• 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
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.

Anytime you kill anyone it's subject to an investigation.
 
Anytime you kill anyone it's subject to an investigation.

Right, and that is one of the major concerns I have with those who wish to outlaw abortion. Women would be subjected to investigation for miscarriages as well as having an abortion based on necessity.
 
Right, and that is one of the major concerns I have with those who wish to outlaw abortion. Women would be subjected to investigation for miscarriages as well as having an abortion based on necessity.

Yup.

1234567890
 
Last edited:
According to the poll over 71% of people think abortion is a right. So that settles it.
 
Why would I object to the state investigating a possible case of child abuse?

As much as abortion disgusts me, I don't see how the unborn is a child. Developing human? yes. Child? No.
 
Why would I object to the state investigating a possible case of child abuse?

So every case of a mother who must choose an abortion to save her life will subsequently (and justly, in your opinion) be investigated for possible child murder?

And a woman who has just experienced a traumatic miscarriage is also subject to an investigation for possible child murder? You're really willing to put these women through a hellish investigation/trial to determine or file possible murder charges?
 
According to the poll over 71% of people think abortion is a right. So that settles it.

I voted again so as to lower the % to 70. If you would like I could lower it further.
 
As much as abortion disgusts me, I don't see how the unborn is a child. Developing human? yes. Child? No.

I understand. However, you're incorrect:

[FONT=&quot]"Child" 1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A fetus is a "child" 2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Legally a "child" 4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So, a pregnant woman carries her "child", her "unborn child", her "unborn baby".
This makes her a "parent", specifically, a “mother”.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".[/FONT]


The unborn is a "child". Anyone who disagrees is simply wrong.
 
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.

To claim that known consequences of an action are irrelevant to the value or ethics of the action is nonsensical.

That is the problem with so many ideological declarations. I'm pretty much a down to earth person. A person can think any damn thing he or she wants to. I don't care. Why should I? I ONLY care about tangible realities and results.

I understand the premise of "pro-life." You are right about that. I don't even have a problem if they believe that. What is so bothersome is that if you try to discuss any other actual effects or even if outlawing abortion would stop abortions, they refuse to discuss reality and instead tend to just start raging "abortion is murder!" Again, definitely not all pro-lifers do that.

Ultimately, it is ALWAYS the actual consequences and not platitudes that judge an ideology. If a person believes abortion is murder that is what the person believes. If that is the beginning and ending of the topic, there really is little basis for discussion whatsoever. You are correct of their premises. But the consequences are not irrelevancies except in ideological wonderland.

I don't believe terminating an early term pregnancy is wrong in any way - unless against the woman's wishes. HOWEVER, I don't think that is the singular issue on the topic. There are only 100 gray areas, social issues, psychological issues, spiritual if a person is interested in such topics, economic ones, practical ones such as what happens after an unwanted or known severely handicapped child is born, the age of the victim or unplanned pregnancy girl (now as young as age 8) etc.
 
I understand. However, you're incorrect:

[FONT="]"[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child]Child[/url]" [COLOR="lime"]1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT="]A fetus is a "[url=http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=child]child[/url]" [COLOR="DarkOrange"]2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT="]Legally a "[url=http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=185&bold=||||]child[/url]" [COLOR="DarkRed"]4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT="]So, a pregnant woman carries her "[I]child[/I]", her "[url=http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html]unborn child[/url]", her "[url=http://www.state.in.us/isdh/programs/tobacco/unborn.htm]unborn baby[/url]".
This makes her a "[url=http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=parent]parent[/url]", specifically, a “[url=http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=mother]mother[/url]”.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#444444][FONT="] [/FONT]

[FONT="]
"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".[/FONT]


The unborn is a "child". Anyone who disagrees is simply wrong.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. The statement, "she is pregnant with child" also reinforces this..
 
I understand. However, you're incorrect:

[FONT="]"[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child]Child[/url]" [COLOR="lime"]1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT="]A fetus is a "[url=http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=child]child[/url]" [COLOR="DarkOrange"]2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT="]Legally a "[url=http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=185&bold=||||]child[/url]" [COLOR="DarkRed"]4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT="]So, a pregnant woman carries her "[I]child[/I]", her "[url=http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html]unborn child[/url]", her "[url=http://www.state.in.us/isdh/programs/tobacco/unborn.htm]unborn baby[/url]".
This makes her a "[url=http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=parent]parent[/url]", specifically, a “[url=http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=mother]mother[/url]”.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#444444][FONT="] [/FONT]

[FONT="]
"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".[/FONT]


The unborn is a "child". Anyone who disagrees is simply wrong.

You are absolutely wrong. A fertilized human embryro in a petri dish isn't a child. In fact, it is absurd to claim it is a child and for nearly all of those - 99+% - it will never be capable of becoming child no matter what is done.

To claim that is "a child" is truly an absurdity. No different that to claim a condom kills half a child just like if a person cut a newborn baby in half is anything but absurd.
 
I understand. However, you're incorrect:

[FONT="]"[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child]Child[/url]" [COLOR="lime"]1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT="]A fetus is a "[url=http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=child]child[/url]" [COLOR="DarkOrange"]2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT="]Legally a "[url=http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=185&bold=||||]child[/url]" [COLOR="DarkRed"]4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[FONT="]So, a pregnant woman carries her "[I]child[/I]", her "[url=http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html]unborn child[/url]", her "[url=http://www.state.in.us/isdh/programs/tobacco/unborn.htm]unborn baby[/url]".
This makes her a "[url=http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=parent]parent[/url]", specifically, a “[url=http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=mother]mother[/url]”.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#444444][FONT="] [/FONT]

[FONT="]
"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".[/FONT]


The unborn is a "child". Anyone who disagrees is simply wrong.

You've destroyed your own argument, unless you wish to consider sperm "A Human Being" given that it is a living organism possessing human DNA. That won't surprise me. The same people who fought against legalized abortion also fought against giving women access to contraceptives years earlier. No wonder Santorum, Huntsman, and Romney have 7 kids. They believe they'll be struck down like Onan for spilling their seed.
 
To claim that is "a child" is truly an absurdity. No different that to claim a condom kills half a child just like if a person cut a newborn baby in half is anything but absurd.

More like prevents a potential child, imo.

I don't understand the latter part of that sentence.
 
So every case of a mother who must choose an abortion to save her life will subsequently (and justly, in your opinion) be investigated for possible child murder?

The investigation would determine the nature of the homicide, yes. Abortions performed in hospitals in countries such as Brazil which have very strict abortion laws are short and sweet, a simple matter of a civil rep. looking over some paperwork.

And a woman who has just experienced a traumatic miscarriage is also subject to an investigation for possible child murder? You're really willing to put these women through a hellish investigation/trial to determine or file possible murder charges?

Trial?

I think you've been watching to much CSI.

Investigation =/= trial.

Yes a miscarriage should be investigated. Of course it should. You think this doesn't already happen today? When my wife had a miscarrage in NY in 2002, the state automaticaly performed an investigation to determin the age of the ZEF. As it was under the cut-off for abortion, the state did not continue it's investigation to determine the cause.

Trial. Pft whatever. There's no trial. It's a designated medical professional looking over paperwork. My wife and I were asked a few questions, it took about 5 minutes, if that.
 
You've destroyed your own argument, unless you wish to consider sperm "A Human Being" given that it is a living organism possessing human DNA. That won't surprise me. The same people who fought against legalized abortion also fought against giving women access to contraceptives years earlier. No wonder Santorum, Huntsman, and Romney have 7 kids. They believe they'll be struck down like Onan for spilling their seed.

I don't see where Jerry said the sperm is a human being. Is takes two elements to create the zygote, beginning of the developing human: sperm and egg.

An egg by itself is not a human. Same with the sperm.
 
I guess that's one way of looking at it. The statement, "she is pregnant with child" also reinforces this..

Is this a "human child?"


zygote.jpg
 
Is this a "human child?"


zygote.jpg

A developing human, imo.

A good question would be to try and define when the unborn can be deemed a "child."

Then again, perhaps we should not let size blind us to what it is, and what it will become if not hindered.
 
I don't see where Jerry said the sperm is a human being. Is takes two elements to create the zygote, beginning of the developing human: sperm and egg.

An egg by itself is not a human. Same with the sperm.

Read his post. He said an organism + human DNA = "A human being"

He failed to realize a sperm is a living organism with human DNA.
 
You've destroyed your own argument, unless you wish to consider sperm "A Human Being" given that it is a living organism possessing human DNA.

The simple fact that sperm can not divide or reproduce tells you that they are not an organism.
 
I don't see where Jerry said the sperm is a human being. Is takes two elements to create the zygote, beginning of the developing human: sperm and egg.

An egg by itself is not a human. Same with the sperm.

No, he didn't. But he is false in claiming that human development begins with a fertilized egg. It begins with the development of the sperm and the female egg.

Oh, that's right, sperm and eggs aren't required. The FIRST step in form a child is when the stork implants a zygote in the woman. THAT is how a new life FIRST begins. Or so he claims. And that's absurd.

EVERY time a pregnancy is avoided, the unthinkable prevention of a child being born occurs. How can you so hate children as to prevent their even having a chance of having a life? (rhetorical)
Lucky for him that his father wasn't such an evil man as to have used a condom. Otherwise Jerry wouldn't exist. His life potential DESTROYED! Pure evil if his father had done so. Or if her mother had been so rabid a baby hater as to be on the pill.

After "pro-life" and religions FINALLY lost that argument with almost everyone, they just redefined when life starts. It NO LONGER starts with sperm and eggs. They don't exist anymore and have NOTHING to do with the origins of human life and babies according to them. NOW the first step is a fertilized embryo. Never mind that contraceptions stop 1000+ times more babies have a right to exist than abortions.

So this isn't about babies having a right to exist. Not since contraceptives were dropped from the debate.

There is now the candidate Santorum that has reverted to the contraceptions are wrong and should be prevented including by government. At least he has some integrity in his "ideology on behalf of babies right to come into this world."
 
Last edited:
You are absolutely wrong. A fertilized human embryro in a petri dish isn't a child. In fact, it is absurd to claim it is a child and for nearly all of those - 99+% - it will never be capable of becoming child no matter what is done.

To claim that is "a child" is truly an absurdity. No different that to claim a condom kills half a child just like if a person cut a newborn baby in half is anything but absurd.

Yes, it is.


1234567890
 
Back
Top Bottom