• 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
There is some sense to the 'in case of rape' argument, tied in with the Castle Doctrine line of thought. If someone is trespassing on your property and threatening you, Castle Doctrine says that homicide is justifiable. However, it doesn't apply if you invite someone in, as it isn't then trespass. An unwanted pregnancy can be considered analogous to this, and the (normally pro-life) line is that CD doesn't apply after consensual sex because that's 'inviting the pregnancy' - however it does apply in cases of rape.

There are all sorts of potential holes in this (both from a pro-life and a pro-choice POV), but that's the jist of it.
 
Wake said:
I am against abortion UNLESS it is either the woman or the unborn's life at stake. That is my only exception.
Click to expand...

A pregnant woman's life is always at stake. But we understand the power you want to force your religious ideology over women by your messages across this forum.
 
joko104 said:
A pregnant woman's life is always at stake. But we understand the power you want to force your religious ideology over women by your messages across this forum.
Click to expand...

Nope. Only when the pregnancy is complicated, where it becomes either the mother or the unborn that lives, I favor the life of the mother.
 
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...
Fair enough, all this being said, this is simply my personal/moral take on the issue. If I were forced to take a legal stance on the issue I'm completely unsure how I'd proceed.
 
Wake said:
I am against abortion UNLESS it is either the woman or the unborn's life at stake. That is my only exception.
Click to expand...

Again, read above. If you believe abortion is murder, you are making exceptions (however justified) to the "murder" of "innocent children." In this society, we're suppose to value the life of innocent children over the life of grown adults, so why should you make such an exception?
 
Hare said:
Fair enough, all this being said, this is simply my personal/moral take on the issue. If I were forced to take a legal stance on the issue I'm completely unsure how I'd proceed.
Click to expand...

Ergo, you haven't completely thought these things through.
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that, given that something like 77% of politicians who vote on abortion legislation are men and 100% of them will never be pregnant.
 
Wake said:
Nope. Only when the pregnancy is complicated, where it becomes either the mother or the unborn that lives, I favor the life of the mother.
Click to expand...

If we're on board the Titanic, would you save the life of a child or that of a grown woman? How do you justify a value system that cherishes the life of the mother over that of her children?
 
ElijahGalt said:
Again, read above. If you believe abortion is murder, you are making exceptions (however justified) to the "murder" of "innocent children." In this society, we're suppose to value the life of innocent children over the life of grown adults, so why should you make such an exception?
Click to expand...

I believe abortion is murder unless the pregnancy puts the woman's life at risk. That being the case, it's a tragedy. Never did I say the life of an innocent child is worth more than a grown adult.

The life of the unborn is worth more than the woman's selfish whim to kill her child. However, when her very life, during said complication, is put in that scenario, the scales are different. Abortion is murder unless the mother's life is directly at risk, imo.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Ergo, you haven't completely thought these things through.
Click to expand...

You could say so, Yes. There's also so many loopholes to consider not to mention the form of punishment that would be applied if abortion was ever deemed "murder". Again, I'm viewing things more from a personal belief aspect as opposed to a legal one.
 
ElijahGalt said:
If we're on board the Titanic, would you save the life of a child or that of a grown woman? How do you justify a value system that cherishes the life of the mother over that of her children?
Click to expand...

This scenario is far different.

We're talking about a pregnant woman who's put in the scenario where due to complications it's either her life or her child's.

Different story entirely, so dismissed. :shrug:
 
Wake said:
I believe abortion is murder unless the pregnancy puts the woman's life at risk. That being the case, it's a tragedy. Never did I say the life of an innocent child is worth more than a grown adult.

The life of the unborn is worth more than the woman's selfish whim to kill her child. However, when her very life, during said complication, is put in that scenario, the scales are different. Abortion is murder unless the mother's life is directly at risk, imo.
Click to expand...

So I guess the entire abortion debate is based on personal preference. A life is a life. If you believe abortion is murder, then it is murder through and through whether or not you wish to view it as such in the course of a complicated pregnancy.
 
brb going to make another abortion thread


but really, women should have the right to choose, it is there bodies.
 
Wake said:
This scenario is far different.

We're talking about a pregnant woman who's put in the scenario where due to complications it's either her life or her child's.

Different story entirely, so dismissed. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say so. I'm trying to measure your value of life. If you believe a grown adult (woman) is more valuable than that of the unborn, then it's only logical you would make the same consideration for a child. Since, after all, the anti-abortion camp is quick to equalize the value of the unborn with that of the young children.
 
Hare said:
You could say so, Yes. There's also so many loopholes to consider not to mention the form of punishment that would be applied if abortion was ever deemed "murder". Again, I'm viewing things more from a personal belief aspect as opposed to a legal one.
Click to expand...

Fine. But personal preferences shouldn't dictate legal statutes.
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, joko, those are the consequences of the pure pro-life stance.

The only things you need to believe in order to hold the pro-life stance:
  1. Unborn children are living human beings, and thus have the right to life.
  2. The right to life takes precedence over all other rights except another person's right to life.

Both reasonable moral premises. Combine that with deontological ethics-- the idea that actions are right or wrong according to rules, regardless of consequences-- and you have a system in which no matter how much harm the unwanted pregnancy inflicts upon the victim, unless it is necessary to preserve her right to life, the termination of that unborn child is an unjustifiable wrongful act. And if you consider the unborn child to be morally relevant at all, one must simply accept that the harm done to it by abortion is greater than the harm done to the woman.

Of course, I don't share those premises... which is why I am staunchly pro-choice.
 
ElijahGalt said:
So I guess the entire abortion debate is based on personal preference. A life is a life. If you believe abortion is murder, then it is murder through and through whether or not you wish to view it as such in the course of a complicated pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Abortion is murder if it is killed because of the woman's whims. Where do you get off saying it's always murder? If the woman is put in a truly life-threatening scenario, that changes things quite a bit.

But since you're using that logic, I suppose shooting people is murder? In a way, just shooting someone at a whim is murder, but if it's your life or the other's life, and you must pull the trigger to survive, it is no longer murder. It's not the unborn's fault, but the choic of the mother to survive the dire complication.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Fine. But personal preferences shouldn't dictate legal statutes.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a matter of your personal preferences? I don't think your personal preferences should restrict the laws that I am allowed to pass.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Isn't that a matter of your personal preferences? I don't think your personal preferences should restrict the laws that I am allowed to pass.
Click to expand...

The right of all women to decide what to do with their own bodies is not my personal preference. It's an aspect of human rights.
 
Wake said:
Abortion is murder if it is killed because of the woman's whims. Where do you get off saying it's always murder? If the woman is put in a truly life-threatening scenario, that changes things quite a bit.

But since you're using that logic, I suppose shooting people is murder? In a way, just shooting someone at a whim is murder, but if it's your life or the other's life, and you must pull the trigger to survive, it is no longer murder. It's not the unborn's fault, but the choic of the mother to survive the dire complication.
Click to expand...

If we look at it as if we're discussing murder in the legal sense, it would qualify as either 1st or 2nd degree murder. There's enough evidence ahead of time to determine a birth will greatly lead to complications, giving the mother and doctor the premeditated option to kill unjustly. Of course, murder and killing "unjustly" is up to the interpretation of governments. Hitler didn't "murder" Jews and Stalin didn't "murder" Ukrainians because it was legal at the time, under their jurisdictions. But to the rational mind, it is murder.
 
ElijahGalt said:
The right of all women to decide what to do with their own bodies is not my personal preference. It's an aspect of human rights.
Click to expand...

Human rights are a matter of preference.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Human rights are a matter of preference.
Click to expand...

I guess the preference of the government officials who decide who lives, who dies, who prospers, and who cries.

But to my rational mind, the majority of people want and deserve their natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as cliche as that might sound).
 
ElijahGalt said:
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.
Click to expand...


Self Defense is Justifiable Homicide. Anytime anyone threatens your life, you have the right to use lethal force to stop them. This is also exactly why personal ownership if firearms should be protected. If a mentaly disabled man is trying to rape you because he honestly doesn't know better and has no control over himself, he is 'innocent' for all intents and purposes but because he's still a threat you can kill him. Same dif with the unborn. It's not their fault, but they can be killed anyway.
 
Jerry said:
Self Defense is Justifiable Homicide. Anytime anyone threatens your life, you have the right to use lethal force to stop them. This is also exactly why personal ownership if firearms should be protected. If a mentaly disabled man is trying to rape you because he honestly doesn't know better and has no control over himself, he is 'innocent' for all intents and purposes but because he's still a threat you can kill him. Same dif with the unborn. It's not their fault, but they can be killed anyway.
Click to expand...

If I'm on the Titanic and there's only one lifeboat left, I can defend my own life by pushing aside a 7-year-old boy so I can take his place, effectively protecting my own life in exchange for his. It may not be considered self defense in the sense that you see it, but in the life-or-death scenario of him or me, it is a viable option to consider. Also, in some jurisdictions, a killing by self-defense is subject to investigation and even possible criminal charges.
 
ElijahGalt said:
If I'm on the Titanic and there's only one lifeboat left, I can defend my own life by pushing aside a 7-year-old boy so I can take his place, effectively protecting my own life in exchange for his. It may not be considered self defense in the sense that you see it, but in the life-or-death scenario of him or me, it is a viable option to consider. Also, in some jurisdictions, a killing by self-defense is subject to investigation and even possible criminal charges.
Click to expand...

sad. respect for EG = Down significantly. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom