• 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!

Do any "pro-lifers" care about the mothers and babies?

great!

i didnt want to fail that test but i did, why should i face the consequences?

i didnt want to lose that game, why should i face the consqequences

i didnt want to have a kid, why should i face the consequences when i know that contraception doesnt work all the time and the best way to avoid abortion is to be responsible and wait for marriage

Waiting for marriage is not responsible, IMO.
 
You do know that there are married women who never want children, right? So the whole "wait for marriage" thing doesn't always apply.

the best way to avoid abortion is not have sex
 
You tried to pass the test. You tried to win the game. You would not have accomplished either by doing nothing, of course, so they are not apples to apples comparisons.

What is this "wait for marriage" business about? I was very specific consensual sex is for married couples and said nothing about premarital sex.

Unfortunately, many people do not understand contraception can fail. So they may be doing the responsible thing to the best of their knowledge.

dont want kids-dont have sex

cool, none of this "oh but i dint want to have kids, boo hoo"
 
the best way to avoid abortion is not have sex

So what. That's your "solution," which never interested me. I never found it necessary to punish myself with lifetime celibacy for refusing to reproduce, so I never did so. No other woman has to punish herself that way either.
 
it is responsible

It is not. What if you are not sexually compatible and then split up because of it? Better to find out before marriage.

Or what if one is sterile and doesn't know it? Better to find out before marriage.
 
It is not. What if you are not sexually compatible and then split up because of it? Better to find out before marriage.

Or what if one is sterile and doesn't know it? Better to find out before marriage.

Sexual compatibility can't be determined simply by having sex, once, or a hundred times. For more than a few people it takes months or even years. And even then it changes over time.

And what if you love someone but the sex is simply not good? Do you abandon them because of that one aspect of your life. ?
 
"Quality of life"? Seriously? I'm pretty sure she knew the risk of having unprotected sex and took it willingly. There are any number of contraceptive methods available.

Also, not all "surprise babies" are mistreated or abused.

That's right not all unwanted children are abused. Read the statistics, studies, articles, research instead of just blowing your opinions around: most unwanted children fare very badly as adults: there are much higher levels of unemployment, homelessness, substance abuse, mental illness, incarceration etc among adults that were unwanted than children raised in an environment where they were wanted and cared for.
 
That's right not all unwanted children are abused. Read the statistics, studies, articles, research instead of just blowing your opinions around: most unwanted children fare very badly as adults: there are much higher levels of unemployment, homelessness, substance abuse, mental illness, incarceration etc among adults that were unwanted than children raised in an environment where they were wanted and cared for.
Let's see some of these "statistics, studies, and articles". Also, maybe we should replace the emotion-laden term "unwanted" with "unplanned".

Also, let's remember in the age of the Earth, billions of people where "unplanned". It's only the last century or so that "planning" tools have been plentiful and easily available
 
And many "surprise babies" are neglected or abused. Because their mothers never wanted them in the first place but were forced to have them, either by family members or religious community. Forcing women to stay pregnant and give birth, which is what banning abortion does, is never a good thing, for mother or baby.
You have all the nice little cliches well memorized.
 
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, No abortion in any case Membership 2,000,000

Evangelical Churches: No abortion for cases of rape or incest
Southern Baptist Convention 14,000,000 members
Assemblies of God. 3,000,000
Christian Reformed Church 230,000members

Catholic Church: membership about 70,000,000

90,000,000 sounds like most
LOL, and you think every member of these churches strictly adheres to those prohibitions? You do know there are over 7 BILLION people in the world, right, and 330 million here in the US. So, yeah "most" is a little questionable.
 
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, No abortion in any case Membership 2,000,000

Evangelical Churches: No abortion for cases of rape or incest
Southern Baptist Convention 14,000,000 members
Assemblies of God. 3,000,000
Christian Reformed Church 230,000members

Catholic Church: membership about 70,000,000

90,000,000 sounds like most

You're working under the assumption that all 90 million people believe exactly the same thing? C'mon. Catholics are notorious for not adhering to the strict devout teachings of the Catholic Church. Only about half of Catholics believe that abortion is wrong and in 2009, 47% of them said that abortion should be legal in almost all cases.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Josie. Miss BlueJackass seems to have the erroneous idea that the government, or Pro-lifers, have an obligation to raise her kid if "she" decides not to abort it.

She seems to think that "...girls can get pregnant when they are in fifth grade" through some magical occurrence. She seems to think that others should have an interest in what happens to the baby: abuse, neglect, lacking a home, never being adopted, etc. She seems to forget that it is HER problem, and NO ONE ELSE. Have they stopped teaching personal responsibility?

Girls can get pregnant in 5th grade....
 
It seems everyone who claims to be a pro-lifer is unable to provide a single shred of factual evidence that the mother's quality of life is completely irrelevant, then has no interest in what happens to the baby: abuse, neglect, lacking a home, never being adopted, etc. You are not a pro-lifer if all you care about is the mere existence of unwanted babies, not every baby's life. You know what can happen to babies who should not exist today because the mothers had tried to avoid getting pregnant nine months earlier. If you were taught anything about female puberty in school, you know girls can get pregnant when they are in fifth grade. If you ever suffered the problems pregnant women have literally every day just because they are pregnant, there is no reason to wish that on women who tried to avoid conceiving offspring. It is not about nine months versus a whole life, but nine months and a whole life.
There are two hypothetical societies:

1 - protects against abortion.
a) has more single mothers (linked to negative outcomes)
b) has more overpopulation (linked to negative outcomes)
c) in fact likely has higher rates of poverty/crime, from combined multiple factors related to the likely increase in unplanned families

2 - does not restrict abortion and views it as a free choice, and thus avoids these negative side social effects

Here are two others which are more extreme versions of this hypothetical contrast:

1 - punishes all crimes with death, life sentences and/or banishment, euthanize the handicap/low IQ, regulate birthing to optimize health, intelligence, prosocial behaviours (perhaps to the point of forbid 'poor' or 'ilequipt parents' from breeding)
a) likely has far greater wealth and prosperity over the control
b) likely has extremely high prosocial measures
c) is likely very logical, happy and scientific society with low crime/poverty rates

2 - does not like socially approve of these outcomes, but forbids as a society taking any extreme & unjust measures to justify achieving them as an outcome


No, these are not equivalent. Merely hypothetical examples of a principle.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————

It is a fact: black fetuses are 4x more like to get aborted than average, girls in china more likely to be aborted than males, so we also much acknowledge these realities of choice means two hypothetical society, do not only differ in universal metrics(e.g. crime/poverty) but also fundamentally cultural demographics. So: IQ, race, religious, family structure, political preclivity, gender-age composition all change with these actions. This is because, when State policy decide who lives and who dies, it is always a form of social engineering, either way in fact. Prohibition on abortion, socially engineers against based on 'moral considerations', where as limited-restrictions don't centrally control, do de facto implore social engineering by the masses in contrast. In the second, case where I doubt you are as supportive, we see the government infringes "free choice" but this time toward the 'collective' ideal rather than simply allowing for ideal outcomes from the impacts of free choice.


My point, is to highlight for all your talk your simply arguing parental rights. Does a parent have the right to end their condition as a parent before such has the implication of becoming a potential burden on others?

And, I am sympathetic not simply against as I would be if we were talking the later example, which circumvents even "free choice".

The problem remains. If we do not stand for those unideal unwanted children. No one will. And, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't have a line. I for example for fully admit, I'd be for aborting a knowingly low IQ or handicap child. But for some, it might be a gay child. For other a girl. For others, yes it may simply be any non-planned child. The point is you can't make it so simple, because it's social engineering, which impact everyone. So, I am glad you found your position, and support and defend the freedom to make their choice. But, stop pretending your side is obvious or the only moral choice.

Standing for the unideals right to live is not a moral defect. Moderate yourself :peace
 
Sexual compatibility can't be determined simply by having sex, once, or a hundred times. For more than a few people it takes months or even years. And even then it changes over time.

And what if you love someone but the sex is simply not good? Do you abandon them because of that one aspect of your life. ?

I would not stay with someone if the sex was bad or we were sexually incompatible. And It shouldn't take years to figure it out.
 
Last edited:
Let's see some of these "statistics, studies, and articles". Also, maybe we should replace the emotion-laden term "unwanted" with "unplanned".

Also, let's remember in the age of the Earth, billions of people where "unplanned". It's only the last century or so that "planning" tools have been plentiful and easily available

Unplanned does not mean unwanted.
 
I would not stay someone if the sex was bad or we were sexually incompatible. It shouldn't take years to figure it out.

Yet it has for more than one couple.

And why do you put so much emphasis on sex anyway? It is only one part of a healthy relationship.
 
Let's see some of these "statistics, studies, and articles". Also, maybe we should replace the emotion-laden term "unwanted" with "unplanned".

Also, let's remember in the age of the Earth, billions of people where "unplanned". It's only the last century or so that "planning" tools have been plentiful and easily available



The High Cost of Unintended Pregnancy

NCCP | Home › topics › childpoverty

https://www.urban.org/sites/default...6/2000369-Child-Poverty-and-Adult-Success.pdf

Violence & Socioeconomic Status
 
The best way to avoid abortion is not have sex.

But no married couples can be expected to abstain forever. It is a natural part of marriage. That is why "abstinence only" sex education never works as well as teaching students everything about contraception that teenagers can handle.
 
There are two hypothetical societies:

1 - protects against abortion.
a) has more single mothers (linked to negative outcomes)
b) has more overpopulation (linked to negative outcomes)
c) in fact likely has higher rates of poverty/crime, from combined multiple factors related to the likely increase in unplanned families

2 - does not restrict abortion and views it as a free choice, and thus avoids these negative side social effects

Here are two others which are more extreme versions of this hypothetical contrast:

1 - punishes all crimes with death, life sentences and/or banishment, euthanize the handicap/low IQ, regulate birthing to optimize health, intelligence, prosocial behaviours (perhaps to the point of forbid 'poor' or 'ilequipt parents' from breeding)
a) likely has far greater wealth and prosperity over the control
b) likely has extremely high prosocial measures
c) is likely very logical, happy and scientific society with low crime/poverty rates

2 - does not like socially approve of these outcomes, but forbids as a society taking any extreme & unjust measures to justify achieving them as an outcome


No, these are not equivalent. Merely hypothetical examples of a principle.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————



It is a fact: black fetuses are 4x more like to get aborted than average, girls in china more likely to be aborted than males, so we also much acknowledge these realities of choice means two hypothetical society, do not only differ in universal metrics(e.g. crime/poverty) but also fundamentally cultural demographics. So: IQ, race, religious, family structure, political preclivity, gender-age composition all change with these actions. This is because, when State policy decide who lives and who dies, it is always a form of social engineering, either way in fact. Prohibition on abortion, socially engineers against based on 'moral considerations', where as limited-restrictions don't centrally control, do de facto implore social engineering by the masses in contrast. In the second, case where I doubt you are as supportive, we see the government infringes "free choice" but this time toward the 'collective' ideal rather than simply allowing for ideal outcomes from the impacts of free choice.


My point, is to highlight for all your talk your simply arguing parental rights. Does a parent have the right to end their condition as a parent before such has the implication of becoming a potential burden on others?

And, I am sympathetic not simply against as I would be if we were talking the later example, which circumvents even "free choice".

The problem remains. If we do not stand for those unideal unwanted children. No one will. And, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't have a line. I for example for fully admit, I'd be for aborting a knowingly low IQ or handicap child. But for some, it might be a gay child. For other a girl. For others, yes it may simply be any non-planned child. The point is you can't make it so simple, because it's social engineering, which impact everyone. So, I am glad you found your position, and support and defend the freedom to make their choice. But, stop pretending your side is obvious or the only moral choice.

Standing for the unideals right to live is not a moral defect. Moderate yourself :peace

Fine stand for the right of the unideal to live that's a choice you are free to make. But electing people that promise to stack the SC and make your conservative religious moral choices into federal law is what the pro-choice movement is fighting against. Pro-choice is not fighting against making a choice to give birth. Pro-choice is not fighting against adoption. It's not fighting against giving birth and lovingly raising a Down's child or any other handicapped child. It's fighting against making laws that force women to carry every pregnancy to term, and refusal of late term abortion for genetically non-viable fetuses. It's fighting against states that make laws restricting legal 1st trimester abortions. It's fighting to keep open Planned Parenthood clinics that deal with contraception not abortion. It's fighting against the lies of Priests for Life and organizations like David Daleiden's Center for Medical Progress. It's fighting against rules that require legitimate women's clinics to do completely unnecessary and invasive bodily inspections like vaginal sonograms, extended waiting periods, repeated visits and a host of other religious right's restrictions to prevent women from getting legal abortions.

The stated purpose of the religious right is to overturn Roe and end legal abortions. That's smacks of theocracy not freedom of choice or freedom of religion.
 
You're working under the assumption that all 90 million people believe exactly the same thing? C'mon. Catholics are notorious for not adhering to the strict devout teachings of the Catholic Church. Only about half of Catholics believe that abortion is wrong and in 2009, 47% of them said that abortion should be legal in almost all cases.


The official position of conservative churches including the Church is that abortion should be banned, made illegal and clinics closed. As the official position that is what the lawyers and lobbyists for the religious right go to Congress and try to implement. It doesn't matter how many are in a state of apostasy.
 
The official position of conservative churches including the Church is that abortion should be banned, made illegal and clinics closed. As the official position that is what the lawyers and lobbyists for the religious right go to Congress and try to implement. It doesn't matter how many are in a state of apostasy.

It does when you say that the collective 90 million all agree with the leadership. It’s just not true.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom