• 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!

Do any "pro-lifers" care about the mothers and babies?

TypicalRussian said:
well, face the consequences for your actions if you dont want to wait, cool?
Click to expand...

I would have "faced the consequences," if I'd ever gotten pregnant, by having an abortion. Happily for me, that unwanted event (pregnancy) never happened.

Also, since having sex isn't a crime or an "immoral action," there's no need for any punishment or "consequences." Like forcing a woman to stay pregnant and give birth against her will, for example.
 
OceanBlues1 said:
I would have "faced the consequences," if I'd ever gotten pregnant, by having an abortion. Happily for me, that unwanted event (pregnancy) never happened.

Also, since having sex isn't a crime or an "immoral action," there's no need for any punishment or "consequences." Like forcing a woman to stay pregnant and give birth against her will, for example.
Click to expand...

having sex before marriage and wanting an abortion is an immoral action
 
TypicalRussian said:
i think it does make sense.
Click to expand...

Because you can't think or write like an adult.

Until you think critically, intelligently, rationally, and logically about extremely obvious proven facts from totally unbiased sources you are not capable of debating anything.
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
If they "never wanted children or pregnancy" why didn't they that the proper precautions to prevent it? It's called responsibility; on of the things we, as adults are expected to deal with.
Click to expand...

They DO take proper precautions. It is called birth control. There are two different types: preventing a pregnancy and ending a pregnancy.
 
Blue Donkey said:
They DO take proper precautions. It is called birth control. There are two different types: preventing a pregnancy and ending a pregnancy.
Click to expand...
LOL, liberal jabberwocky at its finest. :roll:
 
Blue Donkey said:
Because you can't think or write like an adult.

Until you think critically, intelligently, rationally, and logically about extremely obvious proven facts from totally unbiased sources you are not capable of debating anything.
Click to expand...

i cited princeton university

dont know how it gets more unbiased than that
 
TypicalRussian said:
i cited Princeton University.

I don't know how it gets more unbiased than that
Click to expand...

Look at the complete URL. After the .com suffix and a slash, the next section is pro-life. Maybe you did not look closely at that part, but I noticed it in less than five seconds.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Look at the complete URL. After the .com suffix and a slash, the next section is pro-life. Maybe you did not look closely at that part, but I noticed it in less than five seconds.
Click to expand...

yes it is an argument for pro-life?

how does that rebuttal ANY of its foundings
 
TypicalRussian said:
Having sex before marriage and wanting an abortion is an immoral action.
Click to expand...

There you go again not knowing how to read and write properly. Having sex before marriage is one action. Having an abortion is a separate action. Wanting an abortion is not an action at all.

Whether a woman has sex before or after she gets married is irrelevant when determining the morality of her right to have an abortion. The first is always immoral. The second may or not be moral, depending on the reason and gestational week.
 
Last edited:
Blue Donkey said:
There you go again not knowing how to read and write properly. Having sex before marriage is one action. Having an abortion is a separate action. Wanting an abortion is not an action at all.

Whether a woman has sex before or after she gets married is irrelevant when determining the morality of her right to have an abortion. The first is always immoral. The second may or not be moral, depending on the reason and gestational week.
Click to expand...

he is certainly relevant as it is the reason why women gets abortion
 
TypicalRussian said:
yes it is an argument for pro-life?

how does that rebuttal ANY of its foundings
Click to expand...

The last section on the webpage is a pro-lifer criticizing reproductive health professionals of using a widely accepted term, claiming it was made up only for political purposes. This is a common right-wing tactic to mislead people with false statements and half-truths.

"Animal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....
"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.

"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]
Click to expand...
 
Blue Donkey said:
The last section on the webpage is a pro-lifer criticizing reproductive health professionals of using a widely accepted term, claiming it was made up only for political purposes. This is a common right-wing tactic to mislead people with false statements and half-truths.
Click to expand...

everything they said was factual
 
TypicalRussian said:
He is certainly relevant as it is the reason why women get abortion.
Click to expand...

I never said the father is irrelevant. My point is the immorality of one behavior does not automatically make a consequential action immoral.

Women get abortions for many reasons. Sometimes the woman was responsible, but the man was not. Other times something bad comes up later that could not have been predicted or prevented. Regardless of a woman's marital status, forcing her to be pregnant all nine months is always immoral. Her body, her life, her choice, whether you like it or not.
 
TypicalRussian said:
Everything they said was factual.
Click to expand...

No, some people wrote zygotes and blastocysts are embryos. That is NOT factual. Neither is the claim "pre-embryo" was made up for political reasons. A pre-embryo is a blastocyst.
 
Conaeolos said:
The SC should no invent 'unconstitutionality' on legislative matters cause it opposes their personal views. If abortion rights were actually in the constitution(by jurisprudence), we talk about amending it. I'd love to hear how you think that could be done under current precedent.
Click to expand...

Why does the right to abort need to be enumerated in the Const? The right to have consensual sex isnt in there. Neither is the right to have kids. Why should abortion be an exception? There's no reason to 'invent' anything.

The 9th Amendment ("Unless specified otherwise, the rights remain with the people") has it pretty well covered, as well as the 4th, 13th and 14th, unless you have some outstanding reasons that it should be illegal?

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
Conaeolos said:
Force implies it is not natural to bring to term. The force is applied when you end the term artificially. Semantic games. There is not force, it's an expectation.
Click to expand...

Force is applied by the state required to enforce laws. Force is when a woman is prevented from having a medical procedure, a force of law, physical consequences including incarceration, loss of personal liberty, and violation of bodily autonomy. It is forcing risk of health damage and even death.

Except for the draft...where does the govt force health damage and possible death on citizens? (And I'm against the draft) At least the draft is supposedly for the greater public good. There are no negative consequences of abortion on society, so it would not be justified. If there are, please list some.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
Conaeolos said:
Of course it is, strongly so in fact….adoption would be more common and culturally normalized if we had less abortion - fact.
Click to expand...

This is interesting, can you please explain? As a pro-choice supporter with 2 adopted special needs sisters, I'm surprised by that opinion.

How are pro-choice people against adoption? I whole-heartedly support the ability to provide homes for all children waiting. Hence, encouraging the unnecessary production of MORE kids waiting for homes seems to me to be unethical.

Some previously posted comments and sources:

It's not a solution at all. It's not a solution for a woman that cannot make the health or obligation or commitment sacrifices that pregnancy requires. It doesnt protect a woman's health or life.

It's also directly harmful to those children waiting and hoping for an adoptive home. They are actively harmed...they are aware, knowing, even suffering...by having fewer chances at a home.

There are currently over 100,000 kids in America waiting to be adopted (not in foster care, that # is 400,000.)

These kids are the reason it's completely unethical IMO to encourage women who dont want a child to maintain a pregnancy just to give it up for adoption. More kids added unnecessarily to that adoption pool means that one of those kids waiting and hoping wont get a family.

Sources:

"Waiting for a family is the longest wait of all."

Adopt America Network | Children for Adoption

Adoption Statistics | Adoption Network

Waiting Children | Kids Available for Adoption | The Adoption Exchange | The Adoption Exchange​

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom