• 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!

Men not being involved in the abortion debate

Bucky said:
I did provide a source with year2late. So now you are being dishonest about me not posting sources!!!

And I do not know why I need to provide a source for something fairly so obvious!!!!

That's like me saying all school shooters have a mental issue and you saying I need to prove that.

Is the fact they are not shooting up a school not proof enough????
Click to expand...

Yes...and that source proves that I'M right. Women have abortions because they cant afford another child. They would lose their jobs. They'd have to drop out of school. They cant do it alone and survive without welfare. And so on. Did YOU read the source you provided????

They didnt list a single 'convenience' (at least in the manner that most of us think of conveniences, you know, like a garage door opener is a convenience. A maid is a convenience. An electric can opener is a convenience. Frozen food is a convenience. Etc.)

Look at my signature...it proves how out of touch with reality you are. You consider taking welfare as an entitlement. Meh, sure, why not take other people's money?!
 
Lursa said:
You can stamp your feet and pound your fists all you want...you're still wrong. And you havent proven you are right. So why on Earth would we believe you?

Are you finding it difficult to wrap your mind around the fact that you are equating convenience with everything in a person's (woman's) life? Have you been able to absorb at least that small point yet?

Then, the next step would be: if you value everything in life so cheaply...why is it so important to bring a child into the world to live such a cheap and worthless life?
Click to expand...

Why women x is having an abortion:

1. I don't have the money/means/resources - personal inconvenience.
2. I don't want my boyfriend to leave me - personal inconvenience.
3. I don't want to lose my body figure - personal inconvenience.
4. I don't want to be a single parent - personal inconvenience.
5. I don't want to lose my job - personal inconvenience.

All of these fall under the category of personal inconvenience.
 
Bucky said:
WHAT ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT????????????

Do you lursa and minnie do not like the term personal inconvenience? Jeez.



https://savethestorks.com/2017/05/r...025664:1&utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/

*MONEY
*SINGLE PARENT
*WORK/SCHOOL

This all falls under the category of personal inconveneicne.

The life/health of the baby or mother comes a very distant second.

Again, finite!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

So...Bucky, if you do not have money....how are you living? If you do not have money what access to health care do you have? Medicaid at best, which is a total crap shoot.

Money means access to safe housing. Money means access to health care better than Meidicaid. If I has only access to Medicaid during my troubled pregnancy.....it is possible I would be on dialysis or dead.

Most women who abort already are struggling to care for a child at home. Being pregnant means less resources for her born child. It means less time for her born child. It means possibly leaving her born child in unsafe situations due to lack of resources.

Money means resources. Lack of money means potentially much less safe living situations and definitely less access to medical care.

I look on my personal situation the same as I look on what many women who abort go through. Making difficult decisions based on difficult circumstances.

If I had become pregnant at a time when I was already struggling to care for my child and sick mother.....I have to admit, I would at least consider abortion for the safety of my son and mother. It would have been as far from selfish as I could get.
 
Lursa said:
Yes...and that source proves that I'M right. Women have abortions because they cant afford another child. They would lose their jobs. They'd have to drop out of school. They cant do it alone and survive without welfare. And so on. Did YOU read the source you provided????

They didnt list a single 'convenience' (at least in the manner that most of us think of conveniences, you know, like a garage door opener is a convenience. A maid is a convenience. An electric can opener is a convenience. Frozen food is a convenience. Etc.)
Click to expand...

Address post number 552 and perhaps I can educate you about your very wrong position.

Thanks,
 
Bucky said:
Why women x is having an abortion:

1. I don't have the money/means/resources - personal inconvenience.
2. I don't want my boyfriend to leave me - personal inconvenience.
3. I don't want to lose my body figure - personal inconvenience.
4. I don't want to be a single parent - personal inconvenience.
5. I don't want to lose my job - personal inconvenience.

All of these fall under the category of personal inconvenience.
Click to expand...

The bold was not listed in your source. And the other things...again...if YOU think those are 'conveniences' you hold your own life very cheaply.

For the rest of us, going on welfare is a shameful necessity. Not getting an education? Not getting a good job? Very important to fulfilling a person's potential and contributing to society. Not wanting to be a single parent? We're back to welfare or being too poor to properly care for a family.

So...you can hold your own life that cheaply...but for the rest of us...those are very important things that enable our survival and our future success in life.
 
Bucky said:
Address post number 552 and perhaps I can educate you about your very wrong position.

Thanks,
Click to expand...

I have addressed it.

Our ideas of personal inconvenience differ greatly.

I think a woman who is struggling to raise a child with minimal resources ( a common situation for a woman that aborts) fears for the current safety of herself and her born child.

Being poor and trying to be pregnant may seem like a trivial inconvenience to you...but I assure "keeping her figure" is low on the list of most women who consider abortion.

By the way.....a woman that considers abortion may give "a" reason for wanting to abort...but I will bet that there will be multiple reasons why a woman chooses to abort.

Think of a surgeon telling you surgery is an option for your condition. Is there one thing that tells you to agree or refuse? Do you consider how you will support your family? DO you consider potential surgical risks? Do you consider how you will keep your place to live if things don't turn out as planned? Do you consider your social resources? Do you consider the quality of your insurance and the quality of surgeon and medical facility that you insurance (or lack therof) sends you to.

Unless you are an absolute idiot, when deciding on whether to have surgery is usually based on multiple factors.
 
year2late said:
So...Bucky, if you do not have money....how are you living? If you do not have money what access to health care do you have? Medicaid at best, which is a total crap shoot.

Money means access to safe housing. Money means access to health care better than Meidicaid. If I has only access to Medicaid during my troubled pregnancy.....it is possible I would be on dialysis or dead.
Click to expand...

FutureIncoming said:
STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO SHOW WHY YOUR OPINION IS BETTER THAN THEIRS. Do you eat food that was originally alive? For your personal convenience? Well???
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
I did, in 551 & 555.
Click to expand...


That's the main difference between us.

You find morality based on laws and the economy. I find morality based what is right and what is wrong.

You find abortion perfectly fine on an economic basis. I find abortion completely offensive based on a moral basis.

Everyone has access to money. If you do not have money you can qualify for food stamps, housing assistance, etc.

Education is free. School lunch is free for those in low-income. I am unsure what reality you and Lursa are talking about.

Back when slavery was legal you could have made a perfectly reasonable reason to justify it purely on an economic basis, however, we all knew from a moral perspective, it was unjustifiable.

You could make a perfectly reasonable justification to support abortion on an economic reason however on a moral basis, it is completely unjust.

Reason 1: No money: So if the government made a new law tomorrow that stated every new mother receives a guaranteed universal income of 25k, that would justify making abortion illegal? Include paid maternity leave for at least 6 months.

Quite frankly a woman that has an abortion because she wants to focus on her career is selfish. I don't have any more to add on this particular reason.

So you Lursa, futureincoming and minnie conflate two separate issues. You justify abortion on the basis of economic, sociological, and psychological factors however an abortion doesn't correct those problems. Actually, a woman having a baby would probably motivate her to work harder and find a better job. The pressure to support for a child will often motivate people to do great things. Even things they did not know they were capable of.

So, in conclusion, you have no proof that having an abortion puts a woman in a better economic place. Even your flawed argument is flawed. And even if you can prove to have an abortion is a good solution based on economic reasons, it doesn't change the fact an abortion is wrong on a moral basis.

You would even agree with me there because you said you oppose abortion on a moral basis. So to disagree with me would make you a rank hypocrite, not only on this forum but particularly to your family.
 
Bucky said:
....

So, in conclusion, you have no proof that having an abortion puts a woman in a better economic place. Even your flawed argument is flawed.

....
Click to expand...

Studies have proven that abortion puts a woman in a better economic place.


From the following:

(Reuters Health) - - Women who want an abortion but are denied one are more likely to spend years living in poverty than women who have abortions, a new study suggests.

Carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term quadrupled the odds that a new mother and her child would live below the federal poverty line, researchers reported in the American Journal of Public Health on Thursday, a few days before the 45th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion.

“It’s very powerful to see that women’s decision-making is exactly right on,” said lead author Diana Greene Foster, a professor at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, a research group at the University of California, San Francisco.

“The things they worry about coming through are exactly the things they experience when they’re denied an abortion and carry the pregnancy to term,” she said in a phone interview. “They tell us they can’t afford a baby, and we find they become poorer.”

The single most common reason women cite for wanting an abortion is because they cannot afford to raise a child, Foster said.

For women denied abortions, public-assistance programs failed to make up for the cost of a new baby and to pull households out of poverty, the study found.
Click to expand...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...c-hardship-for-low-income-women-idUSKBN1F731Z
 
The book Life’s Work: A Moral Arugment for Choice was written by Dr. Willie Parker

Dr. Willie Parker’s new book, Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice, has been everywhere recently—on The Daily Show, on the back of Time magazine, and at a book party with Gloria Steinem. But I think the most important place his words have been so far is in a room with me, taking care of a patient, at 3 a.m.

What patients want is moral language, language that will help them grapple with the deeply meaningful and ethical questions that their medical decisions present. Western medicine does not have moral language. But Dr. Willie Parker does [...] and he is skilled at making it medically relevant. For me that use of language was not just new; it was a revelation.
Click to expand...

By - CHAVI EVE KARKOWSKI- SLATE

https://www.drwillieparker.com
 
Bucky said:
That's the main difference between us.
Click to expand...
NOPE. The main difference is that you-all abortion opponents believe idiocy, while pro-choicers mostly don't.

Bucky said:
You find morality based on laws and the economy.
Click to expand...
I PERSONALLY FIND MORALITY TO BE IDIOCY. Simply because morals are provably Arbitrary instead of Objective. Which is why I promote Ethics, instead --Ethics has a chance to be Objective and NON-Arbitrary.

Bucky said:
I find morality based what is right and what is wrong.
Click to expand...
YOU BELIEVE THE IDIOCY OF UNPROVED CLAIMS, THAT IS. Like the claim that "human life" is somehow more special than, say, insect life, for example.

Bucky said:
You find abortion perfectly fine on an economic basis.
Click to expand...
CHERRY-PICKED DATA, AS USUAL FOR A FACT-DENYING ABORTION OPPONENT. Remember how much crime is caused by folks who started out as unwanted children? That includes crimes that are more than purely economic in nature, like murder. Also remember how many species get wiped out every year, and other problems that are caused by human overpopulation. The consequences of that are not-at-all purely economic.

Bucky said:
I find abortion completely offensive based on a moral basis.
Click to expand...
WHICH MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING SO LONG AS MORALS ARE PROVABLY ARBITRARY. All it takes is a bunch of people claiming that something is moral, or that something is immoral, for the claim to become a societal norm (like "a woman's head must be covered" in various places). But claims are not proof of reality, and never will be proof of reality.

I'm snipping the rest of your blather because the foundation of your argument is not actually there, as just explained above.

IN OTHER WORDS: STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO SHOW THAT YOUR OPINION IS BETTER THAN THOSE WHO SEEK ABORTIONS.
 
Last edited:
Bucky said:
That's the main difference between us.

You find morality based on laws and the economy. I find morality based what is right and what is wrong.

You find abortion perfectly fine on an economic basis. I find abortion completely offensive based on a moral basis.
.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with 'just money,' and this was clearly spelled out for you...so stop wasting our time...that $ provides security and safety for a family. It provides food for the table. It enables living in a cleaner, safer neighborhood, it enables finishing an education, developing a career over an hourly job, etc...all things that lead to increasing a woman's chances of a better future and being able to contribute more to society.

You are unable to see anything further than the end of your nose on your face....so a few of us have written all this out for you...and you are unable to comprehend it. This is clearly an sign of a limited mind. As such, the rest of your 'conclusions' are also *dismissed.* You have not proven yourself capable yet of understanding much of anything complex.
 
Bucky said:
I also provided a source from Dr. Ben Carson.
Click to expand...

Ok.

I found a Ben Carson link.

Even though Dr Ben Carson is personally Pro life he understands the decision whether or not to have an abortion is up to woman.

He has even referred woman to abortion Drs. for their abortions.

Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon, has referred women to doctors who perform abortions, was a trustee of a foundation that gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Planned Parenthood, and his campaign struggles to articulate which legal restrictions he supports on the procedure.


Carson’s history on the issue is shaped by his medical background: Decisions he made decades ago — about referring women carrying fetuses with genetic defects to doctors willing to perform abortions, and conducting research using fetal tissue — came in the context of making complex medical decisions. But those are calls the candidate, who is running as ardently anti-abortion, stands by today, positions he argues are not out of step with being personally pro-life. And they are positions his communications director defended in an interview using language favored by advocates for abortion.

“He believes in quality medical care, No. 1, and secondly, he believes in people making their own decisions based on facts and information,”
Click to expand...

