• 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!

I find abortion repugnant, but making it illegal makes the problem worse

OscarLevant said:
I support pro-choice not for philosophical reason, I find abortion repugnant but for pragmatic reasons I support it.

1. Making abortion illegal won't stop abortions.
2. Making abortion illegal will increase injuries and deaths to women, disproportionally harming poorer women.

Making it illegal makes the abortion problem worse, similar to prohibition makes alcohol problem worse.
Therefore, it's legality is a necessary evil ( if you believe it's evil ).
Click to expand...
It's either the murder of a human life or it's not a human life.
 
Integrityrespec said:
It's either the murder of a human life or it's not a human life.
Click to expand...

Your belief has been noted and your right to hold it has been validated. We live in a society where people have the freedom to make decisions about their intimate personal lives without government or religion interfering. You have never been able to explain why this is a bad idea.
 
Integrityrespec said:
It's either the murder of a human life or it's not a human life.
Click to expand...

if abortion is murder, it would be first degree. Abortions are premeditated, willful, and intentional, etc.
both patient, doctor would be charged, nurses accessories, and anyone who advised could be accessories.


Punishment for first degree murder is 25 to life, to capital punishment.

You would be willing to sentence the patient, doctor, and & nurses and anyone who gave advice with the punishment prescribed by law?
 
Lursa said:
Do you believe that anyone 'likes' abortion?

Most, if not all, pro-choice supporters recognize that only a woman, (sometimes with her Dr,) knows her health and circumstances in life and knows what she needs in order to preserve her life, health, and responsibilities to current family (dependents, eldlerly, disabled), and commitments and obligations to employer, church, community, society, etc.
Click to expand...


Well, I didn't mean to imply there were people that did, but I did mean to imply I find it as repugnant as any pro-lifer does, that, aside from your premise, which I do agree with, the prime mover for my decision to side with pro-choice are the pragmatic reasons, as stated, more than any other reason, as I am trying to create a rationale, as stated, that a pro-lifer *might* see the light that being pro-choice, based on the pragmatic reality, is consistent with their objective.

See, being pro life, i.e., rendering abortion illegal, in reality, doesn't actually achieve their objective, which is to end abortions, that the best they can do is reduce abortions, and reduce harm to women, and if they can understand it merely from a pragmatic reality point view, a point of view where your premise will not be persuasive in the slightest ( which is why it was omitted), they *might* accept that R v W does more FOR them, than against.

You see, I used to be a republican, and I used to be a pro-lifer, and it was for ONLY the above, which allowed me to change my mind. I believe a fetus IS a human being when it has a heart beat, (so your premise will not work on a pro-lifer) but as a pragmatic reality, that because R v W saves the lives of women, whose right to life, I believe supersedes that of the fetus, I sided with R v W as a necessary evil. If I ever got married, I would make it clear to my wife, before tying the knot, that if she ever got pregnant, I would not consent to an abortion, though I couldn't force her, of course.

This is why I stated my post as I did, to toss a rope to pro-lifers that there is a path, not in conflict with their beliefs, that could, if they value the lives of women, that repealing R v W doesn't stop abortions, that it actually endangers the lives of women, especially the poor,
they might be able to accept R v W.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
Well, I didn't mean to imply there were people that did, but I did mean to imply I find it as repugnant as any pro-lifer does, that, aside from your premise, which I do agree with, the prime mover for my decision to side with pro-choice are the pragmatic reasons, as stated, more than any other reason, as I am trying to create a rationale, as stated, that a pro-lifer *might* see the light that being pro-choice, based on the pragmatic reality, is consistent with their objective.
See, being pro life, i.e., rendering abortion illegal, in reality, doesn't actually achieve their objective, which is to end abortions, that the best they can do is reduce abortions, and reduce harm to women, and if they can understand it merely from a pragmatic reality point view, a point of view where your premise will not be persuasive in the slightest ( which is why it was omitted), they *might* accept that R v W does more FOR them, than against.
You see, I used to be a republican, and I used to be a pro-lifer, and it was for ONLY the above, which allowed me to change my mind. I believe a fetus IS a human being when it has a heart beat, (so your premise will not work on a pro-lifer) but as a pragmatic reality, that because R v W saves the lives of women, whose right to life, I believe supersedes that of the fetus, I sided with R v W as a necessary evil. If I ever got married, I would make it clear to my wife, before tying the knot, that if she ever got pregnant, I would not consent to an abortion, though I couldn't force her, of course.
This is why I stated my post as I did, to toss a rope to pro-lifers that there is a path, not in conflict with their beliefs, that could, if they value the lives of women, that repealing R v W doesn't stop abortions, that it actually endangers the lives of women, especially the poor,they might be able to accept R v W.
Click to expand...

You make the same mistake that many honest, thoughtful people make that banning abortion is about saving innocent unborn babies. It isn't. It's about taking away from women the right to make private decisions about their intimate personal lives.
 
Integrityrespec said:
It's either the murder of a human life or it's not a human life.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep posting this. Everybody has agreed that you have a right to believe what you want. Go screech "murder" to people who haven't heard your argument over and over and over.
 
weaver2 said:
You make the same mistake that many honest, thoughtful people make that banning abortion is about saving innocent unborn babies. It isn't. It's about taking away from women the right to make private decisions about their intimate personal lives.
Click to expand...

I stated that I agree with that premise, but omitted it from the OP because that argument will not persuade pro-lifers.

A pro-lifer will assert that her right to her intimate personal life does not include the right to murder another human being.

However, abortion is a unique case, and the pragmatic reality must be factored in. Therefore...

The ONLY hope of converting some pro-lifers, ("some", however remote the possibility, which was the objective of my OP) is the idea that repealing R v W does not actually reduce abortions, and DOES save the lives of women, whose right to life supersedes that of the fetus, in my view, and as such, is a necessary evil and thus they should support R v W for the pragmatic reality that supporting it is a net plus.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
Well, I didn't mean to imply there were people that did, but I did mean to imply I find it as repugnant as any pro-lifer does, that, aside from your premise, which I do agree with, the prime mover for my decision to side with pro-choice are the pragmatic reasons, as stated, more than any other reason, as I am trying to create a rationale, as stated, that a pro-lifer *might* see the light that being pro-choice, based on the pragmatic reality, is consistent with their objective.

See, being pro life, i.e., rendering abortion illegal, in reality, doesn't actually achieve their objective, which is to end abortions, that the best they can do is reduce abortions, and reduce harm to women, and if they can understand it merely from a pragmatic reality point view, a point of view where your premise will not be persuasive in the slightest ( which is why it was omitted), they *might* accept that R v W does more FOR them, than against.

You see, I used to be a republican, and I used to be a pro-lifer, and it was for ONLY the above, which allowed me to change my mind. I believe a fetus IS a human being when it has a heart beat, (so your premise will not work on a pro-lifer) but as a pragmatic reality, that because R v W saves the lives of women, whose right to life, I believe supersedes that of the fetus, I sided with R v W as a necessary evil. If I ever got married, I would make it clear to my wife, before tying the knot, that if she ever got pregnant, I would not consent to an abortion, though I couldn't force her, of course.

This is why I stated my post as I did, to toss a rope to pro-lifers that there is a path, not in conflict with their beliefs, that could, if they value the lives of women, that repealing R v W doesn't stop abortions, that it actually endangers the lives of women, especially the poor,
they might be able to accept R v W.
Click to expand...
That's alot of rationalization to come to the conclusion that women's rights and lives matter at least as much as that of the unborn.

I value the unborn but I value all born people more. I can easily admit that. I really am horrified that there are people, most pro-lifers IMO, that pretend they dont realize that denying women abortions means they value the unborn more than women. They deny a woman's right of consent and bodily autonomy. I find that immoral, the pro-life side holds no moral High Ground here.
 
weaver2 said:
Why do you keep posting this. Everybody has agreed that you have a right to believe what you want. Go screech "murder" to people who haven't heard your argument over and over and over.
Click to expand...
It seems strange to constantly post something provably wrong.

Murder is a legal term, murder is a crime. Women in America are not arrested for having abortions.

1601925449482.png
 
jamesrage said:
When someone is trying to harm or kill a baby it is the state's business.
Click to expand...
So if someone is trying to enter your house uninvited can you shoot them? Why are you allowed to kill someone in defense of your home if you're not allowed to kill someone invading your body?
Even if you're deluded enough to believe that an embryo is somehow a baby there are all kinds of situations where people have the right to use deadly violence in defense of themselves or their property.
When something the size of a watermelon is growing inside of you against your will you have a right to defend your body from it, whatever the hell it is.
 
weaver2 said:
You make the same mistake that many honest, thoughtful people make that banning abortion is about saving innocent unborn babies. It isn't. It's about taking away from women the right to make private decisions about their intimate personal lives.
Click to expand...

Exactly. While at the same time denying they (prolifers) are doing any such thing.
 
jamesrage said:
I am sure parents who beat the shit out of their kids say its none of the states business how they discipline their kids. When someone is trying to harm or kill a baby it is the state's business.
Click to expand...

But those are actual persons who are here. Fetuses are not persons nor are they here.
 
OscarLevant said:
I support pro-choice not for philosophical reason, I find abortion repugnant but for pragmatic reasons I support it.

1. Making abortion illegal won't stop abortions.
2. Making abortion illegal will increase injuries and deaths to women, disproportionally harming poorer women.

Making it illegal makes the abortion problem worse, similar to prohibition makes alcohol problem worse.
Therefore, it's legality is a necessary evil ( if you believe it's evil ).
Click to expand...


I agree, even though I would not allow Abortion in my family, I feel it is a necessary choice for other families. The Government and Society should hold no power over another families choices. Where it be Democrat / Republican or Independent!

Although I am a Conservative and Pro Choice, I also feel the abortion MUST be done in the first trimester!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom