• 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!

Even when I was an atheist, I was still pro-life.

Respect unborn lives’ rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The unborn have no rights.

Many Religions sincerely believe that that abortion is a part of our Religious Liberty in the United States.

from the RCRC:

Good policy allows people of all religions to follow their own faiths and consciences in their own lives. In reproductive health, rights and justice, we define religious liberty as the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family and her faith. The religious beliefs of others should not interfere.

 
Last edited:
The unborn have no rights.

Many Religions sincerely believe that that abortion is a part of our Religious Liberty in the United States.

from the RCRC:




I have no idea why the unborn have more rights than children that live here and are slaughtered in mass shootings regularly.
 
Respect unborn lives’ rights.
What (moral or legal) authority says that the unborn have rights? Or at least, what authority that Americans are obligated to follow?

In all of your threads related to abortion, you have been unable to answer this most basic question on the issue. Instead, you have abandoned all of them.

Has your mind been changed? Are you now pro-choice? If so, why? Such a reversal would be worth hearing about.
 
And you don't have to be a "leftist" to support a woman having control of her own body.
If a woman has control over her own body she should be responsible for it. That would include not getting pregnant if she doesn't want to be and then expect others to bail her out of a problem she created.
 
If a woman has control over her own body she should be responsible for it. That would include not getting pregnant if she doesn't want to be and then expect others to bail her out of a problem she created.
What do you mean by 'bail her out?'
 
Have taxpayers pay for a situation she created.
Ah yes. It does cost taxpayers when women or couples that cant afford to have a kid, do. That does suck that we end up with more taking from public assistance but there's no Const way to prevent people from reproducing.
 
Which is of course none of your business what a woman does in and with her body (within reason of course). And the baby has not be reproduced, baby is when it is born, not the pro-life American version of what people call a baby (which falsely includes pre-birth stages). It is a ZEF (zygote/embryo/fetus) and what a woman does in the first part of her pregnancy is nobody's business except the woman's. Hence the term right to choose and it being a women's right to make a choice to abort or not abort.

Out of curiosity can you give an example of "what a woman does in and with her body within reason of course" means? What things a woman doing in and with her body would you be opposed to?
 
Out of curiosity can you give an example of "what a woman does in and with her body within reason of course" means? What things a woman doing in and with her body would you be opposed to?

elective abortion at 32 weeks
 
Ah yes. It does cost taxpayers when women or couples that cant afford to have a kid, do. That does suck that we end up with more taking from public assistance but there's no Const way to prevent people from reproducing.
Then she doesn't have control over her own body if she doesn't know how to avoid a pregnancy. I understand why abortions may be necessary, if often wrong, but the 'control over her own body' argument is a weak one. There are far better excuses.
 
Then she doesn't have control over her own body if she doesn't know how to avoid a pregnancy. I understand why abortions may be necessary, if often wrong, but the 'control over her own body' argument is a weak one. There are far better excuses.
Of course women know how to do that. You do realize that no birth control works 100% of the time? You do realize that a decision to have a medical procedure to protect your health, family resources, and commitments to others is "control", right? You seem to imply others know better what a woman 'needs' to fulfill her responsibilities and obligations to others. Is that the case? That strangers should tell her that unborn is of more value than her current dependents, responsibilities to employer, community, society? Hmmm. Is that what you believe?
 
elective abortion at 32 weeks

Why? Abortion is abortion, what difference the time? If the pre-born baby is not a person until he/she takes a breath of air, then any time until that first breath of air should be fine with pro-abortion people. According to those who support abortion (oops, supposed to use a nice polite euphamism here...choice), and if the woman does not want the pre-born baby, then the line of thinking should be any time until birth is ok. At 32 weeks, "it" is not a person, so no rights, so no worries to destroy "it", right?
 
Why? Abortion is abortion, what difference the time? If the pre-born baby is not a person until he/she takes a breath of air, then any time until that first breath of air should be fine with pro-abortion people. According to those who support abortion (oops, supposed to use a nice polite euphamism here...choice), and if the woman does not want the pre-born baby, then the line of thinking should be any time until birth is ok. At 32 weeks, "it" is not a person, so no rights, so no worries to destroy "it", right?
If the woman has that need to, yes. Since you see no difference, I see no reason to make distinctions then either. Only that woman (and perhaps her Dr) know her need. Certainly not strangers nor the govt and so they will not get to weigh in on that decision. Can you imagine? Women needing to explain their situations to authorities and ask permission for a medical procedure? It would be like the Dark Ages all over again.

Is that what you have in mind?
 
Why? Abortion is abortion, what difference the time? If the pre-born baby is not a person until he/she takes a breath of air, then any time until that first breath of air should be fine with pro-abortion people. According to those who support abortion (oops, supposed to use a nice polite euphamism here...choice), and if the woman does not want the pre-born baby, then the line of thinking should be any time until birth is ok. At 32 weeks, "it" is not a person, so no rights, so no worries to destroy "it", right?

Well, that is nonsense, at week 32 the fetus can survive outside of the womb, a 12 week one cannot. Simple isn't it when one actually does some thinking. Also, you have no clue as to what pro-choice people think it seems.
 
Well, that is nonsense, at week 32 the fetus can survive outside of the womb, a 12 week one cannot. Simple isn't it when one actually does some thinking. Also, you have no clue as to what pro-choice people think it seems.

Whether the pre-born can survive or not is beside the point, "it" is not a person and therefore has no right to existence if the woman does not wish it so. That's the argument I keep reading from pro-aborts.
 
If the woman has that need to, yes. Since you see no difference, I see no reason to make distinctions then either. Only that woman (and perhaps her Dr) know her need. Certainly not strangers nor the govt and so they will not get to weigh in on that decision. Can you imagine? Women needing to explain their situations to authorities and ask permission for a medical procedure? It would be like the Dark Ages all over again.

Is that what you have in mind?

Personally, I do see the difference, I just don't know how pro-aborts can make any argument that calls for the pre-born to live at any time before "it" takes a breath of air. You know I am anti-pre-born-extermination.
 
Personally, I do see the difference, I just don't know how pro-aborts can make any argument that calls for the pre-born to live at any time before "it" takes a breath of air. You know I am anti-pre-born-extermination.
There is no need for argument. No women abort healthy *viable* fetuses. None. If you believe otherwise, provide the data. It doesnt exist, no woman does it and no Dr is compelled to do it.
 
Whether the pre-born can survive or not is beside the point, "it" is not a person and therefore has no right to existence if the woman does not wish it so. That's the argument I keep reading from pro-aborts.

Actually it is the point, at least to most pro-choice people, viability is a huge factor in deciding whether or not abortion is acceptable. You are making up things to make it sound like pro-choice people (the majority of us) are OK with a late elective abortion. Most of us are not. There will always be some who think even then it should be possible but most of us do not.

And we are not pro-aborts, that is a falsehood.
 
Then she doesn't have control over her own body if she doesn't know how to avoid a pregnancy. I understand why abortions may be necessary, if often wrong, but the 'control over her own body' argument is a weak one. There are far better excuses.


No "excuses" are needed. If a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to get one.
 
And they have a choice on whether or not to get pregnant. It's not even "reproductive rights" once the baby is conceived. The baby has already been reproduced. When you abort, it's just murder.
Then call a cop.


Cops need a good laugh
 
Personally, I do see the difference, I just don't know how pro-aborts can make any argument that calls for the pre-born to live at any time before "it" takes a breath of air. You know I am anti-pre-born-extermination.


Pre-born, is that like pre-cooked or pre-washed?
 
And if she is genuinely responsible for her own body she should pay for it.
Well, pretty sure that she's making the best decision that she can...and that is usually based on finances. OTOH, if that's the case and you'd prefer she have it, instead of a free or subsidized one, here's what you will be choosing:

1600820691751.png

Seems like it's a pretty responsible choice to me...saving the taxpayers all that $. Do you agree? If not, what kind of responsibility are you thinking of?

Edit: this was my first time cutting and pasting directly from my OneNote...if you would like me to post the actual clickable links, I'm happy to do so. Just let me know.
 
Back
Top Bottom