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/ben-carson-abortion-stance-121456
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
It has nothing to do with 'just money,' and this was clearly spelled out for you...so stop wasting our time...that $ provides security and safety for a family. It provides food for the table. It enables living in a cleaner, safer neighborhood, it enables finishing an education, developing a career over an hourly job, etc...all things that lead to increasing a woman's chances of a better future and being able to contribute more to society.

You are unable to see anything further than the end of your nose on your face....so a few of us have written all this out for you...and you are unable to comprehend it. This is clearly an sign of a limited mind. As such, the rest of your 'conclusions' are also *dismissed.* You have not proven yourself capable yet of understanding much of anything complex.
Click to expand...

You do realize the government has social programs that prevent these women from falling beneath the cracks, right Lursa?

Education is FREE
School lunch is FREE
Public housing if FREE
These women are entitled to child support and many other government programs and subsidies.

The case you are making is just not true, not true at all.
 
DebateChallenge said:
I've heard this argument that says men shouldn't be involved in the abortion debate since men don't get pregnant. It doesn't matter if a man is pro choice or pro life men should not be involved. I've heard this argument being made by people in the pro choice crowd but I've never heard anybody from the pro life crowd take this position. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Neither men nor women should take any position that restricts the right of women to control their own bodies. It is just that when men do it it is even more hypocritical since they have no skin in the game.
 
Bucky said:
You do realize the government has social programs that prevent these women from falling beneath the cracks, right Lursa?

Education is FREE
School lunch is FREE
Public housing if FREE
These women are entitled to child support and many other government programs and subsidies.

The case you are making is just not true, not true at all.
Click to expand...
You do realize:

Denial of abortion leads to economic hardship for low-income women

For women denied abortions, public-assistance programs failed to make up for the cost of a new baby and to pull households out of poverty, the study found.
Click to expand...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...c-hardship-for-low-income-women-idUSKBN1F731Z
 
Bucky said:
You do realize the government has social programs that prevent these women from falling beneath the cracks, right Lursa?

Education is FREE
School lunch is FREE
Public housing if FREE
These women are entitled to child support and many other government programs and subsidies.

The case you are making is just not true, not true at all.
Click to expand...

So that they can "suck on the Govt. teat" is the excuse for restricting a women's rights? LOL That's a new one.
 
iguanaman said:
So that they can "suck on the Govt. teat" is the excuse for restricting a women's rights? LOL That's a new one.
Click to expand...

Iguanaman I have already stated the war in the womb is a misguided fight by liberals. They shouldn't be fighting for abortions but the REAL PROBLEM.
 
Bucky said:
Thank you minnie616. So the issue is not actually abortions. It is public-assitance programs.

FYI if you are going to make this an anti-U.S thread guess what, women have abortions in socialists countries as well. What excuse do they have when they are swimming in socialist programs that are presumably superior than those in the United States?
Click to expand...

How could you possibly know the reason that a women does not want to give birth to a child and why should you decide for her?
 
Bucky said:
Iguanaman I have already stated the war in the womb is a misguided fight by liberals. They shouldn't be fighting for abortions but the REAL PROBLEM.
Click to expand...

The "war" is about a women's rights that you want taken away. Stop doing that and the war is over.
 
iguanaman said:
How could you possibly know the reason that a women does not want to give birth to a child and why should you decide for her?
Click to expand...

Based on what the women say.

This is not rocket science.

Asking that is like asking why do people have sex.
 
Bucky said:
You do realize the government has social programs that prevent these women from falling beneath the cracks, right Lursa?

Education is FREE
School lunch is FREE
Public housing if FREE
These women are entitled to child support and many other government programs and subsidies.

The case you are making is just not true, not true at all.
Click to expand...

So you are suggesting that women just go on welfare? Welfare helps you survive but it's still not a very good way to live. And it's just taking more and more $$ from the taxpayers. And you are supporting that! Just look at my signture. What is wrong with you? Most people know that THAT is wrong unless you have no choice. And a woman has CHOICE.

So raise a kid on welfare, food stamps, miss out on your education and maybe never get back to it, etc. And it's been proven that kids raised in poverty have a much higher risk of juvenile delinquency, become criminals, not finishing High School, fewer go to college, and in the end fewer reach their potentials in life.

Here's a HUGE obvious difference between pro-life people and pro-choice people:

Pro-lifers believe in quantity of life, pro-choice people believe in quality of life.

You just want more boot on the ground, more mouths to feed...I want the people we DO have to have a better life, period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom