• 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!

Abortion Clinic Kicks Woman Out at Closing Time While She’s Hemorrhaging From Her Abortion

year2late said:
I do not think most of them are liars. I think some are willing to make up stuff (the liars) and others suspend their common sense and suck up the "facts" because of their intense belief in the cause.

They will repeat what they see on these sites...believe people who tell the "stories" over people who actually objectively investigated (like a medical examiner).
Click to expand...

I recognize that possibility. However, my experience has that, when presented with the facts, they continue to insist that the facts are lies and the lies are facts. This holds true even for those who are intelligent enough to know better.

For example, I have seen an obviously intelligent poster argue that a death following closely after an abortion was the result of a botched abortion, and then continue to make that claim even after shown proof that the abortion was fully investigated and no malpractice or negligence was found.
 
sangha said:
I recognize that possibility. However, my experience has that, when presented with the facts, they continue to insist that the facts are lies and the lies are facts. This holds true even for those who are intelligent enough to know better.

For example, I have seen an obviously intelligent poster argue that a death following closely after an abortion was the result of a botched abortion, and then continue to make that claim even after shown proof that the abortion was fully investigated and no malpractice or negligence was found.
Click to expand...

Very true. THe most basic fact in the issue is that legally or practically, you cannot treat both the unborn and born equally. A person that takes a position must choose whether they value the unborn or born more.

And in my experience, the pro-life refuse to acknowledge this, much less admit they value the unborn more than women. It's deny deny deny, and then leave the discussion.

But the point is, UNLESS you face that fact...that they cannot be treated equally...you cant confront realistic solutions to the issue. You cant honestly examine the legal and social impacts (and quite frankly, I'm pretty sure that most pro-life people dont want to. They feel very assured judging 'bad women' who have sex....so the impacts are 'deserved.')
 
Lursa said:
Very true. THe most basic fact in the issue is that legally or practically, you cannot treat both the unborn and born equally. A person that takes a position must choose whether they value the unborn or born more.

And in my experience, the pro-life refuse to acknowledge this, much less admit they value the unborn more than women. It's deny deny deny, and then leave the discussion.

But the point is, UNLESS you fact that fact...that they cannot be treated equally...you cant confront realistic solutions to the issue. You cant honestly examine the legal and social impacts (and quite frankly, I'm pretty sure that most pro-life people dont want to. They feel very assured judging 'bad women' who have sex....so the impacts are 'deserved.')
Click to expand...

I do not think it has much to do with their concern for the unborn. I think you are on to something when you talk about them judging women who have sex.
 
sangha said:
I do not think it has much to do with their concern for the unborn. I think you are on to something when you talk about them judging women who have sex.
Click to expand...

Oh, it doesnt, you're right. Here's what I came up with a few months ago:

Interestingly enough...I've discovered a pretty clear dividing line for "acceptable" for pro-life people. It's viewed the same very very frequently.

++If it's the woman's 'fault' she got pregnant (she enjoyed sex, her birth control failed, etc.) then she should not be allowed to have an abortion.

++If it wasnt her fault (rape, severe medical issues, incest as a minor) then she should be allowed to have an abortion.

So what we can see here is that:

--obviously most pro-life people do not view the unborn as equal... If the unborn was truly equal, you could not terminate it's life in cases of rape or incest or even the mother's life to some extent. (THere are a few pro-life people that do believe you cannot terminate the unborn in these circumstances and at least they are consistent.)

-- most pro-life people care more about judging and punishing a woman than they care for that 'innocent life'. (yeah, considering it punishment because the unborn is frequently referred to as a 'consequence')

So IMO the dividing line re: abortion for pro-life supporters has nothing to do with the unborn, it's all about the woman and how they judge her culpability in the pregnancy.​
 
Lursa said:
You cant know if a Dr would have just closed up shop or not. And Drs may perform abortions correctly that end up with excess bleeding too.

OTOH, as I asked before: what makes this 'business' any different than others? There will always be a few bad apples.

This business apparently did disregard someone's health. That's bad. What does that have to do with women's health and/or abortion in general?
Click to expand...

Indeed. If the story is accurate that place should be investigated and fined based on the facts. To assume that it means all facilities that don't have doctors are incapable of conducting the procedure is silly; as it is to assume doctors are incapable of making mistakes.
 
ElChupacabra said:
Indeed. If the story is accurate that place should be investigated and fined based on the facts. To assume that it means all facilities that don't have doctors are incapable of conducting the procedure is silly; as it is to assume doctors are incapable of making mistakes.
Click to expand...

Exactly. See post 17...the OP never addressed it, but it pretty much negated any point that he thought the article made.
 
Lursa said:
Oh, it doesnt, you're right. Here's what I came up with a few months ago:

Interestingly enough...I've discovered a pretty clear dividing line for "acceptable" for pro-life people. It's viewed the same very very frequently.

++If it's the woman's 'fault' she got pregnant (she enjoyed sex, her birth control failed, etc.) then she should not be allowed to have an abortion.

++If it wasnt her fault (rape, severe medical issues, incest as a minor) then she should be allowed to have an abortion.

So what we can see here is that:

--obviously most pro-life people do not view the unborn as equal... If the unborn was truly equal, you could not terminate it's life in cases of rape or incest or even the mother's life to some extent. (THere are a few pro-life people that do believe you cannot terminate the unborn in these circumstances and at least they are consistent.)

-- most pro-life people care more about judging and punishing a woman than they care for that 'innocent life'. (yeah, considering it punishment because the unborn is frequently referred to as a 'consequence')

So IMO the dividing line re: abortion for pro-life supporters has nothing to do with the unborn, it's all about the woman and how they judge her culpability in the pregnancy.​
Click to expand...

I'm pro life and I don't see why the unborn can be aborted if it's a product of rape but not if it's by consent. Execute the rapist and adopt out the baby when its born if you don't want it.
 
Maccabee said:
I'm pro life and I don't see why the unborn can be aborted if it's a product of rape but not if it's by consent. Execute the rapist and adopt out the baby when its born if you don't want it.
Click to expand...

why should the womans rights be violated AGAIN after shes raped?
why should she be forced against her will to carry, then give both further risking her health and or life?
 
AGENT J said:
why should the womans rights be violated AGAIN after shes raped?
why should she be forced against her will to carry, then give both further risking her health and or life?
Click to expand...

If it was aborting her own body, that would be different. However, she's aborting another human being.
 
Maccabee said:
If it was aborting her own body, that would be different. However, she's aborting another human being.
Click to expand...

that doesnt answer my questions at all, ill ask them again

why should the womans rights be violated AGAIN after shes raped?
why should she be forced against her will to carry, then give both further risking her health and or life?
 
AGENT J said:
that doesnt answer my questions at all, ill ask them again

why should the womans rights be violated AGAIN after shes raped?
why should she be forced against her will to carry, then give both further risking her health and or life?
Click to expand...

I thought my reply directly answers your question. The reason why she should carry to term is because the alternative (as of now) is killing a human being. Your rights generally stops when your actions infringes on other people's rights.
 
Maccabee said:
1.) I thought my reply directly answers your question.
2.) The reason why she should carry to term is because the alternative (as of now) is killing a human being.
3.) Your rights generally stops when your actions infringes on other people's rights.
Click to expand...

1.) you thought wrong because it doesnt . . is still really doesnt, its really vague and leaves anybody reading having to assume and fill in the blanks
2.) so your feelings about that negate her rights?
3.) what "other peoples" rights, what about the womans rights?

and what if forcing her to carry and give birth physically disables her and or kills her?
 
Maccabee said:
I'm pro life and I don't see why the unborn can be aborted if it's a product of rape but not if it's by consent. Execute the rapist and adopt out the baby when its born if you don't want it.
Click to expand...

So says a man that would see a woman suffer for 9 months, reliving the horror of a violent rape every time she was sick, in pain, missing work, having trouble moving around, unable to sleep...all the pain and suffering that a woman who WANTS a baby is happy to tolerate is a horrific, painful, and "life-threatening' reminder for a woman that's been raped.

Btw, not only do they not execute rapists, rapists also have the right to parental rights, custody, child support, etc once they get out of jail. Their parents are given opportunities to see the kid and can make claims for custody. So this can be something that haunts and pains a woman 'up close and personal' for 18 years.
 
Maccabee said:
If it was aborting her own body, that would be different. However, she's aborting another human being.
Click to expand...

Is that other human more important, more valuable than she is?

and btw, abortion is 14 times safer than pregnancy and childbirth.
 
Maccabee said:
I thought my reply directly answers your question. The reason why she should carry to term is because the alternative (as of now) is killing a human being. Your rights generally stops when your actions infringes on other people's rights.
Click to expand...

The unborn have no rights. None. And they are not people.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) you thought wrong because it doesnt . . is still really doesnt, its really vague and leaves anybody reading having to assume and fill in the blanks
Click to expand...

Well, you'll have to fill me in on what I didn't answer as I still think my reply answers your question.

2.) so your feelings about that negate her rights?
Click to expand...

No, logic and the sanctity of human life should.
3.) what "other peoples" rights, what about the womans rights?
Click to expand...

What about the unborn's life? I'll grant you that currently, women do have the right to an abortion, however the legal argument is a faulty place to base your argument that women should be able to have an abortion. It wasn't too long ago that slavery was considered a property right, the Jews in Germany were considered not persons, and currently we having the gun debate and whether the 2nd amendment protects things like AR15s or if it even protects the individual right to keep and bear arms at all. In short, just because it's legal, doesn't mean that it's ok or even be legal.
and what if forcing her to carry and give birth physically disables her and or kills her?
Click to expand...

If the mother's life is at risk then by all means, do what's necessary to save her.
 
Lursa said:
So says a man that would see a woman suffer for 9 months, reliving the horror of a violent rape every time she was sick, in pain, missing work, having trouble moving around, unable to sleep...all the pain and suffering that a woman who WANTS a baby is happy to tolerate is a horrific, painful, and "life-threatening' reminder for a woman that's been raped.
Click to expand...

All right, lets assume that the woman was raped, decided keep the baby, have no issues about reliving what happened to her until she gave birth. Why can't apply the same logic now that the baby is born? Why can't the woman kill her baby because her baby makes her relive the memories, miss work, etc.?
Btw, not only do they not execute rapists, rapists also have the right to parental rights, custody, child support, etc once they get out of jail.
Click to expand...

I know. That should change.

Their parents are given opportunities to see the kid and can make claims for custody. So this can be something that haunts and pains a woman 'up close and personal' for 18 years.
Click to expand...

Again, that's something that should change.
 
Lursa said:
Is that other human more important, more valuable than she is?
Click to expand...

No.

and btw, abortion is 14 times safer than pregnancy and childbirth.
Click to expand...
First off, I like to see the evidence. Second, that's rather irrelevant. Europe has far less gun deaths than we do and yet you and I are advocates for the 2nd amendment. Should we disarm ourselves because living in Europe is 3 times safer from gun deaths than we are?
 
Maccabee said:
1.)Well, you'll have to fill me in on what I didn't answer as I still think my reply answers your question.
2.)No, logic and the sanctity of human life should.
3.)What about the unborn's life?
4.) I'll grant you that currently, women do have the right to an abortion
5.) however the legal argument is a faulty place to base your argument that women should be able to have an abortion.
6.) It wasn't too long ago that slavery was considered a property right, the Jews in Germany were considered not persons, and currently we having the gun debate and whether the 2nd amendment protects things like AR15s or if it even protects the individual right to keep and bear arms at all. In short, just because it's legal, doesn't mean that it's ok or even be legal.
7.)If the mother's life is at risk then by all means, do what's necessary to save her.
Click to expand...

1.) easy i asked you very direct questions and you gave very vague answers that werent really anything direct hence my repeated and additional questions.
2.) right so you think YOUR subjective feelings trump her legal and human rights . . got it
unless of course you can supply this factual logic and sanctity of human life you speak of cause you just proved you dont care about hers.
3.) see there you go again NOT answering.
Ill ask you again what other peoples rights?
4.) whether you grant it or not its just a fact
5.) based on what facts is it faulty?
6.) that has nothing to do with the topic but its funny you brought it up since you want to make the woman the slave and force her to act against her will risking her health and life... i dont think you though that through at all LMAO Thanks for your feelings but again they dont matter much to facts and rights.
7.) see and you just did it AGAIN not answering the question, why dodge?
ill ask you AGAIN
what if forcing her to carry and give birth physically disables her and or kills her?
 
Maccabee said:
No.


First off, I like to see the evidence. Second, that's rather irrelevant. Europe has far less gun deaths than we do and yet you and I are advocates for the 2nd amendment. Should we disarm ourselves because living in Europe is 3 times safer from gun deaths than we are?
Click to expand...

One of the stupidest talking points ever is that removing guns from law abiding citizens will make them safer from armed thugs.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) easy i asked you very direct questions and you gave very vague answers that werent really anything direct hence my repeated and additional questions.
2.) right so you think YOUR subjective feelings trump her legal and human rights . . got it
unless of course you can supply this factual logic and sanctity of human life you speak of cause you just proved you dont care about hers.
3.) see there you go again NOT answering.
Ill ask you again what other peoples rights?
4.) whether you grant it or not its just a fact
5.) based on what facts is it faulty?
6.) that has nothing to do with the topic but its funny you brought it up since you want to make the woman the slave and force her to act against her will risking her health and life... i dont think you though that through at all LMAO Thanks for your feelings but again they dont matter much to facts and rights.
7.) see and you just did it AGAIN not answering the question, why dodge?
ill ask you AGAIN
what if forcing her to carry and give birth physically disables her and or kills her?
Click to expand...

Well, this isn't going anywhere. I tried to be as direct as possible. To answer the last question, if the mother's life is in danger, then do what is necessary to save her. That includes abortion. That is unless the mother is willing to give her life for the unborn child. I view sonething like this like the runaway trolley and switch scenario. Preferably I want both to live, but if it's a choice between the mother's life and the unborn's life, I'd go with the mother.
 
marke said:
One of the stupidest talking points ever is that removing guns from law abiding citizens will make them safer from armed thugs.
Click to expand...
I was making a point. The gun debate can be had in another thread.
 
Maccabee said:
1.)Well, this isn't going anywhere. I tried to be as direct as possible.
2.) To answer the last question, if the mother's life is in danger, then do what is necessary to save her. That includes abortion. That is unless the mother is willing to give her life for the unborn child.
3.) I view sonething like this like the runaway trolley and switch scenario. Preferably I want both to live, but if it's a choice between the mother's life and the unborn's life, I'd go with the mother.
Click to expand...

1.) i agree with you tried and failed with you dodging its gonna stay in the same place
2.) and again that doesn't answer he question in anyway, keep dodging though its VERY telling LMAO
3.) except your posts prove you dont care about the mothers life or rights and are willing to gamble with her life all the time

When you are ready to post with honesty and integrity let us know, thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom