• 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!

Pro-life or anti-choice?

code1211 said:
Accepting that the legal right to an abortion exists, I take issue with the moral right also existing.

The only way to prove that right is to prove that there is no unique, individual humanity in the life that is being ended. Of course, this is absurd.

Since the more mighty, the pregnant woman, is ending the life of the less mighty with impunity, in this case the unborn, might makes right.

..........
Click to expand...

Why is it that might makes right in every endeavor you can name: war, politics, elections, business, sports, wealth, intellectual games and pursuits, Realestate, mates, promotions, sales, religion, popular culture, crime, police. In every situation strength, intelligence, and ability to prevail are applauded and rewarded. Morality is a minor consideration if considered at all. But when it comes to abortion women's intelligence is dismissed. Her strength is denigrated as evil. Her ability to prevail is denied and a stranger's morality is imposed upon her and becomes the most important issue about abortion.

How another child will effect the family is dismissed as irrelevant.
Already born children are irrelevant
The woman herself is is irrelevant
The law is dismissed as immoral
The makers of the law are dismissed as wrong or incompetent
The constitution is denied.
A dubious morality concocted by two punitive, paternalistic theocratic religions is imposted on abortion. There is more "morality" attached to abortion than there is to prostitution.
 
Peter King said:
more religious spluttering about a book that is based on a non-starter (the existence of god).

But while this is a nice discussion in the religion thread, nothing in this book should have any bearing on the rights of women to choose.
Click to expand...

the greatest book of all time should have some ways on how to govern
 
weaver2 said:
The fetus is non-sentient, unaware, unable to feel anything, unable to think since the brain and the spinal cord and not yet connected, unable to live unattached to the placenta, about a maximum of 2 inches long. Why does it have any rights? Who gave it rights?
Click to expand...

Does the legal accommodation given to the mother allowing her to legally end the life of the unborn terminate when the unborn's description is longer than 2 inches?

When the unborn can feel pain?

When the brain and spinal cord develop into a joined system?

Does the unborn immediately become entirely able to survive in today's world at the moment of birth? Capabilities seem pretty limited in children for months following the birth. Some might argue that limitations continue for years or decades.

Do the physical characteristics you list have any impact on the status of legal protections recognized for the unborn?
 
soylentgreen said:
Better to say it is not your intent rather than it is not your position.

Yes, I understand that you are trying to make an argument based on the idea that in the case of a woman deciding to have an abortion it is might that gives her the power to do so rather than morality.

But on the other hand it is the might of the government that will enforce that abortions do not happen rather than a personal decision made on the basis of a persons beliefs and morals.

You do understand that the act of giving birth can be fatal for a woman. It was one of the reasons that in the past men chose young brides in their early teens as the younger a woman was then the more likely she would survive giving birth. It is one of the reasons a woman was considered a spinster after the age of mid twenties as giving birth at that late age would lower the odds of survival considerably.

We now live in an age where a women's life is not so disposable. Man and man made laws no longer can claim a moral right to answering the question of abortion. They can only force women to stay pregnant.
Click to expand...

Your position on this is polluted by sexism and various other ism's that depart from the actual issue. You failed to answer the only question that I asked.

Were you talking to me or to someone else?

Thanks for for you time and effort.
 
Peter King said:
What moral right? In the early part of the pregnancy (far before viability is even closely an issue) the only person who has moral rights is the mother. And the only person involved in an abortion is the mother so that isn't that strange that only she has moral rights.
Click to expand...

Soooo...

Peter King is now the arbiter of which entity on the planet has moral rights and which does not.

Thank you!

That clears up this entire issue.
 
weaver2 said:
Why is it that might makes right in every endeavor you can name: war, politics, elections, business, sports, wealth, intellectual games and pursuits, Realestate, mates, promotions, sales, religion, popular culture, crime, police. In every situation strength, intelligence, and ability to prevail are applauded and rewarded. Morality is a minor consideration if considered at all. But when it comes to abortion women's intelligence is dismissed. Her strength is denigrated as evil. Her ability to prevail is denied and a stranger's morality is imposed upon her and becomes the most important issue about abortion.

How another child will effect the family is dismissed as irrelevant.
Already born children are irrelevant
The woman herself is is irrelevant
The law is dismissed as immoral
The makers of the law are dismissed as wrong or incompetent
The constitution is denied.
A dubious morality concocted by two punitive, paternalistic theocratic religions is imposted on abortion. There is more "morality" attached to abortion than there is to prostitution.
Click to expand...

Don't you just hate it when a poster changes your words, etc.?
 
code1211 said:
Your position on this is polluted by sexism and various other ism's that depart from the actual issue. You failed to answer the only question that I asked.

Were you talking to me or to someone else?

Thanks for for you time and effort.
Click to expand...

I did answer but you choose to ignore.
 
code1211 said:
Don't you just hate it when a poster changes your words, etc.?
Click to expand...

Your words were:
Since the more mighty, the pregnant woman, is ending the life of the less mighty with impunity, in this case the unborn, might makes right.
Click to expand...
How are they changed if I ask you why might is OK in every endeavor but when it came to abortion might is wrong and your morality is the only right? What kind of answer do you expect when you dismiss women's "might", her intelligence, concerns about her ability and the ability of her family to provide a loving and caring life for a child and her strength in making a decision to abort as the best choice for all.

You want to pretend that the only thing that matters in a pregnancy is the life of the fetus? That women are immoral monsters for aborting. That your morality is the higher and better good. Fine. Just don't act all annoyed when you get push back from the women that bear the child, that raise the families, that have to decide what is right for everyone, not just the fetus.

Deal with the pro-life women that publicly state abortion is immoral then sneak off and abort their fetuses when they are unwanted before you start heaping scorn on the pro-choice women who aren't hypocrites.
 
code1211 said:
Soooo...

Peter King is now the arbiter of which entity on the planet has moral rights and which does not.

Thank you!

That clears up this entire issue.
Click to expand...

Nope, women have that right. The person who wants to decide that women have no rights when a zygote comes in her uterus is you, not me. Nice try though, a failed try but nice try nonetheless.
 
code1211 said:
Does the legal accommodation given to the mother allowing her to legally end the life of the unborn terminate when the unborn's description is longer than 2 inches?

When the unborn can feel pain?

When the brain and spinal cord develop into a joined system?

Does the unborn immediately become entirely able to survive in today's world at the moment of birth? Capabilities seem pretty limited in children for months following the birth. Some might argue that limitations continue for years or decades.

Do the physical characteristics you list have any impact on the status of legal protections recognized for the unborn?
Click to expand...

Why are you answering her questions with questions? How about answering hers first?
 
TypicalRussian said:
i agree but the Bible isnt fantasy
Click to expand...

I know differently, but we will never agree to that I know. But if you believe the bible to be true, why does it support the abortion of a fetus? And why does it slaughter so many women (including pregnant ones) and children?
 
soylentgreen said:
I did answer but you choose to ignore.
Click to expand...

For people who appreciate a lack of an answer as you withhold it, I'm sure that lack of an answer as it is withheld is appreciated.
 
weaver2 said:
Your words were:
How are they changed if I ask you why might is OK in every endeavor but when it came to abortion might is wrong and your morality is the only right? What kind of answer do you expect when you dismiss women's "might", her intelligence, concerns about her ability and the ability of her family to provide a loving and caring life for a child and her strength in making a decision to abort as the best choice for all.

You want to pretend that the only thing that matters in a pregnancy is the life of the fetus? That women are immoral monsters for aborting. That your morality is the higher and better good. Fine. Just don't act all annoyed when you get push back from the women that bear the child, that raise the families, that have to decide what is right for everyone, not just the fetus.

Deal with the pro-life women that publicly state abortion is immoral then sneak off and abort their fetuses when they are unwanted before you start heaping scorn on the pro-choice women who aren't hypocrites.
Click to expand...

You omitted the rest of the words.

Not much different than anyone else editing away most of a thought and presenting the fragment as if it stands alone.
 
Peter King said:
Nope, women have that right. The person who wants to decide that women have no rights when a zygote comes in her uterus is you, not me. Nice try though, a failed try but nice try nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Oh! Now you have backed away from the word moral?

That's good.

We humans do best with "legal".

"Moral" seems to be an elusive and hurtful concept in our hands.

Men and mankind seem best suited to creating and applying rules that can be summed as "Rules for thee, but not for me".

Morality seems to exist on a higher plane than we can effectively reach.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Why are you answering her questions with questions? How about answering hers first?
Click to expand...

Okay.

We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these rights are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Does that help?
 
code1211 said:
Oh! Now you have backed away from the word moral?

That's good.

We humans do best with "legal".

"Moral" seems to be an elusive and hurtful concept in our hands.

Men and mankind seem best suited to creating and applying rules that can be summed as "Rules for thee, but not for me".

Morality seems to exist on a higher plane than we can effectively reach.
Click to expand...

You stated:

Peter King is now the arbiter of which entity on the planet has moral rights and which does not.
Click to expand...

To which I wrote:

Nope, women have that right.
Click to expand...

Quite straight forward really, you commented that I decided about the the moral right and I wrote that it was purely down to the women.

And no, morality exists on the human plane and it is women who get to decide that.
 
code1211 said:
Okay.We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these rights are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.Does that help?
Click to expand...

Conservative Christians insist that the fetus has a right to be born and become a legal person. Their concern is the birth only. "Life" is the responsibility of the family. They are responsible for providing the necessities that promote the life of that child.

So when you warp the Declaration of Independence into resolving your abortion issue the word 'life' to you means "birth"; ie, "Among these rights are birth, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Do you really believe the men who wrote those words with the intention of creating a new nation, by engaging in war if necessary and setting up a new government were really thinking about a fetus?

Quoting the "life, liberty and pursuit" phrase is a ridiculous defense of the pro-life movement. Using it means one is completely ignorant of not only the history, the men, the political philosophy, and the intent, of the Declaration but also the social mores of the time about women and pregnancy.
 
code1211 said:
Okay.

We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these rights are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Does that help?
Click to expand...

There are no "unalienable" rights. Rights are given by society, and can be taken away. The COVID crisis is a prime example.
 
code1211 said:
For people who appreciate a lack of an answer as you withhold it, I'm sure that lack of an answer as it is withheld is appreciated.
Click to expand...

Put the question to me again because i have answered what i thought was your question.
 
code1211 said:
Okay.

We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these rights are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Does that help?
Click to expand...
So, why do you want government to replace God as the moral authority? If a woman has an abortion, it should be up to God, and to Government, to judge her, yes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom