• 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:
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."
Click to expand...
He knew, he was trying to hide it. That's why he kept cutting off his other example after 'regulate'...but there was still more to that sentence and the section.
 
NatMorton said:
You really have swallowed the entire pro-choice handbook, haven't you?
Click to expand...
If by that you mean I know the laws, I know embryology, I understand the economics and psychology of a decision to abort, I've read the statistics on women, contraceptives, abortion and family and I believe each woman and each family has to make the best decisions they can without interference from nosey theocrats that can't read, then yes, I swallowed the handbook. What handbook did you swallow. "How to post bullshit"
 
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...
... and if the state decide 2nd trimester abortions are unhealthy, they can be regulated or banded even in opposition to the woman's choice.

Choice, as a right, ends after week 12, and there's really no arguing that point.
 
NatMorton said:
... and if the state decide 2nd trimester abortions are unhealthy, they can be regulated or banded even in opposition to the woman's choice.

Choice, as a right, ends after week 12, and there's really no arguing that point.
Click to expand...
The procedures, not having them. They regulate the medical procedures. They dont regulate the ability to have them.

Since 2018, several states have tried to do exactly that...restrict abortion after fetal heartbeat detected, 12 weeks, fetal pain, etc. Every single one has been challenged in the courts and the laws over turned. Not a single one has been enacted. They were found to be unconstitutional.
 
weaver2 said:
If by that you mean I know the laws, I know embryology, I understand the economics and psychology of a decision to abort, I've read the statistics on women, contraceptives, abortion and family and I believe each woman and each family has to make the best decisions they can without interference from nosey theocrats that can't read, then yes, I swallowed the handbook. What handbook did you swallow. "How to post bullshit"
Click to expand...
You haven't demonstrated a command of Roe in this discussion.
 
Lursa said:
The procedures, not having them. They regulate the medical procedures. They dont regulate the ability to have them.

Since 2018, several states have tried to do exactly that...restrict abortion after fetal heartbeat detected, 12 weeks, fetal pain, etc. Every single one has been challenged in the courts and the laws over turned. Not a single one has been enacted. They were found to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Were I to stipulate that point it would make no difference. Whether Roe ends choice as a right at 12 weeks or 24, it still limits choice and does so by declaring a point where states may assert that a fetus has a right to live.

Which brings me back to my original point. Abortion isn't about choice. It's about defining what is and what is not a human life in possession of basic human rights.
 
NatMorton said:
Were I to stipulate that point it would make no difference. Whether Roe ends choice as a right at 12 weeks or 24, it still limits choice and does so by declaring a point where states may assert that a fetus has a right to live.
Click to expand...
It doesnt limit choice. Women can still have the procedure. There is some regulation on the medical procedure itself. Because some are more dangerous at certain times during pregnancy.
NatMorton said:
Which brings me back to my original point. Abortion isn't about choice. It's about defining what is and what is not a human life in possession of basic human rights.
Click to expand...
Well feel free to address my posts to you on that. See post 47.
 
NatMorton said:
... and if the state decide 2nd trimester abortions are unhealthy, they can be regulated or banded even in opposition to the woman's choice.

Choice, as a right, ends after week 12, and there's really no arguing that point.
Click to expand...
States have tried to limit abortions in the 2nd trimester with an assortment of laws: hospital privileges, required measurements for clinic examining rooms and hallways, number of physician approvals before performing abortions, spousal permission, the list is long. The 2016 SC case, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, determined that states could not design laws that placed an undue burden on women seeking access to abortion.
 
It's just astounding the amount of law created, disputed, denied, approved, settled, unsettled, contested, and fought over just to keep women pregnant, a situation that is really none of anybody's business except the woman's and her family's.
 
NatMorton said:
Were I to stipulate that point it would make no difference. Whether Roe ends choice as a right at 12 weeks or 24, it still limits choice and does so by declaring a point where states may assert that a fetus has a right to live.

Which brings me back to my original point. Abortion isn't about choice. It's about defining what is and what is not a human life in possession of basic human rights.
Click to expand...
Well, as someone that will never get pregnant, give birth, nurse or get an abortion you may enjoy telling women that this is about legal rights of a fetus, but women who do the actual child bearing thingy think abortion is about choice.
 
I am honestly shocked that the topic of abortion is so relevant in American society.
It's just that in Russia, this topic is not raised for discussion, people with acute brain damage in a radically patriotic direction and various religious figures are trying to swing it sluggishly... however, the public majority is completely inert on abortion issues.
This is a personal matter and the ban here only leads to more serious consequences. Unwanted pregnancies have been eliminated, and will continue to be... and trying to make it less professional will only undermine the health of women and girls.
 
Fabiusbile said:
I am honestly shocked that the topic of abortion is so relevant in American society.
It's just that in Russia, this topic is not raised for discussion, people with acute brain damage in a radically patriotic direction and various religious figures are trying to swing it sluggishly... however, the public majority is completely inert on abortion issues.
This is a personal matter and the ban here only leads to more serious consequences. Unwanted pregnancies have been eliminated, and will continue to be... and trying to make it less professional will only undermine the health of women and girls.
Click to expand...
In the US conservative evangelical leaders needed an issue other anger at desegregation of schools around which to unite their members as a political force. Abortion was picked out because it could appeal to many different groups for many different reasons. It has worked very well for them.
 
A billion words do not alter what the issue of abortion is.

Either a fetus has a protected right to life or not. If it does, the woman's wants do not matter. If not, then it is the woman's choice unless legislated otherwise or some debatable ethical questions.
 
joko104 said:
A billion words do not alter what the issue of abortion is.

Either a fetus has a protected right to life or not. If it does, the woman's wants do not matter. If not, then it is the woman's choice unless legislated otherwise or some debatable ethical questions.
Click to expand...
Roe, Casey and other SC decision have clearly indicated that the fetus has no rights. The state may have an interest in the health of the mother and the fetus when the fetus becomes viable out side the womb, but it has no Constitutional rights. These same cases have also just as clearly indicated that a woman gets to make the choices about the status of her pregnancy not some religious group pissed off that women get into university, make higher salaries than men with high school diplomas, vote, get elected, hold office and make laws.
 
weaver2 said:
Roe, Casey and other SC decision have clearly indicated that the fetus has no rights. The state may have an interest in the health of the mother and the fetus when the fetus becomes viable out side the womb, but it has no Constitutional rights. These same cases have also just as clearly indicated that a woman gets to make the choices about the status of her pregnancy not some religious group pissed off that women get into university, make higher salaries than men with high school diplomas, vote, get elected, hold office and make laws.
Click to expand...

I have no interest in debating legalisms according to the Supreme Court. I am discussing it as an ethical and sociological question.
 
joko104 said:
I have no interest in debating legalisms according to the Supreme Court. I am discussing it as an ethical and sociological question.
Click to expand...
Stating that the fetus has no rights is an ethical statement about rights and a sociological statement about culture.

Ethics are personal. There is no way to discuss what is right or wrong about abortion because each person is free to make up their own set of ethics within the law. How society regards abortion can be ascertained by assorted surveys, op-eds, studies, articles etc. The only way to talk rationally about abortion is legally and financially. The ethics are up to you.
 
weaver2 said:
Stating that the fetus has no rights is an ethical statement about rights and a sociological statement about culture.

Ethics are personal. There is no way to discuss what is right or wrong about abortion because each person is free to make up their own set of ethics within the law. How society regards abortion can be ascertained by assorted surveys, op-eds, studies, articles etc. The only way to talk rationally about abortion is legally and financially. The ethics are up to you.
Click to expand...

^ A perfectly amoral position. Obviously you claim that laws should have no relationship to individual, civil or human rights, ethics or morality. It also means you completely oppose democracy and democratic rule, since ultimately what is "legal" is defined by we the people. You prefer a secular kritocracy.
 
joko104 said:
^ A perfectly amoral position. Obviously you claim that laws should have no relationship to individual, civil or human rights, ethics or morality. It also means you completely oppose democracy and democratic rule, since ultimately what is "legal" is defined by we the people. You prefer a secular kritocracy.
Click to expand...
OK start discussing ethics and morality and make it apply universally. You won't be able to do it except on a very basic level: don't steal, don't lie, don't murder, don't. Secular Kritocracy is an oxymoron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom