• 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!

All we are saying.....

Gordy327 said:
What other countries do is irrelevant to our Constitution and laws.

What should we tell kids when they ask to explain or quantify what the "value" of life is?

How is that a good thing? Abortion is still legal in most states.

Irony. Meanwhile, in states where abortion is put to vote, your "side" gets shot down.

What is it's "value?" Especially over that of the woman? I keep asking that and you keep dodging it.

Nothing. A double homicide is just an emotionally driven BS charge. There's no rational or legal reason for it.

Who said it has "value " to begin with, especially since you cannot even explain or quantify this value?
Click to expand...

then why do we have it as laws ?
 
stealthycat said:
so you don't want responsibility for people and the human lives they are responsible for

see, when a woman chooses sex, when a man chooses sex, they full well know a baby can come from it. When a normal pregnancy begins, there is a little unborn human life there (if there wasn't there wouldn't be a pregnancy)

you don't think a woman should be responsible for that life, that she should be able to have it killed at her whim which is NOT being responsible for human life, its killing it, its irresponsible for the actions she chose
Click to expand...
No. Her body and her choice, until viability without extreme measures, except in the s case of rape, incest, fetal unviability or her life being in medical danger of the pregnancy continues to term. Your religious arguments are irrelevant.

I'll care about your opinions on abortion when you get pregnant, and not a day before.
 
forn said:
Great theory. I think somebody forgot to tell nature though...
Also, I would say that if she consents to a certain action, she would be consenting to the possible outcomes of that action.
Click to expand...
1, First, you misunderstand what nature and culture are.

If no one makes any human, and therefore cultural, law banning abortion, a woman who doesn't consent to pregnancy can choose to seek an abortion from a medical person, who can choose to provide one or not for a fee he/she specifies. That is natural, because freedom to seek one's own best interest or offer help for others' interests and negotiate reciprocally is an assumed baseline in natural philosophy.

But the moment you make a human, and therefore cultural, law banning abortion, you restrict that freedom to seek one's own best interest and offer help for others' interests. The reason this is such a problem is that all pregnancy/childbirth injures the woman in some measure. It is very easy to show evidence that pregnancy partly suppresses the immune system of a woman, that it stretches out part of her body and alters her body chemically in ways that deviate from normal health.

Thus, pregnancy/childbirth don't just increase the risk of illness, injury, and death. However, the worst is that women can die of medically unforeseeable causes in late pregnancy/childbirth. This means that, even if one makes a law banning abortion that carries an exception to save the woman's life, she can die such a death.

When that happens, you can't blame the medical professional for malpractice, because the profession of medicine has never officially claimed that properly practiced medicine can obviate all childbirth deaths. But neither can you blame nature - the act of God or natural disaster meme - because you interfered with nature.

You see, if the woman had a right to an abortion and a doctor a right to perform one, without the claim that the doctor had to have evidence allowing foresight into danger to the woman's life, she could just have had one and the doctor could have provided it, naturally. Then, she wouldn't have died.

So the blame falls on the supremely unnatural cultural law banning abortion and the individuals who made it. They will have committed criminally negligent homicide, FYI, because we have already told them multiple times that this will eventually happen, which is a good reason not to make such a law.\

2. Second, you are assuming that a woman consented to sex, and that this should make it okay to force her to accept responsibility for consenting to pregnancy. There are two problems with this.

--The first is that a woman's consent isn't necessary for pregnancy. They can be raped with superior muscular force, threats with weapons, to themselves and other people, little kids and sick parents, drugging, etc. Women in comas have been raped. A man could illegally enter a woman's house and rape her while she was asleep without waking her - she could have taken a sleeping pill.

Furthermore, if a woman unknowingly married a bigamist or became formally engaged before having sex, she didn't consent to pregnancy by a bigamist or being dumped by the guy - she has been legally defrauded.

--The second is that a woman's consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy unless that is a contingency to which she agrees. Why?

If she consents to piv sex once on Thursday with Mr. A, and with some type of contraception, she is only consenting to piv sex, not anal sex, only once, not twice, only on Thursday, not Friday or Saturday, only with Mr. A, not his son or daughter, not even her own son or daughter, and only with some type of contraception.

The implantation of an embryo that is Mr. A's offspring in the endometrium of her uterus, a separate sex organ, on Saturday night, is not something she consented to. If the embryo violating her uterus is his offspring, it's not him. Implantation in the endometrium isn't piv sex. Saturday isn't Thursday, etc.

If you imagine that this isn't true, go try getting some woman's consent to piv sex and then try using muscular force to have anal sex with her over her objections. Try getting a woman's consent to an act of sex on Thursday and then going to her house and entering without permission and trying to have sex with her while she's asleep on Saturday. See how fast you get reported to the cops and ultimately thrown in prison.
 
Last edited:
stealthycat said:
Rights? maybe not in a Constitutional way in the USA although some countries recognize them that way, right?

laws protecting them ? yes

Fetal Protection Laws and the "Personhood" Problem: Toward a Relational Theory of Fetal Life and Reproductive Responsibility

Fetal Protection Laws (FPLs) are laws that define and provide punishments for any number of crimes, including homicide, committed “against a fetus.” Previous literature has suggested that FPLs need to be explicit about who the intended target of this legislation is. Specifically, comments...
scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu




I do get it - we need to teach young kids the value of life, that abortion is wrong in in 15 year they'll vote to change our laws and destroy the practice. Its really all about society and laws isn't it ?



oh good gawd no, I'm happier than I've ever been on abortion. Roe is dead. Many states are banning abortions. GOOD THINGS .... we are protecting unborn more now than in 55 years

your side? fighting hard to be relevant
Click to expand...
In 1973 when Roe v Wade was decided, approximately 52% of people in the US supported it. In 2022 when it was overturned, approximately 68-70% of people in the US didn't want it overturned. And the generations from 18-29 and 30-45 were much more supportive of Roe than the older generations.

So I assure you, this side doesn't have to fight hard to be relevant and in 15 years, induced abortion will be more readily available than it is now. You will never win, because you're reactionary, and history is progressive.
 
Last edited:
stealthycat said:
so that unborn life doesn't matter and has no value - the woman can do what she wants - that's your belief
Click to expand...
It might be the most important thing to her in her life...
stealthycat said:
what magically makes it have value when its killed in a murder and a double homicide takes place ?
Click to expand...
Not magic. We are not in Salem... biology. It is science.
stealthycat said:
same baby - how did it magically change from having no value to being valuable ?
Click to expand...
You are the one saying it has no value... so why do you care what happens to it?
 
stealthycat said:
Rights? maybe not in a Constitutional way in the USA although some countries recognize them that way, right?

laws protecting them ? yes
Click to expand...

LOL that doesnt protect them at all...the woman can still kill them, as each such law excepts abortion. What it does is punish anyone who kills that woman's unborn which is assumed a wanted pregnancy, it's punishment for her loss.

We've been thru this before, stop desperately pretending you forgot.

stealthycat said:
I do get it - we need to teach young kids the value of life, that abortion is wrong in in 15 year they'll vote to change our laws and destroy the practice. Its really all about society and laws isn't it ?
Click to expand...

Why should we teach kids that abortion is wrong and the unborn life must be saved? Who says it's wrong? I see no need for what you stated until you can answer that. :D

stealthycat said:
oh good gawd no, I'm happier than I've ever been on abortion. Roe is dead. Many states are banning abortions. GOOD THINGS .... we are protecting unborn more now than in 55 years
Click to expand...

Great...so then no national legislation is needed. Women can always go to a state and receive the healthcare they need.

You should remember that the next time your posts create visuals of ranting and emotional overload. Making coherent, morally or legally-focused arguments would be best in a debate...please present some.

stealthycat said:
your side? fighting hard to be relevant
Click to expand...

Individual liberty is never irrelevant. And the fight for women to remain equal to men in our society will also never be irrelevant. Trying to turn us into incubators as people like you are disrespectfully attempting...is what's out of tune with morality and humane treatment of people.
 
forn said:
Great theory. I think somebody forgot to tell nature though...
Click to expand...
Nature made it possible for her to get it out of her body... so nature is well aware and supportive.
forn said:
Also, I would say that if she consents to a certain action, she would be consenting to the possible outcomes of that action.
Click to expand...
You think that women that want to get pregnant are having abortions?
 
Bodi said:
Nature made it possible for her to get it out of her body... so nature is well aware and supportive.
Click to expand...
Nature made it possible to shoot someone in the head, too. Is nature supportive of that?
 
forn said:
Nature made it possible to shoot someone in the head, too. Is nature supportive of that?
Click to expand...
With what? Not a gun. Not an arrow. Not a bolt. That was technology.

Women have natural remedies to induce an abortion.
 
brianpatrick said:
Technology is still part of nature. In fact everything is.
Click to expand...
Which makes it such a meaningless statement as to be irrelevant.

If women could induce abortions 25,000 years ago with herbs or whatever... then what in the hell does "technology" have to do with anything?
 
Bodi said:
Which makes it such a meaningless statement as to be irrelevant.

If women could induce abortions 25,000 years ago with herbs or whatever... then what in the hell does "technology" have to do with anything?
Click to expand...
Just helping you make your point without falling into the classic religious dichotomy.
You don’t need to qualify “my body, my choice.”
 
brianpatrick said:
Just helping you make your point without falling into the classic religious dichotomy.
You don’t need to qualify “my body, my choice.”
Click to expand...
Not sure where Religion was brought up at all....
 
brianpatrick said:
Think more broadly? Otherwise you get caught in the same traps you argue against without realizing it.
Click to expand...
I am not qualifying 'my body my choice'.

Religion is irrelevant.

Bodily autonomy is paramount and has never not been part of the argument.
 
forn said:
Nature made it possible to shoot someone in the head, too. Is nature supportive of that?
Click to expand...

Speaking of nature (previously posted):

In nature, many females eat their young...does that count? Then there's a thing called adsorbing (spelled correctly) their unborn when under stress like lack of resources and over-crowding, so their bodies do naturally what some women need to do with abortion.

So...does abortion make more sense now or does the birth of the unborn only count? Not the welfare of the female? In nature, the reproductive adults are always the biological better investment...young have much higher mortality rates. In America, it's more like a greater risk of ending up in foster care, being neglected or abused, becoming criminals, etc.

The main "point" regarding nature is...it's what's best for the species. How about when looking at it for America...it's what's best for society? The welfare and support of women, already contributing to society? (just trying to parallel your 'nature' paradigm.)
 
Bodi said:
With what? Not a gun. Not an arrow. Not a bolt. That was technology.
Women have natural remedies to induce an abortion.
Click to expand...
You could give someone a poison mushroom, that would be natural.
 
forn said:
You could give someone a poison mushroom, that would be natural.
Click to expand...
Cool. That was an easy win. What do you want to debate next to try and redeem yourself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom