• 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!

Hypothetical question

Would you allow the mother to abort her child?

  • Total voters
    21
Scrabaholic said:
A c-section is major surgery and has risks. Why should she have her body cut open when there is another way to do it?
Click to expand...

As a c-section baby (1945) as was my sister (1938), plus my own son (1997) I presume things have been pretty pretty safe for a while. We've come a long way from the time Macduff "was from my (his) mother's womb untimely ripped."
 
maquiscat said:
This is an opinion. We have no medical method to determine, nor even a consensus as to when there is a transition from clump of specialized human cells to human being. In the US, the offspring has no rights until born, but in other countries, under their laws, they might. But then. in other countries, the born might not have rights ether. A fetus isn't a child until birth, is true because it's a stage label. A human being is something else altogether.
Click to expand...

A fetus becomes a human being with full rights when it is living independently on the mother's body because of we give a fetus in the womb rights then there are sovereign rights of the mother taken away by a biological parasite. I would think that someone like you would be a bit more open-minded about women's rights.
 
Nickyjo said:
As a c-section baby (1945) as was my sister (1938), plus my own son (1997) I presume things have been pretty pretty safe for a while. We've come a long way from the time Macduff "was from my (his) mother's womb untimely ripped."
Click to expand...

All surgery has risks. C-section is major surgery. How many times have you had one?
 
Scrabaholic said:
All surgery has risks. C-section is major surgery. How many times have you had one?
Click to expand...

Try as I might with a variety of women, I haven’t been able to get myself pregnant.

My mom survived two Caesarians

I have had three major abdominal surgeries, and am still kicking.

Still trying to figure out the point of this thread.
 
Lursa said:
Legal opinion also.

1 U.S. Code SS 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...

The legal definition of a word, does not automatically match other definitions of the same word. That's the reason that they need to make legal definitions. Incest, for example, is sex or marriage between people who are closely blood related, but the legal definition includes close legal non blood relations. So the legal definition does not always match the actual definition.
 
Lisa said:
A fetus becomes a human being with full rights when it is living independently on the mother's body because of we give a fetus in the womb rights then there are sovereign rights of the mother taken away by a biological parasite. I would think that someone like you would be a bit more open-minded about women's rights.
Click to expand...

Your bias seems to be clouding your reading of my point.

First off, what rights are, is a hotly debated topic to begin with. Whether they are sovereign, natural, given, or whatever is one of those debatable points. And given the OP, there is no one country that this is limited to, so there is not absolute rights in play in this case. Whereas you and I might claim that women in mideast countries have rights that are being denied, people there can equally claim that women have few or no rights. It, sadly, is not an objective absolute across the board.

In the US, yes, we confine rights to the born on a legal basis. Whether or not those rights are present has no bearing on whether the subject in question is a human being or not. There is no absolute as to when an offspring (which would cover from the moment of conception to death) transition from human specialized cells to a human being. What is the quality that makes one a human being? There is not agreement to that either. As noted, this thread is not limited to any one country, so the legal definition of a human being in the US has no bearing on the actual definition, nor on the legal definition of a human being in other countries.

Please understand that you and I pretty much share the same position on abortion rights in the US, although we probably differ in some details. However, regardless of what rights I believe that women have in the US, does not affect the fact that there is no one universal definition of "human being".
 
maquiscat said:
The legal definition of a word, does not automatically match other definitions of the same word. That's the reason that they need to make legal definitions. Incest, for example, is sex or marriage between people who are closely blood related, but the legal definition includes close legal non blood relations. So the legal definition does not always match the actual definition.
Click to expand...

Obvious = obvious which is why I specified 'legal.'

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...
 
calamity said:
Yep. Her body, her choice. The "kid" has no rights until it breathes air.

I still do not understand why this even needs to be debated.
Click to expand...

Because it's completely ridiculous to abort the "kid" when it is fully developed and capable of breathing air on its own. Just have a damn c-section....
 
Lursa said:
Obvious = obvious which is why I specified 'legal.'
Click to expand...
Except that you didn't before, and the subsequent post makes it seem as if you moved the goal post.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Atreus21 said:
You are the dictator. You have the power to make law and have it enforced on your say so.

A woman is 8 months pregnant. Both she and the child are quite healthy. She is happily married to a loving and stable husband, has a supportive extended family, and is well-off financially. There is every reason to believe that both she and the child will prosper and flourish.

The mother wants to abort the child.

Would you, as dictator, allow her to abort?
Click to expand...
Silly me! I voted before I read your post. So its a no, an 8 month pregnant woman should not abort a fetus.
 
Nickyjo said:
Try as I might with a variety of women, I haven’t been able to get myself pregnant.

My mom survived two Caesarians

I have had three major abdominal surgeries, and am still kicking.

Still trying to figure out the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

I've stated the point already - to remove from the equation the typical justifications given for abortion (the mother is poor, the child has poor prospects, the child has defects, it's only a few cells, etc), and see if any abortion proponents change from supporting the procedure to opposing it.
 
Nickyjo said:
Try as I might with a variety of women, I haven’t been able to get myself pregnant.

My mom survived two Caesarians

I have had three major abdominal surgeries, and am still kicking.

Still trying to figure out the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

Not every woman survives a c-section. It is NOT minor surgery. No woman should be forced to undergo one.

I didn't start the thread.
 
AJG said:
Because it's completely ridiculous to abort the "kid" when it is fully developed and capable of breathing air on its own. Just have a damn c-section....
Click to expand...

C-section is major invasive surgery.

Once again, we have someone without a uterus wanting to dictate to those of us with one what we can or cannot do with the contents of ours.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Not every woman survives a c-section. It is NOT minor surgery. No woman should be forced to undergo one.

I didn't start the thread.
Click to expand...

Not every woman survives abortions either. Ask Kermit Gosnell.
 
Scrabaholic said:
C-section is major invasive surgery. Once again, we have someone without a uterus wanting to dictate to those of us with one what we can or cannot do with the contents of ours.
Click to expand...

Yep, don't you just "love it" when a guy, who will never have to worry about getting pregnant, insists that a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant should "just have the damn c-section?" What a prince. :roll:
 
Atreus21 said:
Not every woman survives abortions either. Ask Kermit Gosnell.
Click to expand...

Yeah? Well, given the choice between having an abortion and suffering the health risks of pregnancy and birth, I would have chosen abortion. Especially since I never wanted kids in the first place, and I'm very glad that I never got pregnant.
 
OceanBlues1 said:
Yeah? Well, given the choice between having an abortion and suffering the health risks of pregnancy and birth, I would have chosen abortion. Especially since I never wanted kids in the first place, and I'm very glad that I never got pregnant.
Click to expand...

Fine, but as long as we're going to grossly inflate the lethality of medical procedures like C-sections, then I don't see why abortions are exempt from the same criticism.
 
Jason Warfield said:
Well, the premise of this was badly written and rather stupid. Tell you what, I'll ignore that you used incorrect terms and are ignoring basic biology and social sciences, but I'll take a couple whacks at this mole.

As dictator, I would allow abortions to be legal as long as (and I believe someone listed this before) ALL relevant information for family planning is presented and available. Further, contraception would be free and under the universal healthcare system that I would set up, abortions will be available. While I would allow freedom of religion, anyone firebombing clinics, vandalizing, attacking/killing patients and abortion doctors in the name of whatever religion would serve pretty stiff jail sentences. And since I am dictator, i will have total veto power over any law that tries to limit or outlaw abortions.

Now, let's go in the other direction.

As dictator, I would allow abortions for medical, rape or instances of incest. If I decided that at 8 months, unless a medical emergency, there can be no abortions, then as dictator I will require a portion of taxpayer money to go towards making sure the child has proper shelter, food, clothing, care and education. If we, and I, demand the child be born, then we will ALL help in raising if need be...even if you as a citizen doesn't have a child, your taxes will go to the care of the children anyway.
Click to expand...

Okay, so assuming the mother had all information relevant to family planning, had free contraception, benefited from UHC, wasn't raped or subjected to incest, and had taxpayer-funded support of her children (even though I said in the hypothetical this wasn't necessary - she's well-off financially and has a stable husband and extended family), and yet wanted the abortion, would you allow it?
 
Atreus21 said:
Okay, so assuming the mother had all information relevant to family planning, had free contraception, benefited from UHC, wasn't raped or subjected to incest, and had taxpayer-funded support of her children (even though I said in the hypothetical this wasn't necessary - she's well-off financially and has a stable husband and extended family), and yet wanted the abortion, would you allow it?
Click to expand...
Yes, because it is impossible to draw a clear line.
 
OceanBlues1 said:
Yep, don't you just "love it" when a guy, who will never have to worry about getting pregnant, insists that a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant should "just have the damn c-section?" What a prince. :roll:
Click to expand...

Exactly. And then they get pissy about it! It's so easy to promote something when you know it will never happen to you.
 
Scrabaholic said:
C-section is major invasive surgery.

Once again, we have someone without a uterus wanting to dictate to those of us with one what we can or cannot do with the contents of ours.
Click to expand...

Isn't an abortion that late in development a risky procedure? There's really no reason to have an abortion or any sort of procedure that late in the baby's development unless there are serious complications. If there are none then just wait a few weeks and have the baby. Keep in mind that for the most part I'm pro-choice too, but getting an abortion after 8 months of development for no medical reason at all? That's just ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom