• 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, The Woman's Right

Uh . . . no. God has never said that. Does you think god speaks to you directly? Or through some intermediary like a burning bush?
Abortion is evil and God agrees
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
And you think this is an effective counter argument?
 
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?
 
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?
I think you're letting your agenda show again.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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...imester, the,interests of the mother's health.

And from the decision itself:


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.
 
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
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.​

 
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?

See above. Let's see your argument. Pick some criteria and...debate. You seem to be working very hard to be non-committal.
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…