• 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.

anti-abortion

scottm123

New member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Personally, I think abortion is wrong. Though it is not killing a baby, it is taking away a life. Sure sometimes a fetus will not end up being a baby sometimes a complication will occur and the baby will be lost, but the majority of the time, that fetus that is being destroyed will one day become a baby. I understand it is taking away a womens right to choose, and many people are against that. But what is more important a women's "right to choose" or taking away what would eventually be a person's life? How is it up to one person to say this fetus that will most likely be a person one day does not deserve a chance at life? It is a lot of trouble to go through a pregnancy, but how is 9 months of inconvinience and some pain in one person's life more important than the future life of someone else?


For all we know, someone has already killed the fetus that would become the person who finds the cure for cancer or the future president, or maybe a future loving father, or mother of 3 was never given the chance to have a family, to have a job, to love, or to be loved. There are other choices besides abortion, there is adoption, raising the child yourself, or having another family member raise the child. It is 9 months out of someone's life to give another person the chance at life.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
scottm123 said:
Personally, I think abortion is wrong. Though it is not killing a baby, it is taking away a life.
Lots of things are.
Sure sometimes a fetus will not end up being a baby sometimes a complication will occur and the baby will be lost, but the majority of the time, that fetus that is being destroyed will one day become a baby. I understand it is taking away a womens right to choose, and many people are against that. But what is more important a women's "right to choose" or taking away what would eventually be a person's life?
Clearly, the woman's right ot chose is more important.
How is it up to one person to say this fetus that will most likely be a person one day does not deserve a chance at life?
Becausew it is using her bodily resources to reach that point. She is not a slave that MUST give her bodily resources against her will.
It is a lot of trouble to go through a pregnancy, but how is 9 months of inconvinience and some pain in one person's life more important than the future life of someone else?
Oh, really? Well, here is a proposition for you. Live donation of a kidney is safer than giving birth and takes a lot less time than pregnancy. And it WILL save lives, given that 10's of thousands of people die while on the transplant list awaiting a kidney.

So if it is a matter of time and inconvenience, why shouldn't we just make kidney donations mandatory? Isn't the future life of the kidney patient more important that YOUR inconvenience and loss of bodily control? Why shouldn't YOU be forced to give the kidney that saves his life?

No? Are you saying that it is OK to force the woman, but not OK to force you? Yes, that is the hypocricy of the prolifers.
For all we know, someone has already killed the fetus that would become the person who finds the cure for cancer or the future president,
Or the next Hitler, Stalin or Pol-Pot. yeah, the what-if game is very interesting but a lousy orgument for anything.
There are other choices besides abortion, there is adoption, raising the child yourself, or having another family member raise the child.
Those are parenting decisions. Abortion is a decision about pregnancy.
It is 9 months out of someone's life to give another person the chance at life.
Hmm, and you think that society should have the right to enslave people if it is for less than one year?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I like your "kidney donor" argument, Steen. I've never heard it before, but it does seem to be a very philosophically analogous proposition to the "right to life" regarding abortion.

I'll have to remember it. Kudos to you.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kandahar said:
I like your "kidney donor" argument, Steen. I've never heard it before, but it does seem to be a very philosophically analogous proposition to the "right to life" regarding abortion.

Except that there is nothing "I" as an individual have done to contribute to the existence of the diseased kidney of another--therefore I am not responsible to that individual in need of a kidney. However, the pregnant female engaged in a behavior that led to the existence of the pregnancy and the unborn human itself knowing full well that pregnancy was a possible outcome of engaging in that behavior. Therefore--she IS responsible to that individual in her womb.
 

Elektra

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Location
Ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Felicity said:
Except that there is nothing "I" as an individual have done to contribute to the existence of the diseased kidney of another--therefore I am not responsible to that individual in need of a kidney. However, the pregnant female engaged in a behavior that led to the existence of the pregnancy and the unborn human itself knowing full well that pregnancy was a possible outcome of engaging in that behavior. Therefore--she IS responsible to that individual in her womb.
Do you know the number of planned pregnancies?Apparently you don't, to assume every pregnant "female engaged in a behavior that led to the existence of the pregnancy" not only assumes that they are all planend but also completely denies the fact that women are raped on a daily basis.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Elektra said:
Do you know the number of planned pregnancies?Apparently you don't, to assume every pregnant "female engaged in a behavior that led to the existence of the pregnancy" not only assumes that they are all planend but also completely denies the fact that women are raped on a daily basis.
If you have consensual sex--you accept (or at least acknowledge) the implicit possibility of pregnancy when you engage in the behavior. If you are unaware of the possibility of conception--you are not capable of consenting.

Rape is a different issue and I'd be curious how many of those daily rapes result in pregnancy. Still--the rapist is then responsible to the woman and the created life--that is why we have laws that punish rapists. The problem of a pregnancy exacting a physical cost to the woman is a problem of the crime--I suppose one might consider it a continuation of the rape (although I find that conclusion distasteful). Nonetheless--the created life is not responsible for its own creation no matter the circumstances and therefore should not be made to pay the consequence of the crime with its life.
 

Elektra

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Location
Ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Felicity said:
Nonetheless--the created life is not responsible for its own creation no matter the circumstances and therefore should not be made to pay the consequence of the crime with its life.

I don't acually consider a lump of cells "life" but potential life.If there is no consent of what life is, there is no common ground for an argumentation.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Elektra said:
I don't acually consider a lump of cells "life" but potential life.If there is no consent of what life is, there is no common ground for an argumentation.
Ugggghhh...(pardon me...:blah: ) the "lump of cells" claim is the worst of all! You and I are realistically a lump of cells. ...a single cell is "life." The issue is personhood--and the PC argument you just put forth wants to relegate human "life" of complete chromosomal unity to a subservient position of non-person based on maturity. That's ageism. That's prejudice. That's arbitrary and enslavement of a member of the human species.
 

shakenbake19

New member
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't think that abortion should be used as a form of birth control. I think it should only be used for extreme cases, like a girl gets raped or something. But if a 15 year old has sex that she wants and then gets pregnant, then she should deal with the consequences of her actions. Same thing goes for a 23 year old. Sex was created to be a babymaking process, it wasn't created for pleasure, that is just a side effect. If i get a girl pregnant, i will raise the child if she won't because that was my decision. Women have gotten very selfish over the period of 20 years, and they think their rights are more important then life.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
scottm123 said:
Personally, I think abortion is wrong. Though it is not killing a baby, it is taking away a life. Sure sometimes a fetus will not end up being a baby sometimes a complication will occur and the baby will be lost, but the majority of the time, that fetus that is being destroyed will one day become a baby. I understand it is taking away a womens right to choose, and many people are against that. But what is more important a women's "right to choose" or taking away what would eventually be a person's life? How is it up to one person to say this fetus that will most likely be a person one day does not deserve a chance at life? It is a lot of trouble to go through a pregnancy, but how is 9 months of inconvinience and some pain in one person's life more important than the future life of someone else?


For all we know, someone has already killed the fetus that would become the person who finds the cure for cancer or the future president, or maybe a future loving father, or mother of 3 was never given the chance to have a family, to have a job, to love, or to be loved. There are other choices besides abortion, there is adoption, raising the child yourself, or having another family member raise the child. It is 9 months out of someone's life to give another person the chance at life.
Consult any biology text book and you'll find that from day one, the occupant of a womb is a living, growing, developing unborn human child.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Elektra said:
I don't acually consider a lump of cells "life" but potential life.If there is no consent of what life is, there is no common ground for an argumentation.
Embryologists, fetologists, obstetricians, geneticists, and similar medical and scientific experts agree that the occupant of a womb is a living, growing, developing, human child. Proponents of abortion use every means possible in an attempt to de-humanize and, thereby de-value the occupant of a womb.

Upon what do you base your "consideration"?
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Elektra said:
Do you know the number of planned pregnancies?Apparently you don't, to assume every pregnant "female engaged in a behavior that led to the existence of the pregnancy" not only assumes that they are all planend but also completely denies the fact that women are raped on a daily basis.
Have you any idea of how many pregnancies result from rape on the average day?

The average number of abortions in the US every year since 1973 is more than a million and a half. The total number is nearly fifty million.

Every abortion procedure stills a beating human heart.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
When I kill a mouse, I'm stilling a beating heart, too. Nice attempt with the sentiment, but try again.

Btw, Fantasea - actually, have a look in a med book. Even embryologists, OB-GYNs etc use the terms "embryo" and "foetus". Those words were invented and used by the medical and scientific community long before there was even an abortion debate.
 

Elektra

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Location
Ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Fantasea said:
Embryologists, fetologists, obstetricians, geneticists, and similar medical and scientific experts agree that the occupant of a womb is a living, growing, developing, human child. Proponents of abortion use every means possible in an attempt to de-humanize and, thereby de-value the occupant of a womb.

Upon what do you base your "consideration"?
You said it yourself.It is developing. And the decision whether it should continue to do so in order to become a full functioning human being is the woman's.
 

Elektra

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Location
Ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Fantasea said:
Every abortion procedure stills a beating human heart.

That is not correct.Not that it makes a difference, but the heart will start beating earliest at 5 weeks into the pregnancy.Since I'm not aware whether you know how the weeks in a pregnancy are calculated, the 1. day of one's last period will be the first day of the pregnancy and since an average cycle lasts 28 days one might have a positive pregnancy test at or even slightly before 4 weeks.
 

Elektra

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Location
Ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Fantasea said:
Have you any idea of how many pregnancies result from rape on the average day?

The average number of abortions in the US every year since 1973 is more than a million and a half. The total number is nearly fifty million.
.

Aha.....so?

No, I have no idea and it makes no difference because fact it, it does happen.Not only in the U.S., obviously.
 

shakenbake19

New member
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I bet you if it was the man's choice, the woman wouldn't care. All responses to this would be irrelavant having said that though, so you might as well not even try.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
shakenbake19 said:
I bet you if it was the man's choice, the woman wouldn't care. All responses to this would be irrelavant having said that though, so you might as well not even try.
Does that make sense?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
Except that there is nothing "I" as an individual have done to contribute to the existence of the diseased kidney of another--therefore I am not responsible to that individual in need of a kidney.[/quote[Irrelevant. You claim the fetus has a right to life. Thus, there is something inherent merely in its existence that gives it such a right. Why doesn't the kidney patient have that same right to use a person's bodily resources against that person's will, if it is for survival?
However, the pregnant female engaged in a behavior that led to the existence of the pregnancy and the unborn human itself knowing full well that pregnancy was a possible outcome of engaging in that behavior. Therefore--she IS responsible to that individual in her womb.
More irrelevant blabbering, as you also can generate "unique" life through smoking, it is also non-sentient, non-sensate tissue, but in that case it is called a lung tumor. Yes, it is life caused by the person's voluntary actons. Yet, you are not arguing for any responsibility to keep the tumor alive.

hence, there must be something other than a person's actions leading to the "life."

And you also seem to be shifting argument here. Are you arguing that there is a right to life? Or ONLY a right to life if others cause the need for bodily resources? Your argument is not at all clear here, and it does seem to border on the dishonest, which wouldn't surprise me.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
If you have consensual sex--you accept (or at least acknowledge) the implicit possibility of pregnancy when you engage in the behavior. If you are unaware of the possibility of conception--you are not capable of consenting.
And acknowledging the possibility of an outcome is not consent to that outcome, unless you want to claim that the smoker consents to the lung cancer without seeking to have it removed. Even YOU will not be so dishonest, and hence, you are admitting your argument to be bogus from the get-go.
Rape is a different issue and I'd be curious how many of those daily rapes result in pregnancy. Still--the rapist is then responsible to the woman and the created life--that is why we have laws that punish rapists.
Once again are you lying. The rapist is responsible to the woman, but NOT to the embryo.
The problem of a pregnancy exacting a physical cost to the woman is a problem of the crime--
Nope, it is a problem of the woman's bodily resources being used, and there being a treatment available to stop that use. If you deny the woman that treatment, then YOU are the one causing her that harm, the rapist isn't.

So your deceptive attempt at deflecting away from your desire to have her ongoing violated is thus duly noted. Your misogyny is exposed.
I suppose one might consider it a continuation of the rape (although I find that conclusion distasteful).
And we find your misogyny, your theocratic desire to enslave women to bee xtremely distasteful.
Nonetheless--the created life is not responsible for its own creation no matter the circumstances and therefore should not be made to pay the consequence of the crime with its life.
And the life created through smoking is not responsible for its own creation no matter the circumstances and therefore should not be made to pay the consequence of the smoking with its life, right? Or are you so hypocritical and bigoted that you only want such restrictions and enslavement on pregnant women and not anybody else?
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
More irrelevant blabbering, as you also can generate "unique" life through smoking, it is also non-sentient, non-sensate tissue, but in that case it is called a lung tumor. Yes, it is life caused by the person's voluntary actons. Yet, you are not arguing for any responsibility to keep the tumor alive.

hence, there must be something other than a person's actions leading to the "life."

And you also seem to be shifting argument here. Are you arguing that there is a right to life? Or ONLY a right to life if others cause the need for bodily resources? Your argument is not at all clear here, and it does seem to border on the dishonest, which wouldn't surprise me.
Smoking leads to "human" life, steen?

Don't start with the "liar, liar, pants on fire" nonsense...P.L.E.A.S.E......
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
Ugggghhh...(pardon me...:blah: ) the "lump of cells" claim is the worst of all! You and I are realistically a lump of cells. ...a single cell is "life."
I am glad you are admitting that a tumor is "life." I am sure that when you say that a life has a right to that life, it means that you object to tumor surgery.

Because you wouldn't be so deceptive and dishonest as to try to portray a "right to life," when such only applies to some life, the life you agree with. Yes, you wouldn't be that dishonest, would you?
The issue is personhood--and the PC argument you just put forth wants to relegate human "life" of complete chromosomal unity to a subservient position of non-person based on maturity. That's ageism.
Nope, it is biological reality. Talk about stupid claims, this is one of your more stupid ones.

That aside, where is the law that allows a person to use another person's bodily re4sources against their will?

No?

That's prejudice. That's arbitrary and enslavement of a member of the human species.
Well, the prolife enslavement of women through their theocratic oppression certainly is prejudism. Your refusal to acknowledge this is merely an indication of how incredibly dishonest prolifers are, and you are in particular.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
shakenbake19 said:
I don't think that abortion should be used as a form of birth control.
And I think it should. SO what?
But if a 15 year old has sex that she wants and then gets pregnant, then she should deal with the consequences of her actions.
Ah, yes. Pregnancy as punishment for her not living up to your moral standard. She can deal fine with the consequenses by having an abortion. She is not dealing with it the way YOU wnat her to, but then you don't own her, she is not your slave. You very likely would WANT ehr to be, as prolifers seem all to happy to own slaves as long as they are pregnant women, but your desire to enslave women doesn't mean that you have the right to do so.
Same thing goes for a 23 year old. Sex was created to be a babymaking process,
Really? Care to provide the instruction manual for that? Sex is for the purpose that the people are having sex for. Your claim of design is bogus, it is pure nonsense.
it wasn't created for pleasure, that is just a side effect.
What a bunch of houey. If people are having sexc for pleasure, then they are creating sex for pleasure. It is incredibly silly for you to claim to know the purpose of their sexual activity.
If i get a girl pregnant, i will raise the child if she won't because that was my decision.
That is, if she agrees to provide of her bodily resources for the preceeding 9 months. You don't own her body, your presumptions none withstanding.
Women have gotten very selfish over the period of 20 years, and they think their rights are more important then life.
Ah, you mean their rights are the same as yours? yes, how dare they, those damn selfish, uppity women who dare believing that they also have the right to decide how their bodily resources are to be used. After all, ONLY you and others like you should have that right. YOU shouldn't be forced to give of your bodily resources against your will never mind how much people will die from that decision, but the woman of course should.

What a load of hate mongering, misogynistic, theocratic bigotry.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
And acknowledging the possibility of an outcome is not consent to that outcome, unless you want to claim that the smoker consents to the lung cancer without seeking to have it removed. Even YOU will not be so dishonest, and hence, you are admitting your argument to be bogus from the get-go.
You are setting up a false dilemma.


The rapist is responsible to the woman, but NOT to the embryo.
The embryo's existance is due to the rapist's action.

If you deny the woman that treatment, then YOU are the one causing her that harm, the rapist isn't.
If the rapist hadn't raped...presumably it wouldn't be an issue.

So your deceptive attempt at deflecting away from your desire to have her ongoing violated is thus duly noted. Your misogyny is exposed.
And we find your misogyny, your theocratic desire to enslave women to bee xtremely distasteful.
Get some new words steen...the only one you didn't include here was "claptrap"--for heaven's sake "lying, misogyny, theocratic, blah, blah, blah....we get your point--now SAY something meaningful. Your words lose there sting in the repetition. It just becomes...well...actually...it becomes kind of a gawker's spectacle....

And the life created through smoking is not responsible for its own creation no matter the circumstances and therefore should not be made to pay the consequence of the smoking with its life, right?
that's just truly bizarre.

Or are you so hypocritical and bigoted that you only want such restrictions and enslavement on pregnant women and not anybody else?
Oh...thanks for reminding me...I forgot your repeated use of "hypocritical," and "bigoted" too....too funny....
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Fantasea said:
Consult any biology text book and you'll find that from day one, the occupant of a womb is a living, growing, developing unborn human child.
A biology textbook says no such thing. You are again flatout lying

STOP YOUR STINKING LIES
 
Top Bottom