• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Abortion is NOT a woman's right

Jackfrost_LDS8128 said:
Before abortion, we must first look at reproduction. A woman is unable to asexually reproduce.
Click to expand...
meaningless to her rights, rights to her body and rights in general
Jackfrost_LDS8128 said:
Reproduction requires both a man and a woman (preferably between husband and wife). One sex can't monopolize reproduction. Therefore, abortion can't be a woman's right.
Click to expand...
also meaningless to rights in this regard
did you have an actual point?

the right to protect her health and life is most certainly hers, hence why the vast majority of first first world countries with government based on rights and freedoms have laws that are prochoice
 
Jackfrost_LDS8128 said:
Abortion is a part of reproductive rights, correct? So all parties involved should have an equal part in those rights.
Click to expand...
Bah ha ha... um... no.

It can't be monopolized by a particular party. That is just wrong.
Click to expand...
Nope, it was monopolized by nature. Your argument is terrible regardless of one's stance on abortion itself.
 
XDU said:
Abortion isn't about women's rights.

It's about how people can't be bothered punishing hedonists who hurt others when nobody's watching because people are afraid of how hedonists will throw a temper tantrum that requires surgical harshness to address without overreacting.

Most people are just too lazy to do this.
Click to expand...
I don't consider lowlives who simply "don't care" relevant to any serious discussion of abortion or anything else.

Obviously though the issues regarding abortion go beyond such things, and this is merely a non sequitur.
 
Lursa said:
Well, in a way, I disagree. IMO it's another one of those things 'unenumerated' in the Const and it is protected under the 9th Amendment. When people write there's no right to abortion in the Const, they're right, but it is still protected as a right. Under the 9th.

Same with reproducing. Adults have the right to reproduce. Another one is adults have a right to have consensual sex. These are also protected by the 9th A.

I dont believe a man has any reproductive rights that would supersede women's rights protected under the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. (Those include medical privacy, due process, and bodily autonomy.)
Click to expand...
It's a slippery slope to say adults have the right to have consensual sex without modification, because you can't have it without getting someone else to consent, and they have the right not have it. For men, the same thing is true for reproduction, though a woman might be able to go to a sperm bank. JackFrost appears not to understand this.
 
choiceone said:
It's a slippery slope to say adults have the right to have consensual sex without modification, because you can't have it without getting someone else to consent, and they have the right not have it. For men, the same thing is true for reproduction, though a woman might be able to go to a sperm bank. JackFrost appears not to understand this.
Click to expand...
Nope, same as with guns and the 2A. The govt is not obligated to provide you with firearms.

You have a right to do something...that has nothing to do with external parties enabling you exercising it.
 
Excon said:
If a Government can establish valid reason to outlaw abortion, (eg: If we do not outlaw abortion our nation will cease to exist.), it also has the power to enforce abortion if valid reason exists (needed population reduction).
Click to expand...
Am I correct in assuming that your both examples are only examples, and not actual arguments that currently apply?
 
BirdinHand said:
Yeah…you’d think this was, you know, science.

Especially when OP is saying women cannot “asexually reproduce”.

Yes, yes they can.

Reproductive endocrinologists do it around the world every single day.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that this has been addressed, but damn if I don't have to point this out. No a woman cannot reproduce asexually. No matter what she still needs something from the man. That doesn't mean it needs to go directly into her from said man. All those processes are still valid and present, but they all still require a man to be active within the process. Someone has to donate the sperm to the sperm bank after all and it's not women. Maybe someday we will have the ability to bypass the sperm requirement, but we are not there yet.
 
Jackfrost_LDS8128 said:
Please look up the definition of asexual reproduction. We are talking about two totally different things.

One of the points I'm trying to make is that abortion as a 'woman's right' infringes on the reproductive rights of the male population.
Click to expand...
Now we are getting somewhere. Exactly what reproductive right do males have? If this has been addressed later in the thread, feel free to ignore as I will be commenting from that post.
 
rickc said:
The male makes his decision before he unleashes his gift of sperm. After that decisions are all the woman's.
Click to expand...
Actually, save in rape, both make their decision before the release of sperm.
 
A woman absolutely has a right to an abortion. The open question remains at what point in exercising that right does she violate someone else’s more fundamental right not to be killed.

Too few wish to acknowledge this, but the abolition issue is not really about “privacy rights.” It’s about at what stage of development we acquire basic human rights.
 
Jackfrost_LDS8128 said:
The problem with this argument is that it invalidates all child support cases. Men will not be fiscally responsible for the child if a woman chooses to bring a child into the world, as it is totally her decision and responsibility.

This is not right.
Click to expand...
No not really. And the best way to illustrate that is to look at a case of using a surrogate. If a man and a woman use IFV (so that the baby is genetically both of theirs) to impregnate a surrogate (say the woman's uterus has issues that prevent carrying to term) at no point can the genetic mother force the surrogate to have an abortion, and she will be fiscally responsible for the child when it is born. Her right is not the termination of the offspring. It is the right to end the use of her bodily resources if she no longer wishes it. Abortion is currently the only method available. If we had say transporter technology then we might have a different situation because we could then remove the offspring alive and maybe even implant it into a new gestating woman, or more likely would have artificial womb technology if we had transporter technology. But until then abortion is what we have.
 
Jackfrost_LDS8128 said:
The issue is reproduction is not solely a woman's ability.

One of the issues with ALL discriminatory laws is that the oppressor group dehumanizes the oppressed group.

This is why reproduction rights need to be equal.
Click to expand...
I note that in this post you failed to answer what rights were violated.
 
Jackfrost_LDS8128 said:
Before abortion, we must first look at reproduction. A woman is unable to asexually reproduce.

Reproduction requires both a man and a woman (preferably between husband and wife). One sex can't monopolize reproduction. Therefore, abortion can't be a woman's right.
Click to expand...

All retorts to this will be from the privileged non-aborted.
 
Jackfrost_LDS8128 said:
Women have majority control of reproduction rights.

A woman can abort without the consent of the man.

A woman can choose to have a baby without the consent of a man.

But it takes both a man and a woman to create a baby.

Men clearly need to have equal rights.
Click to expand...
Third page in and you still haven't detailed what rights are violated. Still have two more pages (as of this posting). Maybe it's further on.
 
maquiscat said:
Still requires a guy, even if remotely and several steps removed. Without him, IVF doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
You are correct.

But the fact remains, the person with the uterus holds the decision making ability for whether that uterus and her body are going to grow a human for 9 months.
 
Luce said:
By this standard, we can seize your corpse the moment you croak, and part it out to people waiting for organs.
Click to expand...
There are many who would support this. And I can't say that I am in full agreement with them, but I am not in disagreement either. We need another thread for this one though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom