• 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!

2 abortion providers charged with murder in Md.

Your example of "crushing the head while the body is mostly delivered" is partial birth abortion and that's illegal. Also, I don't support partial birth abortion. However, you're right about the potassium chloride thing and I didn't know that that's what you meant by "burning". My mistake. Moreover, I am pro-choice, I support improving abortion procedures to eliminate any potential pain that an unborn child might feel. Even so, the amount of pain a fetus can actually feel is still a pretty contested subject.

Yeah, I think a woman's right to choose is more important than a unborn child's right to live. Would I prefer that women not get abortions, particularly so late? Sure I do. But I think women should have the choice. And as I mentioned earlier, I think women should also have the choice to induce birth rather than have an abortion so that viable children have a chance. However, it's my understanding that, currently, women can only make that choice for medical reasons not personal ones which is a problem.

You're not protecting the mother's rights by telling her what to do and I don't believe in telling women what to do with regards to abortion. Your argument is simply a pro-life argument that's telling me that my reasons for being pro-choice aren't good enough for you. But the thing is, I don't care if they are.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Attached to a woman's body is not the same thing as being a part of a woman's body.
Click to expand...
Semantics. I think you understood what I meant within the context of the topic.

Exactly, which is why I don't support telling women what to do based on someone else's subjective opinions.
 
Wessexman said:
Actually life can generally be said to start at conception, because that is when a new being begins. It doesn't really make sense for it to begin any other time. The argument is generally over personhood or when that life form is a person.
Click to expand...

and you can't prove your opinion any more than I can prove mine, or someone else can prove that life begins at birth.

which is why the issue of abortion will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction.
 
Nope, but you're free to try again.

I don't "endorse" abortion. Also, I've seen abortion videos and there are also plenty of women who have had late term abortions who are fully pro-choice.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and you can't prove your opinion any more than I can prove mine, or someone else can prove that life begins at birth.

which is why the issue of abortion will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction.
Click to expand...
Well proof means different things, but I think you can logically and in accordance with common sense show a life begins at conception, in the sense that that is the only time, reasonably, that a new, individual human being is formed. At no other time does another human being emerge, rather than traits. The real debate is over personhood, or when this being is a proper human person.
 
Wessexman said:
You seem to have mistaken freedom for choice. We are against unlimited personal choice. Personally I see what people do with their choices before I praise them for having choice.
Click to expand...

The right to decide for yourself is the definition of freedom. Without it, there is no freedom, only dictates from others.
 

Good reply.
The difference is they want to force, most even to use the power of government, to force others to do what they believe. You aren't trying to force them or anyone to do anything.
They are not "pro-life." They are pro-control over others. All pregnancies carry a risk of death to the mother - some more than others but all do. So it isn't pro-life. Minimally, they should only be called "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life."

However, you are not "pro-abortion" because you don't want to force anyone to have one. So you are "pro-choice." They are "anti-abortion."
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Freedom involves choice, but that doesn't mean freedom is only choice.
Click to expand...

Without choice there is no freedom. Choice is an inherent element of freedom.
 
joko104 said:
Without choice there is no freedom. Choice is an inherent element of freedom.
Click to expand...

I just said that. But as I also said freedom and choice are not the same thing. Choice can destroy freedom sometimes, for instance an alcoholic choice damages his freedom. It depends on how one defines freedom, though.
 

I think that if there's going to be any meaningful discussion, out of respect for the opposing side(s), the terms used should be "pro-choice" and "pro-life."
 
nota bene said:
I think that if there's going to be any meaningful discussion, out of respect for the opposing side(s), the terms used should be "pro-choice" and "pro-life."
Click to expand...

In some way or another the soft-hearted and tender souled indiviudals will get their feewing hurt. . . 'pro-choice' can be considered an insult if they're really pro-life but take a different view on how "life" should be protected.

And so on - it's semantics dickery and it doesn't matter in the end.
 
It actually does matter if you want to have an actual discussion. One of the most basic principles of social interaction is respect and if you don't respect someone in conversation, then they aren't going to hear what you're saying. So I suppose if someone is just interested pontificating, then labels don't matter, but then I have no idea why they would be here since this isn't "Pontificate Board". I mean, if someone calls me "pro-abortion", then that tells me that they have absolutely no intention of respecting my opinion. That has nothing to do with feelings and everything to do with assessing who is and isn't serious about discussion.
 

I have no problem with people using the term that THEY feel comfortable with. . . the people who get hung up on terms and will attack *the terms* (especially if the terms are socially accepted terms like pro-life, pro-choice) then that is just intentional derailment and serves no purpose.

As long as I can discern who is being discussed and what they're talking about I'm fine with anything - I use to use the term slug just to prove the point that people can get TOO hung up on the words themselves and ignore the noted context just to be stingy and difficult.
 
Really. So how people address you doesn't give you any insight into their perspective or their willingness to have respectful discussion?
 
theplaydrive said:
Really. So how people address you doesn't give you any insight into their perspective or their willingness to have respectful discussion?
Click to expand...

Honestly: I don't take the terms personally like I've been stabbed in the back by words. . . I'll respond to anything - as is obvious by my stupidity in engaging Tigger al lthe time. If someone is obviously not up for discussion I'll eventually ignore them.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not talking about taking words personally as I've already said. I'm talking about using language to discern people's perspective and willingness to participate in discussion. As in - people use language to communicate and it makes zero sense to me that someone would not understand that word choice often gives insight into someone's perspective.
 
I know that the back and forth over the semantics of the last couple of pages is riveting to say the least, but back to topic, one of the fetuses they found is 36 weeks. That is 8.5 months, or less than one month from term. Many children living today have been delivered long before that gestational age, and if the mother had come to harm that ended up killing that baby at terms far younger the criminal that did so would be charged in a court. There is precedent for this.

To those who would want to argue that 'they' don't think this, or that is of no relevance. The law is clear.

j-mac
 
Wessexman said:
Actually life can generally be said to start at conception, because that is when a new being begins. It doesn't really make sense for it to begin any other time. The argument is generally over personhood or when that life form is a person.
Click to expand...

I think that human life is eternal. The human soul has always existed, and will exist after the body dies. Life on Earth begins when the soul enters the body. Just when that happens is unknown, of course, but it doesn't seem plausible that it happens when the zygote is just a microscopic few cells. Logically it happens when the brain begins to function.

Maybe it doesn't even happen until birth, or even later, when the individual develops self awareness.

But, I have no way of knowing whether that is true or not, and neither does anyone else.
 
Pro-lifers want the unborn to have the same liberties as everyone else. Pro-choicers want liberty to be more limited.

Name calling doesn't strengthen your argument.
 
joko104 said:
The right to decide for yourself is the definition of freedom. Without it, there is no freedom, only dictates from others.
Click to expand...
We should be free to do whatever we want, except take away the freedom of others, as in abortion.
 
mpg said:
Pro-lifers want the unborn to have the same liberties as everyone else. Pro-choicers want liberty to be more limited.

Name calling doesn't strengthen your argument.
Click to expand...

Pro lifers tend to want to impose their values on the rest of society by force of law.

Not all of them do, of course, but that does seem to be a theme: I think abortion is wrong, and you'd better share my values or I'll do my best to impose them on you.

It's not so much pro life as it is anti choice, which is anti freedom.
 

Liberals tend to want to impose their values on the rest of society by force of law.

In the 1960s you yourself might have said, "I think abortion should be legal, and you'd better share my values or I'll concoct a BS test case and take it to the Supreme Court and impose it on you."
 

But, in the 1960s, I didn't do that.

and making something legal does not imply coercion to do that thing. It just makes it legal, i.e., gives the individual the choice.

I'm kind of big on individual choice, whether or not I consider the choices made to be wise ones or not.

In fact, I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That is the purpose of government, not to impose my values on someone else, and not for someone else to impose their values on me.

Just as long as the choices others make don't impinge on my liberty, I'm good with it. Does that make me a liberal?

Were the original writers of the above liberals too?

If so, I'm proud to be a liberal.
 

They were classical liberals. And they valued life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…