• 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.

So, you're of the "since it's a difficult topic, it's better not to address it" frame of mind? If it's wrong to kill a child who can live without the mother, then it's wrong - regardless of what's happening to all the children who can't live without the mother (fetus). Saying "but it's a slippery slope" is a cop out. If it's a slippery slope, go down the slope a little way and shovel out a place to stand. Does your toe hold only exist at the point that the child drops onto the floor? Or, maybe it's a few days after? You're not a politician, Joko (at least I don't think so), so what's wrong with just saying that certain behavior deserves to be punished.

I've posted my opinion many times. Here's the short version. An independent life does not exist until capable of surviving independently. I do not believe "a person" exists until taking first breath. If society wants to prohibit abortion after the fetus can exist independent of the mother that is acceptable to me. If so, then it could be made illegal. But doing so would not be murdering a person/baby unless done after a live-birth.
 
Odd that they'd store the fetus's in a freezer. Sickos.
Both fetuses and after-birth have marketable value and are used for various reasons including making very costly drugs by the medical industry. That would be the likely reason.
 
Yes and those distinctions have nothing to do with magic and being fully human.

But you're making them. So explain why.

I'm pro-choice. I'm not saying it's easy. But if you challenge others, you should be able to do it yourself.
 
Both fetuses and after-birth have marketable value and are used for various reasons including making very costly drugs by the medical industry. That would be the likely reason.

I wondered if maybe they were selling them. And I have no doubt that the "medical industry" would gladly buy them.
 
I doubt it is illegal to sell either within the medical industry.
 
I've posted my opinion many times. Here's the short version. An independent life does not exist until capable of surviving independently. I do not believe "a person" exists until taking first breath. If society wants to prohibit abortion after the fetus can exist independent of the mother that is acceptable to me. If so, then it could be made illegal. But doing so would not be murdering a person/baby unless done after a live-birth.

Ok. Then we're in basic agreement that law could be made even though we might disagree on the logic that gets us there and the severity of the punishment for breaking the law.

I still think your logic is somewhat faulty in that a 3 month old is NOT capable of surviving independently. In fact, it needs essentially the same care as a healthy child delivered 4 weeks early. This article was specifically about "persons" who had the ability to breath on their own (36 weeks). But, they would need a care-giver to provide warmth, food, to clear out it's sinuses, and to protect it from predators - just like a 3 month old. So, you're saying that what distinguishes your beliefs is that it's ok to kill it so long as you reach in and do it as opposed to pulling it out and then killing it? Is that really your distinction? What if it were 2 weeks over due - still ok I guess, correct? Why the distinction - because what happens in mom stays in mom?
 
Abstinence. Not e.v.e.r. going to happen.
That's news to me. I'm a young man and since I have become a committed Christian I have been abstinent. It is not a perfect solution, but that doesn't mean a general, social respect for the principles of chastity cannot have some positive effects in this area.
 
Ok. Then we're in basic agreement that law could be made even though we might disagree on the logic that gets us there and the severity of the punishment for breaking the law.

I still think your logic is somewhat faulty in that a 3 month old is NOT capable of surviving independently. In fact, it needs essentially the same care as a healthy child delivered 4 weeks early. This article was specifically about "persons" who had the ability to breath on their own (36 weeks). But, they would need a care-giver to provide warmth, food, to clear out it's sinuses, and to protect it from predators - just like a 3 month old. So, you're saying that what distinguishes your beliefs is that it's ok to kill it so long as you reach in and do it as opposed to pulling it out and then killing it? Is that really your distinction? What if it were 2 weeks over due - still ok I guess, correct? Why the distinction - because what happens in mom stays in mom?

My view is none so simplistic and I tend to intensely disagree with all absolutes at the extremes. For example, I do think it would be "murder" to kill a child after a live-birth - but even exceptions to that, although extraordinary ones. In history, rape to force women of another race or people has been used as a genetic weapon. If on a large scale, and only if the individual woman of each child agreed, I could see that killing babies might fall within the rules of war as those babies specifically were the weapon of attacking the other culture on a mass scale. However, that would be in extreme situation and in one in which the race of the child had huge social and political impact within both cultures, so it is more a theory statement of past cultures than actual application potential today.

Gray areas not definable in absolutes give some people problems. They don't for me. What I wrote is what I believe is the absolute further society could possibly go intruding into women's lives and control of her body.

To give it real meaning on another level, if in late term a woman wanted to abort, I could "tolerate" it if a majority had a law that said she had to an induced labor or C-Section to try to live-birth the fetus. Since you claim the fetus is viable at that stage you should have no problem with that. Most states allow a woman to abandon a child at birth if she wishes and pro-lifers generally do support birth-mothers and their husbands throwing away unwanted newborns.

So I guess your view is that if in the first couple weeks the rule was doctors had to try extract the zygote/fetus to try to keep it alive you're ok with that manner of abortion in that it wasn't being deliberately killed. Or did you not really mean what you wrote?
 
Last edited:
That's news to me. I'm a young man and since I have become a committed Christian I have been abstinent. It is not a perfect solution, but that doesn't mean a general, social respect for the principles of chastity cannot have some positive effects in this area.

Congrats. SRYL. Stick to your values about yourself. That's a good thing to do.
 
But you're making them. So explain why.

I'm pro-choice. I'm not saying it's easy. But if you challenge others, you should be able to do it yourself.
I've explained my answers already to other posters. If you want the answers they are there. However, I will not be responding to someone who accused me of making arguments that I did not make. I've been down that road too many times.
 
It actually doesn't. A fetus is not a part of a woman's body.
and it has everything to do with what you've been saying.
It actually does. A fetus is, in fact, attached to the woman's body.

And no, you said, "and once the baby is born, unless it is immediately given up for adoption, the mother's wishes and wants have to take second place to those of the baby. Anyone who has ever cared for a newborn knows that."

I agree with that statement and have never argued differently. And I'm talking about unborn children NOT newborns. So again - nothing to do with my arguments.
 
Who said that the woman's right to control her body trumps the child's right to live? It is a fact of nature that a fetus needs to grow within a living woman's womb. That this restricts the choice of the mother and her complete control over her body is tough luck; we all have our choices restricted by external circumstances. This doesn't mean the child must die to restore some dubious notion of the woman's total control over her body.
I said it. That's the pro-choice position. You've just stated that pro-life position. Nothing has changed.
 
From the article:

"These two individuals are now where they belong and should be in jail for the rest of their lives," the Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, said in a statement. "Even those who believe abortion should be legal can join with us to stop the out-of-control practices of people like Brigham and Riley."

I do agree - eventhough I support limited abortion - but at some point (23 weeks seemes even too late for my liking) you HAVE chosen to have the baby.
 
It actually does. A fetus is, in fact, attached to the woman's body.

And no, you said, "and once the baby is born, unless it is immediately given up for adoption, the mother's wishes and wants have to take second place to those of the baby. Anyone who has ever cared for a newborn knows that."

I agree with that statement and have never argued differently. And I'm talking about unborn children NOT newborns. So again - nothing to do with my arguments.

Attached to a woman's body is not the same thing as being a part of a woman's body.

The question of when human life begins is not an easy one. No one knows, really. Some say it begins at conception, and that, therefore, a zygote is of the same status as a baby who is already born. Some say life begins at birth.

Neither position can be proven.

Personally, I think it is somewhere in between those two events, but then, I can't prove my opinion any more than you can.
 
I said it. That's the pro-choice position. You've just stated that pro-life position. Nothing has changed.

Not entirely accurate. The "pro-life" position is that they get to tell others what to do. They are the anti-personal freedom people. The pro-choice position is that other people should butt out of other people's lives as a matter of individual freedom.

Pro-lifers are control freaks upon personal ideology they want imposed on everyone. Pro-choicers are personal liberty people.
 
Attached to a woman's body is not the same thing as being a part of a woman's body.

The question of when human life begins is not an easy one. No one knows, really. Some say it begins at conception, and that, therefore, a zygote is of the same status as a baby who is already born. Some say life begins at birth.

Neither position can be proven.

Personally, I think it is somewhere in between those two events, but then, I can't prove my opinion any more than you can.
Actually life can generally be said to start at conception, because that is when a new being begins. It doesn't really make sense for it to begin any other time. The argument is generally over personhood or when that life form is a person.
 
Not entirely accurate. The "pro-life" position is that they get to tell others what to do. They are the anti-personal freedom people. The pro-choice position is that other people should butt out of other people's lives as a matter of individual freedom.

Pro-lifers are control freaks upon personal ideology they want imposed on everyone. Pro-choicers are personal liberty people.
You seem to have mistaken freedom for choice. We are against unlimited personal choice. Personally I see what people do with their choices before I praise them for having choice.
 
Back
Top Bottom