• 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!

When its too late for an abortion

Waddy said:
Everything has risks. But the vast majority of births don't kill the mother or permanently injure her.
Click to expand...

What risks does the govt force you to take against your will?

That's what making abortion illegal amounts to. So, what's your answer? Then I'll ask you to explain how it would be Constitutional.
 
Waddy said:
All children matter, even older ones. And yes, foster care can be tragic. But our topic is abortion, which means NEWBORN babies. There are NOT 100,000 healthy NEWBORN babies out there in some kind of hellish foster care; but there are long waits for adoptive parents to get that call. Often years of waiting.
Click to expand...

And you have not acknowledge this fact: that for every (preferable as you claim) healthy newborn added to that huge adoption pool, it means there is less chance that one of those 100,000 waiting will get a home. You are an advocate for actually producing MORE unwanted and unaffordable kids while other kids are waiting and hoping and suffering. You are advocating the encouragement of producing these kids *unnecessarily* if the mother doesnt want it. It's disgusting, cruel, and unethical. The unborn know nothing...there is no cruelty or suffering for them...only those already waiting.
 
Lursa said:
What risks does the govt force you to take against your will?

That's what making abortion illegal amounts to. So, what's your answer? Then I'll ask you to explain how it would be Constitutional.
Click to expand...

The government forcefully drafted me into the military against my will. they made me take an oath that I would lay down my life for my country.

And, BTW, I haven't advocated that abortion be made illegal. What I do contend is that abortion is the killing of human life, that it is the killing of one's offspring, and unless absolutely necessary it is an immoral thing to do. As with most things in the modern world, government should regulate it as such.
 
Lursa said:
And you have not acknowledge this fact: that for every (preferable as you claim) healthy newborn added to that huge adoption pool, it means there is less chance that one of those 100,000 waiting will get a home. You are an advocate for actually producing MORE unwanted and unaffordable kids while other kids are waiting and hoping and suffering. You are advocating the encouragement of producing these kids *unnecessarily* if the mother doesnt want it. It's disgusting, cruel, and unethical. The unborn know nothing...there is no cruelty or suffering for them...only those already waiting.
Click to expand...

Don't kid yourself; those older kids ain't gonna get adopted by parents who want a newborn. Those adoptive parents are already waiting years to get that newborn; if they were going to adopt older kids it would already be happening. Those are two different markets.
 
Waddy said:
The government forcefully drafted me into the military against my will. they made me take an oath that I would lay down my life for my country.

And, BTW, I haven't advocated that abortion be made illegal. What I do contend is that abortion is the killing of human life, that it is the killing of one's offspring, and unless absolutely necessary it is an immoral thing to do. As with most things in the modern world, government should regulate it as such.
Click to expand...

Well, you got the only one that I know of, the draft. But there are reasons of national security for that (even tho I am against the draft also).

And right...you believe it's immoral. And I believe that in order to end what you consider 'immoral' would result in a greater harm, a greater immorality...the use of govt force to make women remain pregnant against their will.

So you believe that the unborn are more important than the entirety of a born person's life, bodily sovereignty, self-determination? Yes?

Why is the unborn MORE entitled to those exact same things then? You support use of force to take those from a woman (up to and including her life)...in order to give them to the unborn. Can you explain why?
 
Waddy said:
Don't kid yourself; those older kids ain't gonna get adopted by parents who want a newborn. Those adoptive parents are already waiting years to get that newborn; if they were going to adopt older kids it would already be happening. Those are two different markets.
Click to expand...

If the newborns werent available...then the older kids have a better chance at being adopted.

You still havent justified encouraging the birth of unnecessary, unwanted, unaffordable kids...many born are born to women that dont stop smoking, drinking, drugging. They arent born 'perfect.' And yet...here you are, encouraging women *that dont want a kid and wont stop their habit* to have kids that people wont adopt.

And again, from my experience viewing the foster care system in my church group AND my parents who took in special needs infants as foster babies...there are loads of them out there. Foster homes are full of them...why would you encourage them to be born when they have nowhere to go? Pregnancy is the path of least resistance...once one of these addicts or drunks gets pregnant, if she does nothing...she gives birth (or has a miscarriage).

I've seen them...kids that are born blind, deaf, severely mentally and physically challenged (all in the same kid)...that once they grow too big for loving foster parents to lift and move and change their diapers...they end up in state facilities, stored like cordwood.

You hold zero moral High Ground here, whether you agree with me or not.
 
Waddy said:
You know the difference between a baby and a fetus? One is wanted but the other is not.
Click to expand...

That would make ALL pregnancies unwanted, as EVERY baby born was at one stage of development a fetus.

Is a child a NEED or a WANT?
 
Waddy said:
What I do contend is that abortion is the killing of human life, that it is the killing of one's offspring, and unless absolutely necessary it is an immoral thing to do. As with most things in the modern world, government should regulate it as such.
Click to expand...

Yet you still cant support that with any facts, morality is subjective and always a failed postilion for this topic.
 
Waddy said:
Everything has risks. But the vast majority of births don't kill the mother or permanently injure her.
Click to expand...
If I did not have a really good OBGYN and good insurance and personal resources.....my guess is that I would be on dialysis or dead.

Most women who choose abortion are without such resources. We will never know how many of these underinsured women with less than desirable access to health care and poor personal resources would have suffered severe complications.

I am just glad I was in the position to insure I had a clinician that was experienced enough to catch so subtle signs . I was am glad that I was not pushed into a overburdened, understaffed county/medicaid clinic that was so rushed they would have missed early signs of my complications. Most women who chose abortion have poor personal resources. Makes getting through pregnancy even riskier.
 
Waddy said:
You know the difference between a baby and a fetus? One is wanted but the other is not.
Click to expand...

I had a zygote, embryo, fetus then a baby.

And now I have a fine young man. Except when the asshole forgets to take out the trash.

Why is the word "fetus" so abhorrent to you? Weird.

Does science scare you?
 
Waddy said:
The government forcefully drafted me into the military against my will. they made me take an oath that I would lay down my life for my country.

And, BTW, I haven't advocated that abortion be made illegal. What I do contend is that abortion is the killing of human life, that it is the killing of one's offspring, and unless absolutely necessary it is an immoral thing to do. As with most things in the modern world, government should regulate it as such.
Click to expand...

Abortion is more like stopping production prior to completion, at the labourers discretion.
Once the product has left the factory, birth that is, the killing of ones offspring is illegal.
 
Lursa said:
Well, you got the only one that I know of, the draft. But there are reasons of national security for that (even tho I am against the draft also).

And right...you believe it's immoral. And I believe that in order to end what you consider 'immoral' would result in a greater harm, a greater immorality...the use of govt force to make women remain pregnant against their will.

So you believe that the unborn are more important than the entirety of a born person's life, bodily sovereignty, self-determination? Yes?

Why is the unborn MORE entitled to those exact same things then? You support use of force to take those from a woman (up to and including her life)...in order to give them to the unborn. Can you explain why?
Click to expand...

What "use of force" have I advocated? That's a straw man argument. I said I haven't advocated to make abortion illegal, just under most instances it is immoral. But yes, after becoming pregnant it's not about you or your rights anymore. You have a higher duty to birth the child you conceived, unless it has severe defects that preclude survival, or doing so would seriously endanger your health.
 
year2late said:
If I did not have a really good OBGYN and good insurance and personal resources.....my guess is that I would be on dialysis or dead.

Most women who choose abortion are without such resources. We will never know how many of these underinsured women with less than desirable access to health care and poor personal resources would have suffered severe complications.

I am just glad I was in the position to insure I had a clinician that was experienced enough to catch so subtle signs . I was am glad that I was not pushed into a overburdened, understaffed county/medicaid clinic that was so rushed they would have missed early signs of my complications. Most women who chose abortion have poor personal resources. Makes getting through pregnancy even riskier.
Click to expand...

good for you.
 
Individual said:
Abortion is more like stopping production prior to completion, at the labourers discretion.
Once the product has left the factory, birth that is, the killing of ones offspring is illegal.
Click to expand...

no it's not. We just saw that it's perfectly legal to kill babies who survive abortions.
 
Waddy said:
no it's not. We just saw that it's perfectly legal to kill babies who survive abortions.
Click to expand...

LMAO and the retarded lies continue :lamo
 
Waddy said:
no it's not. We just saw that it's perfectly legal to kill babies who survive abortions.
Click to expand...

I missed that, what is it you're referring to?
 
Waddy said:
good for you.
Click to expand...

Bad for the woman with substandard access to health care and poor personal/social resources who may be forced to continue pregnancy and suffers serious health isssues or death as a result.

My choice to continue my pregnancy. Not yours.
 
Waddy said:
You know the difference between a baby and a fetus? One is wanted but the other is not.
Click to expand...

Or, you know, medical terms actually mean something when you're not trying to make an appeal to emotion fallacy, which is as ever-present as ever.

Waddy said:
All children matter, even older ones. And yes, foster care can be tragic. But our topic is abortion, which means NEWBORN babies. There are NOT 100,000 healthy NEWBORN babies out there in some kind of hellish foster care; but there are long waits for adoptive parents to get that call. Often years of waiting.
Click to expand...

I would just like to point out that you are the one that brought up how many children are out there for adoption. Like I said, you moved the goal posts. The topic at hand is children, abortion and what happens to them after birth. Adoption is entirely relevant to this conversation, especially if you're going to go down the route of "there are alternatives to abortion". Additionally, for all those people who are "waiting" for the call that there's going to be a newborn for adoption, I would call those people out as well, considering there ARE 100K children/babies/infants/toddlers/pre-adolescents/teens/young adults to be adopted. I would even go so far as to call someone like that selfish and self-centered. (I can already hear the huffing "How dare he call someone who wants a newborn selfish!")

~~

I do respect you for saying that you aren't lobbying that anything happen to these women or that you think it should be illegal. You just find it immoral. Beyond that, I think there isn't a lot for me to continue on with this conversation with you. Neither of us is going to convince the other to change their thought processes. You're emotionally involved, as am I.
 
Individual said:
Abortion is more like stopping production prior to completion, at the labourers discretion.
Once the product has left the factory, birth that is, the killing of ones offspring is illegal.
Click to expand...

I like that!
 
Waddy said:
What "use of force" have I advocated? That's a straw man argument. I said I haven't advocated to make abortion illegal, just under most instances it is immoral. But yes, after becoming pregnant it's not about you or your rights anymore. You have a higher duty to birth the child you conceived, unless it has severe defects that preclude survival, or doing so would seriously endanger your health.
Click to expand...

Who says? What authority? Not US laws or the Constitution or multiple SCOTUS decisions (made with conservative benches)

The higher duty is to the contributing member of society. The unborn may never achieve that, it may be miscarried, it may be born severely defective.

The higher duty is to the currently reproductively successful adult who can then, in the future, reproduce at a more advantageous time. A mother who cannot support a child or care for it responsibly would be a burden to society, at least in the short term and possibly longer.

The higher duty is to the conscious woman who would know and suffer pain and harm (physically, socially, legally) if she were not allowed to have an abortion. The higher duty would NOT be to add to her burden and pain.

Interesting phrasing 'higher duty.' So I ran with it, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom