• 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!

A Question To Conservatives That Want To Ban All Abortions

Answering the thrust of the question and not the stated loaded one:

Simple - don't return evil for evil. The child inside you is innocent and doesn't deserve death. Give birth and allow the child to be adopted, or keep the child. We will love you and support you no matter what. Then, move on with your life with a clear conscience.
All those things are to be applied to the woman 'that believes the same.' I think that's correct.

OTOH, IMO it never outweighs the evil of other people demanding it of her by use of force (which includes laws denying her a safer medical procedure.) Since there is a significant risk of dying and esp. lifelong health damage, and it's not predictable, such people are choosing to risk her life to favor that of the unborn. IMO, that decision is not theirs to make. That is evil.
 
I didnt necessarily say that population wasnt a valid interest, meaning numbers, or if I did, I mistyped. Because population is just about numbers and I did describe that numbers would not be an issue since there is a vast population of immigrants that would be able to fulfill those numbers and roles.
Well, I would buy that excuse if you wouldn't keep arguing the point.

Yes, migrants can, and often do, reproduce too. Hence the state's interest in any case. Your idea of workers slaving away in low income jobs does not stop them from having kids, nor does it absolve the state of its obligation to their children, to offer them education, citizenship, and future work/opportunity.
(I meant that population wasnt a valid argument for state's interest because the state could easily fulfill that interest with legal immigration. My bad if I was unclear.)

And of course, a state could and would take just as much interest in an immigrant population as a natural born one, right? If not, why not? The investments seem pretty equal. No? Explain otherwise.


In no way did you refute that legal immigrants wouldnt/couldnt fulfill the same roles as natural born citizens, as the 'population' of a state, satisfying that interest. That would be a good next step, if you can.

We werent discussing a state having an interest in encouraging legal immigration. LOL and we know that wouldnt be an issue at all. There are millions desiring to move here. We were discussing "population" as state's interest and legal immigrants would fulfill that interest. If not, please explain why. You did not do so thus far.
Well I don't what point you're trying to bring up here. You think every migrant should be sterilized or something? You're not really making much of a refutation. Yes, a state has interest in the growth of its population, including those who come here and have families. Your migrant status is entirely irrelevant to the point.
 
Well, I would buy that excuse if you wouldn't keep arguing the point.

Yes, migrants can, and often do, reproduce too. Hence the state's interest in any case. Your idea of workers slaving away in low income jobs does not stop them from having kids, nor does it absolve the state of its obligation to their children, to offer them education, citizenship, and future work/opportunity.
It's not even about them reproducing...it's about them moving to the state and becoming part of 'the population.'

And what excuse? My mistyping? I clarified it because you didnt answer it the way that addressed the population/abortion aspect. Why are you so touchy about just answering it? If the point had been adequately addressed, I wouldnt bring it up again. IMO you are trying to avoid doing so. Why?

Well I don't what point you're trying to bring up here. You think every migrant should be sterilized or something? You're not really making much of a refutation. Yes, a state has interest in the growth of its population, including those who come here and have families. Your migrant status is entirely irrelevant to the point.
OK, if that is true (the bold)...then why is 'population' a valid 'states' best interest?' If the state has options for growing its population (legal immigrants)...what is the justification for using it to restrict abortion?
 
It's not even about them reproducing...it's about them moving to the state and becoming part of 'the population.'
....and they're going to move and just not reproduce? You realize migrants, especially from poorer countries, have far more children than citizens who have been here for many generations. Those from more traditional cultures have as many as 4 or more kids. If you want the state to rely on immigration, then the state will surely have any greater interest in their population numbers, not less.
And what excuse? My mistyping? I clarified it because you didnt answer it the way that addressed the population/abortion aspect. Why are you so touchy about just answering it? If the point had been adequately addressed, I wouldnt bring it up again. IMO you are trying to avoid doing so. Why?
you're the one that keeps arguing it. why exactly, is my answer so objectionable to you? You never really lay that out, you just try to introduce other things that are either irrelevant, or hurt your own case.
OK, if that is true (the bold)...then why is 'population' a valid 'states' best interest?' If the state has options for growing its population (legal immigrants)...what is the justification for using it to restrict abortion?
well, that's just the thing, it's not an option for all governments. You certainly cant count on immigration if your state/country is poorer and people are leaving. A state can only rely on immigration if there is, in fact, immigration going on. Even then, it's rarely static. It's really a point of conceit to think that everyone in the world just is trying to live where you live, when in truth, it's other factors that push-pull people to migrate, and when those factors go away, migration ceases, like the european migrations of the 1800's.

A state is much better set for the long term if they turn to their own to make sure their own are making stable, vibrant families. Immigration is often used as a bandaid over more long term, often debilitating, cultural problems

in any case, restricting abortion has little to do with that. A state always has general interest in its population figures, of which abortion is but a point on that overall dimension. if abortion is being used en masse, then it speaks less to laws, and more to various cultural issues that are affecting the population.
 
....and they're going to move and just not reproduce? You realize migrants, especially from poorer countries, have far more children than citizens who have been here for many generations. Those from more traditional cultures have as many as 4 or more kids. If you want the state to rely on immigration, then the state will surely have any greater interest in their population numbers, not less.

Of course they are. Again, why are you keeping on about immigrants reproducing? Here: immigrants come here as individuals...just like babies are born into a society...and will then create families and also reproduce. Babies born into the society will do the same thing. IMO, their affects on society then, are the same.

This is why I have argued that the 'population' as a valid 'states' interest' does not apply to abortion. Because there are millions of immigrants that can fulfill the same numerical value in the population as new babies without forcing restrictions on women. And can certainly fill all roles.

Can you understand that now? Do you agree or would you like to counter argue? I'm open to either, I'm not sure why you are making this contentious.

you're the one that keeps arguing it. why exactly, is my answer so objectionable to you? You never really lay that out, you just try to introduce other things that are either irrelevant, or hurt your own case.

well, that's just the thing, it's not an option for all governments. You certainly cant count on immigration if your state/country is poorer and people are leaving. A state can only rely on immigration if there is, in fact, immigration going on. Even then, it's rarely static. It's really a point of conceit to think that everyone in the world just is trying to live where you live, when in truth, it's other factors that push-pull people to migrate, and when those factors go away, migration ceases, like the european migrations of the 1800's.

Sure. And states that are concerned regarding their population size can offer all sorts of incentives (and save on welfare for single mothers who'd have been forced to give birth).

States can control who they give residence to...controlling immigration based on jobs, skills, etc.

And immigration laws can be changed, and yes immigration is rarely static. Meaning it's ongoing, all the time, pretty much thru all history.

You make it sound like a state can 'depend' on the babies born (just in the 3rd trimester) in terms of some numerical value to support the population? Come on! Those abortions are very rare to begin with and that's the only current legal restriction,


A state is much better set for the long term if they turn to their own to make sure their own are making stable, vibrant families. Immigration is often used as a bandaid over more long term, often debilitating, cultural problems
You'll have to prove both statements. I disagree. See what I wrote above about the low numbers of 3rd trimester abortions.

And this country was born and based on immigration.
 
Of course they are. Again, why are you keeping on about immigrants reproducing? Here: immigrants come here as individuals...just like babies are born into a society...and will then create families and also reproduce. Babies born into the society will do the same thing. IMO, their affects on society then, are the same.
because you're not getting it. People reproduce, you see, and a state has an interest in the growth and development of its people. Immigration doesn't change that situation ever. 100% of the population could be migrants, and the state would still have an interest in the sons and daughters of the future generation. your insistence on talking about immigration is futile to that point.
This is why I have argued that the 'population' as a valid 'states' interest' does not apply to abortion. Because there are millions of immigrants that can fulfill the same numerical value in the population as new babies without forcing restrictions on women. And can certainly fill all roles.

Can you understand that now? Do you agree or would you like to counter argue? I'm open to either, I'm not sure why you are making this contentious.



Sure. And states that are concerned regarding their population size can offer all sorts of incentives (and save on welfare for single mothers who'd have been forced to give birth).

States can control who they give residence to...controlling immigration based on jobs, skills, etc.

And immigration laws can be changed, and yes immigration is rarely static. Meaning it's ongoing, all the time, pretty much thru all history.

You make it sound like a state can 'depend' on the babies born (just in the 3rd trimester) in terms of some numerical value to support the population? Come on! Those abortions are very rare to begin with and that's the only current legal restriction,



You'll have to prove both statements. I disagree. See what I wrote above about the low numbers of 3rd trimester abortions.
I've already proven my point already. I never said you had to be pro choice or pro-life or whatever you want. It's really a simple concept that, at this point, you're just arguing to argue.

And this country was born and based on immigration.
colonization actually, but it wouldn't surprise me if you view it as the same thing.
 
It's my hot body. I do what I want with it
 
because you're not getting it. People reproduce, you see, and a state has an interest in the growth and development of its people. Immigration doesn't change that situation ever.
Agreed, they are an integral part of the entire population.

100% of the population could be migrants, and the state would still have an interest in the sons and daughters of the future generation. your insistence on talking about immigration is futile to that point.
Why? Please explain that distinction? That seems like unfounded opinion and without more than that, it's not a counterargument. The kids of immigrants are also 'sons and daughters of the future gen."

It doesnt support the argument that "population" is the reason for a 'states' interest' in that unborn. What is 'population' if not numbers? Until you start to break it down into roles, skills, ages, other demographics. Is that your intent?

Esp. since I made a case regarding the very low numbers of 3rd trimester abortions....divided by 50 states? Lucky if it added up to 100/state.

So you are trying to use a very very small # as part of your counter argument. You have not made a valid counter argument...but again, I'm still open to one.

I've already proven my point already. I never said you had to be pro choice or pro-life or whatever you want. It's really a simple concept that, at this point, you're just arguing to argue.

I havent mentioned or even implied anything about pro life/choice. Now you are trying to move the goal posts. I havent been judgemental in the least.

colonization actually, but it wouldn't surprise me if you view it as the same thing.
Heh, by foreigners that immigrated here. And then of course, I'm sure you're not forgetting about the rest of our long and productive immigrant history, much of it coming thru Ellis Island. That diversity is what our industrialization and an era of innovation were built on. You made several negative statements about immigrants, ignoring the fact that many come here with much more family-oriented lifestyles. And very good work ethics.
 
Agreed, they are an integral part of the entire population.


Why? Please explain that distinction? That seems like unfounded opinion and without more than that, it's not a counterargument. The kids of immigrants are also 'sons and daughters of the future gen."

It doesnt support the argument that "population" is the reason for a 'states' interest' in that unborn. What is 'population' if not numbers? Until you start to break it down into roles, skills, ages, other demographics. Is that your intent?

Esp. since I made a case regarding the very low numbers of 3rd trimester abortions....divided by 50 states? Lucky if it added up to 100/state.

So you are trying to use a very very small # as part of your counter argument. You have not made a valid counter argument...but again, I'm still open to one.



I havent mentioned or even implied anything about pro life/choice. Now you are trying to move the goal posts. I havent been judgemental in the least.


Heh, by foreigners that immigrated here. And then of course, I'm sure you're not forgetting about the rest of our long and productive immigrant history, much of it coming thru Ellis Island. That diversity is what our industrialization and an era of innovation were built on. You made several negative statements about immigrants, ignoring the fact that many come here with much more family-oriented lifestyles. And very good work ethics.
...really? why would a state be interested in the future generation? Thats your question?
 
...really? why would a state be interested in the future generation? Thats your question?
No it's not the question. I was asking that you make a distinction between the "sons and daughters of future gens" of immigrants and current citizens. If there isnt one, then there didnt seem to be a reason to mention it, since 'sons and daughters of future gens' will all be part of the population...obviously. Didnt seem worth mentioning.

See? It's right here:
Agreed, they are an integral part of the entire population.

Why? Please explain that distinction? That seems like unfounded opinion and without more than that, it's not a counterargument. The kids of immigrants are also 'sons and daughters of the future gen."

Ok now? You can answer what I actually asked in that post?
 
No it's not the question. I was asking that you make a distinction between the "sons and daughters of future gens" of immigrants and current citizens. If there isnt one, then there didnt seem to be a reason to mention it, since 'sons and daughters of future gens' will all be part of the population...obviously. Didnt seem worth mentioning.

See? It's right here:


Ok now? You can answer what I actually asked in that post?
I mentioned it because you seemed to think there was a difference. In this matter, there is no difference. Immigrants, including illegal immigrants, have children the same way natural born citizens do, and the state has to do something with them so that they can grow up productive and not be a tax burden on the rest of the community. I pointed this out so that you would see there is no difference in this matter.

so the state has an interest regardless if you want to replace citizens with migrants. There is no example you could bring up that would negate the state's interest here, save for maybe if you're anarchist and you don't believe in governments at all.
 
I mentioned it because you seemed to think there was a difference. In this matter, there is no difference. Immigrants, including illegal immigrants, have children the same way natural born citizens do, and the state has to do something with them so that they can grow up productive and not be a tax burden on the rest of the community. I pointed this out so that you would see there is no difference in this matter.

so the state has an interest regardless if you want to replace citizens with migrants. There is no example you could bring up that would negate the state's interest here, save for maybe if you're anarchist and you don't believe in governments at all.
If the state actually had an interest in natural born citizens growing up and not being a tax burden, they would certainly not want women who don't want their pregnancies to give birth. They would instead want to help women who do want their pregnancies to give birth and have good enough lives that they can raise their kids adequately so they can grow up to be productive and not a tax burden.

Populationally, when women are denied wanted abortions and women are denied a hand up when they need it, the children do not usually turn out well and the women are more likely to end up in poverty or illness.
 
2cb53b88dc2f154fb1c4aa9d8b9785a885e1fce80a9655172466a0e4a97e63ba.jpg
So we will make a deal, compromise. You look up the pictures of aborted babies, after they've been ripped apart. Then we will agree that young girls like in your picture and women who are brutally abused and raped can obtain a medical abortion early in the 1st trimester, date can be negotiated, in the case of rapes and incest and true threat of death to the mother. These 3 situations are annually somewhere between 1.5 to 2% of the causes for unwanted pregnancies and abortions. So you can have those and we can save the rest of the innocent lives be aborted for a lack of moral compassion for life.
 
If the state actually had an interest in natural born citizens growing up and not being a tax burden, they would certainly not want women who don't want their pregnancies to give birth.
if children are growing up becoming burdens on society, then there is worse issues than abortion.

Ideally, every child would grow up to be productive citizens. The more children, the larger the tax and labour base, and the more cumulative brain power of the civilization.

Abortion takes away any opportunity for any of these things.....which is REALLY good for those politicians/leaders who want to hide the things that is dragging down the country the most.
 
I mentioned it because you seemed to think there was a difference. In this matter, there is no difference.

Yes *I* have been writing that the entire time. THere is no difference.

Immigrants, including illegal immigrants, have children the same way natural born citizens do, and the state has to do something with them so that they can grow up productive and not be a tax burden on the rest of the community. I pointed this out so that you would see there is no difference in this matter.

Again, no difference. As I kept pointing out. The bold is the same for the children of natural born citizens and immigrants.

so the state has an interest regardless if you want to replace citizens with migrants. There is no example you could bring up that would negate the state's interest here, save for maybe if you're anarchist and you don't believe in governments at all.
Yes, if the state has an interest in 'population' then immigrants fulfill the same role as natural born citizens. I never denied that the state had an interest in its population, my argument is that "population" is not a valid argument regarding any restrictions on third trimester abortions because a) there are plenty of immigrants happy to come to that state and b)
the numbers of those that would have been aborted are not significant, again 500 at most/yr.


The blue and green text refer to 2 different things. Now do you understand? If so, do you agree or do you have a counter argument?
 
if children are growing up becoming burdens on society, then there is worse issues than abortion.

Very much so.

Ideally, every child would grow up to be productive citizens. The more children, the larger the tax and labour base,

Yes.

and the more cumulative brain power of the civilization.

Sorry that doesnt indicate any kind of qualitative benefit. Intelligence has a huge range and so low IQ can negate high IQ. We can discuss why one has a more positive effect and one doesnt, if you like, or we can agree and move on.

It's similar to the argument that with more people, you get more Albert Einsteins or Maya Angelous...but you also get more Hitlers and Jim Joneses. That also tends to balance itself out to end up in a 'middle range.'


Abortion takes away any opportunity for any of these things.....which is REALLY good for those politicians/leaders who want to hide the things that is dragging down the country the most.
Well, not all of them, as I wrote. Discuss?
 
Yes *I* have been writing that the entire time. THere is no difference.
you brought it up.
Again, no difference. As I kept pointing out. The bold is the same for the children of natural born citizens and immigrants.
That's exactly what I said. Children have to grow up and get a basic education. Doesn't matter who their parents are in that regard.
Yes, if the state has an interest in 'population' then immigrants fulfill the same role as natural born citizens. I never denied that the state had an interest in its population, my argument is that "population" is not a valid argument regarding any restrictions on third trimester abortions because
You're wrong but let's continue:
a) there are plenty of immigrants happy to come to that state
Entirely irrelevant, as we have just discussed, and agreed.
and b)
the numbers of those that would have been aborted are not significant, again 500 at most/yr.
citation needed. The yearly abortions have ranged quite wildly in the last 40 years.
The blue and green text refer to 2 different things. Now do you understand? If so, do you agree or do you have a counter argument?
I think you're arguing just to argue. You don't REALLY have a disagreement with my previous point, you just think you do.

lastly, your question wasn't about third trimester abortions. What I answered was the previous.
 
you brought it up.

I brought up immigrants AS having the same affect on population. You were the one that kept attempting to create distinctions, not me.

That's exactly what I said. Children have to grow up and get a basic education. Doesn't matter who their parents are in that regard.

Yup.

You're wrong but let's continue:

OK. It was discussed but you didnt refute it.

Entirely irrelevant, as we have just discussed, and agreed.

citation needed. The yearly abortions have ranged quite wildly in the last 40 years.

This is about late term abortions, specifically after viability. Unless there is a defect, NO such abortions of viable fetuses even occur. 97.5% of all abortions nationally take place in the first 16 weeks, well before the 3rd trimester period. Abortions of viable fetuses (~24 weeks) are the ones that SCOTUS left up to the states.

I think you're arguing just to argue. You don't REALLY have a disagreement with my previous point, you just think you do.
No, I really do and you chose to just ignore it. Because of a and b, "population" is not a valid 'state's interest'...those abortions of viable fetuses would not have any impact on a state's population or its interest in its population.

Let me as you...do you believe that the abortion of viable fetuses (which barely ever occur) has an effect on a state's population? Again, the number of viable fetuses aborted that late are less than 500 and all done so because of severe defect...so would actually be a burden on the state...or the mother's health. *NO* healthy, viable fetuses are aborted,. That doesnt happen and not only wont doctors perform them, it's highly specialized. (And women can get ~$20,000 for the baby in private adoptions, at that point, all that's left is labor and that is less dangerous than an abortion that late.)

If your answer is no, then 'population' is not a valid state's interest for restricting abortion of viable fetuses. And then I'd be interested in finding out what else would be. I've been asking here for years. Btw, I am still posting in good faith here.

Also, @minnie616 is pretty much the keeper of the links to the data for my assertions above.
 
No it's not.

Birth control is the act of PREVENTING a pregnancy.

You can't prevent something that has already happened.
No. Birth control is the act of preventing a birth
 
No. Birth control is the act of preventing a birth


No it's not. You people are just sick liars.

Words have honest and real meanings here in reality. And here in reality you can't change the meanings of words in the English language.


Here is the HONEST definition of birth control from good old Merriam Webster's Dictionary.


birth control​


Definition of birth control​


1: control of the number of children or offspring born especially by preventing or lessening the frequency of conception : CONTRACEPTION
2: contraceptive devices or preparations

Here it is from Dictionary.com


birth control​



regulation of the number of children born through the deliberate control or prevention of conception.Compare family planning (def. 1).

Here it is on the Cambridge dictionary:



the various methods or types of equipment that allow people to have sex without having children.


STOP LYING.
 
No it's not. You people are just sick liars.

Words have honest and real meanings here in reality. And here in reality you can't change the meanings of words in the English language.


Here is the HONEST definition of birth control from good old Merriam Webster's Dictionary.


birth control​


Definition of birth control​


1: control of the number of children or offspring born especially by preventing or lessening the frequency of conception : CONTRACEPTION
2: contraceptive devices or preparations

Here it is from Dictionary.com


birth control​



regulation of the number of children born through the deliberate control or prevention of conception.Compare family planning (def. 1).

Here it is on the Cambridge dictionary:



the various methods or types of equipment that allow people to have sex without having children.


STOP LYING.
control of the number of children or offspring born


I agree


Abortion is very effective birth control
 
control of the number of children or offspring born


I agree


Abortion is very effective birth control


Just stop it.

You are wrong and can't admit it.

I'm done with such childish behavior.

You can reply to this but I'm not going to read it.
 
Just stop it.

You are wrong and can't admit it.

I'm done with such childish behavior.

You can reply to this but I'm not going to read it.
No. You are wrong. By your own definition



Abortion IS birth control
 
Unique cases=/= all abortions. Make a valid question.
 
Back
Top Bottom