• 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!

Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

Wouldn't happen.

Under NHS rules i believe, if i was infertile right now (which i hope im not, touch wood) i'd be able to get IVF for free but if i want it to give it someone else? Forget about it




Reform does not have to equal socialized health care alone, change the rules.
 
How about the case of Joe Tippler, a longterm alcoholic who is in line for a liver transplant. Should he get it?
No he shouldn't get it unless he pays for it himself.
There is no reason that anybody else should pay for his bad choices.
 
Reform does not have to equal socialized health care alone, change the rules.

Perhaps.
I just think we need to enable women to be able to go on through with pregnancy, i find it sad that some couples have to seek children abroad to adopt

I can understand why some women abort in US where its alot harsher than Europe. But i never understand why abortion is so high here when we have state care and welfare which is much much better than US. Some women have no reason to Abort but do so anyway and it is those we need to convince
 
Last edited:
If it was a living human inside of you, there'd be no argument; however, it's not a human, it's an embryo. Big difference.

Uh-huh. And pray tell, what species is this "embryo"?
 
Expecting me to pay for the NEA to fund pornography and blasphemy is abhorrent. Expecting me to pay for abortions is going to save me money in the long run and quite possibly save the lives or livelihoods of me or my children.

Ever hear of a wallet? People tell me they often contain monies. In fact, these "wallets" may be opened and the monies within dispensed of to whomever one pleases. Perhaps, you could your utilize your wallet - whilst leaving mine alone - to pay for your beloved abortions.

:2wave:
 
Uh-huh. And pray tell, what species is this "embryo"?
Homo Inconvenientus?

It is impossible to argue that abortion does not terminate an innocent human life -- which is why the pro-abortion crowd tries to frame the argument in terms of 'personhood'.
 
It is impossible to argue that abortion does not terminate an innocent human life -- which is why the pro-abortion crowd tries to frame the argument in terms of 'personhood'.

Call it a life, child, human, baby or person.

Doesn't make a blind bit of difference to me. I call it what it is. A foetus
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
It is impossible to argue that abortion does not terminate an innocent human life -- which is why the pro-abortion crowd tries to frame the argument in terms of 'personhood'.

I think it's more accurate to say that the anti-choice crowd tries to frame the argument in terms of 'personhood' when they say that abortions "kill babies/children/etc..." which obviously diverts from the issue of choice whose basis is found in the right of the mother and not the state of the "child". Even in your own posts you do this by making the presumption that abortion "terminate an innocent human life". The anti-choice crowd absolutely depends on whether or not the fetus is a "person", for if the argument is not framed in such a way then they have absolutely no basis from which to argue.

Of course, if all this is true, and the fetus is treated with the same rights as a "baby/child/etc.." then we can take the anti-choicers' argument to its logical conclusion and state that mothers who have abortions should be put on trial for murder or accessory to murder, something that anti-choicers don't like recognizing.
 
Last edited:
I think it's more accurate to say that the anti-choice crowd tries to frame the argument in terms of 'personhood' when they say that abortions "kill babies/children/etc..." which obviously diverts from the issue of choice whose basis is found in the right of the mother and not the state of the "child".

Of course, if all this is true, and the fetus is treated with the same rights as a "baby/child/etc.." then we can take the anti-choicers' argument to its logical conclusion and state that mothers who have abortions should be put on trial for murder or accessory to murder, something that anti-choicers don't like recognizing.




The pro-killing human life crowd loves to do anything they can to avoid the science of abortion and the fact it kills human life.

The Pro-Abortionists tends to have problems reconciling scientific fact and often utilizes newspeak and other nonsense to reframe the argument.
 
I've edited my post, Reverend, just so you know.

Reverend said:
The pro-killing human life crowd loves to do anything they can to avoid the science of abortion and the fact it kills human life.

Then why are these women not put on trial and executed for murder?

Or better yet, when is this designated as "kill[ing] human life?" The moment the ovum is fertilized? Perhaps we should start charging women for involuntary manslaughter when they have miscarriages?
 
Last edited:
Call it a life, child, human, baby or person.

Doesn't make a blind bit of difference to me. I call it what it is. A foetus

Right...and what is a fetus?
 
The pro-killing human life crowd loves to do anything they can to avoid the science of abortion and the fact it kills human life.

The Pro-Abortionists tends to have problems reconciling scientific fact and often utilizes newspeak and other nonsense to reframe the argument.

US and many other countries sanctions the taking of human lives through death penalty.
Infact many soldiers when aboard during war involves taking human life
Hell, thousands if not tens of thousands of human lives are stolen everyday because of lack of water, medicine and shelter.

Excuse me whilst i get a hanky for something that has never breathed oxygen before outside of the womb. Some people need a dose of reality. There are already human lives that needs saving without worrying about a few bloody foetuses.

Such a meaningless term.
Pro killing human life? That makes those who support DP no better than me.
I can deal with that.
 
Last edited:
I think it's more accurate to say that the anti-choice crowd tries to frame the argument in terms of 'personhood'....
Except that they dont make that argument.
They make the argument that it is a(n innocent) human life.
And they are right.

Even in your own posts you do this by making the presumption that abortion "terminate an innocent human life".

There's no presumption there -- it is human, it is alive, it is innocent, and it is terminated. All factual, no presumption involved.

The anti-choice crowd absolutely depends on whether or not the fetus is a "person"...
This is easly proven wrong:
None of the components of the argument, above, have anything to do with 'personhood'.

Of course, if all this is true, and the fetus is treated with the same rights as a "baby/child/etc.." then we can take the anti-choicers' argument to its logical conclusion and state that mothers who have abortions should be put on trial for murder or accessory to murder, something that anti-choicers don't like recognizing.
Interesing presumption there. Can you support it?
I'm OK with that, and I'm not familiar with anyone on the anti-abortion side tha's not.
 
Goobieman said:
Except that they dont make that argument.
They make the argument that it is a(n innocent) human life.
And they are right.

You just validated my point. Thank you. :2wave:

There's no presumption there -- it is human, it is alive, it is innocent, and it is terminated. All factual, no presumption involved.

Presumptions can be factual, you know.

This is easly proven wrong:
None of the components of the argument, above, have anything to do with 'personhood'.

You earlier: They make the argument that it is a(n innocent) human life.
And they are right.

Interesing presumption there. Can you support it?
I'm OK with that, and I'm not familiar with anyone on the anti-abortion side tha's not.

Wtf do you mean can I support it? You just confirmed what I was saying is true in your next sentence, ffs!:lol:
 
US and many other countries sanctions the taking of human lives through death penalty.


found guilty by a jury of peers. What crime have the unborn committed? Who convicted them?

Infact many soldiers when aboard during war involves taking human life
Hell, thousands if not tens of thousands of human lives are stolen everyday because of lack of water, medicine and shelter.

non sequitor.



Excuse me whilst i get a hanky for something that has never breathed oxygen before outside of the womb. Some people need a dose of reality. There are already human lives that needs saving without worrying about a few bloody foetuses.


I disagree. There are no more important than the innocent being killed for convienence.



Such a meaningless term.
Pro killing human life? That makes those who support DP no better than me.
I can deal with that.


I was playing wit KC's "anti-abortionists" rhetoric... You should know me by now..... :2razz:
 
Perhaps we should start charging women for involuntary manslaughter when they have miscarriages?

What an absurd analogy.

Crimes require some form of culpability. What culpability is there for a miscarriage?
 
I've edited my post, Reverend, just so you know.



Then why are these women not put on trial and executed for murder?

Or better yet, when is this designated as "kill[ing] human life?" The moment the ovum is fertilized? Perhaps we should start charging women for involuntary manslaughter when they have miscarriages?




I think the law shoul be changed, and yes, unless the woman was raped or her life is in danger shouls be tried....



Your miscarriage thing was dumb, I view you as smarter than this. Do not prove me wrong. :lol:

I did compromise on 8 week abortions, but I think that too, should be used sparingly and at the expense of the person with the poor judgment.
 
found guilty by a jury of peers. What crime have the unborn committed? Who convicted them?

I was playing wit KC's "anti-abortionists" rhetoric... You should know me by now..... :2razz:

Doesn't matter
A human life is just that, a life.
If pro lifers truly valued it as they claim, they would not take it nor support it be taken.

Shhh ... i'm playing along :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Reverend said:
I think the law shoul be changed, and yes, unless the woman was raped or her life is in danger shouls be tried....

So if a woman is raped it is acceptable to murder a child?

I did compromise on 8 week abortions, but I think that too, should be used sparingly and at the expense of the person with the poor judgment.

What's so special at the 8 week mark that justifies murder?
 
What ever happened to Felicity?
 
Excuse me whilst i get a hanky for something that has never breathed oxygen before outside of the womb. Some people need a dose of reality.
Yes... the reality that you think your convenience is more important that an innocent human life.
 
Doesn't matter
A human life is just that, a life.
If pro lifers truly valued it as they claim, they would not take it nor support it be taken.

Shhh ... i'm playing along :2wave:




:lol:


I give no quater to the savegry.... If you dun kilt all yer kin, i dun min if u fri..... :mrgreen:
 
Yes... the reality that you think your convenience is more important that an innocent human life.

The reality that Abortion is here to stay whether you like it or not.

A pro lifer would save alot more lives if they supported those already born children.

Oh how selfish i am, i wish to help those who already on this earth and suffering than giving two tosses about those who are not.
I have my priorities right, maybe you should do the same :2wave:
 
So if a woman is raped it is acceptable to murder a child?


This is a hard and difficult question, that I am still working on justifying in my mind. To me if the womans mental well being is in jeopardy due to the rape, it is an unfortunate situation.

The rapist should pay more if he impregnates his victim

What's so special at the 8 week mark that justifies murder?


at 8 weeks, science still considers this an "embryo", and I will reluctantly defer to the known science that this is still a stage where things like miscarriages and what not most often occur. I would like for it to be like 2 weeks, and as soon as one finds out. if it has to occur at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom