• 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!

2 abortion providers charged with murder in Md.

Reasons for late-term abortion according to the Guttmacher Institute and cited by Wiki:

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

Late termination of pregnancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
theplaydrive said:
Well, it does because the fetus is still a part of the woman's body while it's inside of her.
Click to expand...
If you feel that a fetus is part of a woman's body, then your group vs group argument seems pointless.


theplaydrive said:
However, with this point specifically, I've always thought that for women who want late term abortions, doctors should be able to perform C-sections or something similar instead if the woman just wants to be rid of the kid for whatever, but I haven't looked much into that and I'm pretty sure most late term abortions are emergency related since they rarely happen.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Please clarify.
 
theplaydrive said:
There's nothing magical about birth and I never said an infant was a "full human" whereas a fetus was not. (A child at all stages of development is human.) That's called putting words in my mouth. When you stop doing that, I'll share my other arguments.
Click to expand...

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just asking questions.
 
mpg said:
Why is it dumb as hell to ban late term abortions?
Click to expand...

Because it's a medical procedure. I don't support completely banning access to a procedure because you don't know when it might be medically nessecary to perform such. Late-term abortions need stringent rules and conditions to be done, but completely closing off an avenue of medical care is stupid and short-sighted.
 
nota bene said:
Reasons for late-term abortion according to the Guttmacher Institute and cited by Wiki:

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

Late termination of pregnancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
And this study considers late term 16 weeks as opposed to 20 weeks when most people call abortions "late term".
 
RadicalModerate said:
Because it's a medical procedure. I don't support completely banning access to a procedure because you don't know when it might be medically nessecary to perform such. Late-term abortions need stringent rules and conditions to be done, but completely closing off an avenue of medical care is stupid and short-sighted.
Click to expand...
That explains why you think it should be legal. It doesn't explain why it's dumb as hell.
 
mpg said:
If you feel that a fetus is part of a woman's body, then your group vs group argument seems pointless.
Click to expand...
I don't "feel" it. It's true. And how is it "pointless"? If I'm talking about the woman and you're telling me that a fetus has the right to live, are we not talking about two different groups?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Please clarify.
Click to expand...
Women should have the option of having a child early if the fetus is viable instead of getting an abortion. It's my understanding that, currently, women can only choose to do that if it's medically necessary.
 
theplaydrive said:
Women should have the option of having a child early if the fetus is viable instead of getting an abortion. It's my understanding that, currently, women can only choose to do that if it's medically necessary.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware of that.
 
mpg said:
That explains why you think it should be legal. It doesn't explain why it's dumb as hell.
Click to expand...
You're pretty much saying that he (and I by default) have to convince you that it's reasonable to view it as dumb to have a valid opinion. That doesn't make any sense.
 
mpg said:
I wasn't aware of that.
Click to expand...
Well, don't take my word for it. That's just what I've gathered, but I haven't done a ton of research into this particular subject.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Oh, sorry, didn't realize we were playing The Semantics Game.

Really, mpg...what kind of a response is that? What's the difference here?
Click to expand...
I'm not splitting hairs, not even close. There's a huge difference between disagreeing with someone respectfully, and using terms like "dumb as hell". That's what separates people like Glenn Beck from people like Gwen Ifill.
 
theplaydrive said:
You're pretty much saying that he (and I by default) have to convince you that it's reasonable to view it as dumb to have a valid opinion. That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
Disagreeing with this law is definitely a valid opinion, and some things really are dumb as hell, but something doesn't become dumb as hell merely because you or I disagree with it. You have to show that it's factually false, or something like that.
 
mpg said:
I'm not splitting hairs, not even close. There's a huge difference between disagreeing with someone respectfully, and using terms like "dumb as hell". That's what separates people like Glenn Beck from people like Gwen Ifill.
Click to expand...

Can you not see a difference between "ABSOLUTELY NO LATE TERM ABORTIONS FOR ANY REASON" and "late-term abortions only under extraordinary circumstances, as discussed by a licensed medical doctor and their patient"?

It's "dumb as hell" to cast the wide net of a complete prohibition as if it perfectly fits every scenario; as if there is no possibly conceivable event that could warrant a late-term abortion, for any reason. Ever.

Shoot, even murder laws have more leniency in their application than that!
 
mpg said:
Disagreeing with this law is definitely a valid opinion, and some things really are dumb as hell, but something doesn't become dumb as hell merely because you or I disagree with it. You have to show that it's factually false, or something like that.
Click to expand...
Well, "dumb as hell" is a pretty subjective statement.
 
theplaydrive said:
While I think they should be charged for malpractice because of the harm they caused to the woman, I don't support and will likely never support it being illegal to perform late-term abortions, so the rest of the case and the law, as far as I'm concerned, is dumb as hell.
Click to expand...
theplaydrive said:
Because I think it's dumb to ban abortion in general not only because people are just going to end up getting them done by people who don't know what the hell they are doing (as we see in this story) and because the "rights" of a fetus should not be elevated above the rights of an adult.
Click to expand...
Dittohead not! said:
Had these abortions been performed earlier, then there would have been no arrests.

Malpractice suits, maybe, due to the ruptured uterus, but no arrests.

and if life begins at conception, what difference does it make whether the abortion was done at week 21, day 21, or hour 21?
Click to expand...
theplaydrive said:
Yes, late term abortions are fine, but nowhere did I say that they aren't human. You just completely made that up.

A fetus is human. A woman is human. I believe the rights of the full grown woman are more important than the rights of barely functioning human.
Click to expand...

These statements are not consistent. If this is about the woman's rights, then you'd just take the baby out. There'd be no reason to take the baby out and then strangle it (or beat it to death or poison it or burn it or whatever). Clearly, these statements are designed just to appear consistent with pro-abortion.

If the baby will live on its own, and you kill it, it should be murder. Or, you should be able to kill children until they are able to provide for themselves. Saying that it was "still inside the womb" is like saying that "it was inside my car, and, afterall, it's MY car". Take the child out, hand him/her to a nurse, leave - why kill it? It's not about woman's rights at that point. That argument might hold water with some earlier in the process, but it's not consistent with typical abortion arguments.
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
These statements are not consistent. If this is about the woman's rights, then you'd just take the baby out. There'd be no reason to take the baby out and then strangle it (or beat it to death or poison it or burn it or whatever). Clearly, these statements are designed just to appear consistent with pro-abortion.

If the baby will live on its own, and you kill it, it should be murder. Or, you should be able to kill children until they are able to provide for themselves. Saying that it was "still inside the womb" is like saying that "it was inside my car, and, afterall, it's MY car". Take the child out, hand him/her to a nurse, leave - why kill it? It's not about woman's rights at that point. That argument might hold water with some earlier in the process, but it's not consistent with typical abortion arguments.
Click to expand...
1. Who said anything thing about beating/poisoning/burning?
2. I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice. Calling me pro-abortion is like calling you anti-women.
3. It actually is about the woman's right since the child is in her body.
 
theplaydrive said:
Women should have the option of having a child early if the fetus is viable instead of getting an abortion. It's my understanding that, currently, women can only choose to do that if it's medically necessary.
Click to expand...
In the posted example, women couldn't choose to do what they did, either. So, instead of choosing to deliver the child early, they chose to kill it. Which violated law do you think would be more likely to constitute murder? If you chose to have a viable fetus delivered early, what would the charge be? Now, if it was delivered early and then wasn't viable, you might have the same problem, but not a worse one.
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
These statements are not consistent. If this is about the woman's rights, then you'd just take the baby out. There'd be no reason to take the baby out and then strangle it (or beat it to death or poison it or burn it or whatever). Clearly, these statements are designed just to appear consistent with pro-abortion.

If the baby will live on its own, and you kill it, it should be murder. Or, you should be able to kill children until they are able to provide for themselves. Saying that it was "still inside the womb" is like saying that "it was inside my car, and, afterall, it's MY car". Take the child out, hand him/her to a nurse, leave - why kill it? It's not about woman's rights at that point. That argument might hold water with some earlier in the process, but it's not consistent with typical abortion arguments.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's where I am on the subject of late-term abortions. Once a fetus becomes viable, abortion is murder. There is absolutely no moral reason for a late-term abortion other than health reasons...which, as one poster pointed out, are illegal in 36 states. Maybe the other 16 will see the light. They certainly should.
 
theplaydrive said:
1. Who said anything thing about beating/poisoning/burning?
2. I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice. Calling me pro-abortion is like calling you anti-women.
3. It actually is about the woman's right since the child is in her body.
Click to expand...

1.) How do you think these babies were killed? Suffocation, chemical burning, knocked on head, poisoned, etc.
2.) You're actually not JUST pro-choice. You're pro killing viable babies. Not just for ending the source of sustenance and removal, but of killing it.
3.) It's only about the women's rights when the child depends on her for life. Once it's "viable", then it's something different. Again, take it out and present it to a care-taker. There's no infringements on the woman's rights here - if it's coming out either way, why kill it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom