• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Abortion is murder.

Fu_chick said:
I live in Indiana. If it became illegal here and I wanted on it's just a few short hours to Canada.

Best of luck to you in that?

The point is that it might make people stop and think. Rather than "I'm excercising my constitutional right to abort this fetus," they'd think "I'm considering breaking the law to kill my child."

Or, like I said, heaven forbid, you'd try to avoid that few hour drive and protect yourself in the first place.
 
shh! said:
What makes you think that only 25% of the women contemplating abortion would go through with one? I would think the percentage getting an abortion would be much higher because "law abiding" women wouldn't really be contemplating one, now would they?

And for the record, yes, I think marijuana and prostitution should be legalized.

That was my point. The percentage of all woman who would consider having an abortion under current circumstances would be drastically decreased under circumstances where it would be legal.

And yet both those things remain crimes, while abortion remains legal. Interesting, huh?
 
shh! said:
I doubt you could find a reliable statistic since it was illegal, so who would have kept track?

That's the point. All the groups like Planned Parenthood who make claims like "X number of women died in back room abortions and we're saving their lives" or "If a woman wants an abortion, shes going to have one" are basing their claims on nothing at all. There's no proof.
 
shh! said:
I doubt you could find a reliable statistic since it was illegal, so who would have kept track?
yeah...that's what I was thinking too, since illegal abortions would not be reported....sooo I guess I'll just have to have no opinion on the subject..lol
 
RightatNYU said:
That's the point. All the groups like Planned Parenthood who make claims like "X number of women died in back room abortions and we're saving their lives" or "If a woman wants an abortion, shes going to have one" are basing their claims on nothing at all. There's no proof.

Well, I would think you actually COULD calculate the number of women who died from a botched abortion. After all, there were dead bodies. What you can't calculate would be the number of successful ones.
 
RightatNYU said:
That was my point. The percentage of all woman who would consider having an abortion under current circumstances would be drastically decreased under circumstances where it would be legal.

I'm not sure I'd agree. Making drugs illegal doesn't stop those who want to do them. They still do drugs and hope they won't get caught. Why would abortion be different?
 
shh! said:
I'm not sure I'd agree. Making drugs illegal doesn't stop those who want to do them. They still do drugs and hope they won't get caught. Why would abortion be different?

First off, that's not true.

Many, many people choose not to use drugs because they are illegal.

Look at the example of the indoor smoking ban that I gave a few posts ago. That's this principle in practice.
 
RightatNYU said:
Best of luck to you in that?

The point is that it might make people stop and think. Rather than "I'm excercising my constitutional right to abort this fetus," they'd think "I'm considering breaking the law to kill my child."

Or, like I said, heaven forbid, you'd try to avoid that few hour drive and protect yourself in the first place.

I don't need the government to tell me what is right or wrong. I can figure that out on my own, thank you. I do not believe that the government has a say over my reproduction and a law is not going to change that.

And since you brought it up, I always use two forms of birth control (even though I'm married, I do NOT want kids at this point).
 
Fu_chick said:
I don't need the government to tell me what is right or wrong. I can figure that out on my own, thank you. I do not believe that the government has a say over my reproduction and a law is not going to change that.

And since you brought it up, I always use two forms of birth control (even though I'm married, I do NOT want kids at this point).

Well, I want to kill my neighbor for being an asshole, and I don't need my government to tell me if that's right or wrong either, so can I kill him? Your attitude on this matter doesn't prove a thing other than you believe in the right to do whatever you want.

And I'm glad you do. Now if everyone would do the same thing, then we wouldn't even be having this debate, would we?
 
RightatNYU said:
First off, that's not true.

Many, many people choose not to use drugs because they are illegal.

Look at the example of the indoor smoking ban that I gave a few posts ago. That's this principle in practice.

No it's not. Smokers still smoke; they just do it outside. Did prohibition prevent people from drinking? Only those who weren't going to be drinking, anyway.
 
shh! said:
No it's not. Smokers still smoke; they just do it outside. Did prohibition prevent people from drinking? Only those who weren't going to be drinking, anyway.

Alcohol is addictive. Abortions aren't.

If the government formally acknowledged that having an abortion was wrong and meant taking the life of a child, I believe many people would be driven away from braking sucha law.
 
RightatNYU said:
Well, I want to kill my neighbor for being an asshole, and I don't need my government to tell me if that's right or wrong either, so can I kill him? Your attitude on this matter doesn't prove a thing other than you believe in the right to do whatever you want.

And I'm glad you do. Now if everyone would do the same thing, then we wouldn't even be having this debate, would we?

I believe in the right to do what I want with own body. Until the fetus can survive on its own it is a part of my body.

Believe me, I wish everyone would use at least 2 forms of birth control. If I hear one more dumb-ass female make a statement like "But birth control makes me sick/I'm allergic to everything/But he said he'd pull out/It's not the same with a condom" I'm going to scream. Sometimes I am very ashamed of my own sex.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
Alcohol is addictive. Abortions aren't.

If the government formally acknowledged that having an abortion was wrong and meant taking the life of a child, I believe many people would be driven away from braking sucha law.

LOTS of people smoke pot and most will tell you it's not addictive.
 
shh! said:
No it's not. Smokers still smoke; they just do it outside. Did prohibition prevent people from drinking? Only those who weren't going to be drinking, anyway.

...maybe I didn't make my point clearly.

The point of the law was to make people stop smoking inside. People still wanted to smoke inside, but they couldn't. Instead of just doing so anyways, some chose to go outside every time for a cigarette, while many chose to cut back or quit.

If abortion were illegal, some people would still want to have abortions, and would "go outside," while many more would choose to use birth control more effectively or choose adoption.
 
Fu_chick said:
I believe in the right to do what I want with own body. Until the fetus can survive on its own it is a part of my body.

Okay. So you'd support banning abortion after 5 months? And as technology progresses, and we're able to support children that are born more and more prematurely, you would support increasing the restrictions on abortion in tandem?

Believe me, I wish everyone would use at least 2 forms of birth control. If I hear one more dumb-ass female make a statement like "But birth control makes me sick/I'm allergic to everything/But he said he'd pull out/It's not the same with a condom" I'm going to scream. Sometimes I am very ashamed of my own sex.

Not just females who are dumb about it...I've seen farrrr too many stupid guys to comment on that.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
Hornburger said:
It's not a state issue though... 12 supreme court judges have made the decision for everyone.

Twelve? Where did that number come from?

By the way, the Supreme Court didn't just "make a decision". They simply (and correctly, I might add) determined that the Constitution of the United States didn't allow legislators to pass laws banning abortion (and not all abortions, by the way, there is criteria involved) based on the idea that a fetus was a "person" entitled to protection under the 14th Amendment, etc.
 
RightatNYU said:
Okay. So you'd support banning abortion after 5 months? And as technology progresses, and we're able to support children that are born more and more prematurely, you would support increasing the restrictions on abortion in tandem?



Not just females who are dumb about it...I've seen farrrr too many stupid guys to comment on that.

I absolutely support banning abortions after 5 months. If the fetus can live outside of the mothers body, it becomes and entirely different issue altogether.
 
Fu_chick said:
I absolutely support banning abortions after 5 months. If the fetus can live outside of the mothers body, it becomes and entirely different issue altogether.

Then we agree.

=)
 
RightatNYU said:
Okay. So you'd support banning abortion after 5 months? And as technology progresses, and we're able to support children that are born more and more prematurely, you would support increasing the restrictions on abortion in tandem?



Not just females who are dumb about it...I've seen farrrr too many stupid guys to comment on that.

So, you support abortion before 5 months? Similarly, you'll allow these types of abortions until there are technological advancements that lower the age of viability?
 
petrsykora39 said:
So, you support abortion before 5 months? Similarly, you'll allow these types of abortions until there are technological advancements that lower the age of viability?

I don't support it, but I think the legal argument for banning abortion before 5 months is far shakier than it is after 5 months. I feel there is no (or incredibly few) circumstance(s) in which if you decided that you wanted to have an abortion, you shouldnt do it as soon as possible. 5 months is a long time.
 
RightatNYU said:
I don't support it, but I think the legal argument for banning abortion before 5 months is far shakier than it is after 5 months. I feel there is no (or incredibly few) circumstance(s) in which if you decided that you wanted to have an abortion, you shouldnt do it as soon as possible. 5 months is a long time.
90% of all abortions are during the 1st trimester. 9% are during the 2nd trimester, and 1% are 3rd trimester. Therefore based on what you just wrote, you believe that 90%+ of legal abortions that anti-choice people oppose are being opposed on shaky grounds. Those are your words, on the record.
 
RightatNYU said:
I don't support it, but I think the legal argument for banning abortion before 5 months is far shakier than it is after 5 months. I feel there is no (or incredibly few) circumstance(s) in which if you decided that you wanted to have an abortion, you shouldnt do it as soon as possible. 5 months is a long time.

I'm sorry but I don't follow your logic. Why is the legal argument shakier before 5 months than after 5 months?

Of course, if you don't believe in the "viability" argument, none of this really matters to you anyway.
 
26 X World Champs said:
90% of all abortions are during the 1st trimester. 9% are during the 2nd trimester, and 1% are 3rd trimester. Therefore based on what you just wrote, you believe that 90%+ of legal abortions that anti-choice people oppose are being opposed on shaky grounds. Those are your words, on the record.

I know. I'm well aware of the situation.

Ive said it before, and I'll say it again: I personally think abortion is wrong at any time, but I also don't necessarily think I have the right to legislate that. But I would hope that if there were to be a compromise of some sort, it would encourage people to avoid putting themselves in situations where there would be unwanted pregnancies, and that the abortions would be performed as early as possible.
 
petrsykora39 said:
I'm sorry but I don't follow your logic. Why is the legal argument shakier before 5 months than after 5 months?

Of course, if you don't believe in the "viability" argument, none of this really matters to you anyway.


Because up until 5 months, the argument can be made "This is part of my body and could not exist without me."

After 5 months, that's not the case.

What viability argument are you referring to?
 
RightatNYU said:
Because up until 5 months, the argument can be made "This is part of my body and could not exist without me."

After 5 months, that's not the case.
I agree but I don't think that's what you posted. You said that the legal argument is shakier before 5 months. Was that simply a typo or error?

What viability argument are you referring to?

This whole 5 months or 20-week thing is, in essence, the viability argument. Basically, it deals with the issue that a fetus cannot survive on its own until after that point. A lot of people don't care about this issue. For them, it's all about human life beginning at conception.
 
Back
Top Bottom