• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

And You Are?

Reverend Slip

New member
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
Cincinnati Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I seem to always take to "unpopular" side of an argument, and I guess today is no different:

So what are you, Pro-life or Pro-choice? This is a really touchy topic for most Americans today, do we support the woman’s right to do what she wishes with her body, or do we support the infants right to live.

The first issue here is the question; “Is the fetus alive or not?” I mean, if the fetus is not living, we can rationalize the act by thinking; “It never was alive to begin with.” Personally, after Day 1 of development, I think the child is alive, because it’s feeding off the mother’s body to survive, and though fetus may be considered a parasite, a parasite is a living organism, and as that is, you are killing something. Period, and that is wrong.

Women do say it is their body and their right to do with it what they want, but think about that for one second, is may be their body, but they have a living human within them, and they aren’t doing anything but killing it. That is after all, what they are doing, they are not destroying a nameless, soulless being, they are killing a living thing, and that is not right, at all. And why do we so strictly refer to it as a fetus?

We do this to dehumanize the process, we take the humanity out of killing a child. Without thinking of it as a human, we can alleviate the guilt of killing, we make it easier on ourselves to kill, when we think we are not. I think this is a horrible thing, I mean, you are still killing after all, all you really are doing is making it seem like you are not, but then, people can turn right around after yelling “Pro-life” and call for the death penalty.

How is this any different? How is aborting a fetus any different from killing a murderer. They are both living beings, they are both alive, and we are killing them, and how could killing a fetus be any better thank killing a full grown man?

The child has not even begun to live yet, he has not had any opportunities in life, not have a childhood, not have a girlfriend or boyfriend, not grow up, they won’t have any of that. Then there is the man marked for death, he has had them various opportunities, he has had a life, so he really isn’t missing as much as the child.

Think people, it’s a child, you are killing child, how in the world can that be justified on any account, it is a child.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
100% Pro-life!:2wave:
 

Elektra

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Location
Ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Absolutely pro choice.

The question is not whetehr the fetus has a right to live, but whether the woman's right over her own body is greater than the right of a potential human being to fully develop.To this there is only one answer:the woman's right is greater.


I don't find it touchy at all, but then I;m not american either.:lol:

And has been said a million times..a fetus is not a child,It could be a child.
 

Elektra

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Location
Ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Reverend Slip said:
Yes I am. I tend to hate anyone or anything that kills a person, period.
It's so often the most religious who are most bitter, hatred filled people.
 
C

curiousity

Disclaimer: qoute shortened for easier reading, please refer to post #1
Reverend Slip said:
The first issue here is the question; “Is the fetus alive or not?” I mean, if the fetus is not living, we can rationalize the act by thinking; “It never was alive to begin with.” Personally, after Day 1 of development, I think the child is alive, because it’s feeding off the mother’s body to survive, and though fetus may be considered a parasite, a parasite is a living organism, and as that is, you are killing something. Period, and that is wrong.

......... but then, people can turn right around after yelling “Pro-life” and call for the death penalty.
Reverend Slip.

With your rationalization in the first quoted paragraph, one could make an argument against antibiotics. I think it is a horrible argument for you to use and only weakens your position. Please don't think that I am attacking you, but with that rationalization, I could be against treating fungal infections, stepping on an ant, or de-worming a favorite pet, etc.

I am for legalized abortion. I am also for personal responsibility. Therefore I believe in legal abortion only during the first trimester. If someone is unable to make a choice in one to three months, they have to accept responsibility for the action that caused them to be pregnant.

I believe this is a very viable legal solution also. Abortion will happen. Whether it happens in a clinic with doctors or in an alley, they will happen. I was listening NPR one day. A director of an abortion clinic was bluntly told by her state congress that, although they couldn't close her clinic, they would put every restriction possible on its practices. Earlier this year they ran out of restrictions. They simply could not think of anymore. Guess how many girls and women showed up? The same amount: year after year after year. It comes down to the question of whether you would like to have they endure this procedure in clinic or an alley.

I think that many abortions could be preventable by approaching this from another angle. Education. Holy sh**! Education? Yep, sex education. Teenagers are going to have sex. It is going to happen. Our choice is whether they have protected sex or unprotected sex. Will more kids have sex? Maybe, but I think that a huge increase in the percentage of safe sex would easily offset any small increase in sexual activity. (My mom was a health teacher for 30 years at a local high school. You would scarcely believe the lack of knowledge. These kids thought they couldn’t get STDs from oral sex. This only shows how the lack of education is hurting our children. An STD can stay with a child for life.)

Reverend, I think I can assume that you are a religious person. Would you agree that you can not force (or enforce) morality with laws? Morality is a personal thing. It comes from individual beliefs. You have to change a person’s heart if you wish to change their morality. In a society you must allow for everyone to be free to express themselves (without harming a child or non-consenting adult.) If you want them to believe that abortion is wrong then you must make the argument logically and backed up by the basis of your beliefs; therefore, you convince more people to not have abortions. Changing the laws does nothing but puts the “non-believers” in the alley and in danger……(Children must be protected until they have real information about whichever subject and are able to use it rational to make a decision.)


I mean no harm and I apologize if I offended you in any manner; I am here just to discuss matter to further understand myself and my views.



P.S. I am against the death penalty.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Reverend Slip said:
Yes I am. I tend to hate anyone or anything that kills a person, period.
I am glad you oppose war and the death penalty. But on the other hand, the fetus is not a person (See Roe vs Wade, Section IX), so the relevance of your remark to abortion is not immediately clear here.
 

Tacobell

New member
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Location
Venice, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
steen said:
I am glad you oppose war and the death penalty. But on the other hand, the fetus is not a person (See Roe vs Wade, Section IX), so the relevance of your remark to abortion is not immediately clear here.
Thank you bringing up the Roe vs Wade case here, I just read it and agree.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Tacobell said:
Thank you bringing up the Roe vs Wade case here, I just read it and agree.

From ROE -V- WADE http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. "


First...he says "we need not resolve" the question and that he is "not in a position to speculate" and then he does JUST THAT?

Second...has there been any advancement in medicine, philosophy, and theology since 1972?


I think you missed a few things Tacobell....
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Furthermore--with reference to R-V-W...

"have never been recognized in the law as persons" Does not a definition of personhood make....
 

Tacobell

New member
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Location
Venice, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
First...he says "we need not resolve" the question and that he is "not in a position to speculate" and then he does JUST THAT?
If my understanding is correct, the court never came to a consensus or speculated about when life begins, simply that the laws against abortions were unconstitutionally vague and abridge constitutional rights to privacy.

Roe v Wade - http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

"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."

Second...has there been any advancement in medicine, philosophy, and theology since 1972?
Wasn't the Roe vs Wade case also reexamined in a 1992 case, Planned Parenthood vs Casy, only to reaffirm its earlier decision?
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Tacobell said:
Wasn't the Roe vs Wade case also reexamined in a 1992 case, Planned Parenthood vs Casy, only to reaffirm its earlier decision?
Ok...has there been any medical, philosophical, religious -and legal-development since 1992?

Also--Casey cites social reasons, not reasons on the basis of personhood...rather, on the basis of DEPENDENCE on abortion due to DEPENDENCE on contraception.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833


"(e) The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."
 

Tacobell

New member
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Location
Venice, FL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Felicity said:
Ok...has there been any medical, philosophical, religious -and legal-development since 1992?
In general, yes, specific examples should not be needed.

Also--Casey cites social reasons, not reasons on the basis of personhood...rather, on the basis of DEPENDENCE on abortion due to DEPENDENCE on contraception.
Thank you for the explanation.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Tacobell said:
Thank you for the explanation.
You're welcome!:smile:
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Elektra said:
It's so often the most religious who are most bitter, hatred filled people.
"God loves you, but everyone else thinks you're a wanker."

I'm not breeding until I decide that I want to. What other people think of my choice is none of their business - and of no concern to me. Killing a living thing is wrong? Please. I'll bet he's a meat-eater and will happily kill the first bug/rodent that annoys him.

A foetus is not human. If you have any proof that it is, please let us know. I'm sure the millions and millions of women you hate, not to mention every other person on the planet, will be eager to have a look.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
I'm not breeding until I decide that I want to. .
That's great that you're remaining celibate until your ready to get pregnant!
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Felicity said:
That's great that you're remaining celibate until your ready to get pregnant!
Yep, that's right. I'll only ever have sex twice in my life. :roll: :lol:
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
Yep, that's right. I'll only ever have sex twice in my life. :roll: :lol:

Eh...you don't have to do that...just accept the responsibility for your CHOICES!
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yep. And my choice would be get rid of it.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
Yep. And my choice would be get rid of it.
That would be your second choice....the one that you make when you realize you're not bulletproof and the promises of contraception prove you to be "one of the 1-???% of failure rate."
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yep. As remote a possibility as it is, given that most sexually women I know have not experienced an unwanted pregnancy so long as they correctly used contraception. Still, if my car got hit by another while I was out driving I wouldn't go "Oops! My bad, for being mortal and deciding to take the risk of stepping behind the wheel. Think I'll lie back and die, then."

So, yes. Choice two, plan B, etc. Your point?
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
So, yes. Choice two, plan B, etc. Your point?
You ARE free to make a single choice that makes the second choice unecessary. So really...the second choice is a "limited freedom" since you cannot change the circumstances of your first choice that got you pregnant--you can only chose between TWO definitive options.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I made that single first choice - to use contraception. Nothing's certain, Felicity. Even if a girl is celibate, she might still be raped and fall pregnant as a result.

Besides, I fail to see any logic in your argument. Sex should automatically mean you want babies, even if you use contraception to avoid it happening? Um... how does that work? Does that mean you should automatically want STDs, too?
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
I made that single first choice - to use contraception. Nothing's certain, Felicity. Even if a girl is celibate, she might still be raped and fall pregnant as a result.

Besides, I fail to see any logic in your argument. Sex should automatically mean you want babies, even if you use contraception to avoid it happening? Um... how does that work? Does that mean you should automatically want STDs, too?

No...the logic is that if you ABSOLUTELY don't want to accept the possibility of pregnancy--don't have sex. If you don't want a baby--but are willing to accept the responsibility of AT LEAST carrying the child to term should you get pregnant--by all means...go for it...I'm personally against contraception for various reasons--not least of which is that you can avoid pregnancy without medicating a healthy body...but whatever--if you don't kill anyone...whatever....


By the way--if both the man and the woman were virgins when they committed to one another...NEITHER will have an STD.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Felicity said:
No...the logic is that if you ABSOLUTELY don't want to accept the possibility of pregnancy--don't have sex. If you don't want a baby--but are willing to accept the responsibility of AT LEAST carrying the child to term should you get pregnant--by all means...go for it...I'm personally against contraception for various reasons--not least of which is that you can avoid pregnancy without medicating a healthy body...but whatever--if you don't kill anyone...whatever....


By the way--if both the man and the woman were virgins when they committed to one another...NEITHER will have an STD.
Well, we're obviously going to have a myriad of conflicting issues in this argument and whatever either one of us said is inevitably going to be disregarded by the other.

Are you even against birth control when it's prescribed for medical reasons, such as to treat endometriosis?
 
Top Bottom