• 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!

For pro-choicers: where do you draw the line, and why?

Phys251 said:
I figured you'd say something like that. 😔 For the same reason you can't be forced to donate bone marrow, even if that's the one thing someone needs to stay alive.
Click to expand...
When someone chooses the name "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one dumb whore" one shouldn't be surprised by the annoying what-a-bouts and chivvying . This discussion was started for the purpose of badgering not discussing.
 
aociswundumho said:
My understanding is that the question comes down to when the fetus/baby/human has rights. We know that a fertilized egg does not have rights. We also know that a 5 year old child does have rights. So somewhere between the fertilized egg and the 5 years later this being became endowed with human rights.

So let's hear you opinion regarding when it becomes not ok to kill the fetus/baby/human and why. The why is very important. If you don't have a good reason, then you're just guessing.
Click to expand...
true pro-lifers believe in life at conception = with human rights....
Morally it is NEVER okay to kill the human in the womb.
Legally = depends where you live
 
Antiwar said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are giddy as can be about castle doctrine. What does that have to do with your comment? "All that happened is a person moved a few feet to a new location." That'd make a great Hallmark congratulations on having a baby card.
Click to expand...

The problem with this argument is that moving onto my property without my permission violates my rights, but a baby being delivered to a new location doesn't violate anyone's rights, nor does it endow the baby with any rights it didn't have in the womb.
 
Mr Person said:
What better measure than whether or not it can survive outside the womb with medical care?
Click to expand...

Because it can't survive outside the womb without care. Whether that care is "medical" is irrelevant as far as I can tell.
 
I'm Pro-Choice. My main reason why I don't go along with "You're killing a baby" is a black shirt.
I'll explain my reasoning. We call things with words as we almost all agree that the word(s) we use is/are correct.
If I'm wearing a dark Black shirt and I ask people "What color is this shirt?" Most likely 99.6 ?? percent of People will say: "The color is black."
Fine. We-all-agree-that-the-shirt-is-black.
If I stand on a corner and ask people "Is having an abortion the same as killing a baby?"
I'll probably receive (As polls show) 45 percent Yes and 55 percent No. Even if I stood in a different area of the USA...deep red part, , I'd still get
something like 70 percent Yes and 30 percent No. That tells me that when someone says "You're killing a baby!" the person is only correct simply
because of what they think and not what everybody else thinks. Everybody has the right to call anything they want but when it's an action or an object
that is not imbedded in everybody's mind as the concrete truth, you're just using your opinion as you see the world.
On Edit. ...and of course, I'm pro-choice because each woman has to walk the road they want to take. ..or "call it as you see it".
 
Last edited:
aociswundumho said:
The problem with this argument is that moving onto my property without my permission violates my rights, but a baby being delivered to a new location doesn't violate anyone's rights, nor does it endow the baby with any rights it didn't have in the womb.
Click to expand...

You like saying erroneous stuff.
 
aociswundumho said:
My understanding is that the question comes down to when the fetus/baby/human has rights. We know that a fertilized egg does not have rights. We also know that a 5 year old child does have rights. So somewhere between the fertilized egg and the 5 years later this being became endowed with human rights.

So let's hear you opinion regarding when it becomes not ok to kill the fetus/baby/human and why. The why is very important. If you don't have a good reason, then you're just guessing.
Click to expand...
When did the 5 year old child lose its rights?
 
aociswundumho said:
What's so special about viability? Viability is simply one man's opinion regarding the chances of the fetus's survival outside the womb. How does that confer rights?
Click to expand...

It doesnt. The Const recognizes rights.

And at the federal level, that 'line' is birth. Not viability as so many keep saying. That is left up to individual states...'viability.
 
Last edited:
aociswundumho said:
What's special about birth? All that happened is the baby moved a few feet to a new location. Oh, and it breathes air now. What do either of those have to do with rights?
Click to expand...

Why is it all about the unborn? Birth is the point where society may act on the unborn, without violating the woman's Const. rights (with due process.) Any time before that, society, the govt, cannot, without her consent.
 

Nomad4Ever said:
Any line is going to be arbitrarily drawn. Birth seems to be the most logical place to draw it as the baby can be supported without the mother.
Click to expand...

And without violating the woman's rights (without due process) and destroying her right to consent.
 
Lursa said:
Why is it all about the unborn? Birth is the point where society may act on the unborn, without violating the woman's Const. rights (with due process.) Any time before that, society, the govt, cannot, without her consent.
Click to expand...

In this thread I'm concerned with morality, not legality.
 
aociswundumho said:
In this thread I'm concerned with morality, not legality.
Click to expand...

Happy to change it up for you. Morally, I believe the govt is right in protecting the woman's rights to having her bodily autonomy violated without her consent. That has nothing to do with the Const...that's a personal imposition of other people's 'feelings' or morals on individuals that dont believe the same.

What moral authority says that the unborn have a right to live?
 
aociswundumho said:
In post #1.
Click to expand...

You did not. You were discussing rights. Rights are a legal concept, or at least a man-made concept.

So again..."who says?" Who says the unborn have a right to life?
 
aociswundumho said:
What difference does that make? Why does the baby have rights now but it didn't when it was inside the mother's body?
Click to expand...
Who owns what is contained within your body?
 
No matter how barbaric it makes them, leftists will defend the right to kill a baby right up until its actually delivered.
 
Mr Person said:
Where it is because that is the honest assessment. There is no objective test of what makes a person, but there is an objective test of whether a fetus can survive. Viability. Medical science will push it back and so be it (maybe), but it's the best answer: state's interest in potential life vs. individual's interest in bodily autonomy.

What better measure than whether or not it can survive outside the womb with medical care?
Click to expand...
Whether or not it can survive outside the womb without medical care!
 
VanceMack said:
No matter how barbaric it makes them, leftists will defend the right to kill a baby right up until its actually delivered.
Click to expand...

Is it ok to kill it a few seconds after the egg is fertilized?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom