• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

So you think human cloning laws are not justified?
A very debatable topic. On the face of it they are not justified. (I base that on the assumption that true cloning is possible and that the result is identical in all aspects to the original. Experimental stages render it inexcusable) If we are allowed to create life through sexual reproduction and invitro fertilization, on what principle do we forbid a newer method? Having said that, personally I am against it.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

You really try hard to stay ignorant, don't you? You are incorrect, on conception they are a living organism, and the DNA of that organism is human --> so they are a living human.
.
While you try very hard to attempt to ignore that life creates life and your arvitrary point has no more credibility than your understanding of biology.


Cell division is one of the characteristics of a living organism. Individual cells of multi-cell organism can exhibit some of the 7 characteristics required to be defined as a living organism, but not all 7, so those component cells are not living organisms. From conception the new life exhibits all 7 characteristics so it IS a living organism AND its DNA is human so it is a living human being.
So you suggst there is no dna in sperm or egg. Your understanding of biol;ogy is a joke.


No, I don't make arbitrary distinctions, I am using established scientific definitions which is the exact opposite of arbitrary. You on the other hand refuse to crack a book and learn the subject so your counterarguments are purely arbitrary, making your decisions purely on personal desire rather than careful inspection.
No, you simply ignore the science that dooes not agree with your position. It is not only arbitrary but relies on ignorance.


I would choose to protect he life of a child conceived from rape or incest except when complications from pregnancy would cause death of the unborn child or the mother

So all we really have here is another man who believes his beliefs are superior to any womans opinions or wants. Nice to know that you are a typical prolifer.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Right -- and I want your opinion as to whether you think human cloning laws are justified or not.





I would support a ban on reproductive cloning

But not a law prohibiting therapeutic cloning.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Decades of "white christian men?" You didn't mention centuries of brown Muslim men and yet they traditionally oppose abortion even more stringently -- so stringently, in fact, that a woman who aborts can be killed as punishment.

Canada actually has fewer restrictions than do many states in the US.

Canada has zero restrictions. Has for a long time.

My point is: There doesn't need to be social ethics established for women in relationship to abortion.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

SO WHAT THAT THEY ARE LIVING HUMAN ORGANISMS? Everybody understands that.

Not everyone seems to understand that. People who try to be pro-abortion and yet value human life and the right to life have convinced themselves that the unborn are not living humans. From our previous communications I realize that you come from the other pro-abortion camp who accepts the science of human life and that the unborn are living humans and so get to your pro-abortion position through a belief that there is no such thing as a right to life for anyone...

Do you believe that a human zygote is holy? Is that really the deal here for you?

I believe all human lives are worth protecting from those who wish to kill them.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Plessy v. Ferguson lasted 64 years.

Slavery was upheld by the courts repeatedly and required a constitutional amendment to overturn.

There is no expiration date on a fights worth fighting.

Slavery was a north vs. south problem, with judges ruling based on their regional biases. Federal circuit courts residing in every state, red and blue, have all supported Roe v Wade when challenged. It's only the regional legislatures who think they are above the law and get smacked down every time.

There's absolutely no legal precedent that can be used to compare slavery to abortion. Maybe morally and ethically, but not legally. Nice try though.

If you can come up with a better argument than Roe v Wade, please feel free to try.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

You've already done that very well. No need to regurgitate your false statement.

My false statement?:lol:

See ya.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Canada has zero restrictions. Has for a long time.

My point is: There doesn't need to be social ethics established for women in relationship to abortion.

So, you do not oppose abortion a week before a woman is due to give birth to a healthy baby and her health is not in danger?
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I would support a ban on reproductive cloning

But not a law prohibiting therapeutic cloning.

I would support something similar. But, in the same vein, I support restrictions on late-term abortion when the fetus nor the mother are at risk and the fetus is viable. I feel there's plenty of time to make a decision before 28-30 weeks gestation.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Because at the end of the day -- humans depend on law and order. Just because something is extremely rare does not mean it doesn't, or cannot happen. In reality a woman who wants a very late term abortion in Canada is restricted from having one because she can't find a doctor to perform one. You don't seem to mind that -- you only seem to mind if the restriction is spelled out in the law.

That's a practice in hair-splitting. And, in my opinion, you're just mimicking the NOW meme because you think you have to.

Folks do very little individual thinking these days.

Just my two cents.

Why should a doctor be forced to do a procedure s/he doesn't want to do?

Sorry that you don't believe in a thing called freedom.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

A very debatable topic. On the face of it they are not justified. (I base that on the assumption that true cloning is possible and that the result is identical in all aspects to the original. Experimental stages render it inexcusable) If we are allowed to create life through sexual reproduction and invitro fertilization, on what principle do we forbid a newer method? Having said that, personally I am against it.

Good analysis!
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Your own link proves my point. The test can't be run until the 10th week of pregnancy. There is no way to test paternity in earlier without a tissue sample which would likely harm or kill the unborn child.

I believe tissue sampling takes place farther along than 10 weeks.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Why should a doctor be forced to do a procedure s/he doesn't want to do?

Here in the states, we've already handled that issue when pharmacists didn't want to dispense morning-after pills due to their beliefs. We determined it was counterproductive to a woman's reproductive freedom for them to refuse.

The situation in Canada appears to be similar.

Sorry that you don't believe in a thing called freedom.

There you go with that emotionalism again. Can you please stick to the topic without trying to put words in others' mouths and attempting to stereotype? Really, it's not flattering. Nor is it conducive to honest discussion.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

While you try very hard to attempt to ignore that life creates life and your arvitrary point has no more credibility than your understanding of biology.

So out of curiosity, is it your position that life has always existed? If only life can create life then where did life start?

On your specific point, life did create life in the case of human conception. A living woman and a living man had sex, and in the process they created an environment for their gametes to commingle, when joined together, these gametes create another human life. Neither Gamete on its own meets the criteria of being a living organism.

So you suggst there is no dna in sperm or egg. Your understanding of biol;ogy is a joke.

There is DNA, I never said their wasn't. The human gametes (the egg and the sperm) carry the human genetic code, but only carry half of the chromosomes necessary to perform the functions of a living organism. Gametes are haploid (half) parts of the Human diploid (two) chromosomes. So an egg and a sperm carry one set of chromosomes, and on conception the single cell has the two chromosomes that are necessary for the human life to begin. Upon becoming diploid, the single cell shows all characteristics of a living organism.

No, you simply ignore the science that dooes not agree with your position. It is not only arbitrary but relies on ignorance.

That is absolutely hilarious. There are only a few people I have met online who are as clueless on even the most basic concepts of biology as you are.

So all we really have here is another man who believes his beliefs are superior to any womans opinions or wants. Nice to know that you are a typical prolifer.

My arguments are logically consistent and also correct. I realize many people of both sexes have convinced themselves of very illogical positions in order to justify their support for legalized abortion... they are just incorrect and can't defend their positions beyond illogical and wholly inconsistent appeals to emotion or troublingly nefarious rejections of human rights.
 
Last edited:
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

You would be hard-pressed to find Canadian scientists cloning human beings, and yet, Canada has a law prohibiting it. Did Canada do the wrong thing in passing that law?

Yes, we did do the wrong thing. It's not the govt's business.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Here in the states, we've already handled that issue when pharmacists didn't want to dispense morning-after pills due to their beliefs. We determined it was counterproductive to a woman's reproductive freedom for them to refuse.

The situation in Canada appears to be similar.

You might want to do some research. Pharmacists here can refuse as long as they refer the woman to a pharmacy that will dispense them.


2.13: Members must, in circumstances where they are unwilling to provide a product or service to a patient on the basis of moral or religious grounds, ensure the following:

Further Clarification of Expectation in Practice:
A pharmacist or pharmacy technician is permitted to decline providing certain pharmacy products or services if it appears to conflict with the pharmacy professional’s morality or religious beliefs.

2.13.iii. that there is an alternative provider available to enable the patient to obtain the requested product or service, which minimizes inconvenience or suffering to the patient.


Further Clarification of Expectation in Practice:
A pharmacist or pharmacy technician must not impede a patient’s access to care. An effective referral meaning, a referral made in good faith, to a non-objecting, available, and accessible alternate provider in a timely manner must be provided to the patient.
A pharmacist or pharmacy technician must not withhold information about the existence of any treatment because it conflicts with their conscience or religious beliefs.
A pharmacist or pharmacy technician must provide care in an emergency, where it is necessary to prevent imminent harm, even where the care conflicts with their conscience or religious beliefs.
A pharmacist or pharmacy technician must make reasonable efforts to ensure continuity of patient care when they are unable or unwilling to provide requested pharmacy services.

Professional Obligations when Declining to Provide a Pharmacy Product or Service due to Conscience or Religion

This is not govt. rules, it's the pharmacists' governing body's rules.


There you go with that emotionalism again. Can you please stick to the topic without trying to put words in others' mouths and attempting to stereotype? Really, it's not flattering. Nor is it conducive to honest discussion.

You don't get to dictate to me how to post.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Slavery was a north vs. south problem, with judges ruling based on their regional biases. Federal circuit courts residing in every state, red and blue, have all supported Roe v Wade when challenged. It's only the regional legislatures who think they are above the law and get smacked down every time.

You have gotten it wrong, surprise, surprise. While the population differentiated from north to south on slavery, it was not as much a moral differentiation as you seem to think, and federal courts, and the federal government upheld slavery for 70 years. The final fix for slavery wasn't a correction in the federal court, either, it was an amendment.

Roe .v Wade has enjoyed a progressive court through most of its challenges, but that won't be the case much longer. And these rulings aren't the "smack down" that you seem to believe. They were mostly 5-4 decisions which the decision going mostly towards the ideological majority on the court. That being said, times they are a'changing. Partial birth abortion restrictions were upheld by the court in 2006. Likewise, recently, expansions of the requirement for informed consent as established in Casey were upheld on appeal.

I know that pro-abortion folks have been taught that SCOTUS has vaulted the pro-abortion position, but that is far from true. The law has persisted more due to the ideological balance on the court than on overwhelming merit of the argument in favor of legal abortion.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

Yes, we did do the wrong thing. It's not the govt's business.

Would it be okay with you if the science department in the local university started human cloning and turned out deformed humans or partial-humans/partial-animals? You'd be okay knowing those "creatures" were being kept under lock and key and away from prying eyes?

Because, when you say it was a mistake -- that's what it sounds like you're saying.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how far would you be willing to let that experimentation go?
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I believe tissue sampling takes place farther along than 10 weeks.

It does. You couldn't do sufficient tissue sampling under 10 weeks without the likelihood of killing the subject. Even at 10 weeks the tests are not direct tissue samples.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

You might want to do some research. Pharmacists here can refuse as long as they refer the woman to a pharmacy that will dispense them.


2.13: Members must, in circumstances where they are unwilling to provide a product or service to a patient on the basis of moral or religious grounds, ensure the following:

Further Clarification of Expectation in Practice:
A pharmacist or pharmacy technician is permitted to decline providing certain pharmacy products or services if it appears to conflict with the pharmacy professional’s morality or religious beliefs.

2.13.iii. that there is an alternative provider available to enable the patient to obtain the requested product or service, which minimizes inconvenience or suffering to the patient.


Further Clarification of Expectation in Practice:
A pharmacist or pharmacy technician must not impede a patient’s access to care. An effective referral meaning, a referral made in good faith, to a non-objecting, available, and accessible alternate provider in a timely manner must be provided to the patient.
A pharmacist or pharmacy technician must not withhold information about the existence of any treatment because it conflicts with their conscience or religious beliefs.
A pharmacist or pharmacy technician must provide care in an emergency, where it is necessary to prevent imminent harm, even where the care conflicts with their conscience or religious beliefs.
A pharmacist or pharmacy technician must make reasonable efforts to ensure continuity of patient care when they are unable or unwilling to provide requested pharmacy services.

Professional Obligations when Declining to Provide a Pharmacy Product or Service due to Conscience or Religion

This is not govt. rules, it's the pharmacists' governing body's rules.

I wasn't talking about pharmacist rules in Canada -- I expressly said the US. When I said Canada's laws were similar, I was comparing our Rx laws to how the doctors there can refuse to do late term abortions, which translates into a restriction on abortions.


You don't get to dictate to me how to post.

I just made a request that I felt would help you and help promote the conversation. No one dictated anything to you. I just find false accusation and stereotyping to be juvenile and below the level of most adult conversation.

Feel free to ignore it.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

You have gotten it wrong, surprise, surprise. While the population differentiated from north to south on slavery, it was not as much a moral differentiation as you seem to think, and federal courts, and the federal government upheld slavery for 70 years. The final fix for slavery wasn't a correction in the federal court, either, it was an amendment.

I'm not really interested in discussing slavery. It's not relevant to the topic of abortion, though I'm aware that anti-choicers feel it's the same. If you can't be persuasive without going off topic then it shows that you lack anything substantive to say within the topic itself.

Roe .v Wade has enjoyed a progressive court through most of its challenges, but that won't be the case much longer. And these rulings aren't the "smack down" that you seem to believe. They were mostly 5-4 decisions which the decision going mostly towards the ideological majority on the court. That being said, times they are a'changing. Partial birth abortion restrictions were upheld by the court in 2006. Likewise, recently, expansions of the requirement for informed consent as established in Casey were upheld on appeal.

I know that pro-abortion folks have been taught that SCOTUS has vaulted the pro-abortion position, but that is far from true. The law has persisted more due to the ideological balance on the court than on overwhelming merit of the argument in favor of legal abortion.

I'm not pro-abortion so I'm not even sure who you're talking about. Your unverifiable fantasy predictions of the future not withstanding, all I was interested in was debunking your original statement that pro-choice law is a product of mob rule, and I've done that satisfactorily. The courts ruled that abortion is a medical matter between a woman and her doctor. There's nothing ideological about it. If it were a product of idle ideology it would've been defeated already.

In order to overrule Roe v Wade somebody has to prove that a subjective moral value trumps medical expertise and medical privacy, and so far nobody has been able to do that. Nobody has demonstrated effectively why a religious person's outrage should take higher priority over what my doctor has to say about my health. I love how anti-choicers make it seem like the law is merely a product of a stacked court, when it's been 40+ years of varying governments and SCOTUS judges that have all upheld the rule of law.

The partial birth abortion ban is something I support. The vagina isn't a magical tunnel where a fetus suddenly becomes a person if they traverse it, and remains a non-human thing that can be killed right beforehand. Partial birth abortion is murder IMO.

The evangelicals are trying to use populism and strategic placement of their people in the courts to try and force the law to change, but it will never happen if there's no legal precedent. Sorry to burst your bubble... the U.S. is a secular nation. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

I'm not really interested in discussing slavery. It's not relevant to the topic of abortion, though I'm aware that anti-choicers feel it's the same. If you can't be persuasive without going off topic then it shows that you lack anything substantive to say within the topic itself.

If you didn't want to discuss it you have a bad way of showing it. If you wanted your statement to be an end of a discussion on slavery I would suggest you make a correct declaration next time.

I'm not pro-abortion so I'm not even sure who you're talking about. Your unverifiable fantasy predictions of the future not withstanding, all I was interested in was debunking your original statement that pro-choice law is a product of mob rule, and I've done that satisfactorily. The courts ruled that abortion is a medical matter between a woman and her doctor. There's nothing ideological about it. If it were a product of idle ideology it would've been defeated already.

It's a distinction without a difference. Supporting legal abortion is supporting abortion. "I don't think a father should drowned his children in a potato sack... but I think that is a decision between the parents." See how that works? Any support or object to abortion will always come down to what you really think of the humanity of the life that is being ended. THis is also why I will almost uniformly see abortion supporters run from a frank and logical discussion of when life begins since, in the end, science is not on their side.

In order to overrule Roe v Wade somebody has to prove that a subjective moral value trumps medical expertise, and so far nobody has been able to do that. I love how anti-choicers make it seem like the law is merely a product of a stacked court, when it's been 40+ years of varying governments and SCOTUS judges that have all upheld the rule of law.

False. Medical expertise had no bearing on Roe v Wade or ANY of the subsequent challenges. Roe v Wade was about a right to privacy, and many challenges to abortion regulation are specifically AGAINST more control and access to expert medical expertise. Planned Parenthood doesn't push for more regulation, cleaner clinics, or anything of the sort, they stand in favor of cheap and dirty every time.

The evangelicals are trying to use populism and strategic placement of their people in the courts to try and force the law to change, but it will never happen if there's no legal precedent. Sorry to burst you bubble... the U.S. is a secular nation. :shrug:

It is no less valid a method as progressive populist movements stuffing the court with progressives. You do seem to realize that the decision on Roe v Wade and its various defenses were driven by the ideological majority on the court rather than the irrefutable nature of the pro-abortion argument... so maybe we agree on that, at least.

Also, we are indeed a secular nation, but that doesn't mean that pro-life has no say in the government. I have argued all comers here on all the pertinent topics on abortion and never once do I reference scripture. I mean, the abolition movement was largely "evangelical" as well... was that invalid too?
 
Last edited:
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

It's a distinction without a difference. Supporting legal abortion is supporting abortion.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Of course there's a distinction. Pretending it's all the same is a total cop out from science, ethics and morals. There's a difference between an ectopic pregnancy and a crackhead who didn't use birth control. There's a difference between a rape victim and someone who simply can't keep their legs shut. There's a difference between a planned pregnancy and a family of 10 who doesn't want more children. There is always a difference. Our society does not value universal right to life in any way. We have murder laws but then we have wars. Some want to stop abortion but then allow capital punishment. There is ALWAYS a distinction. Pretending there isn't is precisely why the courts tear the pro-life to shreds every time. You want to boil reality down to black and white but it never will be. That's why your only hope is an ideological takeover, rather than secular evidence. On secular grounds the pro-life lose every time.

I have no interest in when life begins or ends. It's 100% irrelevant. Those are matters of the spirit which are non-secular. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

False. Medical expertise had no bearing on Roe v Wade or ANY of the subsequent challenges. Roe v Wade was about a right to privacy, and many challenges to abortion regulation are specifically AGAINST more control and access to expert medical expertise..

Non-sense. The entire privacy ruling was predicated upon the State's interest in protecting the mother's health balanced with protecting the potentiality of human life. Key word: health. The only people qualified to talk about health in a secular society are medical professionals. Also note the second part of their priorities. Abortion in the U.S. is still limited. You can't get one at 30 weeks. If we want to discuss placing specific limits on abortion then I'm open to that but outright banning it is morally wrong and there's no scientific basis for doing so, given the diverse range of pregnancy complications and moral implications.

It is no less valid an method as progressive populist movements stuffing the court with progressives. You do seem to realize that the decision on Roe v Wade and its various defenses were driven by the ideological majority on the court rather than the irrefutable nature of the pro-abortion argument... so maybe we agree on that, at least.

That's funny because 4 out of 6 of the ruling judges in Roe v. Wade were Republican, during the office of a Republican President. You talk about pro-choicers lacking logic but whenever the right-wing doesn't like what SCOTUS has to say they accuse them of judical activism or legislating from the bench. It's laughable. 1973 was an uphill battle against Conservative ideology in the courts. It's not like Roe v. Wade just magically appeared from nowhere. It was decades in the making thanks to steady review of Constitutional law.

I acknowledge no such thing. I did not find Roe v. Wade ideological in its ruling. The courts were always headed in that direction, if you study the lead up cases. For the record I am personally pro-life, I would never choose abortion... but it's asinine in a plural society to think that your selfish ideology covers all circumstances and all ethical grounds. It's not about just what you want. The realpolitik thing to admit is that abortion is controversial with plural views, no concrete answers. Maybe in the future there will be, I doubt it though. Labeling me pro-abortion just because it suits your contrasted reality is, once again, laughable and shows a dearth of critical thinking.

Also, we are indeed a secular nation, but that doesn't mean that pro-life has no say in the government. I have argued all comers here on all the pertinent topics on abortion and never once do I reference scripture. I mean, the abolition movement was largely "evangelical" as well... was that invalid too?

I support free speech and the participation of evangelicals in the polity. We all have a say. But on secular grounds the pro-life don't have a leg to stand on. That's why they keep losing, and not because the courts are peddling progressive ideology. To win you'd have to demonstrate why privacy is not part of liberty under the 14th Amendment, i.e. why I'd have to justify to you what goes in my uterus.

The evangelicals account for the vast, vast majority of the anti-choice lobby. They are mobilized and have a lot of funding. They openly admit that they are committed to decades-long strategic placement of their people into power to stop abortion. They are extremists. If the evangelicals didn't exist, there would be no abortion debate in America.
 
Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

So, you do not oppose abortion a week before a woman is due to give birth to a healthy baby and her health is not in danger?

Howard, that's simply not the norm and you know that. Look,your obviously a smart guy. I'm truly surprised that you bothered to ask me that question.

If there's is a level of development that a fetus would more likely survive being removed from the womb - then I think it's common sense that about 99.9% of women realize that they host pretty much a full matured fetus. And they'll follow through with giving birth.

Reproductive issues like prenatal, birthing, and post-natal care (where available) are between a woman and her medical providers.

I think if you look at Canada's methods of dealing with such matters, you'll find that after a fetus reaches a certain level of development, most doctors simply refuse to provide in services that would possibly result in the demise of a virtual mature fetus...despite there being no restrictions.

I've been participating in this forum a fairly long time and nobody had seem me post, kill the little 38 week old bastards at will, but government doesn't need to be involved with telling women how many children they should or shouldn't have or intervene in the many possible health consequences of being pregnant.
 
Back
Top Bottom