• 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!

Where you stand on abortion in relation to women?

Poll on where you stand on abortion in relation to women

  • I favor forcing women to have children against her wishes.

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • I oppose forcing women to have children against her wishes.

    Votes: 34 68.0%

  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 7 14.0%
  • Total voters
    50
Not sure were this falls in the poll: The government has no business making citizens' medical decisions if they are not paying for the care. Since the federal government cannot legally fund abortions, it has no business regulating them.
 
joko104 said:
Lucky 12 year old raped by her step-father. Don't you also favor throwing away the child after birth? You did say you would if it was your wife. Right? No burdens on me! - that's your slogan. Or am I mistaken?
Click to expand...

A 12 year old is not a woman, and no, other people's children are not my burden. My children are my burden, someone else's child is their burden.
 
joko104 said:
I understand that you, like some many "pro-lifers", favor dumping newborn babies off on society and the taxpayers.

Giving birth to babies for the purpose of them throwing that baby away somewhere is evil, as evil as it gets.

I have no problem prohibiting abortion when a ZEF becomes independently life viable.

That should be pro-life's chant: "THROW BABIES AWAY! THROW BABIES AWAY!"
Click to expand...

if a child's parents die - is it better for that child to become an orphan, or should we kill it as well?
 
The compassionate thing to do is to execute an unborn child that isn't wanted using means unfit for serial killers when they are executed...

The truly compassionate thing is to not punish the unborn child with death solely due to things outside of its control. The best thing is to carry through and give the child a shot at life, not make the ultimate decision for it with some kind of warped selfish logic (I should kill it now because life isn't worth living in mommy/daddy don't want you).
 
Bait thread, with very biased language. Ugh. That's why the abortion forum is one of the many forums I avoid here
 
Proud South Korean said:
Bait thread, with very biased language. Ugh. That's why the abortion forum is one of the many forums I avoid here
Click to expand...

bingo. one of the most salient topics... which cannot be discussed with those who insist on seeing any who disagree as not only wrong, but evil.
 
Proud South Korean said:
Bait thread, with very biased language. Ugh. That's why the abortion forum is one of the many forums I avoid here
Click to expand...

In case you missed it: This is precisely the point which the OP is making in regards to the many abortion threads on this forum.
 
cpwill said:
bingo. one of the most salient topics... which cannot be discussed with those who insist on seeing any who disagree as not only wrong, but evil.
Click to expand...

I have largely avoided the abortion debates for the same reason. I've tried a few times to salvage a good one with non-biased and respectful posts clearly outlining both sides of the argument to cease the bat**** rantings and accusations. To some people though if you are pro-life you will also be a pro-rapist women hating misogynist with nothing but man driven "control" over a woman's womb along with all the other stupid and illogical labels tacked on by morons.

To some, every pro-choice person wants babies to be murdered and women to have more abortions while encouraging irresponsible sexual promiscuity along with the other stupid and illogical labels.
 
cpwill said:
bingo. one of the most salient topics... which cannot be discussed with those who insist on seeing any who disagree as not only wrong, but evil.
Click to expand...


Does this post demonstrate a remarkable degree of insight, or is it simply projection?
 
digsbe said:
I have largely avoided the abortion debates for the same reason. I've tried a few times to salvage a good one with non-biased and respectful posts clearly outlining both sides of the argument to cease the bat**** rantings and accusations. To some people though if you are pro-life you will also be a pro-rapist women hating misogynist with nothing but man driven "control" over a woman's womb along with all the other stupid and illogical labels tacked on by morons.

To some, every pro-choice person wants babies to be murdered and women to have more abortions while encouraging irresponsible sexual promiscuity along with the other stupid and illogical labels.
Click to expand...

I tried to make that precise point a while back and was howled down. But you are precisely correct - no matter what you believe on abortion, generally, nobody is in favor of killing babies, and nobody is in favor of enslaving women.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Does this post demonstrate a remarkable degree of insight, or is it simply projection?
Click to expand...

:) must be projection then, because I was specifically thinking of Joko (though there are plenty of others).



I should probably add an addendum to the thought - all humans are evil in the sense that we make shallow, self-centered, decisions to engage in acts (or refrain from doing so) that we know to be morally wrong. I would just posit that the pro-choice v pro-life argument is an argument over definitions that is sadly linked to powerful emotional topics, and hence becomes instead a screaming match over competing rights.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
(I should kill it now because life isn't worth living in mommy/daddy don't want you).
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong about that logic. Children need parents just to survive-- it's not a matter of the lives of children being worse without parents, it's a matter of whom you can force to be a parent when nobody wants to.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Nothing wrong about that logic. Children need parents just to survive-- it's not a matter of the lives of children being worse without parents, it's a matter of whom you can force to be a parent when nobody wants to.
Click to expand...

A person should take on all parental rights when someone has sex. An innocent life shouldn't suffer because they were not a planned pregnancy. Should we euthanize children in orphanages who only have the state to raise them?
 
digsbe said:
A person should take on all parental rights when someone has sex.
Click to expand...

So mothers should not have the option of giving up their children for adoption?

digsbe said:
An innocent life shouldn't suffer because they were not a planned pregnancy.
Click to expand...

And they don't. They just die, long before they have the barest biological capacity for suffering.

digsbe said:
Should we euthanize children in orphanages who only have the state to raise them?
Click to expand...

No, of course not. They're long past the point of abortion-- so the State's duty in this case is to find parents for them. Of course, the big problem is that nobody within the dead parents' families was willing to raise their children; that's a shameful state of affairs, isn't it?
 
I find it only acceptable when rape or incest has occured. If used for convenience it's inherently immoral.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Once pregnant, I favor forcing women to have children against her wishes, unless the pregnancy endangers the woman's life or will cause serious physical harm.
Click to expand...

I'm curious about this point. Before the advent of modern medicine, pregnant women who were dying during childbirth often pleaded to their midwives to cut the baby out so it may have a shot at life. On the Titanic, women and children were valued more than men, and most will concur that protecting a child's life is more important than that of a grown adult. Finally, since those in the anti-abortion camp often argue that adoption should be encouraged among pregnant women facing the abortion decision, why would you take the stance of allowing the abortion to occur if the woman's life is in danger?

I realize in the modern industrialized world, death by birth is rare, yet it still is an issue in the abortion debate. And if those who claim abortion is murder simply allow it to occur in the case of health dangers, then they are valuing the life of the mother over the life of a child. They are then willing to let "murder" occur on an "innocent child" to save the life of the mother despite the fact that they would rather abortion-prone women give custody of their children to another. It doesn't make sense morally, imho. Perhaps you could explain it. Because for those in the pro-choice movement, an aborted unwanted ZEF is less damaging than an unwanted born child becoming a ward of the state. It makes sense for us to choose the life of the mother over the life of the unborn, but it doesn't make sense for you to make that exception.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Morally, what is the difference?
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! This is what I don't understand regarding those in the anti-abortion camp yelling "murder" who make certain exceptions for "murder." Santorum, regardless of my opinion of his views, is at least consistent in his purist outlook.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Morally, what is the difference?
Click to expand...
If the woman was a willfull participant in the sexual act that impregnated her than I don't feel she has the right to terminate the life within her.
 
Hare said:
If the woman was a willfull participant in the sexual act that impregnated her than I don't feel she has the right to terminate the life within her.
Click to expand...

If you view abortion as murder, then you are making an exception for murder.
 
ElijahGalt said:
If you view abortion as murder, then you are making an exception for murder.
Click to expand...

You could say that, but I view it more along the lines of preventing someone whose rights have already been taken away from having to bear the product of said heinous crime.
 
Hare said:
You could say that, but I view it more along the lines of preventing someone whose rights have already been taken away from having to bear the product of said heinous crime.
Click to expand...

But if you equalize the rights of citizen with said rights of the unborn, they are inherently the same. A more logical approach would be to compensate the victim, bring the perpetrator to justice, and protect the rights of a newly created citizen. Again, it makes no sense morally or logically.
 
I am against abortion UNLESS it is either the woman or the unborn's life at stake. That is my only exception.
 
ElijahGalt said:
But if you equalize the rights of citizen with said rights of the unborn, they are inherently the same. A more logical approach would be to compensate the victim, bring the perpetrator to justice, and protect the rights of a newly created citizen. Again, it makes no sense morally or logically.
Click to expand...

To be a pure pro-lifer you must declare:
1. Women have no say over the biological parentage of their children. This is singularly determined by the man.
2. Women have no right to have a father in her children's life.
3. That a man has an inherent right to physically force women to have children against her will.

That is the pure "pro-life" stance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom