• 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!

An attempt at common ground [W:333]

sbrettt

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,724
Reaction score
783
Location
Prospect park, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I have yet to hear a single practical idea that rectifies the problems that come with abortion. In fact, I have presented idea's for it that simply wouldn't work. Unfortunately current methods of birth control are not 100% effective, and we simply don't have the resources to help parents who otherwise couldn't support a family, but if we did have the means to help these families as well as a 100% effective birth control would anyone in the pro choice crowd reconsider the right to that choice? If you don't like hypotheticals this isn't the thread for you.
 
I have yet to hear a single practical idea that rectifies the problems that come with abortion. In fact, I have presented idea's for it that simply wouldn't work. Unfortunately current methods of birth control are not 100% effective, and we simply don't have the resources to help parents who otherwise couldn't support a family, but if we did have the means to help these families as well as a 100% effective birth control would anyone in the pro choice crowd reconsider the right to that choice? If you don't like hypotheticals this isn't the thread for you.

I believe that abortion rate would drop dramatically if financial issues were not a concern

But I believe that no one should have the right to decide what medical procedures another person can and cannot have, with the exception of the govt whose decisions should be based on safety, not morality
 
I have yet to hear a single practical idea that rectifies the problems that come with abortion. In fact, I have presented idea's for it that simply wouldn't work. Unfortunately current methods of birth control are not 100% effective, and we simply don't have the resources to help parents who otherwise couldn't support a family, but if we did have the means to help these families as well as a 100% effective birth control would anyone in the pro choice crowd reconsider the right to that choice? If you don't like hypotheticals this isn't the thread for you.

Once the fetus has a heartbeat, I oppose abortion in all instances in which it is viable--as in not doomed because its mother is physically incapable of maintaining the pregnancy without losing her life.
 
I believe that abortion rate would drop dramatically if financial issues were not a concern

But I believe that no one should have the right to decide what medical procedures another person can and cannot have, with the exception of the govt whose decisions should be based on safety, not morality

I would like to see it drop. I have two minds on this because on one hand I don't like it because I value human life at all stages. It's not based on any science, it's the way I'm wired. On the other hand, it solves a lot of problems, and it is extremely unrealistic to end it. My thinking in the OP is that if medical science gets to a point where the only way to have an unwanted pregnancy is because you didn't try to avoid it then why should you be able to terminate that pregnancy?
 
Once the fetus has a heartbeat, I oppose abortion in all instances in which it is viable--as in not doomed because its mother is physically incapable of maintaining the pregnancy without losing her life.
I don't like that it happens, but it's becoming more and more apparent to me that it's necessary. What would you do with the 1.2 million extra children annually?
 
I don't like that it happens, but it's becoming more and more apparent to me that it's necessary. What would you do with the 1.2 million extra children annually?

Feed them to Specklebang. It is not, however, something I would compromise on. If people did not have an easy out, they would actually have to make a decision to keep their legs closed or live with the consequences, so I would expect you to see fewer pregnancies among the "Let's food process a human being" crowd.
 
Feed them to Specklebang. It is not, however, something I would compromise on. If people did not have an easy out, they would actually have to make a decision to keep their legs closed or live with the consequences, so I would expect you to see fewer pregnancies among the "Let's food process a human being" crowd.

I think feel similarly about it, but you saying feed them to specklebang shows that, just like me, you couldn't come up with a practical solution.
 
I would like to see it drop. I have two minds on this because on one hand I don't like it because I value human life at all stages. It's not based on any science, it's the way I'm wired. On the other hand, it solves a lot of problems, and it is extremely unrealistic to end it. My thinking in the OP is that if medical science gets to a point where the only way to have an unwanted pregnancy is because you didn't try to avoid it then why should you be able to terminate that pregnancy?

Because people do not have the right to decide what medical procedures other people can and can't have (except for safety reasons)

Should smokers be prohibited from receiving treatment for lung cancer? Football players from knee surgery?
 
Because people do not have the right to decide what medical procedures other people can and can't have (except for safety reasons)

Should smokers be prohibited from receiving treatment for lung cancer? Football players from knee surgery?

That's a good point, but I look at the well being of a zef as a safety reason. I don't believe either of us can rectify this because it's the prime difference between pro choices and pro lifers.
 
Feed them to Specklebang. It is not, however, something I would compromise on. If people did not have an easy out, they would actually have to make a decision to keep their legs closed or live with the consequences, so I would expect you to see fewer pregnancies among the "Let's food process a human being" crowd.
And here in a nutshell is the ENTIRE problem with pro-lifers. Notice immediately that somehow all the responsibility for a pregnancy is a woman's as opposed to the "people" he types (ie "keep their legs closed" is clearly pointing at women tho men are often responsible for getting a woman pregnant without her permission to do so), and then fails to even offer anything akin to pre-pregnancy birth control, just "keep those legs crossed women",... It's all our faults, but tho men can get insurance covered penis pills in order to get women pregnant, until just recently women couldn't get the pills required to not get pregnant.
 
That's a good point, but I look at the well being of a zef as a safety reason. I don't believe either of us can rectify this because it's the prime difference between pro choices and pro lifers.

Under the constitution, the zef is not a person and has no rights. Therefore, the govt does not have the power to legislate to protect its' safety
 
Under the constitution, the zef is not a person and has no rights. Therefore, the govt does not have the power to legislate to protect its' safety

Yeah yeah, this says that, that says this. The constitution doesn't change the way I think even though it goes against science and the constitution.
 
Yeah yeah, this says that, that says this. The constitution doesn't change the way I think even though it goes against science and the constitution.

And you have every right to think about it in whichever way you choose.

However, your opinions do not change facts.
 
I have yet to hear a single practical idea that rectifies the problems that come with abortion. In fact, I have presented idea's for it that simply wouldn't work. Unfortunately current methods of birth control are not 100% effective, and we simply don't have the resources to help parents who otherwise couldn't support a family, but if we did have the means to help these families as well as a 100% effective birth control would anyone in the pro choice crowd reconsider the right to that choice? If you don't like hypotheticals this isn't the thread for you.

No. None of that would negate the woman's right to bodily autonomy.
 
I believe that abortion rate would drop dramatically if financial issues were not a concern

But I believe that no one should have the right to decide what medical procedures another person can and cannot have, with the exception of the govt whose decisions should be based on safety, not morality

I don't think the govt. has any business to decide what procedures we can or can't have. It should be up to doctors and their governing bodies to decide which to provide.
 
Yeah yeah, this says that, that says this. The constitution doesn't change the way I think even though it goes against science and the constitution.

Science doesn't determine what's a person and what's not. That is entering the realm of philosophy. For example claims like ''it's wrong to kill a unborn human'' or '' unborn humans should have the right to life'' are philosophical and shouldn't be really taken seriously if another human makes that claim now if a non human intelligent entity were to make those claims I might take it seriously. Sadly, some humans like yourself can't raise above your biological hardwiring to accept that too much of a good thing is always a bad thing and humans have already taken the concept of ''right to life'' to far already as evident from our population rapidly increasing year by year despite the 50 million abortions done worldwide each year.

And as for the constitution, I really don't care what a group of humans wrote hundreds of years ago.
 
No. None of that would negate the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

It shouldn't at all.

If I can purposely eat raw meat and know that the consequences of those actions can wind up with me having tapeworms in my body and despite the consequences I knew beforehand and can go to a doctor and have it kill and remove then the same can be said of the unborn human. The only difference is the biological material really.
 
I have yet to hear a single practical idea that rectifies the problems that come with abortion. In fact, I have presented idea's for it that simply wouldn't work. Unfortunately current methods of birth control are not 100% effective, and we simply don't have the resources to help parents who otherwise couldn't support a family, but if we did have the means to help these families as well as a 100% effective birth control would anyone in the pro choice crowd reconsider the right to that choice? If you don't like hypotheticals this isn't the thread for you.

Maybe a few would, but most would not. I would not, and here's why...

While there definitely are instances of failed birth control and rape pregnancies, the majority of abortions do not result from either of those. While many pregnancies are terminated by teens or women in impoverished or otherwise not really able to raise a child, many also are neither of those situations. Rather, it is as simple as the woman does not want to be pregnant, does not want to go thru labor and does not want to have a child. There is no even "theoretical" method for a pregnant woman to not be pregnant, not go thru labor or C-Section surgery and not have the child - except by an abortion.

I think nearly all pro-choicers would be agreeable to the theoretical of an artificial womb being created from which if the ZEF could be removed and put into that IF the bio-father or other responsible adult will then accept total legal obligation to that incubated ZEF/fetus/unborn child (pick your word choice.)

Would THAT theoretical medical advance solution be acceptable to you? Remove the unwanted ZEF to incubate artificially and then goes to the bio-father or "government" to raise?

I would ONLY agree to that if some responsible adult or biofather committed legally to raising the child - as I totally oppose "dumping" children to being parentless. But I suspect many or most pro-choicers would be agreeable to that theoretical.

The reason I am untroubled by an unqualified "no" to your theoretical is because I do not thiAvonk is anything wrong, evil, immoral or otherwise "bad" about abortion. Unwanted pregnancies also likely often indicate unsafe sex (STDs potential) and may otherwise indicate dangerous or unwise activities, for which I think there need be education, parental involvement etc. But as for abortions themselves, I see nothing wrong with them in the sense of terminating a pregnancy.

The reality is that there will always be females and males that engage in unsafe (STDs) and no contraceptive sex. Ideally, people are educated away from this and in ways that work, but if not and if there is an unwanted pregnancy, I see NOTHING wrong or undesirable in terminating the pregnancy.

While not ALL issues come down to "it's an unborn baby with full human rights for which society has a duty to stop murder" VS "no it's not and it's up to the woman as it's her body," many such as what your OP raises does.

TRUE pro-life can not give up "it's killing a baby." TRUE pro-choice can not give up "It's her body, her risks and therefore her decision." The is no real "compromise" when there are absolute diametric opposites.

What "Pro-choicers" USUALLY compromise on is setting a limit on when abortion should be allowed - usually at the point of "independent viability" of the fetus. What "Pro-life" USUALLY compromises on is not disapproving of MAPs (morning after pills), thought those can rarely act as an aborficide. Otherwise, there is little room for further compromise.
 
Last edited:
I don't like that it happens, but it's becoming more and more apparent to me that it's necessary. What would you do with the 1.2 million extra children annually?

Way back on the forum I calculated the cost of what - since Roe V. Wade would equate to close to well over 30,000,000 unwanted children - and an unusually high percentage with birth defects. The cost? About 5o TRILLION dollars to the government.

As for the convenient solution of "put it up for adoption," there are already over 100,000 children in foster care no one will foster care or adopt, and tens of thousands of severely handicapped at exorbitant cost to the government - plus only about 1,000,000 at the most people who want to adopt a child - a perfect child - for which there would be a 29,000,000 short fall of potential adopting parents.

If you look at societies that do by law and religion outlaw abortions, they are extremely impoverished, socially and politically unstable, horrifically over-populated, and child abuse is thru the roof.

Too many pro-lifers just jump past all that and shout "but you can't murder chidren!" and "just put them up for adoption" - otherwise not addressing those realities.
 
I've known only a few people who grew up in foster care and one who spent his whole life until he was 18 in an orphanage. He's happy, cute, degreed, and talented. The answer isn't killing the unborn who might end up in foster care or an orphanage because nobody knows who will or how they will deal with it.
 
I've known only a few people who grew up in foster care and one who spent his whole life until he was 18 in an orphanage. He's happy, cute, degreed, and talented. The answer isn't killing the unborn who might end up in foster care or an orphanage because nobody knows who will or how they will deal with it.

GREAT! Let's put all children into orphanages - all extra tens of millions - so they all can be "happy, cute, degreed and talented." Indeed, let's require ALL children go into orphanages whether they have parents or not so they all can have those traits. And, of course, just print off $50,000,000,000 to pay for it too.

I guess that's the solution to the growing number of children the government can't find ANYONE to foster care. We'll just build hundreds and then thousands of orphanages. And people certain will agree to a 90% tax rate to pay for it rather than "killing the unborn." I have no doubt you often appear before your County and State governing body urging them to raise taxes to pay for a new orphanage, right? How times have you done so?
 
Oh, get over yourself, Joko. Killing the unborn because they might end up in the system is a pathetic rationale.
 
Let's do the math. 30,000,000 unwanted children would have been born. 1 million potential adoptive parents for which you assume they will be good. There are already not enough foster parents, so none could have gone there.

HOW MANY ORPHANAGES would it take for 29,000,000 children - and that assumes NONE of them had unwanted children when they grow up.

How about 1,000 children per orphanage? So... we would only need 29,000 orphanages. So far. Then another 1,300 more per year there after. So... 40,000 ophanages by 2023, 52,000 orphanages by 2033...

and of course some those would have unwanted pregnancies. By about 2050, there would be about 100,000 orphanages.

But, it is known that in the dark ages the average life span was about age 25, for which nearly all children grew up as orphans. And wasn't life wonderful for them too? That's why they decided to have a "Chidren's Crusade" to march tens of thousands of children off to the desert to fight the Muslim armies for God. Exactly not one child returned.

But, they didn't kill "unborn" children, so that's ok.
 
Back
Top Bottom