• 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!

Can someone who was all up in arms about masks explain the abortion decision to me?

Well, masks/pandemics are a communal concern. Abortion a private one.
Apples/oranges honey.

Neither are "communal". Both are private matters. It's up to you to protect yourself from contagious illnesses.
 
That's like saying that someone is forced to be short because a state has outlawed a surgery to make them tall. Except in this case people are born short, a woman had made choices that caused her pregnancy
No she didn't. Nature made her become pregnant. A woman simply had sex. It was nature that made the pregnancy happen.
 
Then you get into who decides what is a “communal concern”

Not apples/oranges.

You can’t pick and choose what you want the government involved in when it comes to medical freedom and then bitch and complain when shit goes sideways.
Sure you can. Masks entail your responsibility to not spread the disease to others. Abortion, whether the state may regulate an otherwise private medical decision.

Apples, oranges
Some say Covid/virus = communal concern.
Others will say that the life of unborn = communal concern.
A contagious pandemic dictated the narrative with the former while privacy rights (or lack thereof) is what is at stake in the latter.
Once you embrace government being involved in medical decisions, it opens a can that some of us don’t want opened under any circumstances.

And *magic* you get abortion laws.

Either privacy applies to medical decisions or it doesn’t - pick a side.
A classic Slippery Slope fallacy.
Critical discernment shows otherwise.
 
If nature allows for them then why do you need a doctor? Most of the abortion laws only target the doctors who are providing abortions
Nature allows for humans to combat disease, and heal from injury, as well. But many, doctors sure do help out with those things, wouldn't you agree?
 
Women aren't killing fetuses, they're just removing them from their bodies. It's nature that's killing them. It's not the woman's fault a fetus can't live outside her body.

Yes, and she may also have the baby and few weeks later leave it in a room to starve to death, because it's not the woman's fault that a baby can't live outside her body.
 
Like I said science is catching up


New Study Shows Unborn Babies Feel Pain at 12 Weeks​


Fake news from an anti abortion website.

Fetuses supposedly feel pain in the second trimester and "scream" in the womb, which is demonstrably untrue.
 
Neither are "communal". Both are private matters. It's up to you to protect yourself from contagious illnesses.
Pandemics require duel responsibilities.
 
Well, masks/pandemics are a communal concern. Abortion a private one.
Apples/oranges honey.
Taking away rights from 50% of the population is a communal concern.
 
Sure you can. Masks entail your responsibility to not spread the disease to others. Abortion, whether the state may regulate an otherwise private medical decision.

Flu kills about 50k per year. Do you support mandating flu shots, masks, social distancing, and whatever else it takes to stop this other contagious illness from spreading?
 
The state isn't forcing a woman to have a baby, it's nature that's doing that. All the state is saying is that they will not sanction the killing of the fetus
Are you still schilling your "women can't have abortions because men have to pay child support" schtick?
 
I’m not ok with this.

And my complaint wasn’t so much masks as it was vaccines.

Medical choice = medical choice.

I’m firmly pro-individual when it comes to medical choice.
And yet we accept that people can be forced to wear shirts and shoes in places of business. Why does government mandate that you wear a shirt or shoes in an eatery?
 
Taking away rights from 50% of the population is a communal concern.
Agreed. SCOTUS took a private concern and turned it into a public one.
 
I disagree.

If states ban abortions by law they are forcing childbirt onto women who do not want to remain pregnant.
That is comparable to treating her like a slave .


Held to a fate against her will.
Deprived of the right to get out of the situation.
Unable to refuse the work involved. Receiving no compensation.
That's the very essence of slavery.

Kent Pitman (author )
Have we not been forcing women to give birth already after the fetus reaches a certain level of development? Let me ask a basic question of you. Is it immoral to terminate a baby as it is emerging from the mother?
 
Yes, and she may also have the baby and few weeks later leave it in a room to starve to death, because it's not the woman's fault that a baby can't live outside her body.
Not the same. When you take custody of another, you have a legal obligation to care for that person.
 
And yet we accept that people can be forced to wear shirts and shoes in places of business. Why does government mandate that you wear a shirt or shoes in an eatery?
The government doesn’t. Private business does.
 
Not the same. When you take custody of another, you have a legal obligation to care for that person.

Seems to me that a woman carrying another human being insider of her body would be considered "custody of another".
 
Sure you can. Masks entail your responsibility to not spread the disease to others. Abortion, whether the state may regulate an otherwise private medical decision.

Apples, oranges

A contagious pandemic dictated the narrative with the former while privacy rights (or lack thereof) is what is at stake in the latter.

A classic Slippery Slope fallacy.
Critical discernment shows otherwise.
I wouldn’t call it a slippery slope fallacy considering it’s reality in this moment 🤷‍♀️

And very possibly May go further into birth control, etc.

I’d say that slippery slope is a gigantic water slide.
 
Side-bar
Stay on topic.

I'll take that as a no, which means you don't believe all contagious illnesses are a "communal concern". Even those which kill over 50,000 Americans every year.
 
Peer reviewed
Reviewed by
Katrina Furth who is Professor, The Catholic University of America and a member of LOZIER Institute.

Call me unimpressed by the short non informative link.

Try reading the book the Ethical Brain.

From the following link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/the-ethical-brain.html




Synaptic activity underlies all brain functions. Synaptic growth does not skyrocket until around postconception day 200 (week 28). Nonetheless, at around week 23 the fetus can survive outside the womb, with medical support; also around this time the fetus can respond to aversive stimuli. Major synaptic growth continues until the third or fourth postnatal month. Sulci continue to develop as the cortex starts folding to create a larger surface area and to accommodate the growing neurons and their supporting glial cells. During this period, neurons begin to myelinate (a process of insulation that speeds their electrical communication). By the thirty-second week, the fetal brain is in control of breathing and body temperature.
 
Try opening a restaurant that allows folk to not wear clothes inside it.

Let me know how that 1st health inspection goes, and get back to me.
Health inspectors don’t care what patrons wear.

They’re concerned with what staff, particularly in the kitchens, wear.

Two different things.

And you realize there are nudist resorts WITH restaurants where patrons dine nude, correct?
 
Back
Top Bottom