• 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!

A civil debate on the abortion issue

It is settled law even though the anti-abortion crowd keeps pecking at it.

It's a personal decision. No other person, certainly not a man, can make that decision for a woman.

Even God gave us free choice
 
weaver2 said:
You're right. The abortion question is 100% a 1st amendment issue and nothing else.

Two strong religious organizations have tenets that require women give birth if they get pregnant whether they want to be pregnant or not. The Constitution protects the right of the Catholics and the sects that fall under the evangelical heading to believe what ever suits them and their God. Nobody is trying to take away their rights or their freedom to believe. They are not victims.

There isn't actually problem about what these two churches believe.

Until the Church and the evangelicals start start getting Congress or the states to pass laws that force their religious beliefs on all women not just their own. Every law they pass restricting abortion violates the command that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". They are clearly asking government establish their religious laws above all other. They keep the focus on the fetus and the personhood of the fetus to deflect from their church and state violation.

The issue is; does a church have the right to make those outside their religious group honor follow their religious dogma.

Our fragile democracy rests on that 1st Amendment . Without it we would be a theocracy of which ever church wielded the most political power. And as long as they can keep us talking about the fetus they are getting away with murdering the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the way I've always seen it.
 
weaver2 said:
There is no fetal issue. The Church and evangelicals are completely free to believe what ever they want to about a fetus. They can declare it a person, give it rights, and prohibit abortion. They just can't make those outside their honor their beliefs and follow them.
Click to expand...

The religious perspective is indeed irrelevant to any rational argument - but the issue (1) still remains.
 
Lursa said:
Science (human development) is objective and applies no value. The unborn human, a born human, and a wolf are equal when categorized scientifically.

What authority recognizes a right to life for the unborn? The Const recognizes that for all born people.


Yes she does. The Constitution protects her rights, all of them, and the unborn has none.
Click to expand...
For such a controversial issue, I am just considering the situation morally rather than legally.

If you want to use moral considerations, the horrific use of force necessary by a govt or state to make women remain pregnant against our will..aware, suffering, in pain, humiliated, disrespected and controlled...even up to death (as all pregnancies carry a significant risk of death that cannot be predicted) would be unconscionable and prehistoric. The unborn suffer and are aware of nothing. How can it be 'more' moral to impose such pain and suffering and indignity on women?
Click to expand...
Morality is subjective, and that's the problem. Some believe women's dignity and comfort should be sacrificed to save a child's life - which brings us back to, is it a child morally equivalent to a born child, and does the woman's right too decide the matter trump everything else?
 
Omniscient said:
practical people like facts and links. philosophers don't, they use pure reason. a philosopher prides himself on his ability to entertain either side of any issue, and his ability to change his mind to the winning side, in his quest for the ultimate truth.

the two main arguments for abortion are:

pro-life:
a fetus is a person and it's wrong to kill a person for your convenience
pro-choice:
a fetus is not a person therefore its ok to kill a fetus for your convenience

now this can argument can go on forever because the truth is a fetus is more like 50% person, and therefore people just pick one side or the other and both sides are equally true

pro-choice side could agree that a fetus is a person and still say that its immoral for a person to grow inside another persons body without their permission. but they pro-life could say having sex is giving permission. to which the pro-choice has to say having sex is not giving permission. and this argument can also go on forever.

end result is what we already have: some abortion is allowed. the left wants to make it easier to get and the right wants to make it harder to get. and both have their equally valid reasons. outlawing it altogether is impractical and allowing it past the first trimester is harsh
Click to expand...

I am pro choice and personhood has nothing to do w/ my view. (though the zef is not a person) Bodily autonomy is my argument. Pregnancy has a huge impact on a woman's body and no woman should be forced to gestate and give birth against their will.
 
Omniscient said:
you want to abolish the law, go with anarchism? because pro-life would say your personal or family decisions are not allowed to commit murder. and if you agree murder should be against the law and that the government should enforce the law then your position is contradictory.
Click to expand...

Abortion is not murder. FACT.
 
Marrybore said:
For such a controversial issue, I am just considering the situation morally rather than legally.


Morality is subjective, and that's the problem. Some believe women's dignity and comfort should be sacrificed to save a child's life - which brings us back to, is it a child morally equivalent to a born child, and does the woman's right too decide the matter trump everything else?
Click to expand...

Dignity and comfort and LIFE and ability to uphold her obligations in society. Her entire life, not just a heartbeat.

Some people believe in quality of life over quantity.

So no, we're not back to the unborn being morally equal to a born person. Just the suffering aspect alone makes it clear that the harmful effects on women outweigh those of the unborn. As does consideration for the loss of the woman's ability to provide for all her other obligations, the harmful impacts on others. Those things demonstrate it's clearly not close to morally equal.

It's a matter of *personal* opinion if life supersedes all else for individuals. Because individuals often choose to give up their lives for their family, country, religion, principles. Society cannot 'guess' what the unborn would choose, certainly not at the expense of the woman.
This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
That's not remotely sufficient to uphold the responsibilities and obligations I posted. It barely puts food on a table and in less-than secure neighborhoods. It's not just $$. It's time and effort and overcoming sickness and pain and exhaustion to do those things. No one mentioned survival..YOU appeared to reduce everything in a pregnant woman's life to "convenience." I demonstrated that most people value the entirety of their lives and responsibilities more. Many value quality of life over quantity.

And Republicans are the ones that more often revile single mothers AND resent every penny that goes to their welfare. So I have no idea what skirt you are trying to blow sunshine up.
Click to expand...

Oniescent is correct about "surviving a pregnancy" because most Republicans fully accept the repeatedly proven fact that when a pregnant woman needs to choose between her own life and the unborn's life, abortion is the only solution. People who choose not to accept the maternal parts of obstetrics would never talk about surviving a pregnancy.

It is sad that Republicans fail to see where "convenience" ends and "survival" begins for women who have unwanted pregnancies.
 
Last edited:
Omniscient said:
persons dont exist. its a made up term by the human mind. its a word.

reality exists beyond language, and beyond the mind
Click to expand...

You first sentence is glib and pointless sophistry. Your second is a statement of the obvious. Think 'trees'. Trees existed before there were words for them - thousands of words in thousands of different languages. They existed before our ancestors (who were of course persons) learned to speak and invent words.
 
Marrybore said:
The religious perspective is indeed irrelevant to any rational argument - but the issue (1) still remains.
Click to expand...

Yes, it remains an issue because the religious right keeps trying to make federal and state law consistent with their dogma. The controversy is not over their religious dogma, it is over their attempt to make the government adopt their dogma as law.
 
Marrybore said:
The religious perspective is indeed irrelevant to any rational argument - but the issue (1) still remains.
Click to expand...

I have also found some anti-choicers totally deny any religious bias or reason to prioritize the unborn human life over his/her mom, instead only citing what they know about zygotes*and embryos. The problem with them is they are wrong about the development of an unborn mammal from fertilization to birth and ignore the timeline for this process throughout gestation, which should endure 40 weeks. This to me is more relevant than religion because biology is always objective and cannot be subjected to opinions about anything except the definition of "viability" for premature babies.
 
It is all about God.

And the sad thing about it is god is a figment of their imagination

If you want to be religious. If it makes you feel good then go for it. But keep your religious beliefs out of our laws and out of my business.
 
rickc said:
It is all about God.

And the sad thing about it is God is a figment of their imagination

If you want to be religious. If it makes you feel good then go for it. But keep your religious beliefs out of our laws and out of my business.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Catholics and evangelical Protestants say it is all about God, but many others who believe in Him are liberal or moderate and have secular reasons to oppose abortion. But no group of abortion opponents is louder about it than the one that opposes all forms of contraception, sex education, and abstinence while not caring at all if fits own leaders repeatedly rape kids.
 
Blue Donkey said:
...

To begin, we must first establish the purposes of supporting or opposing abortion restrictions. Do you believe abortion is only a women's rights issue? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Abortion is a balancing of the rights of the pregnant woman (to medical treatment @ her choosing), & the state - whose interest is in perpetuating itself, & thus its interest in adding new citizens to the rolls, in order that the society may continue.
 
Omniscient said:
practical people like facts and links. philosophers don't, they use pure reason. a philosopher prides himself on his ability to entertain either side of any issue, and his ability to change his mind to the winning side, in his quest for the ultimate truth.

the two main arguments for abortion are:

pro-life:
a fetus is a person and it's wrong to kill a person for your convenience
pro-choice:
a fetus is not a person therefore its ok to kill a fetus for your convenience

...
Click to expand...

If we're discussing the real World in the US, Roe v. Wade held that the fetus is not a person from a legal POV. & therefore has no rights, except for whatever the pregnant woman opts for in her & the fetus' interest. Roe established a trimester scheme for regulation of abortion: in the first trimester, the woman may freely opt for abortion. In the second, the state may begin to narrowly & reasonably regulate abortion, if it chooses. & in the third, the state may forbid abortion (except to protect the woman's life or health), if it chooses.
 
Omniscient said:
persons dont exist. its a made up term by the human mind. its a word.

reality exists beyond language, and beyond the mind
Click to expand...

An excellent set of propositions, IF we were having a philosophical debate about the reality of ideals.

But since the point of this thread is to have a discussion based on provable facts, I think that argument immediately runs out of ammunition.
 
Omniscient said:
you want to abolish the law, go with anarchism? because pro-life would say your personal or family decisions are not allowed to commit murder. and if you agree murder should be against the law and that the government should enforce the law then your position is contradictory.
Click to expand...

In the US, the Supreme Court is the judicial branch of government. The law is their sole concern.

Roe v. Wade found that the fetus is not a person (from a legal POV). Roe further stipulates that abortion, within the framework established by the holding, is not murder.

In the US, murder is against the law.

There is no contradiction there. @ least, not from the POV of Roe.
 
Blue Donkey said:
We need to begin having a real "point-counterpoint" debate abortion in which posters on both sides (pro-choice and pro-life) only state opinions that are based on proven facts. Of course there is nothing wrong with having opinions, but only the fact-based ones are legitimate rebuttals. Whenever possible, if you say something is a fact, a website link must be included to support your claim. That is how true debates work and so far has never happened smoothly on the Abortion Forum. I want to correct the problem now and see if we can avoid getting out of control by arguing formal debate style.

To begin, we must first establish the purposes of supporting or opposing abortion restrictions. Do you believe abortion is only a women's rights issue? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

It would be an interesting exercise to develop a surgical/medical method to transplant any fetus into the body of any other consenting adult - male or female. Once that procedure is perfected, the entire issue would be solved. Everyone who believes in the sanctity of the fetus can offer to carry one to term. All those who oppose a woman's reproductive rights over that of a fetus can finally put their body where their mouth is and "save" the life of the unborn. It would be a WIN - WIN - (win) situation.
 
Omniscient said:
if society provides welfare to survive then you can have a child without imminent threat to your survival, which means abortion doesn't need to be done for your survival, which makes the abortion more of a convenience so to speak.

republicans tend to also want to remove all welfare. which would then allow some mothers to get abortions and plead self defense.

but republicans could offer loans to mothers, so they can survive through pregnancy. and pay it back later.
Click to expand...

if society provides welfare - TMK, the Pro-Life faction wants to eliminate abortion in the US altogether. The financial survival (or any other kind) for the woman who has an abortion seems to be out of the question for the Pro-Life movement as a whole.

Which begs the question, of course. Roe v. Wade never addresses the reasons that a woman might wish to terminate her pregnancy, as far as I know. Roe sets forth that the woman has the right to freely opt for an abortion in the first trimester.
 
MamboDervish said:
It would be an interesting exercise to develop a surgical/medical method to transplant any fetus into the body of any other consenting adult - male or female. Once that procedure is perfected, the entire issue would be solved. Everyone who believes in the sanctity of the fetus can offer to carry one to term. All those who oppose a woman's reproductive rights over that of a fetus can finally put their body where their mouth is and "save" the life of the unborn. It would be a WIN - WIN - (win) situation.
Click to expand...

It would probably be much easier to trigger the normal pregnancy cycle in a woman than in a man. Alternatively, we could make use of guest uteri, either human or not. But that's all off in the future, after a lot of endocrinological & other neonatal work & study. A purely technological uterus may be possible; but again, that also lies relatively far off in the future, & will require a lot of study, experimentation, etc.
 
Marrybore said:
For such a controversial issue, I am just considering the situation morally rather than legally.

Morality is subjective, and that's the problem. Some believe women's dignity and comfort should be sacrificed to save a child's life - which brings us back to, is it a child morally equivalent to a born child, and does the woman's right too decide the matter trump everything else?
Click to expand...

Let us evaluate all of the differences between facts and opinions about morality. It is not either/or no matter where anyone involved stands on the issue. This is where opinions based on facts must be considered, but are more difficult to establish. When a human being should be called a child is subjective only to the extent that is allowable in English dictionaries. Pro-lifers cannot make up new meanings for the words baby, infant, child, and kid which do not exist in obstetrics and pediatrics. They only do that to let emotions override facts, which is the inappropriate behavior I am trying to avoid now.

You asked two totally different questions in one sentence. We need to discuss each one separately.
 
MamboDervish said:
It would be an interesting exercise to develop a surgical/medical method to transplant any fetus into the body of any other consenting adult - male or female. Once that procedure is perfected, the entire issue would be solved. Everyone who believes in the sanctity of the fetus can offer to carry one to term. All those who oppose a woman's reproductive rights over that of a fetus can finally put their body where their mouth is and "save" the life of the unborn. It would be a WIN - WIN - (win) situation.
Click to expand...

I actually started a thread about this topic. Most thread participants were against the idea, saying it is illogical, unethical, and biologically impossible. One poster (I forget who) did support it.
 
Last edited:
Scrabaholic said:
I am pro choice and personhood has nothing to do w/ my view. (though the zef is not a person) Bodily autonomy is my argument. Pregnancy has a huge impact on a woman's body and no woman should be forced to gestate and give birth against their will.
Click to expand...

my first post already addressed that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom