• 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

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.
 
Click to expand...
weaver2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is an opinion by Justice Kennedy:

Privacy granted by the Constitution: Justice Anthony Kennedy on Lawrence v Texas:
"The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
“ These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
 
TypicalRussian said:
God. He is the supreme ruler of Earth and his stance on abortion is clear- it is evil
Click to expand...
LOL. Numbers 5:11-31, God gives instructions on how to perform an abortion.
He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • 1620259008442.png
    1620259008442.png
    778 bytes · Views: 2
Unbeknownst said:
LOL. Numbers 5:11-31, God gives instructions on how to perform an abortion.
Click to expand...
And certainly the god of the bible would know best - as he is the granddaddy of all abortionists himself.
 
Unbeknownst said:
It literally explains how to do a magical ritual that will make an unfaithful woman miscarry her child, which fits within the definition of abortion.
Click to expand...
no it doesnt
 
Today I learned the 'woke left' are insisting in recognizing Mother's Day say this coming weekend to be identified as Happy Birthing Person Day. My response to that is fork you and anyone who influenced you to make such a statement.

As a woman who had two pregnancies wrought with complications especially during birth, but at the moment I felt life inside of me I never understood how someone could abort that precious life. After all that life was a part of me. Feeling that life inside of me was absolutely one of the greatest joys of my life.
 
weaver2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

If "choice" is as sacrosanct as you claim, why does Roe give states the ability to take that choice away after the first trimester?
 
NatMorton said:
If "choice" is as sacrosanct as you claim, why does Roe give states the ability to take that choice away after the first trimester?
Click to expand...
Roe does not deny the right of women to make decisions about pregnancy and abortion in either the 1st or 2nd trimester. The ruling says that a state has no vested interest in the fetus during the 2nd trimester and it cannot make laws denying women the right to decide to abort. I can make laws regulating the medical procedure so that preserving the woman's health is the primary concern. The court decision states that the state has a vested interest in the fetus only when it can survive outside the womb and at that point it may or may not decide to deny abortion. However, the state may not deny abortion if the woman's health is in danger.
www.law.cornell.edu

Abortion

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

Why don't you give a link to these pronouncements you make about Roe or are you just pulling them out of your hat, because almost everything you've said about Roe is simply wrong.
 
NatMorton said:
If "choice" is as sacrosanct as you claim, why does Roe give states the ability to take that choice away after the first trimester?
Click to expand...
Here, from the Cornell law library, is a summary for you and others that have no idea what Roe actually says.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113&amp
If you want to read the actual words of the judges discussing and deciding Roe you can continue reading. It's all there. Read it.

It would be an interesting change to hear a discussion based on facts rather than your version of Roe, which, you hope, says you can pass laws denying a women's Constitutional right to privacy in decision making about personal matters.

Men enjoy the Constitutional right to make personal decisions about private matters why do they think it is OK for them to take that right away from women?
 
weaver2 said:
Roe does not deny the right of women to make decisions about pregnancy and abortion in either the 1st or 2nd trimester. The ruling says that a state has no vested interest in the fetus during the 2nd trimester and it cannot make laws denying women the right to decide to abort. I can make laws regulating the medical procedure so that preserving the woman's health is the primary concern. The court decision states that the state has a vested interest in the fetus only when it can survive outside the womb and at that point it may or may not decide to deny abortion. However, the state may not deny abortion if the woman's health is in danger.
www.law.cornell.edu

Abortion

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

Why don't you give a link to these pronouncements you make about Roe or are you just pulling them out of your hat, because almost everything you've said about Roe is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
You're talking post the issue. Roe does not protect the right to choose after the first trimester. Why?
 
weaver2 said:
Here, from the Cornell law library, is a summary for you and others that have no idea what Roe actually says.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113&amp
If you want to read the actual words of the judges discussing and deciding Roe you can continue reading. It's all there. Read it.

It would be an interesting change to hear a discussion based on facts rather than your version of Roe, which, you hope, says you can pass laws denying a women's Constitutional right to privacy in decision making about personal matters.

Men enjoy the Constitutional right to make personal decisions about private matters why do they think it is OK for them to take that right away from women?
Click to expand...
Why don't you answer the question with your own words.
 
weaver2 said:
Because, unlike you, I believe in going to the source and quoting what has actually been said.
Click to expand...
You're dodging the question, and we both know why. Roe does not establish an unassailable right to choose. It defines a minimum, legal definition for what can and what cannot be considered human life and thus what stage of development we can acquire our basic human rights. If you have a credible counter argument to make, by all means make it. Everything else is noise.
 
NatMorton said:
You're dodging the question, and we both know why. Roe does not establish an unassailable right to choose. It defines a minimum, legal definition for what can and what cannot be considered human life and thus what stage of development we can acquire our basic human rights. If you have a credible counter argument to make, by all means make it. Everything else is noise.
Click to expand...
Quoting what was actually decided instead of stating my personal opinion is not dodging the question.
You are absolutely right "Roe does not establish an unassailable right to choose." I never said it did. If you think I did so quote the post.

However Roe did not define " a minimum, legal definition for what can and what cannot be considered human life". In fact it specifically explained they were not going to establish personhood, fetal rights or when life began. They discussed viability outside of the womb only.

I am not making a counter argument. I'm saying your statements about Roe are not correct and advising you to read the text of the decision.
 
weaver2 said:
Quoting what was actually decided instead of stating my personal opinion is not dodging the question.
You are absolutely right "Roe does not establish an unassailable right to choose." I never said it did. If you think I did so quote the post.

However Roe did not define " a minimum, legal definition for what can and what cannot be considered human life". In fact it specifically explained they were not going to establish personhood, fetal rights or when life began. They discussed viability outside of the womb only.

I am not making a counter argument. I'm saying your statements about Roe are not correct and advising you to read the text of the decision.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. From Roe (emphasis added):

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
Click to expand...

source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
 
NatMorton said:
You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. From Roe (emphasis added):
source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
Click to expand...
You have posted only a part of the decision.
Here is the entire formal decision in Roe dealing with trimesters and abortion

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
102
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
103
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

And here are the deliberations made by the judges that led to their decision
94
In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a non-resident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes 'compelling.'
95
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 the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.
96
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this 'compelling' point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.
97
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.


What part of that decision says the state may outlaw abortion in the first and 2nd trimester? In the 1st trimester the state cannot intervene in any decision about abortion. In the second trimester the state can regulate the medical aspects and delivery of an abortion but not the decision to abort. They give examples of the kind of regulations the states are allowed to make and none of them deal with the life of fetus. The justices state that in the 3rd trimester the state now has a vested interest in the fetus. That compelling point is viability outside the womb. At that point the state can intervene in a decision to abort and can ban it unless the woman's health is in danger.

If you think this is wrong please point to the complete decision that shows this to be in error
 
weaver2 said:
Quoting what was actually decided instead of stating my personal opinion is not dodging the question.
You are absolutely right "Roe does not establish an unassailable right to choose." I never said it did. If you think I did so quote the post.

However Roe did not define " a minimum, legal definition for what can and what cannot be considered human life". In fact it specifically explained they were not going to establish personhood, fetal rights or when life began. They discussed viability outside of the womb only.

I am not making a counter argument. I'm saying your statements about Roe are not correct and advising you to read the text of the decision.
Click to expand...
Here's the entire quote from RvW that he keeps cutting off after 'regulate.'

"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 the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like."​

So you can see that it's not about restricting abortion in the 2nd trimester.
 
Lursa said:
Here's the entire quote from RvW that he keeps cutting off after 'regulate.'

"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 the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like."​

So you can see that it's not about restricting abortion in the 2nd trimester.
Click to expand...
It's kinda disturbing to know there are people that believe pro-choice women don't know the law, never took biology, can't recognize propaganda, don't understand pregnancy, can't do math, don't know any economics, haven't a clue how to find things on the internet and are so stupid they will believe anti-abortion advocate's misquotes, partial quotes, fabrications and say, "Oh, you're right we need to outlaw abortions. "
 
weaver2 said:
You have posted only a part of the decision.
Here is the entire formal decision in Roe dealing with trimesters and abortion

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
102
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
103
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

And here are the deliberations made by the judges that led to their decision
94
In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a non-resident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes 'compelling.'
95
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 the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.
96
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this 'compelling' point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.
97
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.


What part of that decision says the state may outlaw abortion in the first and 2nd trimester? In the 1st trimester the state cannot intervene in any decision about abortion. In the second trimester the state can regulate the medical aspects and delivery of an abortion but not the decision to abort. They give examples of the kind of regulations the states are allowed to make and none of them deal with the life of fetus. The justices state that in the 3rd trimester the state now has a vested interest in the fetus. That compelling point is viability outside the womb. At that point the state can intervene in a decision to abort and can ban it unless the woman's health is in danger.

If you think this is wrong please point to the complete decision that shows this to be in error
Click to expand...
102b says the state may regulate abortion without regard to choice after the first trimester.
 
weaver2 said:
It's kinda disturbing to know there are people that believe pro-choice women don't know the law, never took biology, can't recognize propaganda, don't understand pregnancy, can't do math, don't know any economics, haven't a clue how to find things on the internet and are so stupid they will believe anti-abortion advocate's misquotes, partial quotes, fabrications and say, "Oh, you're right we need to outlaw abortions. "
Click to expand...
You really have swallowed the entire pro-choice handbook, haven't you?
 
NatMorton said:
102b says the state may regulate abortion without regard to choice after the first trimester.
Click to expand...
They're only regarding the mother's health. Has nothing to do with preservation of the unborn.

102​
​
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.​
​
103​
​
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.​

They're focused on ensuring that the procedures are safe and available, not concerned with the unborn at all. The farther along in the term the unborn is, the more dangerous abortion becomes.

"Subsequent to viability"...viability is well into the third trimester.
 
Lursa said:
They're only regarding the mother's health. Has nothing to do with preservation of the unborn.

102​
​
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.​
​
103​
​
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.​

They're focused on ensuring that the procedures are safe and available, not concerned with the unborn at all. The farther along in the term the unborn is, the more dangerous abortion becomes.

"Subsequent to viability"...viability is well into the third trimester.
Click to expand...
Thank- you for explaining that. Apparently reading comprehension isn't considered a life skill for pro-life advocates. I'm completely amazed that anyone can read the words "the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother may regulate...." can read the examples given and can still believe that translates into " the state may regulate abortion without regard to choice after the first trimester."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom