• 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!

House to vote on abortion ban after 20 weeks of pregnancy

Renae said:
I do not accept, ascribe to or back in anyway the absurdly unscientific and immoral position that a fetus is not an individual life, separate in being from it's mother. An unborn child from the moment of conception is a new human life. To snuff out a life for convenience is the most reprehensible act in modern society.
Click to expand...

?? Biologically it is alive, human (Homo sapiens) and mostly separate from the mother, altho wholly dependent on her. That does not make it equal to a woman or deserving of rights. You cannot recognize rights for the unborn without superseding the rights of women. Basically making us 2nd class citizens (again.)

Over the decades, SCOTUS has examined rights for blacks and women...and found them/us equal and recognized our equal rights. They have done the same for the unborn...and decided differently. The unborn are not equal to the born.

To claim that the entirety of a woman's life & future is a 'convenience' is certainly no moral high ground. It's reprehensible actually.

I place women first. You apparently place the unborn first. Because they cannot be treated equally under the law. ("First" means just that. I do value the unborn, but I place women first.)
 
the difference between a baby and a fetus is one is wanted and the other is not.
 
Lursa said:
?? Biologically it is alive, human (Homo sapiens) and mostly separate from the mother, altho wholly dependent on her. That does not make it equal to a woman or deserving of rights. You cannot recognize rights for the unborn without superseding the rights of women. Basically making us 2nd class citizens (again.)

Over the decades, SCOTUS has examined rights for blacks and women...and found them/us equal and recognized our equal rights. They have done the same for the unborn...and decided differently. The unborn are not equal to the born.

To claim that the entirety of a woman's life & future is a 'convenience' is certainly no moral high ground. It's reprehensible actually.

I place women first. You apparently place the unborn first. Because they cannot be treated equally under the law. ("First" means just that. I do value the unborn, but I place women first.)
Click to expand...
A society that believe children have no rights is not a civil society.

The woman had the choice prior to conception (assuming no rape of course), you seem to presume that women are helpless being incapable of making choices before there are consequences.
 
Northern Light said:
I support this.

Although I still find the rape and incest clause hypocritical. So it's OK to kill a viable life if you are morally opposed to how it was created?

It just demonstrates how morally inconsistent the pro-life are.
Click to expand...

The limit of viability is 24 weeks not 20weeks.
 
From the editors of National Review:

The bill, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, is offered on the theory that at 20 weeks, unborn children have developed the sensory apparatus necessary to experience the pain associated with the gruesome process of aborting them. Indeed, ultrasound imagery shows children in the womb flinching from pain during fetal medical procedures. The more obvious the facts about abortion are, the less tolerable our current anything-goes abortion regime appears.

It may indeed be that unborn children at even earlier stages of development experience excruciating pain as their young lives are snuffed out, which is one reason that even in such socially liberal countries as France, abortion often is heavily regulated (nearly prohibited) after the twelfth week, not the twentieth. The bill would not bring the United States into line with Sweden (18 weeks) or Germany (12 weeks and mandatory Schwangerschaftskonfliktberatung, or abortion counseling) but it would represent a welcome step in the right direction.

An Advance on Abortion | National Review
 
Renae said:
A society that believe children have no rights is not a civil society.

The woman had the choice prior to conception (assuming no rape of course), you seem to presume that women are helpless being incapable of making choices before there are consequences.
Click to expand...

Of course I dont make that presumption about women. If you choose to use birth control and it doesnt work (and it's not 100%) then there's nothing irresponsible about that. It's a responsible choice. As is abortion if you cannot afford a child or are not prepared to raise one. It's irresponsible to have a child you cannot afford and expect the taxpayers to help you pay for it.

And abortion is a consequence, I love how people just ignore that. Here! Be happy! Abortion is a painful, on rare occasions even deadly, often emotionally traumatic procedure. See? You can have vengeance on "loose" women pretty much anyway you look at this issue.

But no way should women have to give up enjoying sex just because some people choose to put the unborn ahead of women's lives.
 
nota bene said:
From the editors of National Review:

The bill, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, is offered on the theory that at 20 weeks, unborn children have developed the sensory apparatus necessary to experience the pain associated with the gruesome process of aborting them. Indeed, ultrasound imagery shows children in the womb flinching from pain during fetal medical procedures. The more obvious the facts about abortion are, the less tolerable our current anything-goes abortion regime appears.

It may indeed be that unborn children at even earlier stages of development experience excruciating pain as their young lives are snuffed out, which is one reason that even in such socially liberal countries as France, abortion often is heavily regulated (nearly prohibited) after the twelfth week, not the twentieth. The bill would not bring the United States into line with Sweden (18 weeks) or Germany (12 weeks and mandatory Schwangerschaftskonfliktberatung, or abortion counseling) but it would represent a welcome step in the right direction.

An Advance on Abortion | National Review
Click to expand...

That 'theory' makes no difference whatsoever when you consider that just like any other medical procedure, Drs. can...and do...provide provide all manner of pain prevention, including anesthetic or lethal injection. There is no reason at all that there should be any pain involved for the unborn.

Again, that is just plain emotional rhetoric designed to influence the ignorant (on the issue) or the uneducated...people who cant be bothered to actually learn the truth about things they get all upset about. Some because they want that drama, that self-righteousness, to wallow in their judgement.
 
Lursa said:
Of course I dont make that presumption about women. If you choose to use birth control and it doesnt work (and it's not 100%) then there's nothing irresponsible about that. It's a responsible choice. As is abortion if you cannot afford a child or are not prepared to raise one. It's irresponsible to have a child you cannot afford and expect the taxpayers to help you pay for it.

And abortion is a consequence, I love how people just ignore that. Here! Be happy! Abortion is a painful, on rare occasions even deadly, often emotionally traumatic procedure. See? You can have vengeance on "loose" women pretty much anyway you look at this issue.

But no way should women have to give up enjoying sex just because some people choose to put the unborn ahead of women's lives.
Click to expand...

Sure you do, you think "Women have to be able to kill an unborn child to have sexual freedom, cause... reasons"
 
Renae said:
Sure you do, you think "Women have to be able to kill an unborn child to have sexual freedom, cause... reasons"
Click to expand...

Must be nice to have aversions against other people's desires to act on their instincts in ways that harm no one else. Nice to be able to judge like that. Nice to want to legislate their rights away, deprive them of that enjoyment of a basic need, basic desire.

(And legally (and ethically IMO), the unborn is "no one" until born. Not in any way to impose on a woman against her will.)
 
Lursa said:
Must be nice to have aversions against other people's desires to act on their instincts in ways that harm no one else. Nice to be able to judge like that. Nice to want to legislate their rights away, deprive them of that enjoyment of a basic need, basic desire.

(And legally (and ethically IMO), the unborn is "no one" until born. Not in any way to impose on a woman against her will.)
Click to expand...

Imposing what? Forcing a woman to carry a child she helped create to term? ****ing cruel that is, saying "Hey that unborn child matters..." Much more humane to say "Kill your kid, we'll pay for it!"
 
danarhea said:
Adding in exceptions where the life of the mother is at risk or cases involving rape or incest works for me. Think about it. From the time a woman is impregnated, she has a full 5 months to consider getting an abortion.

I believe in choice, but I am OK with this. However, I can be convinced otherwise with a solid argument to the contrary. At this time, I don't see one. Anybody got one?

House to vote on abortion ban after 20 weeks of pregnancy - CNNPolitics
Click to expand...

I.e. you're looking for reasons to be a liberal. Is there anything that is actually conservative about you at all? I've read your posts for years, just tell us 2 conservative principles that you couldn't budge on.
 
Renae said:
Imposing what? Forcing a woman to carry a child she helped create to term? ****ing cruel that is, saying "Hey that unborn child matters..." Much more humane to say "Kill your kid, we'll pay for it!"
Click to expand...

Sure. "You" dont think she should have to. You think that strangers should tell her how to best run her life, denying her choices for her own best interests and future. Strangers should not have that power over an individual.

There's no cruelty to the unborn. The cruelty is having the power to force a woman to carry a child to term that she doesnt want, or cant care for, or may endanger her life. 86,700 women in this country every year, during pregnancy or childbirth, die or suffer severe health consequences like stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, diabetes, etc. It's not up to others to demand she take that risk, not when the 'others' wont suffer her consequences.

Society should not have that kind of power over a woman's self-determination.
 
Lursa said:
Sure. "You" dont think she should have to. You think that strangers should tell her how to best run her life, denying her choices for her own best interests and future. Strangers should not have that power over an individual.

There's no cruelty to the unborn. The cruelty is having the power to force a woman to carry a child to term that she doesnt want, or cant care for, or may endanger her life. 86,700 women in this country every year, during pregnancy or childbirth, die or suffer severe health consequences like stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, diabetes, etc. It's not up to others to demand she take that risk, not when the 'others' wont suffer her consequences.

Society should not have that kind of power over a woman's self-determination.
Click to expand...

You firmly believe your stance is correct, I do as well. I am very pro-life, because to me, the thought of aborting a child... it is wrong on every level of humanity. Do I understand the "Woman's body, her choice" argument? I do, I just disagree with it.

A child is a wonderful gift, but can be a burden. Maybe it's because I was raised to take responsibility for my actions that I cannot begin to imagine that death, is a viable option to fix a "problem" like an unwanted pregnancy.
 
Renae said:
You firmly believe your stance is correct, I do as well. I am very pro-life, because to me, the thought of aborting a child... it is wrong on every level of humanity. Do I understand the "Woman's body, her choice" argument? I do, I just disagree with it.

A child is a wonderful gift, but can be a burden. Maybe it's because I was raised to take responsibility for my actions that I cannot begin to imagine that death, is a viable option to fix a "problem" like an unwanted pregnancy.
Click to expand...

My stance is firm, but it's subjective. As I wrote, I value a woman's rights, esp a right to self-determination, more highly than that of the unborn. You it appears, value the unborn's life and self-determination more highly than women's. (The unborn have no rights).

They cannot be treated equally, not under the law, not ethically. So each person has to decide which to value more highly. That is subjective.

It is subjective...to all people but esp. a pregnant woman...if a child is a wonderful gift. Most definitely some people do not agree. I have spent my entire adult life using birth control every single time I had sex. It's also been a burden many times, but I am very committed to not having kids. In our 13 yr relationship, we shared that commitment.

Again, abortion is a consequence, even tho people prefer, it seems to use a child as a punishment for women they judge as 'irresponsible.' (Because we all know how great irresponsible parents are :roll:). Abortion is also a responsible option. You can pretend that's wrong to suit your view, but it's a fact. It is not responsible to have a child you cannot raise properly or that you cannot afford and must use taxpayer $ to raise.

So it is subjective for all. We must decide whether to value women more, or the unborn more. IMO, it's better for individual women and society to value women more.

But make no mistake, altho few admit it, if someone thinks the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, they really do not value both equally. They are valuing the unborn over women.
 
Lursa said:
My stance is firm, but it's subjective. As I wrote, I value a woman's rights, esp a right to self-determination, more highly than that of the unborn. You it appears, value the unborn's life and self-determination more highly than women's. (The unborn have no rights).

They cannot be treated equally, not under the law, not ethically. So each person has to decide which to value more highly. That is subjective.

It is subjective...to all people but esp. a pregnant woman...if a child is a wonderful gift. Most definitely some people do not agree. I have spent my entire adult life using birth control every single time I had sex. It's also been a burden many times, but I am very committed to not having kids. In our 13 yr relationship, we shared that commitment.

Again, abortion is a consequence, even tho people prefer, it seems to use a child as a punishment for women they judge as 'irresponsible.' (Because we all know how great irresponsible parents are :roll:). Abortion is also a responsible option. You can pretend that's wrong to suit your view, but it's a fact. It is not responsible to have a child you cannot raise properly or that you cannot afford and must use taxpayer $ to raise.

So it is subjective for all. We must decide whether to value women more, or the unborn more. IMO, it's better for individual women and society to value women more.

But make no mistake, altho few admit it, if someone thinks the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, they really do not value both equally. They are valuing the unborn over women.
Click to expand...

Damn straight I value the unborn, they had no say in the matter, no choice. They were created by the will actions of others, and thus deserve the utmost protection.
 
Renae said:
Damn straight I value the unborn, they had no say in the matter, no choice. They were created by the will actions of others, and thus deserve the utmost protection.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your honesty. Not many people will admit that.

Unfortunately to act legally on that...it would once again reduce women to 2nd class citizens, as we and blacks once were in our society. But at least "choice" allows women to act on it personally as they believe.
 
Fletch said:
And they will be right about that. Tell you what. When democrats start considering restrictions on abortions, I will start considering restrictions on guns.
Click to expand...

And as long as Republicans keep saying all gun regulations are just a step to confiscation, I will say all abortion restrictions are just a step to criminalization of abortion. That is definitely what this bill is. Once you eliminate viability as the criteria for allowing abortions you clear the way for outlawing it completely.
 
Lursa said:
Thank you for your honesty. Not many people will admit that.

Unfortunately to act legally on that...it would once again reduce women to 2nd class citizens, as we and blacks once were in our society. But at least "choice" allows women to act on it personally as they believe.
Click to expand...

You and I disagree, and I have stated I believe the woman's choices were made before conception.

Also, if we're going to get legal here, it's an affront to the law that a woman can decide to carry a child to term and force a man to pay 18 years of child support.
 
Renae said:
You and I disagree, and I have stated I believe the woman's choices were made before conception.

Also, if we're going to get legal here, it's an affront to the law that a woman can decide to carry a child to term and force a man to pay 18 years of child support.
Click to expand...

While that is off topic, the exact same can be said for the man...he knows the law, he knows the risks. He can accept that or not have sex. Just as you advocate for the woman. Any other differences in that, biology decides, not the law.
 
Lursa said:
While that is off topic, the exact same can be said for the man...he knows the law, he knows the risks. He can accept that or not have sex. Just as you advocate for the woman. Any other differences in that, biology decides, not the law.
Click to expand...

I agree, but since we're allowing women out of an unwanted pregnancy, men deserve that right too.
 
Renae said:
I agree, but since we're allowing women out of an unwanted pregnancy, men deserve that right too.
Click to expand...

Now the truth comes out.

First you say it’s all about the unborn, that you care about the unborn being carried to term and being born.

But once born you claim it’s not fair that the law requaires the bio father to share the financial costs of child support with the bio mother.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
I.e. you're looking for reasons to be a liberal. Is there anything that is actually conservative about you at all? I've read your posts for years, just tell us 2 conservative principles that you couldn't budge on.
Click to expand...

This thread is not about me. It's about an abortion law. At this time, I respectfully ask you to stop making personal attacks, and either stick to the topic or leave the thread. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Question: Do you have to be able to prove rape or have attempted to press charges for rape to abort a fetus on the basis of rape?
 
Renae said:
I agree, but since we're allowing women out of an unwanted pregnancy, men deserve that right too.
Click to expand...

They already have it, both legally and culturally, much more than women. The only responsibility they can't absolve themselves of is financial.
 
vash1012 said:
They already have it, both legally and culturally, much more than women. The only responsibility they can't absolve themselves of is financial.
Click to expand...

And that is once a child is born and if the bio mom requests financial help.

If the woman miscarried or aborts or chooses to raise the child on her own without support from the bio father no financial help is required and he is “ off the hook” as the saying goes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom