• 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!

Are they Pro-life Christians or just Pro-birth Christians?

Ganondagan said:
Millions of people have survived such environments and have gone on to live very productive, even genius level, lives.
Click to expand...
No they have not. That is a fantasy the anti-abortion movement is promoting. The majority of children that grow up in unsafe, unstable conditions do very poorly as adults. Unplanned and unwanted children that grow up in those same conditions do even worse. This is a statistical fact. You can check it by looking at NIH research papers, child health organizations and in the data from the US Census. If you are interested I can give you legitimate sources that are doing honest, scientific, sourced research on this topic.
Ganondagan said:
Morality should be foremost in making such decisions. I am not advocating mandates nor legislation to prevent abortions. I just advocate for a higher level of individual moral awareness.
Click to expand...
Then start looking at honest sources instead of bigots promoting a conservative bigoted dishonest view point like the American College of Pediatrics, the Charlotte Lozier Institute and anything that comes from Priests for Life and Lila Rose,just to name few of the typical sources usually quoted by your kind.
 
weaver2 said:
The American College of Pediatricians is a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States, founded in 2002. Wikipedia
• Headquarters: Gainesville, Florida
• Founder(s): Gerry Boccarossa and Joseph Zanga


The group advocates in favor of abstinence-only sex education and conversion therapy, and advocates against vaccine mandates, abortion rights and rights for LGBT people.[3][1][4] As of 2022, its membership has been reported at about 700 physicians.[5][6][1]
ACPeds has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for pushing "anti-LGBTQ junk science".[3] A number of mainstream researchers, including the director of the US National Institutes of Health, have accused ACPeds of misusing or mischaracterizing their work to advance their own political agenda.[7][8] ACPeds has also been criticized for their professional sounding name which some have said is intended to mislead people into thinking they are a professional medical organization or mistake them for the similar sounding American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).[9]
en.wikipedia.org

American College of Pediatricians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org


The AC of Pediatrics is nothing but a rabid anti gay, anti women, anti vaccine bunch of conservative religious fanatics. They are not scientific or honest or professional. They are rabid, religious, hateful and bigoted.
Click to expand...


So you like them then!
 
Ganondagan said:
Millions of people have survived such environments and have gone on to live very productive, even genius level, lives. Morality should be foremost in making such decisions. I am not advocating mandates nor legislation to prevent abortions. I just advocate for a higher level of individual moral awareness.
Click to expand...

What about the validity and morality of enabling the woman/couple to avoid the very things you listed by having an abortion...where a child or another child could push them into having to survive such environments and then not be as productive...for themselves, for society. Not reaching their potentials?

Is that less moral than having a child if they believe it risks all that for their lives and the lives of others (their other kids, family, employers, community they have obligations to, society, etc)?

Are the unborn more entitled to your consideration than the woman/couple? If so how is that 'more' moral?
 
NatMorton said:
Yet here you are declaring your opinion that a fetus is not a life as "objective empirical fact."
Click to expand...
If you want to prove that the fetus has (not is) a life, all you have to do is remove it from the woman's body. If it lives, it has a life that isn't part of the woman's. If it dies, it doesn't. That is the objective empirical proof one way or the other. You can't live the fetus implanted and claim the life belongs to it.
 
cpwill said:
We disagree, and, until pro choice movement can internalize that people disagree with it on this point, it will continue to make silly arguments like those in the OP.
Click to expand...
If it is, then remove it from the woman's body.
 
cpwill said:
It's a common blindness on the left, because they rarely have to exist in places where their opinions are not affirmed as reality - which is why they score so badly on ideological Turing Tests. The same phenomena is (I think) increasingly happening on the right, which is worrying.
Click to expand...
No person has a right to use a woman's sex organs, or indeed her biological body, for its own benefit without her consent to having them used. This is so fundamental a part of law that you can't draw any of her blood for a transfusion to save the life of anyone, including her newborn baby, not even if it will die without that transfusion. So if an implanted embryo were an equal person with rights, it couldn't do that, either, and you couldn't do it to save that embryo. That is why it isn't a person, isn't equal, and has no rights to her body.

Even if you want to prove it, you still have to remove it from her person if she didn't give her consent to gestating it. That you don't understand this is willful blindness.
 
Ganondagan said:
Every time an abortion is performed someone dies. How is that not about life?

When Human Life Begins​

acpeds.org

When Human Life Begins - American College of Pediatricians

American College of Pediatricians – March 2017 ABSTRACT: The predominance [...]
acpeds.org acpeds.org

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.
Click to expand...

When Does Personhood Begin?

Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology Scott Gilbert admits he can't answer the question he poses at the start of his popular talk. However, he adds with "absolute certainty" that there is also "no consensus among scientists."
www.swarthmore.edu www.swarthmore.edu

The issue has never been when human life begins, because there's no evidence that, once implanted, that life belongs to the embryo. And even if the embryo were a completely conscious human individual, it could not have the right to use the woman's biological body without her consent to that use.
 
choiceone said:
If you want to prove that the fetus has (not is) a life, all you have to do is remove it from the woman's body. If it lives, it has a life that isn't part of the woman's. If it dies, it doesn't. That is the objective empirical proof one way or the other. You can't live the fetus implanted and claim the life belongs to it.
Click to expand...
So a dependent life is not a life?
 
NatMorton said:
It does seem the left will argue any facet of the abortion debate other than the actual point.
Click to expand...
Which is rather ironic given your "actual point" (below) tacitly and irrationally ignores the mother within this process entitled pregnancy. Nor does it address the possible financial distress this same mother may be subjected to by being obliged to give birth against her will.
NatMorton said:
For example, I don't know you. I also think it would be wrong for someone to end your life, yet that concern is in no way less credible because I feel absolutely no obligation to feed, clothe, or house you.
Click to expand...
Legal murder, inferred under this context, is an wishful begging of the question. Moreover, if one's such ideology demands that a mother give birth against her will (physically and/or financially speaking) - under the guise of protecting life - then there's clearly a moral obligation to assist in the continued sustenance of this life, when necessary.
You disagree?
NatMorton said:
The abortion debate is not about privacy. It's not about social welfare programs. It's not about religion. It's about coming to agreement on what is and what is not a working defintion of human life (with basic human rights). Anything else is noise.
Click to expand...
Abortion is a complex situation. It entails all the above. Any so-described noise is simply self-administered by an ignorant or dishonest attempt to dumb-down an otherwise abstruse conclusion by way of their specific, political talking point.
 
quip said:
Which is rather ironic given your "actual point" (below) tacitly and irrationally ignores the mother within this process entitled pregnancy. Nor does it address the possible financial distress this same mother may be subjected to by being obliged to give birth against her will.

Legal murder, inferred under this context, is an wishful begging of the question. Moreover, if one's such ideology demands that a mother give birth against her will (physically and/or financially speaking) - under the guise of protecting life - then there's clearly a moral obligation to assist in the continued sustenance of this life, when necessary.
You disagree?

Abortion is a complex situation. It entails all the above. Any so-described noise is simply self-administered by an ignorant or dishonest attempt to dumb-down an otherwise abstruse conclusion by way of their specific, political talking point.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no, the right to privacy does not supersede another's right to life. That is why third trimester abortions were almost always illegal even under Roe.

The critical issue is a legal definition of human life. Proclamations about other considerations amount to no more than grandstanding.
 
NatMorton said:
Sorry, no, the right to privacy does not supersede another's right to life.
Click to expand...
Says who? There is no such right.
NatMorton said:
That is why third trimester abortions were almost always illegal even under Roe.
Click to expand...
No, it's illegal because people are too squeamish about these things. There is no rational or legal basis to restrict abortion.
NatMorton said:
The critical issue is a legal definition of human life. Proclamations about other considerations amount to no more than grandstanding.
Click to expand...
"Human life" is a scientific designation and definition, not a legal one. The issue is about when it becomes a legal person with rights. That point is birth.
 
NatMorton said:
Sorry, no, the right to privacy does not supersede another's right to life. That is why third trimester abortions were almost always illegal even under Roe.

The critical issue is a legal definition of human life. Proclamations about other considerations amount to no more than grandstanding.
Click to expand...
Roe wasn't a dichotomous ruling; it wasn't an attack upon the unborn (as falsely perpetuated by the right)
It was a rational compromise between a woman's right to privacy and the (viable) fetus' right to exist.

You're just prattling on about partisan talking points.
Your limited views on abortion are not an answer rather, they are the problem to which we must surmount.
 
quip said:
Roe wasn't a dichotomous ruling; it wasn't an attack upon the unborn (as falsely perpetuated by the right)
It was a rational compromise between a woman's right to privacy and the (viable) fetus' right to exist.
Click to expand...
Let's stipulate that. You're only proving my point. What Roe did, ultimately, was provide a federal, legal framework for how states can legally define human life. For all intents and purposes, Roe implemented the following:
  1. A prohibition on states defining life before the third trimester, and thus prohibiting any chance of creating a fetal right to life during the first two trimesters.
  2. Allowed states to define human life in the third trimester and thus allowing states to infringe on the mother's privacy rights for the sake of fetal life.
This is entirely consistent with my assertion.


quip said:
You're just prattling on about partisan talking points.
Click to expand...
There's nothing partisan in what I'm asserting. If you cool your jets for a moment you'll see I have not proposed a specific legal definition for human life.

quip said:
Your limited views on abortion are not an answer rather, they are the problem to which we must surmount.
Click to expand...
Yes, my views are limited to the aspects of this debate that are relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom