• 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
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.

That may be true, but sperm cells do not divide, and they have a limited life span. I don't think a sperm cell, like a skin cell, can be called an organism.

Perhaps he meant the zygote, which is the beginning of the developing human.
 
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.

Well, lets get specific here.

When using invetro, the lab will try to fertilized more than one egg given there are only low odds of success at fertilization, and essentially always leaving fertilized embryos that will not and cannot be used. Getting one-egg-at-a time isn't really viable medical procedure. Now will they use obviously defective embryos.

Of those even used, it is known it likely only 1, if any, implanted will "take" to her uterus. This process is done with the woman's/parents permission. So in their desires to have a child they are creating a dozen or more fertilized embryos knowing that all but 1 will likely "die" and it maybe only a long shot that even 1 will.

So, by what you all are writing, those wanna-be parents and that lab murdered a dozen children. Their attempt to have a child really is mass murdering their children.

That is your claim, correct? They are murders of their own children. Mass murders in fact. Right? Couples who use invetro desperately wanting a child are in fact, according to you, really just the worse mass murders of children in the world by your morality/belief.
 
Last edited:
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.

Paperwork? You mean the medical records which are protected under the privacy clause of the 4th Amendment? Brazil doesn't have a Bill of Rights, nor are they a developed country. I'm not looking to emulate other countries in this debate.



Trial?

I think you've been watching to much CSI.

Investigation =/= trial.

There's a thing called a slash and it is used in the English language as a substitute for "or."

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.

Wow. No offense, but under your proposal one of two things will have to happen. Either we can maintain lax investigative procedures such as the one which faced your wife (and in which case, there will definitely be a sudden increase in the number of "miscarriages" across the country), or we can impose more intrusive investigative procedures that look at more than just paperwork. How would you like it if your wife was subjected to a cavity search in order to rule out a self-induced abortion?
 
That may be true, but sperm cells do not divide, and they have a limited life span. I don't think a sperm cell, like a skin cell, can be called an organism.

Perhaps he meant the zygote, which is the beginning of the developing human.

I'm just responding to his statement.
 
Yes, it is.


1234567890

I am forced to assume "Jerry" is not quite who he pretends to be...as the odds of me ever running into an individual this incapable of functional logic, average societal understanding, and basic cognitive ability are likely astronomical in proportion.

Thus I have developed a theory..."Jerry" is an exceptional gamer, and though I am hesitant to state it....he should continue.

I personally would prefer an illusion of this unfortunate aspect of our little experiment Life), than wondering if I am actually in contact with it.
 
The simple fact that sperm can not divide or reproduce tells you that they are not an organism.

or·gan·ism   [awr-guh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.

Where do you see "cell division?"
 
(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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)

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

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

(7) 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."

(1) What do you mean human life begins with the development of sperm and the female egg? Jerry did not claim that. He did not say the sperm is a human being.

(2) Human life begins when sperm enters the egg, and the zygote is created. Do you disagree with that?

(3) You're assuming Jerry has said the sperm or the egg itself are human beings/developing human beings.

(4) *Sigh* Again, Jerry did not say that.

(5) Whatever point you think you're making, it's scientific fact that sperm + egg = zygote. The zygote is the very beginning of the life of a developing human.

(6) Which has no bearing on the issue because Jerry never said sperm = developing human.

(7) What Santorum does does not affect me or my views.
 
Well, lets get specific here.

When using invetro, the lab will try to fertilized more than one egg given there are only low odds of success at fertilization, and essentially always leaving fertilized embryos that will not and cannot be used. Getting one-egg-at-a time isn't really viable medical procedure. Now will they use obviously defective embryos.

Of those even used, it is known it likely only 1, if any, implanted will "take" to her uterus. This process is done with the woman's/parents permission. So in their desires to have a child they are creating a dozen or more fertilized embryos knowing that all but 1 will likely "die" and it maybe only a long shot that even 1 will.

So, by what you all are writing, those wanna-be parents and that lab murdered a dozen children. Their attempt to have a child really is mass murdering their children.

That is your claim, correct? They are murders of their own children. Mass murders in fact. Right? Couples who use invetro are, according to you, the worse mass murders of children in the world by your morality/belief.

You say mass murder, but I see it as killing.

If the zygote does not stick to her womb, that is neither killing nor wrong. That there are many fertilized zygotes that will never have the chance to continue their natural development is saddening. I don't let size change my view of its importance. Perhaps we don't know what we are doing, when we do such things to acheive a certain goal.
 
You say mass murder, but I see it as killing.

If the zygote does not stick to her womb, that is neither killing nor wrong. That there are many fertilized zygotes that will never have the chance to continue their natural development is saddening. I don't let size change my view of its importance. Perhaps we don't know what we are doing, when we do such things to acheive a certain goal.

I think this whole debate revolves around "Individual Reality", as we are all individual with brains. What your sister thinks is not what you do...obviously. What your Dad considers true, might not be true to you...this a real, and pertinent.

Some people will see a Zygote as a living human being...others as a grouping of cells in a state of multiplication. Both can be correct in individual reality.

Thus, logically this debate becomes very personalized. How do you communicate constructively in this situation?
 
I think this whole debate revolves around "Individual Reality", as we are all individual with brains. What your sister thinks is not what you do...obviously. What your Dad considers true, might not be true to you...this a real, and pertinent.

Some people will see a Zygote as a living human being...others as a grouping of cells in a state of multiplication. Both can be correct in individual reality.

Thus, logically this debate becomes very personalized. How do you communicate constructively in this situation?

Well, scientifically, we know that when sperm meets egg, the zygote is created. According to science, the human has a beginning. Sort of like how the oak has a beginning. The zygote is the very beginning of the developing human, as the seed is the very beginning of the oak. The zygote is not a human being, but the very beginning. The same is true for the seed and the oak. Science shows that the zygote is the initial state of human development, so I don't see why some argue that scientific fact.
 
Paperwork? You mean the medical records which are protected under the privacy clause of the 4th Amendment? Brazil doesn't have a Bill of Rights, nor are they a developed country. I'm not looking to emulate other countries in this debate.





There's a thing called a slash and it is used in the English language as a substitute for "or."



Wow. No offense, but under your proposal one of two things will have to happen. Either we can maintain lax investigative procedures such as the one which faced your wife (and in which case, there will definitely be a sudden increase in the number of "miscarriages" across the country), or we can impose more intrusive investigative procedures that look at more than just paperwork. How would you like it if your wife was subjected to a cavity search in order to rule out a self-induced abortion?

Regulations always give reason for people to not use doctors, including women should not use doctors for pre-natal care. This also is a reason why in most states people should NEVER go to psychologists or psychiatrists. In most states, ANYTHING you tell them actually CAN be used in criminal cases against you.
 
Well, scientifically, we know that when sperm meets egg, the zygote is created. According to science, the human has a beginning. Sort of like how the oak has a beginning. The zygote is the very beginning of the developing human, as the seed is the very beginning of the oak. The zygote is not a human being, but the very beginning. The same is true for the seed and the oak. Science shows that the zygote is the initial state of human development, so I don't see why some argue that scientific fact.

That's just drivel, not science. Its just a word game.
 
Last edited:
Well, scientifically, we know that when sperm meets egg, the zygote is created. According to science, the human has a beginning. Sort of like how the oak has a beginning. The zygote is the very beginning of the developing human, as the seed is the very beginning of the oak. The zygote is not a human being, but the very beginning. The same is true for the seed and the oak. Science shows that the zygote is the initial state of human development, so I don't see why some argue that scientific fact.


I don't think anyone is arguing this fact. Seems to me the debate revolves around when said Zygote/fetus/embryo has developed
enough to be classified as a human being. Life is somewhat irrelevant in this, as every cell we have, and every creature we eat is alive. yet we either shed millions, or slaughter them when needed. The criteria is obviously Humanity...which requires a human brain...we get those around month 5-6.
 
I think this whole debate revolves around "Individual Reality", as we are all individual with brains. What your sister thinks is not what you do...obviously. What your Dad considers true, might not be true to you...this a real, and pertinent.

Some people will see a Zygote as a living human being...others as a grouping of cells in a state of multiplication. Both can be correct in individual reality.

Thus, logically this debate becomes very personalized. How do you communicate constructively in this situation?

At some point there is little point on the question of whether or not it is ethical to abortion a ZEF. That is a moral belief, never decided by facts or science. Its just what you believe. It is, essentially a religious argument, though that may be secular or non-secular.

The next level then is (for some) whether primarily male politicians may and should use laws, courts, cops, doctors, trials, judges, forced physical examines, prisons, interrogations, subpoenas and possibly executions to enforce prohibited ideologies or to TRY to enforce ideologies dictated upon females of our species.
 
At some point there is little point on the question of whether or not it is ethical to abortion a ZEF. That is a moral belief, never decided by facts or science. Its just what you believe. It is, essentially a religious argument, though that may be secular or non-secular.

The next level then is (for some) whether primarily male politicians may and should use laws, courts, cops, doctors, trials, judges, forced physical examines, prisons, interrogations, subpoenas and possibly executions to enforce prohibited ideologies or to TRY to enforce ideologies dictated upon females of our species.

I personally, do not think myself capable or worthy of telling the other millions what to do. Instead I have come to accept my place in this republic, and abide by what laws we have. I will say however, that if someone decided to force my wife into a situation that compromised her happiness...I would react appropriately, and likely regret it eventually.
 
To claim that known consequences of an action are irrelevant to the value or ethics of the action is nonsensical.

You may very well believe that, but a very large number of people-- possibly the majority of people-- don't. This is one of the most fundamental questions in all of moral philosophy and one which is unwise to dismiss entirely. Some people believe that doing the right thing is more important than getting the right results, because doing the right thing is the only way to get the right results consistently over the long term. What you are arguing here is pure utilitarianism, the critiques of which in modern scholarship are endless.

I don't believe terminating an early term pregnancy is wrong in any way

Neither do I, but most people-- including most adamantly pro-choice people-- do. They believe that people have a moral, if not legal, duty of care to unborn children and that killing them is morally wrong, and it doesn't matter what positive consequences arise (or negative consequences are avoided) from abortion because abortion is wrong.

It isn't an unreasonable statement. It's the same process of moral reasoning that protects our civil liberties and our Constitutional rights-- "it doesn't matter what the consequences are, violating human rights is wrong"-- and the same process of moral reasoning that must, if it is to function at all, apply to all of the law.
 
Paperwork? You mean the medical records which are protected under the privacy clause of the 4th Amendment? Brazil doesn't have a Bill of Rights, nor are they a developed country. I'm not looking to emulate other countries in this debate.





There's a thing called a slash and it is used in the English language as a substitute for "or."



Wow. No offense, but under your proposal one of two things will have to happen. Either we can maintain lax investigative procedures such as the one which faced your wife (and in which case, there will definitely be a sudden increase in the number of "miscarriages" across the country), or we can impose more intrusive investigative procedures that look at more than just paperwork. How would you like it if your wife was subjected to a cavity search in order to rule out a self-induced abortion?

In most states medical records are not protected in relation to criminal investigations.

The more jeopardy placed on doctors, they less they will risk and the less people should risk going to a doctor. There are certain types of miscarriages (late term) for which determining if it was an abortion or miscarriage would be exactly impossible. The government and AMA DO set regulations doctors just will not cross - denying patients and doctors both decision process. Same for midwives.

A woman went into sudden early labor (close to due date) using a midwife. However, it was a frank breach. The midwife told she had to immediately go to the emergency room because she could not, by law, deliver the child. She could in skill, but it was illegal for her to try and she'd lose her license. At the hospital, they informed her they HAD to do a C-section and their regs also would not allow them to attempt a natural childbirth. The woman absolutely refused to allow them to cut her open. She was at one of the highest volume birthing hospitals in the USA, which also doubled as a training hospital for doctors and nurses in that exact area. As she did her breathing with each growing contraction, they tried to convince her to agree to a C-section.

She absolutely refused. What to do? Nothing would stop the growing contractions and she had dialated to 8. 10 is the "launch number," like it or not. That baby was coming out - and if something not done would kill both mother and child - unless the father pulled the extremely difficult procedure again. The odds are considered very low for a lay person. The pay person can save the mother, but usually lacks time to save the baby, which instead suffocates during the extended removal process. But they had already done it once - had no choice being alone that time. But now the same situation they are in one of the top birthing hospitals in the USA.

Forcibly drug her down and slit her open against her will to 'save the child?" What authority did they have to do that?

It was complicated by the fact that the husband had done an emergency exact same situation birth with her on no-notice with the two of them alone at home with her uninjured and the child just fine. Now the greatest doctors in the world were declaring they couldn't even try to do what she and her husband had done out of necessity alone. Since within a minute they could do a C-section if the natural birth was actually failing, there was no real risk. Only required government directed medical protocol stood in their way.

Nor did the father agree with her. He had been through it, he had to do CPR and mouth-to-mouth to save the one he did with her. He did NOT want to try it again. BUT he did not see himself as having authority to order her, nor would she have let him.

Fortunately, the section chief MD on duty finally said to hell with this, realizing there was nothing they could do to stop her again going into natural frank breach birth with only her husband attending (and in that case "attending" is as absolute must. That baby CAN NOT come out on its own and the birthing would kill it and tear the mother apart if no one assisting the to baby come out. The mother unable to hold off going birthing by breathing anymore, the husband had final said ok, he'll do his best. And she began praying, "Dear heavenly father, please save my baby..." Calmly. Confidently. An entire medical staff just watching, paralized by regulations!

With that, the Chief said exactly "Oh to hell with this bull****! EVERYONE IN HERE, NOW! WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS!!" Guided by the midwife they manually and with extreme force turned the baby while inside her - strictly rules prohibited but a practice of midwives for centuries. And then she gave birth to a perfectly healthy son, her totally uninjured and they both out of there literally before the end of that day.

During it all she never let out so much as a peep in pain, calm the entire time. many times they commented on her endurance of pain as "impossible." No drugs. They declared her the greatest mother they ever had there.

The government NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF MEDICAL CARE IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL CARE IN MANY REGARDS (I'm not referring to insurance, rather what doctors may and may not do). If not, people need to stay away from doctors.
 
Last edited:
In most states medical records are not protected in relation to criminal investigations.

The more jeopardy placed on doctors, they less they will risk and the less people should risk going to a doctor. There are certain types of miscarriages (late term) for which determining if it was an abortion or miscarriage would be exactly impossible. The government and AMA DO set regulations doctors just will not cross - denying patients and doctors both decision process. Same for midwives.

A woman went into sudden early labor (close to due date) using a midwife. However, it was a frank breach. The midwife told she had to immediately go to the emergency room because she could not, by law, deliver the child. She could in skill, but it was illegal for her to try and she'd lose her license. At the hospital, they informed her they HAD to do a C-section and their regs also would not allow them to attempt a natural childbirth. The woman absolutely refused to allow them to cut her open. She was at one of the highest volume birthing hospitals in the USA, which also doubled as a training hospital for doctors and nurses in that exact area. As she did her breathing with each growing contraction, they tried to convince her to agree to a C-section.
She absolutely refused. What to do? Drug her down to 'save the child?" What authority did they have to do that? It was complicated by the fact that the husband had done an emergency exact same situation birth with her on no-notice with the two of them alone at home with her uninjured and the child just fine. Now the greatest doctors in the world were declaring they couldn't even try to do what she and her husband had done out of necessity alone. Since within a minute they could do a C-section if the natural birth was actually failing, there was no real risk. Only required government directed medical protocol stood in their way.

Fortunately, the section chief MD on duty finally said to hell with this, realizing there was nothing they could do to stop her again going into natural frank breach birth with only her husband attending (and in that case "attending" is as absolute must. That baby CAN NOT come out on its own and the birthing would kill it and tear the mother apart. So the Chief said "EVERYONE IN HERE, NOW! WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS!!" Guided by the midwife they manually and with extreme force turned the baby while inside her - strictly rules prohibited but a practice of midwives for centuries. And then she gave birth to a perfectly healthy son, her totally uninjured and they both out of there literally before the end of that day.

The government NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF MEDICAL CARE IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL CARE (I'm not referring to insurance, rather what doctors may and may not do). If not, people need to stay away from doctors.

The key issue, IMO, is that even a nice wordy piece of bureaucratic legislation simply cannot cover all situations - and that a statement "at the discretion of (insert professional person in charge of procedure/whatever here)" is counter to the very nature of such.

Or something…
 
The key issue, IMO, is that even a nice wordy piece of bureaucratic legislation simply cannot cover all situations - and that a statement "at the discretion of (insert professional person in charge of procedure/whatever here)" is counter to the very nature of such.

Or something…

In other words...you think we should deny better in search of perfection {in your mind)...this mindset prevents advancement, and always has. Granted, current laws are not perfect, and in fact cannot possibly be to everyone, but if we want society we must accept compromise, that is simply our reality.
 
I don't think anyone is arguing this fact. Seems to me the debate revolves around when said Zygote/fetus/embryo has developed
enough to be classified as a human being. Life is somewhat irrelevant in this, as every cell we have, and every creature we eat is alive. yet we either shed millions, or slaughter them when needed. The criteria is obviously Humanity...which requires a human brain...we get those around month 5-6.

Joko apparently thinks it's drivel.

I think humanity should stretch from the very beginning of your development, to the very end. Being physically a developing human does not begin once born. No, science shows that the very beginning of the "animal" known as "human" begins when sperm meets egg.

Then again, "humanity" is a concept created by humans. No, to be "human" is to be in ANY part of human development. To be human is to be a child. To be human is to be a zygote. To be human is to be an adult. To be a human is to be in the womb for 5 months. To be a human is to be 90-years-old. Etc...
 
In other words...you think we should deny better in search of perfection {in your mind)...this mindset prevents advancement, and always has. Granted, current laws are not perfect, and in fact cannot possibly be to everyone, but if we want society we must accept compromise, that is simply our reality.
Negative.

It is my opinion that:

Firstly, however excessively detailed legislation is made, it simply cannot foresee all possible situations, and inevitably will cause issues like the one I responded to.

Secondly, that excessively detailed legislation has the opposite effect you are suggesting – that it stifles rather than supports advancement, by restricting activities to a pre-determined path.

Thirdly, that not only are current laws imperfect and as a result problematic, but that the current path most of the world is on – that of creating increasingly complex laws to govern more and more aspects of individuals lives – is counter to the proper direction (again IMO) things should be taking.
 
Negative.

It is my opinion that:

Firstly, however excessively detailed legislation is made, it simply cannot foresee all possible situations, and inevitably will cause issues like the one I responded to.

Secondly, that excessively detailed legislation has the opposite effect you are suggesting – that it stifles rather than supports advancement, by restricting activities to a pre-determined path.

Thirdly, that not only are current laws imperfect and as a result problematic, but that the current path most of the world is on – that of creating increasingly complex laws to govern more and more aspects of individuals lives – is counter to the proper direction (again IMO) things should be taking.

Okay then...How do suggest we as a species/civilization manage several Billion individuals?

Or, to simplify, how would you recommend (without laws) we somehow create a utopia that meets your individual needs without stomping on mine, for several million individuals?

I can agree our society is flawed, and imperfect...hell I sometimes find it disgusting. Yet, this is what we have, and to pretend it is not just seems to me rather naive.

To expect everyone else to bow down before my opinion is also...unrealistic, and possibly cruel.



we are forced to live and let live, or kill each other.
 
I personally, do not think myself capable or worthy of telling the other millions what to do. Instead I have come to accept my place in this republic, and abide by what laws we have. I will say however, that if someone decided to force my wife into a situation that compromised her happiness...I would react appropriately, and likely regret it eventually.

I'm with you on that. messing with my woman? A horrifically bad decision for someone to make.
 
Science agrees with me. What agrees with you?

I believe the exact scientific terminology is not "baby," "child," "human," or "person."

The "scientific" term is "the embryo of the species homo sapien."
 
Back
Top Bottom