• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [5:15 am CDT] - in 15 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hey defenders of killing unborn children.

OK....thanks for playin'....enjoy your stance.
 
I am anti-abortion, pro-life and anti government imposed compulsory gestation and forced parturition. Whether the fetus is a person or a collection of cells is irrelevant to my position. I am morally opposed to abortion. Whether the health of the mother is at risk or not is irrelevant to my position. I am against government (or any other entity) mandating compulsory gestation and forced parturition.
 
Howard Beale said:
I am anti-abortion, pro-life and anti government imposed compulsory gestation and forced parturition. Whether the fetus is a person or a collection of cells is irrelevant to my position. I am morally opposed to abortion. Whether the health of the mother is at risk or not is irrelevant to my position. I am against government (or any other entity) mandating compulsory gestation and forced parturition.
Click to expand...
And when your underage daughter gets pregnant (raped) by a her brother(incest) and the doctor says the child that you are forcing her to carry will be born severely retarded and missing arms and legs, you will step in and care for the child at your own expense?
It is immoral to take a high moral stance when you are not the one who has to suffer the consequences. You don't get to make the decisions for everyone. None of us get to do that. Or am I talking to God? If so, never mind (as would be said by Gilda Radner).
 
Yo, UtahBill, read what I wrote. I think we actually agree. If you still think we don't agree, kindly breakdown my comment and point out to me the exact disagreement.
 
UtahBill said:
Political support? what politics? where are you getting that? out of your own biased opinion bank, of course. Certainly my political leanings are irrelevant in the matter of abortion.
It is a FACT that abortion is legal in the USA. It was a decision made after much discussion over a lot of opinion. Facts, whether opposing or supporting probably had very little to do with the fact that the SCOTUS decides one way or another. That is how the issue got to them in the first place, as there were so many opinions floating around that someone had to settle the issue.
All the arguing that went on before SCOTUS decided can be rehashed for the next decade and it will not change the FACT that it is legal. Once something like this has been made legal, it becomes a right to those who benefit from it, at least in their minds, and they will not let it go easily.
Would I rather see all these children adopted? Hell, yes. But again, it is for the women to decide. Abortion has almost always been done, even in Biblical times. Funny, tho, nothing is mentioned in the bible about it. It was done, historians have found proof of it, but the bible is silent on the issue.
Click to expand...

Who cares if the Bible talks about it or not? I do not think it is the woman's choice to have an abortion if she had willingly had sex than she should take personal responsiblity for her actions. I do not see the logic in stopping a life from occuring because of something the mother chose to do.
 
George_Washington said:
Who cares if the Bible talks about it or not? I do not think it is the woman's choice to have an abortion if she had willingly had sex than she should take personal responsiblity for her actions. I do not see the logic in stopping a life from occuring because of something the mother chose to do.
Click to expand...
So you believe that a government has the right to impose compulsory gestation and forced parturition on women?
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Executing the person isn't the major moral concern: the efficiency, cost, and other undesired consequences are. If you could find a cheap way to execute people and make money off of it, while being equitable in it's use and SURE not to kill innocents, then be my guest.
Click to expand...

What exactly are you saying here? It's OK to kill innocent people, anybody, just so long as you do it in an "efficient" way?
 
George_Washington said:
I believe the government has the right to make abortion illegal in cases where sex was mutually conscented between two adults.
Click to expand...
That's nice, but that is not what I asked. I will repeat my question:Do you believe that a government has the right to impose compulsory gestation and forced parturition on women?
 
George_Washington said:
What is gestation and what is forced parturition?
Click to expand...


One can only hope you are joking....and if not, You really should wait a few years to reply.
 
No, the question is do you believe that a government has the right to impose compulsory gestation (which means to force a woman to carry a fertilized ovum for the nine month gestation period) and forced parturition (which means to compel her to give birth.)
 
tecoyah said:
One can only hope you are joking....and if not, You really should wait a few years to reply.
Click to expand...
I find your post rather mean-spirited. I commend GW for asking what he is unsure of. That takes guts. How else do we learn if we don’t ask?
 
Howard Beale said:
No, the question is do you believe that a government has the right to impose compulsory gestation (which means to force a woman to carry a fertilized ovum for the nine month gestation period) and forced parturition (which means to compel her to give birth.)
Click to expand...


Yes unless the fertilization occurred during rape.
 
George_Washington said:
Yes unless the fertilization occurred during rape.
Click to expand...
If a government has that right, how would you envision them enforcing it?
 
Howard Beale said:
Yo, UtahBill, read what I wrote. I think we actually agree. If you still think we don't agree, kindly breakdown my comment and point out to me the exact disagreement.
Click to expand...
OK, I read hastily, sorry...
 
UtahBill said:
OK, I read hastily, sorry...
Click to expand...
Nothing I haven't done myself -- on more than one occasion.
 
Howard Beale said:
If a government has that right, how would you envision them enforcing it?
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I would say just start by passing a national law and then regulating it accordingly to individual communities. You know, make sure that the doctors and abortion clinics are following the law.

I have to run for a while...talk to you later
 
George_Washington said:
Hmmm...I would say just start by passing a national law and then regulating it accordingly to individual communities. You know, make sure that the doctors and abortion clinics are following the law.

I have to run for a while...talk to you later
Click to expand...
OK - later GW, but you did totally avoid the question.
 
Do you believe that a government has the right to impose compulsory gestation and forced parturition on women?
Click to expand...

Yes the government has the duty to make sure you do not murder your unborn child.
 
George_Washington said:
Yes unless the fertilization occurred during rape.
Click to expand...

This is what I don't understand about "moderate" pro-lifers. If you truly believe that abortion is tantamount to murder, why is it OK to kill it if the fetus was conceived during rape? The fetus wasn't the one who committed the rape.
 
Originally Posted by UtahBill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Thus far, I've not seen any factual support for legalized abortion. I would welcome support or justification that is not based solely on emotion.

Are you able to provide any?
Click to expand...

Scotus says so, and until Scotus reverses the decison, it is so.
Click to expand...

The exchange above is what prompted my apples/oranges comment. A legal opinion, Roe v. Wade, is not factual, it is political. Its content ignores biological fact and relies on emotion.
Political support? what politics? where are you getting that? out of your own biased opinion bank, of course. Certainly my political leanings are irrelevant in the matter of abortion. While there are no absolutes, can it be argued that the political left is on one side of the question and the political right is on the other?
It is a FACT that abortion is legal in the USA. It was a decision made after much discussion over a lot of opinion. Facts, whether opposing or supporting probably had very little to do with the fact that the SCOTUS decides one way or another. That is how the issue got to them in the first place, as there were so many opinions floating around that someone had to settle the issue.
Click to expand...
You are correct. Facts were ignored in favor of emotion. That is sad because, as you know if you read the article on Justice Blackmun's papers, the unintended consequence turned out to be a pile of aborted corpses that is nearly fifty million high.
All the arguing that went on before SCOTUS decided can be rehashed for the next decade and it will not change the FACT that it is legal. Once something like this has been made legal, it becomes a right to those who benefit from it, at least in their minds, and they will not let it go easily.
Click to expand...
That's what used to be said about slavery.
Would I rather see all these children adopted? Hell, yes. But again, it is for the women to decide. Abortion has almost always been done, even in Biblical times. Funny, tho, nothing is mentioned in the bible about it. It was done, historians have found proof of it, but the bible is silent on the issue.
Click to expand...
Eventually, enlightened peoples banned abortion.

Have you ever read how enlightened people were hoodwinked?

This is the opening paragraph:

"I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimises my credentials
to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the
National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968.
A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against
permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court
to issue the decision which legalised abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced
virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this? It is important to understand
the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world
with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law."

The rest may be found at: http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom