• 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!

What is your general opinion on laws restricting abortion?

What is your opinion on laws restricting abortion?

  • They are essential to preserving the sanctity of life

    Votes: 15 17.4%

  • I don't agree with abortion but I don't think it should be banned

    Votes: 18 20.9%

  • they miss the real argument, that people should have total bodily autonomy over themselves

    Votes: 18 20.9%

  • they are a bad faith attempt at controlling women

    Votes: 32 37.2%

  • not sure

    Votes: 3 3.5%
  • Total voters
    86
weaver2 said:
"The point, the moral, the implication." That's not a question. It isn't even a complete sentence.
Click to expand...
"The point, the moral, the implication" was an answer to a question you asked. But it is clear from these latest posts that dodging the question is all you're about here. Again, this is understandable only in terms of an uneasy conscience. So spare your conscience the trauma of a direct expression of your heinous view on abortion, and try to have a nice day.
 
Angel said:
"The point, the moral, the implication" was an answer to a question you asked. But it is clear from these latest posts that dodging the question is all you're about here. Again, this is understandable only in terms of an uneasy conscience. So spare your conscience the trauma of a direct expression of your heinous view on abortion, and try to have a nice day.
Click to expand...

These are the questions you have asked me to answer.


So I'm interested in "the morality and intelligence of your solutions," sir. Is the termination of a human life except in self-defense, not wrong on its face? The point, the moral, the implication. Exactly what the question you're desperately dodging asks for.
Click to expand...

Only one question in that mess of verbiage makes any sense:...... "Is the termination of a human life except in self-defense, not wrong on its face? " ....... Which I've answered with two examples of women who entered heaven even though they had abortions, a not too complex homily showing God's approval of abortion.

If you want an answer to some other question you have to come up with something in standard English, because,
......... "So I'm interested in "the morality and intelligence of your solutions," sir. The point, the moral, the implication. Exactly what the question you're desperately dodging asks for. ......... doesn't make any sense to me.
 
weaver2 said:
These are the questions you have asked me to answer.

Only one question in that mess of verbiage makes any sense:...... "Is the termination of a human life except in self-defense, not wrong on its face? " ....... Which I've answered with two examples of women who entered heaven even though they had abortions, a not too complex homily showing God's approval of abortion.

If you want an answer to some other question you have to come up with something in standard English, because,
......... "So I'm interested in "the morality and intelligence of your solutions," sir. The point, the moral, the implication. Exactly what the question you're desperately dodging asks for. ......... doesn't make any sense to me.
Click to expand...
This is so interesting. You are actually tongue-tied by the view of human life your abortion politics commits you to -- you cannot speak the words!
There was one question in what you call that "mess of verbiage": Is the termination of a human life except in self-defense, not wrong on its face?
A yes or no question.
 
I am a pro-choice fiscal conservative but I place a limit on the time frame at the end of the second trimester and not beyond.
 
trouble13 said:
Just because many women are ok with killing their offspring does not mean men are equally callous.
Click to expand...

I think deep down, most know destroying their own future for whatever reason is not a great move.

At least some studies seem to bear that out for now.

"Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributable to abortion. The strongest subgroup estimates of increased risk occurred when abortion was compared with term pregnancy and when the outcomes pertained to substance use and suicidal behaviour."

Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995–2009
 
akyron said:
I think deep down, most know destroying their own future for whatever reason is not a great move.

At least some studies seem to bear that out for now.

"Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributable to abortion. The strongest subgroup estimates of increased risk occurred when abortion was compared with term pregnancy and when the outcomes pertained to substance use and suicidal behaviour."

Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995–2009
Click to expand...
Whether or not it is a good or bad choice is specific to the people it effects and is subjective. My point is that the law gives that sole discretion to women. Many times men are not even informed of the decission nor do they get any say in it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Angel said:
This is so interesting. You are actually tongue-tied by the view of human life your abortion politics commits you to -- you cannot speak the words!
There was one question in what you call that "mess of verbiage": Is the termination of a human life except in self-defense, not wrong on its face? A yes or no question.
Click to expand...

Oh, I've answered your question: "Is the termination of a human life except in self-defense, not wrong on its face?"with a "no" in a homily of two different situations, neither of which would have justified abortion (which is what we are discussing) according to anti-abortion advocates and the pro-legal-abortion-at-the-cost-of-eternal damnation group. What was puzzling to you about St. Peter stamping "approved" on the women's application into heaven?

Your accusation that I cannot speak "the words" is where communication breaks down. I don't know what "words" you think I should be speaking. I don't understand how to respond to your sentence fragments. "The point, the moral, the implication." and "Exactly what the question you're desperately dodging asks for." can't be answered. And the question ""So I'm interested in "the morality and intelligence of your solutions," sir." while it's a complete sentence I don't know what you are talking about. What solutions have I proposed? Why are morality and intelligence of these non-existent solutions being questioned? Could you re-phrase your requests in whole and simple sentences?
 
In war men dehumanize their enemy to help justify killing them. In Nam we called them gooks, or dinks, or zips. Abortion advocates do the same thing. They are just a clump of cells, not anything human.

Then the stupid St. Peter approving of murder is beyond desperation. I have a true real life scenario for you. An unmarried 17 year old college student found herself pregnant. She loved travel and knew this child would make that next to impossible. She knew getting through college would be much more difficult with a child. She had little money. Her family was thousands of miles away. To add to the problem she was white and the father was black in a time when this was not accepted. At the time, it was even illegal for interracial couples to marry in many states. She made a tough choice and kept her child. That child grew up to be the 44th President of the United States.
 
I voted They Miss The Real Argument because women should have total autonomy over their bodies...
 
BahamaBob said:
In war men dehumanize their enemy to help justify killing them. In Nam we called them gooks, or dinks, or zips. Abortion advocates do the same thing. They are just a clump of cells, not anything human.

Then the stupid St. Peter approving of murder is beyond desperation. I have a true real life scenario for you. An unmarried 17 year old college student found herself pregnant. She loved travel and knew this child would make that next to impossible. She knew getting through college would be much more difficult with a child. She had little money. Her family was thousands of miles away. To add to the problem she was white and the father was black in a time when this was not accepted. At the time, it was even illegal for interracial couples to marry in many states. She made a tough choice and kept her child. That child grew up to be the 44th President of the United States.
Click to expand...

I bet the number of murderers that were not aborted is a lot higher than the number that became POTUS.
 
BahamaBob said:
In war men dehumanize their enemy to help justify killing them. In Nam we called them gooks, or dinks, or zips. Abortion advocates do the same thing. They are just a clump of cells, not anything human.

Then the stupid St. Peter approving of murder is beyond desperation. I have a true real life scenario for you. An unmarried 17 year old college student found herself pregnant. She loved travel and knew this child would make that next to impossible. She knew getting through college would be much more difficult with a child. She had little money. Her family was thousands of miles away. To add to the problem she was white and the father was black in a time when this was not accepted. At the time, it was even illegal for interracial couples to marry in many states. She made a tough choice and kept her child. That child grew up to be the 44th President of the United States.
Click to expand...

How fun is it that a conservative is defending the banning abortion by citing President Obama who all conservatives think he is an abomination and should have never been president.
 
elective abortion I am in favor of as long as it happens some time before viability is close to possible (say 18 weeks or so). Medically necessary abortions should be able to happen after the 18th week.

But women already rarely abort late and the government has no right or justification to interfere into the medical private decisions women make about their fertility and their womb/uterus.
 
weaver2 said:
Oh, I've answered your question: "Is the termination of a human life except in self-defense, not wrong on its face?"with a "no" in a homily of two different situations, neither of which would have justified abortion (which is what we are discussing) according to anti-abortion advocates and the pro-legal-abortion-at-the-cost-of-eternal damnation group. What was puzzling to you about St. Peter stamping "approved" on the women's application into heaven?

Your accusation that I cannot speak "the words" is where communication breaks down. I don't know what "words" you think I should be speaking. I don't understand how to respond to your sentence fragments. "The point, the moral, the implication." and "Exactly what the question you're desperately dodging asks for." can't be answered. And the question ""So I'm interested in "the morality and intelligence of your solutions," sir." while it's a complete sentence I don't know what you are talking about. What solutions have I proposed? Why are morality and intelligence of these non-existent solutions being questioned? Could you re-phrase your requests in whole and simple sentences?
Click to expand...
You didn't say "no" until now. We'll get back to this "no" in a subsequent post. I want to get to this bull**** in your 2nd paragraph:

I've responded to this 2nd paragraph smoke screen already. The sentence fragments were replies to questions from you. For example: Question: Where do you live? Reply: New York City. "New York City" is a reply to a question. Calling it an unintelligible sentence fragment is disingenuous on your part. Your ignoring the fact that I've already responded to this disingenuosness is doubling down on disingenuousness -- it's gamesmanship on your part, a form of baiting in fact. You're trying to be cute, it seems, but you're not succeeding.
 
weaver2 said:
How fun is it that a conservative is defending the banning abortion by citing President Obama who all conservatives think he is an abomination and should have never been president.
Click to expand...
Not half as funny as a secularist who makes up parables about heaven in order to avoid giving a direct answer to a question about the morality of killing. Now that's funny.
 
Angel said:
Not half as funny as a secularist who makes up parables about heaven in order to avoid giving a direct answer to a question about the morality of killing. Now that's funny.
Click to expand...

You mean like a person claiming morals are a factor in abortion and that they are objective. But when challenge they cant provided one factual or logic shred of evidence and luntiple posters proved them wrong at ever turn. Now THATS funny.
 
Angel said:
So I'm interested in "the morality and intelligence of your solutions," sir. Is the termination of a human life except in self-defense, not wrong on its face?
Click to expand...

Irredentist said:
Isn't abortion self defense? After all, the fetus takes nutrients and energy from the mother while giving nothing in return. If it was a grown adult we might call it a thief or burglar, and say that she was perfectly justified in ending it's exitstence for intruding into her body.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I love how the same political party that is obsessed with guns because they think they need to be ready to defend themselves, their family or their property at a moments notice is also the party that wants to take away a women's right to defend her own body against intruders.

If you can shoot someone for intruding onto your land or into your home then you can definitely kill something trying to grow inside of your body for 9 months.
 
MrWonka said:
Exactly. I love how the same political party that is obsessed with guns because they think they need to be ready to defend themselves, their family or their property at a moments notice is also the party that wants to take away a women's right to defend her own body against intruders.

If you can shoot someone for intruding onto your land or into your home then you can definitely kill something trying to grow inside of your body for 9 months.
Click to expand...
First, why reference party here? I do not belong to either party.
Second, I live in NYC and don't own a gun.
Third, I am staunchly pro-choice.
So why do you quote me? Merely for the opportunity to advance your cause?
 
Abortion reduces the surplus population and should be encouraged.
 
Angel said:
First, why reference party here? I do not belong to either party.
Second, I live in NYC and don't own a gun.
Third, I am staunchly pro-choice.
So why do you quote me? Merely for the opportunity to advance your cause?
Click to expand...


Your position that abortion is immoral, a child is killed and the guilt is never forgiven is not pro-choice. It's pro-legal immorality or pro-guilt.
 
weaver2 said:
Your position that abortion is immoral, a child is killed and the guilt is never forgiven is not pro-choice. It's pro-legal immorality or pro-guilt.
Click to expand...

Opinions vary

guilt is never forgiven. Is that one of those god things?
 
Angel said:
You didn't say "no" until now. We'll get back to this "no" in a subsequent post. I want to get to this bull**** in your 2nd paragraph:

I've responded to this 2nd paragraph smoke screen already. The sentence fragments were replies to questions from you. For example: Question: Where do you live? Reply: New York City. "New York City" is a reply to a question. Calling it an unintelligible sentence fragment is disingenuous on your part. Your ignoring the fact that I've already responded to this disingenuosness is doubling down on disingenuousness -- it's gamesmanship on your part, a form of baiting in fact. You're trying to be cute, it seems, but you're not succeeding.
Click to expand...

You haven't responded except to indicate you don't understand how my homily answers your question "Is the termination of a human life except in self-defense, not wrong on its face?" and to keep telling me "So I'm interested in "the morality and intelligence of your solutions," sir.". When I've asked you what solution, you re-post the phrase, "the morality and intelligence the point". You've reposted it about four times.

There's no baiting or disingenuousness. I just don’t understand what you are asking for and you can't or won't explain other than telling me that "NYC" is a sentence fragment answering the question, "Where do you live?".

Bed-Sty perhaps?
 
I'm looking forward to the day in less than 20 years when the evangelical demographic will be cut in half and their numbers will be small enough that this question will barely come up in the political sphere. Even the right-wing politicians will abandon the subject because they won't have enough constituents for it to be relevant to.

Counting the days.

Then all this pseudo-intellectual mental masturbation where we act like we're having a rational conversation about denying bodily autonomy will be framed exactly for what it is: crackpot. You can't stop abortion without legally controlling someone's reproductive organs. You are literally telling them what they can and cannot do with their bodies. You are telling me that if something's in MY uterus, that I'm not allowed to remove it, and if I do you will ruin my life.

It's crackpot. One day we will look back on this as a very unfortunate historical footnote, just like denying women the right to vote or separating drinking fountains based on skin colour. It's backward.
 
weaver2 said:
You haven't responded except to indicate you don't understand how my homily answers your question "Is the termination of a human life except in self-defense, not wrong on its face?" and to keep telling me "So I'm interested in "the morality and intelligence of your solutions," sir.". When I've asked you what solution, you re-post the phrase, "the morality and intelligence the point". You've reposted it about four times.

There's no baiting or disingenuousness. I just don’t understand what you are asking for and you can't or won't explain other than telling me that "NYC" is a sentence fragment answering the question, "Where do you live?".

Bed-Sty perhaps?
Click to expand...

The phrase "the morality and intelligence of your solutions" is your phrase, directed at another poster, reproduced below with your phrase bolded:
I.
weaver2 said:
God gave you brains so you could sort things out for yourself instead calling on Him every time you hit a bump in your road. St. Peter will judge you on the morality and intelligence of your solutions, not on how often you cast your cares on Him.
Click to expand...
Angel said:
So I'm interested in "the morality and intelligence of your solutions," sir. Is the termination of a human life except in self-defense, not wrong on its face?
Click to expand...

My question to you, reiterated until you finally found the wherewithal to answer it with a direct "no" is reiterated below, along with your challenge to the other poster, now thrown back at you:
II.
Angel said:
...So, are we to understand from these original morality tales of yours that you think inconvenience justifies taking human life?
Does this represent "the morality and intelligence of your solutions"?
Click to expand...

And finally here below are your persistent attempts to avoid a direct answer to the question:
III.
weaver2 said:
Who's avoiding anything. Here is your question:

Here is the answer to your question: [Here you quote post #204]

What is it you don't understand?
Click to expand...
Angel said:
The point, the moral, the implication. Exactly what the question you're desperately dodging asks for.
Click to expand...


IV.
weaver2 said:
What was it about 204 that you didn't understand?
Click to expand...
Angel said:
The point, the moral, the implication. Exactly what the question you're desperately dodging asks for.
Click to expand...

You finally answered "No," which we shall get to momentarily, but your persistent disingenuousness in which you pretend you don't understand what I'm asking still persists and had to be put to rest first.
 
weaver2 said:
Your position that abortion is immoral, a child is killed and the guilt is never forgiven is not pro-choice. It's pro-legal immorality or pro-guilt.
Click to expand...
Stop the straw man crap. Or show me where I mention the word "guilt," let alone "the guilt [that] is never forgiven."
You're in bad faith, driven to it by your untenable unreflective pro-abortion stance.
 
Angel said:
Stop the straw man crap. Or show me where I mention the word "guilt," let alone "the guilt [that] is never forgiven."
You're in bad faith, driven to it by your untenable unreflective pro-abortion stance.
Click to expand...

Bad faith like falsely claiming that morals are objective?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom