• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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, The Woman's Right

It’s nearly impossible, whether you enjoy debating about politics or not, that you’ve never heard of the argument for and against abortion. It’s already a very large topic in the political world, unless you’ve been living under a rock, I shouldn’t even have to take the time to explain it.
However, before I begin to completely unravel the topic, I’d like to establish the fact that I shouldn’t even be including myself in the argument that is abortion; it’s only a topic that only women going through abortion or accidental pregnancy should discuss. But, as a male, aren’t we all practically apart of the argument already? At this point, we are, and it wouldn’t kill anybody to share my own opinion on abortion.
Nevertheless, I’m noting the fact that abortion is not murder, as most Republicans label it as, it’s most important to know your biology before getting into a political topic like abortion in particular. I guess; I come to find myself teaching a lesson of the human body, and the female womb, in order that you can completely grasp my point in this paragraph. When a female is first impregnated, the baby is merely an embryo, basically a piece of DNA floating around in the womb, not even alive in the least bit. Yet, in the timespan of 9 weeks, that embryo turns itself into a fetus, currently in the process of becoming a human life, certainly in a limbo between life and death; but still not able to feel pain. Not until 11 weeks pass, however, that the fetus is truly able to endure pain, as it develops the important parts of the human body, such as the heart and liver; practically qualifying as a human life. This is my acception to the pro-life activists; I agree an abortion should be prominently denied after a woman is 11 weeks pregnant, right as the baby starts to feel real pain as a human being.
It’s obvious, more than ever, that Republicans don’t understand why those in favor of abortion are labeled as pro-choice; they don’t notice that a child is a choice for another human being to raise, not something to enforce on another person. It’s probably one of the biggest differences between a pro-life activists and a pro-choice activist; the person against abortion cares more for the unborn child, while the person for abortion thinks more about the pregnant woman. We should care more about the pregnant woman, it’s obvious that she’s unable to afford a baby and was impregnated on accident, since she’s getting an abortion in the first place. Yet, since the apposing activists care more for the baby instead, which isn’t alive yet and doesn’t even have a brain, they call her a murderer.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: I'm not done with my manifesto about abortion yet anyways, believe me, I have many more points I'd like to make about abortion from the pro-choice point of view. Which, of course, are in support of abortion.
 

MamboDervish

Looking Forward
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
3,400
Reaction score
2,546
Location
The Big Apple
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Abortion is evil and God agrees
No. In fact, god strongly disagrees. The single biggest abortionist in the history of the world is god. Millions upon millions upon millions of 'miscarriages' - all acts of god. God has no problem with abortions whatsoever.

You clearly don't know god, nor what you're talking about.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
7,245
Reaction score
4,303
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As I have said else where, to argue about "choice" regarding abortion is to argue past the issue. This is not a matter of choice.

The issue is a definition on what constitutes human life and what does not. Very few would argue that a woman who chooses to have her ovaries removed, and this destroys any eggs she may be carrying, is ending human lives; she is clearly not. Similarly, we all agree that a woman cannot make a "choice" to murder her three-week old baby. We see that baby as a human with its own rights, especially the most basic of rights, the right to live.

Somewhere between the zygote and the cutting of the umbilical cord is the debate. "Choice" is a side show.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
7,245
Reaction score
4,303
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As I have said else where, to argue about "choice" regarding abortion is to argue past the issue. This is not a matter of choice.

The issue is a definition on what constitutes human life and what does not. Very few would argue that a woman who chooses to have her ovaries removed, and this destroys any eggs she may be carrying, is ending human lives; she is clearly not. Similarly, we all agree that a woman cannot make a "choice" to murder her three-week old baby. We see that baby as a human with its own rights, especially the most basic of rights, the right to live.

Somewhere between the zygote and the cutting of the umbilical cord is the debate. "Choice" is a side show.
The anti-abortion movement is a battle for religion based political control over women's reproductive behavior. The pro-choice movement is a battle against denying women the right to make personal decisions about something as private as her reproductive life.

This may be a side show to you and many other males. Pro-choice women do not think it is a side show. They are fighting personal liberty, equality of rights, financial stability and freedom from someone else's religious dogma.
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
5,458
Reaction score
1,805
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The anti-abortion movement is a battle for religion based political control over women's reproductive behavior. The pro-choice movement is a battle against denying women the right to make personal decisions about something as private as her reproductive life.

This may be a side show to you and many other males. Pro-choice women do not think it is a side show. They are fighting personal liberty, equality of rights, financial stability and freedom from someone else's religious dogma.
Spoken like a true zealot.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
7,245
Reaction score
4,303
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Spoken like a true zealot.
Get back to me when 50M religious zealots are asking the Supreme Court to make you accept an 18 year responsibility that you know you cannot live up to and in not doing so will destroy the life of real born person.
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
5,458
Reaction score
1,805
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Get back to me when 50M religious zealots are asking the Supreme Court to make you accept an 18 year responsibility that you know you cannot live up to and in not doing so will destroy the life of real born person.
Assume we’re discussing a human life as being that burden, it’s no excuse for murder.
 

PeacefulWarrior

Suspended
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Messages
1,710
Reaction score
661
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Assume we’re discussing a human life as being that burden, it’s no excuse for murder.

Needing resources from the Mid East is "no excuse for murder" either, and yet the US commits murder there daily.
But those murdered, which are actual born human beings already walking around and living their lives, are expendable. And you think a zygote in a womb is precious and sanctified, the "miracle of life".
LOL. Just one more gigantic bunch of hypocrisy from the *cough cough* "pro life" type.

Dont like abortion? Dont have one. Its really not your decision to make for everyone else? Is it? No. It isnt.
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
5,458
Reaction score
1,805
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Needing resources from the Mid East is "no excuse for murder" either, and yet the US commits murder there daily.
But those murdered, which are actual born human beings already walking around and living their lives, are expendable. And you think a zygote in a womb is precious and sanctified, the "miracle of life".
LOL. Just one more gigantic bunch of hypocrisy from the *cough cough* "pro life" type.

Dont like abortion? Dont have one. Its really not your decision to make for everyone else? Is it? No. It isnt.
And you think this is an effective counter argument?
 

PeacefulWarrior

Suspended
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Messages
1,710
Reaction score
661
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
And you think this is an effective counter argument?

Sure. Americans murder actual adults every single day.
Why are you then worried about a lowly embryo that has not been born yet?
maybe you should stow the sanctimonious nonsense?
 

PeacefulWarrior

Suspended
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Messages
1,710
Reaction score
661
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I think you're letting your agenda show again.

Cool.
My "agenda" of a woman making her own decision regarding her own pregnancy is something I like to get out there when I can.
You're fine with killing other human beings.
You just want to be able to tell a woman what to do. So you hide behind the BS "those zygotes are sacred human life" bologna.
Like you're speaking for "god". Like "god" would ever give the time of day to any person currently a part of this evil dollar chasing nation-state. NOT BLOODY LIKELY.
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
5,458
Reaction score
1,805
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Cool.
My "agenda" of a woman making her own decision regarding her own pregnancy is something I like to get out there when I can.
You're fine with killing other human beings.
You just want to be able to tell a woman what to do. So you hide behind the BS "those zygotes are sacred human life" bologna.
Like you're speaking for "god". Like "god" would ever give the time of day to any person currently a part of this evil dollar chasing nation-state. NOT BLOODY LIKELY.
Something for you to ponder: if you think about it, you'll come to realize you don't have the slightest idea what my views on abortion rights are.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
7,245
Reaction score
4,303
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Assume we’re discussing a human life as being that burden, it’s no excuse for murder.


Call abortion murder. The woman then becomes a murderer. She is the guilty party not the anti abortion advocate who's agenda will deny women a basic right to make personal decisions, force a birth that will impoverish the family and possibly destroy the child.

It's the same trick used by corporations. "Leveraging options" allows corporate executives to pretend that taking their company to Mexico isn't destroying the lives of 100 American workers.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
77,724
Reaction score
43,933
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
As I have said else where, to argue about "choice" regarding abortion is to argue past the issue. This is not a matter of choice.

The issue is a definition on what constitutes human life and what does not. Very few would argue that a woman who chooses to have her ovaries removed, and this destroys any eggs she may be carrying, is ending human lives; she is clearly not. Similarly, we all agree that a woman cannot make a "choice" to murder her three-week old baby. We see that baby as a human with its own rights, especially the most basic of rights, the right to live.

Somewhere between the zygote and the cutting of the umbilical cord is the debate. "Choice" is a side show.
There's no debate on 'what is human life.' It's been clearly identified by DNA for decades. If the life inside a woman has the DNA of Homo sapiens, it is human life. That's objective science...why do you need to debate it?

Re: the abortion issue, it's a matter of the status of the unborn human life, which legally and morally has been/is viewed differently than the status of born people.

So, can you reframe what you consider the debate is? If 'choice' is a side show, do you mean that there should be no choice? Well, is there a debate or not then? Those 2 sentences I bolded seem in conflict.
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
5,458
Reaction score
1,805
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Call abortion murder. The woman then becomes a murderer. She is the guilty party not the anti abortion advocate who's agenda will deny women a basic right to make personal decisions, force a birth that will impoverish the family and possibly destroy the child.

It's the same trick used by corporations. "Leveraging options" allows corporate executives to pretend that taking their company to Mexico isn't destroying the lives of 100 American workers.
You do understand that even Roe V Wade allows states to classify abortion as wrongful death after the first trimester, yes?

To my earlier comment, when anyone hinges a position on abortion on "choice" they are talking past the issue. No one can take another person's life as a matter of choice. Where the sides in this debate differ is in their definition of what is and what is not a person.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
77,724
Reaction score
43,933
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
You do understand that even Roe V Wade allows states to classify abortion as wrongful death after the first trimester, yes?
Where is that in the decision? Please quote.


No one can take another person's life as a matter of choice.
What authority that American's are obligated to follow says that? Legal guardians can do so.
Where the sides in this debate differ is in their definition of what is and what is not a person.
Of course it can be debated, what are your arguments?

Just to clarify, despite what either 'side' thinks, there is a legal definition for person...so IMO that is what should be debated. Yes? Or do you disagree?
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
5,458
Reaction score
1,805
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There's no debate on 'what is human life.' It's been clearly identified by DNA for decades. If the life inside a woman has the DNA of Homo sapiens, it is human life. That's objective science...why do you need to debate it?

Re: the abortion issue, it's a matter of the status of the unborn human life, which legally and morally has been/is viewed differently than the status of born people.

So, can you reframe what you consider the debate is? If 'choice' is a side show, do you mean that there should be no choice? Well, is there a debate or not then? Those 2 sentences I bolded seem in conflict.
You, too, are talking past the issue.

It's not a matter of just "life." The cells in your brain, like all the rest of your cells, have a full set of human DNA. Yet when you kill some of those cells by taking a sip of alcohol (and you do), even though those cells are "human" and they are "life" they are not in possession of the most basic of human rights, the right not to be killed. So when I say "human" in this context, I mean a human in possession of basic human rights. Which brings us back to the point, at what stage of development does one acquire human rights?

You would have that most basic right not to be killed granted at birth, and no sooner. You are entitled to that opinion, but it does place you on the fringe. Others put that threshold at viability (roughly the second trimester) others put it at week 12 (e.g. the Roe majority said no earlier than week 12). Lastly, others say human life (with rights) begins at conception. All these people likely agree it as wrong to take a human life (with rights) as a matter of "choice." Where they differ is in the definition of what is what is not a human life that has rights.
 

NatMorton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
5,458
Reaction score
1,805
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Where is that in the decision? Please quote.




What authority that American's are obligated to follow says that? Legal guardians can do so.

Of course it can be debated, what are your arguments?

Just to clarify, despite what either 'side' thinks, there is a legal definition for person...so IMO that is what should be debated. Yes? Or do you disagree?
Wow. Okay, I'll play along.

When someone takes another person's life as a matter of fiat, the legal system would call that "murder." Is it your position that a legal guardian may murder a dependent child up until the child reaches and age of consent and can say "I don't want to die?"

As for Roe, if you're at all familiar with the decision you should be aware of its first trimester standard. Here's a legal summary:

The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe...imester, the,interests of the mother's health.

And from the decision itself:

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the 'compelling' point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate

source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

As for the debate on a legal definition of a person, the Roe majority already decided that for us (whether they actually possessed the authority to do so is another matter entirely and fodder for another thread). Roe said, in so many words "States may not create a legal definition of personhood for humans in the womb prior to the end of the first trimester. States may legally define personhood after the first trimester."

So here we are again. It all comes down to who's a person and who is not. "Choice" doesn't really matter.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
77,724
Reaction score
43,933
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Wow. Okay, I'll play along.

When someone takes another person's life as a matter of fiat, the legal system would call that "murder." Is it your position that a legal guardian may murder a dependent child up until the child reaches and age of consent and can say "I don't want to die?"

As for Roe, if you're at all familiar with the decision you should be aware of its first trimester standard. Here's a legal summary:



source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v_wade_(1973)#:~:text=During the first trimester, the,interests of the mother's health.

And from the decision itself:



source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
Correct, so women may have abortions for any reason before the third trimester. States can 'regulate' the procedure but not forbid it, irrespective of her health. Some states have chosen to attempt to regulate during that trimester (the TRAP law stuff that is continually overturned, for ex. but cannot criminalize having the procedure. Women may have abortions at any time during the 2nd trimester for any reason. The state may try to make that harder, but almost all of that legislation fails.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
As for the debate on a legal definition of a person, the Roe majority already decided that for us (whether they actually possessed the authority to do so is another matter entirely and fodder for another thread). Roe said, in so many words "States may not create a legal definition of personhood for humans in the womb prior to the end of the first trimester. States may legally define personhood after the first trimester."

So here we are again. It all comes down to who's a person and who is not. "Choice" doesn't really matter.
RvW didnt create the legal definition for 'person,' altho they did confirm that lack of status for the unborn. The 14th Amendment also clarifies the use. You just made up the italicized text. It does not 'follow' from your original info from the RvW decision.

Here's a legal definition for person, from US Legal Code:

(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.​
(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.​

 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
77,724
Reaction score
43,933
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
You, too, are talking past the issue.

It's not a matter of just "life." The cells in your brain, like all the rest of your cells, have a full set of human DNA. Yet when you kill some of those cells by taking a sip of alcohol (and you do), even though those cells are "human" and they are "life" they are not in possession of the most basic of human rights, the right not to be killed. So when I say "human" in this context, I mean a human in possession of basic human rights. Which brings us back to the point, at what stage of development does one acquire human rights?
At birth. I can make many cases for this to be based on live birth. Based on morality, biology/nature, women's rights, human physiology, etc.

What's wrong with the current legal standard of live birth? Let's start there?

You would have that most basic right not to be killed granted at birth, and no sooner. You are entitled to that opinion, but it does place you on the fringe. Others put that threshold at viability (roughly the second trimester) others put it at week 12 (e.g. the Roe majority said no earlier than week 12). Lastly, others say human life (with rights) begins at conception. All these people likely agree it as wrong to take a human life (with rights) as a matter of "choice." Where they differ is in the definition of what is what is not a human life that has rights.
See above. Let's see your argument. Pick some criteria and...debate. You seem to be working very hard to be non-committal.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
7,245
Reaction score
4,303
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When someone takes another person's life as a matter of fiat, the legal system would call that "murder."
As for Roe, if you're at all familiar with the decision you should be aware of its first trimester standard. Here's a legal summary:
source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v_wade_(1973)#:~:text=During the first trimester, the,interests of the mother's health.
And from the decision itself: source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
The response of the SC was extraordinarily detailed and nowhere did the justices, even those opposed to Roe, say or imply that the states could call abortion murder after the first trimester if they so chose to do.

This whole murder-kerfuffle is something the anti-abortion propaganda machine has ginned up with the hopes of creating a legal pincer movement in which the murder designation would become popular enough to reinforce the personhood movement and both would come together in the courts to establish the fetus as a legal person with legal rights and women who abort could then be legally punished as murderers. However, neither the law nor the legislature is taking your designation of murder seriously. Neither are biologists, embryologists, OBGYN, MDs nurses, midwives. Even the Bible with as much as it has to say about murder it never calls the loss of a fetus through intentional harm, murder. The only people calling abortion murder are those hopeful of getting to write the laws criminalizing women and designating punishment for them and they like you are fairly drooling in anticipation of this event.
 

HangLow

BUFF Nav
Joined
Sep 27, 2020
Messages
1,637
Reaction score
1,678
Location
Kansas City, MO/50K Up 4Reagan4Perot4Obama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
As I have said else where, to argue about "choice" regarding abortion is to argue past the issue. This is not a matter of choice.

The issue is a definition on what constitutes human life and what does not. Very few would argue that a woman who chooses to have her ovaries removed, and this destroys any eggs she may be carrying, is ending human lives; she is clearly not. Similarly, we all agree that a woman cannot make a "choice" to murder her three-week old baby. We see that baby as a human with its own rights, especially the most basic of rights, the right to live.

Somewhere between the zygote and the cutting of the umbilical cord is the debate. "Choice" is a side show.
1620230139114.png
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
7,245
Reaction score
4,303
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
To my earlier comment, when anyone hinges a position on abortion on "choice" they are talking past the issue. No one can take another person's life as a matter of choice. Where the sides in this debate differ is in their definition of what is and what is not a person.
Choice is the essential issue in Roe not personhood. The Supreme Court saw it as the essential issue. They discussed in detail the meaning of the 4th Amendment and personal privacy. They also discussed at length the meaning of 'liberty' and defined it in part as the right to make private decisions about ones personal life. The court reviewed personhood of the fetus and determined that tradition, the Bible and the science of embryology both establish that a fetus is not a legal person and has no rights until it is viable outside the womb.
Roe is based on choice and choice is exactly what the anti-abortion movement wants to take away from women. Deny the right to choose abortion and you can deny, again, the right of women to vote, the right to financial independence, education, certain professional positions. The list is unlimited once you deny women the right to control their personal life.

Without choice there is no liberty.
 
Top Bottom