soylentgreen said:
Equal level, are you being deliberately ridiculous? Are you suggesting that when doctors are confronted with a situation of considering an abortion that they simply flip a coin to see who gets killed, the mother or the fetus.


Can you even give me one clue as to what "equal" might mean in this case? They are both of the same gender? they are both income earners? they are both white? If you try they are both a life nonsense, then please explain why the doctors do not flip a coin to decide who gets aborted.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I can say with certainty what I mean by "equal"... Are both mother and unborn child on the same level of humanity? Or personhood? The thing is, these concepts are all so ill-defined things get confused. Remember, it's always possible that a baby is born a minute earlier or a minute later... so it doesn't exactly just become a baby once it's out of the womb, because there is hardly any physical change to its body - claiming "it's only a baby once it's born" doesn't seem to make sense to me...

Therefor innocent is merely an adjective used to create an emotional plea.
Click to expand...
So you think killing a child is no different from killing an adult? Would you dismiss the protests that it was just "an innocent child"?
I'm not saying I believe the foetus is a child, a baby or a person. But are you saying you'd abort it anyway?

It is not a person in any legal sense and has no rights on that basis. And again we get to the point of pro choice. Which is that it is the woman who has the right to decide whether to get an abortion or whether to have a baby. So whether it is a person or a baby is something only a pregnant woman can decide.
Click to expand...
Is it? Only the mother can decide whether the child is actually a person?
 
You know, I was watching a science-fiction film the other night, and there was a character who had some kind of baby naturally growing from his left shoulder. After seeing the film, I considered it, and I suppose if I was in that situation I'd have the thing aborted immediately regardless of whether it was a person or not, even if it was a naturally reproduced version of myself. I'd just want to get that damn baby off my shoulder.
Is that how women feel, I wonder?
 
Marrybore said:
You know, I was watching a science-fiction film the other night, and there was a character who had some kind of baby naturally growing from his left shoulder. After seeing the film, I considered it, and I suppose if I was in that situation I'd have the thing aborted immediately regardless of whether it was a person or not, even if it was a naturally reproduced version of myself. I'd just want to get that damn baby off my shoulder.
Is that how women feel, I wonder?
Click to expand...

Get the damn thing off my shoulder because.................. ?????

The reason is what 's important.
 
weaver2 said:
Get the damn thing off my shoulder because.................. ?????

The reason is what 's important.
Click to expand...

Well, once it's removed stick it on your shoulder and see how you like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom