• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

I have only one problem with abortion

Spambiter

New member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
What about the bodies after removal? There must be something we can get from their bodies!
 

KevinWan

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
How can anyone only have ONE problem with abortion... Whether you believe it or not, theres always the speculation that the baby could be a LIVING life.. Then theres, what about the fathers decision? Then theres who will pay for it? etc. etc. And to justify abortion just for their 'use,' or what have you, in science is disgusting.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Well, I have only one problem with abortion, that it is a medical procedure, and that it would be better to reduce its need to begin with. But for women to have abortions, that's no more "wrong" than people getting any other medical procedure.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
KevinWan said:
And to justify abortion just for their 'use,' or what have you, in science is disgusting.
You seeking to enslave women, to take away their basic human right to control their own bodies, THAT is disgusting.
 

KevinWan

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
steen said:
You seeking to enslave women, to take away their basic human right to control their own bodies, THAT is disgusting.
Its disgusting that you want to cover up the value of a life as "control over a woman's body." Thats disgusting...
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
KevinWan said:
Its disgusting that you want to cover up the value of a life as "control over a woman's body." Thats disgusting...
Its disgusting that you want to cover up the value of a woman as an individual being rather than a slave to your theocratic misogynism as "right to life." Thats disgusting...
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Things are disgusting. Thats disgusting.

Digusting.


:mrgreen:

Why is it purely the woman's choice? Did she fertilize the egg on her own?
 

KevinWan

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
steen said:
Its disgusting that you want to cover up the value of a woman as an individual being rather than a slave to your theocratic misogynism as "right to life." Thats disgusting...
I don't think life is purely a theocratic subject... Life existed before any religion did. The woman is an individual, and so is the child which she bears responsibility over... to give it its right to life.
 

Peralin

Active member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
426
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
steen said:
You seeking to enslave women, to take away their basic human right to control their own bodies, THAT is disgusting.
Oh, yeah, steen. Everyone wants to enslave women, don't they? Anyone who disagrees with you about abortion, at least. Am I right? Do you generalize about EVERYONE who disagrees with you?

BTW, everyone is enslaved by the law. Women want to be treated as equals, so why should they be exempt? Adding a law that happens to affect women is not the same as enslaving them.

Would you say that I am enslaved because I am not allowed to go on killing rampages?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
V.I. Lenin said:
Why is it purely the woman's choice? Did she fertilize the egg on her own?
It is the choice of the one whose body is actually carrying the pregnancy, and whose bodily resources is sustaining it.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
KevinWan said:
I don't think life is purely a theocratic subject...
But the oppression of the woman is, for your religious beliefs of her as a second-class citizen.
Life existed before any religion did.
Yup. ALmost 4 bill years ago.
The woman is an individual,
Yes.
and so is the child which she bears responsibility over...
Nope. That aside, it is not a "child" until birth, your revisionist linguistics none withstanding, and she has no responsibilities until birth.
to give it its right to life.
It has no right ot life.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Peralin said:
Oh, yeah, steen. Everyone wants to enslave women, don't they?
Anyone who seeks to take control over her body and decide for her what to use her bodily resources for, yes absolutely.
Anyone who disagrees with you about abortion, at least. Am I right?
Nope, you are wrong.
Do you generalize about EVERYONE who disagrees with you?
Nope.
BTW, everyone is enslaved by the law. Women want to be treated as equals, so why should they be exempt?
They shouldn't. They shoul;d have the same duties regarding giving of their bodily resources as you do.

BUT WAIT!!!:shock: YOU can't be forced to give of your bodily resources against your will. YOU can't legally be strapped down and have a pint of blood extracted over 15 minutes unless you volunteer to do so.

So you do NOT want women to be treated as equal, you want them to be treated like LESS of a person than you are. YOU want the right to refuse your bodily resources for others, yet you hypocritically demand that the pregnant women be forced to do just that. So your claim that you want the woman treated as "equals" was just a big fat lie, then?
 

Peralin

Active member
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
426
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
steen said:
Anyone who seeks to take control over her body and decide for her what to use her bodily resources for, yes absolutely.
Nope, you are wrong.
Nope.
They shouldn't. They shoul;d have the same duties regarding giving of their bodily resources as you do.

BUT WAIT!!!:shock: YOU can't be forced to give of your bodily resources against your will. YOU can't legally be strapped down and have a pint of blood extracted over 15 minutes unless you volunteer to do so.

So you do NOT want women to be treated as equal, you want them to be treated like LESS of a person than you are. YOU want the right to refuse your bodily resources for others, yet you hypocritically demand that the pregnant women be forced to do just that. So your claim that you want the woman treated as "equals" was just a big fat lie, then?
No. I want abortion to be illegal for men and women. Women cannot have abortions, men cannot have abortions. If I ever get pregnant, I would want it to be illegal for me to get pregnant. EQUAL RIGHTS! Men and Women both would be commiting a crime by having an abortion.

In this way, there would be equal rights. The same rights for everyone. The fact that men cannot get pregnant makes no difference. It would be illegal for them to have abortions, too. EQUAL RIGHTS! NO ABORTIONS FOR ANYONE! I'd say that's pretty darn equal, don't you think?
 

KevinWan

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
steen said:
But the oppression of the woman is, for your religious beliefs of her as a second-class citizen.
The "oppression" of woman is not purely theocratic. Woman weren't treated equally before any religion existed... Cavemen raped their woman avidly.


steen said:
Nope. That aside, it is not a "child" until birth, your revisionist linguistics none withstanding, and she has no responsibilities until birth.
It has no right ot life.
Maybe its not a child, but it is life before birth. The woman has NO responsibilities before birth??

...Thats terribly, terribly wrong. If a woman WANTED her child... she has to take care of herself in order to take care of her baby. She can't get drunk every night, smoke pot, fall down stairs etc. Thats a responsibility. She bears the responsibility to care for her baby. If its so "lifeless" before birth... why would she even need to both being careful, in the interests of her baby's LIFE??

The Declaration of Independence guarantees LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happyness... All Americans have a right to life.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
KevinWan said:
The "oppression" of woman is not purely theocratic. Woman weren't treated equally before any religion existed... Cavemen raped their woman avidly.
And it was conveniently institutionalized in Christianity by Paul, who comitted a philosophical coup d'etas and used the blossoming religion of Christianity to impose his own misogynistic ideas.
Maybe its not a child, but it is life before birth. The woman has NO responsibilities before birth??
There are no responsibilities to an embryo. There are at best some duties to ensure that it is not born with FAS. But there is no responsibility to not abort, f.ex.

Actually, if the embryo is exposed to alcohol, there is a responsibility to abort in order to avoid bringing up a child suffering the horrendous consequenses and life-long suffering from this
..Thats terribly, terribly wrong. If a woman WANTED her child...
In which case she wouldn't seek an abortion, and as such, we wouldn't be discussing her actions. So its a red herring. Care to focus on the issue, please?
she has to take care of herself in order to take care of her baby. She can't get drunk every night, smoke pot, fall down stairs etc. Thats a responsibility.
If she choses to bring a child into this world, she owes it the best possible chances. That is completely irrelevant to her decision before birth about whether to abort or not. You are pushing a red herring.
She bears the responsibility to care for her baby.
And before birth also the embryo and the fetus IF SHE ARE SEEKING TO GIVE BIRTH. A moot point regarding abortion.
If its so "lifeless" before birth...
"lifeless"??? I am trying to find where you found that quote you put in qu=otation marks, and I am not finding it. Nor am I finding anything even closely resembling that in any of my posts. So what point is it you are trying to contradict here? Because it certainly isn't any point that I raised.
why would she even need to both being careful, in the interests of her baby's LIFE??
Well, if she seeks an aboprtion, then there will never be a "baby." And as such, no such responsibility.
The Declaration of Independence guarantees LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happyness...
Your claim is outright false. Notably, the Declaration of Independence is not a law. It is a statement of intent regarding seeking independence from another country. It is not established law, and whatever pa.rts did not make it into the US Constitution thus solidly was rejected by the Democratic Process.

That aside, your push certainly is to rob women of these proclaimed "rights." That would make your argument hypocritical

So next time you want to claim anything about rights, don't be so silly as to seek your "evidence" from something unrelated to rights, thanks. It then won't waste our time or expose your ignorance of what a law or a right is.
All Americans have a right to life.
Except a kidney patient, or a prisoner on Death Row f.ex. So your claim is false. Could you please restrict yourself to making true statements instead of interspersing so many false ones?
 

Spambiter

New member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
How does the removal of a flesh-ball affect you?
How many children that can't be taken care of have you adopted, hmm?

Anyway, let's talk about the valuable things we can get from removed fetus bodies! :D
 

thoracle

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
steen said:
It is the choice of the one whose body is actually carrying the pregnancy, and whose bodily resources is sustaining it.
How about the baby's rights? There are many, many, many ways that a woman can prevent pregnancy, not the least of which is keeping her legs closed. Why are ABSOLUTELY INNOCENT children punished for the moral and/or intellectual shortcomings of the body he or she was cursed to start out in? Can I invite 20 people to a party, discover that there's not enough food for all of them, decide I don't want to put in the effort to cook for the extra guests I am responsible for inviting, and then just kill the excess guests? If murder for my own convenience is wrong, so is abortion. I think there should be a 'point system' where a tramp who gets herself knocked up is permitted one abortion (in the first trimester)= 1 point. If she does it again...=2nd point. 3 points = involuntary sterilization. Rape or incest cases would be exempt. 2nd trimester abortions should result in manslaughter charges against the killer and her accomplice (the "doctor"). Any 3rd trimester abortion should result in murder charges against the killer and her accomplice. The same way that 3 dui's costs you your driver's license, 3 utterly dispassionate murders should cost you your reproducing license. I know, personally, no less than 4 of these murderers. They are ALL spoiled, selfish, promiscuous party girls who killed the child in the name of preserving their physical appearance, or out of selfish concerns for their future time management. Murder is murder, the fact that you justify murder by talking about rights is hypocracy on a biblical scale. If it doesn't bother you to let a doctor reach up in your guts and brutally dismember and remove your OWN CHILD, it shouldn't bother you to let another doctor reach up in your guts and remove the death row you call your ovaries.
 

thoracle

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
steen said:
And it was conveniently institutionalized in Christianity by Paul, who comitted a philosophical coup d'etas and used the blossoming religion of Christianity to impose his own misogynistic ideas.
There are no responsibilities to an embryo. There are at best some duties to ensure that it is not born with FAS. But there is no responsibility to not abort, f.ex.

Actually, if the embryo is exposed to alcohol, there is a responsibility to abort in order to avoid bringing up a child suffering the horrendous consequenses and life-long suffering from this
In which case she wouldn't seek an abortion, and as such, we wouldn't be discussing her actions. So its a red herring. Care to focus on the issue, please?
If she choses to bring a child into this world, she owes it the best possible chances. That is completely irrelevant to her decision before birth about whether to abort or not. You are pushing a red herring.
And before birth also the embryo and the fetus IF SHE ARE SEEKING TO GIVE BIRTH. A moot point regarding abortion.
"lifeless"??? I am trying to find where you found that quote you put in qu=otation marks, and I am not finding it. Nor am I finding anything even closely resembling that in any of my posts. So what point is it you are trying to contradict here? Because it certainly isn't any point that I raised.
Well, if she seeks an aboprtion, then there will never be a "baby." And as such, no such responsibility.
Your claim is outright false. Notably, the Declaration of Independence is not a law. It is a statement of intent regarding seeking independence from another country. It is not established law, and whatever pa.rts did not make it into the US Constitution thus solidly was rejected by the Democratic Process.

That aside, your push certainly is to rob women of these proclaimed "rights." That would make your argument hypocritical

So next time you want to claim anything about rights, don't be so silly as to seek your "evidence" from something unrelated to rights, thanks. It then won't waste our time or expose your ignorance of what a law or a right is.
Except a kidney patient, or a prisoner on Death Row f.ex. So your claim is false. Could you please restrict yourself to making true statements instead of interspersing so many false ones?
Paul's coup de etat? Please elaborate. I have never heard anyone blame Paul before.
 

galenrox

ROCK AND ROLL MASTER
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,571
Reaction score
38
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
thoracle said:
Paul's coup de etat? Please elaborate. I have never heard anyone blame Paul before.
I blame Paul all the time, for everything from homophobia to my dog walking slow cause some racoon came by the night before and she has to smell the track.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
V.I. Lenin said:
Things are disgusting. Thats disgusting.

Digusting.


:mrgreen:

Why is it purely the woman's choice? Did she fertilize the egg on her own?
This thread is disgusting.........
 

sissy-boy

Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
KevinWan said:
Its disgusting that you want to cover up the value of a life as "control over a woman's body." Thats disgusting...

That's where you are incorrect. You assume that when few cells collide that we have 'life'. This is simply not the factual case. And if it IS in your mind, why are you not screaming and whining about menstruation and masturbation as being 'sacred' as life's building blocks?

I agree that in most cases that abortion is due to irresponsibility, but it is NOT the government's job to get involved in something that is so personal. In fact I'm surprised that so many 'conservative' people are so much in favor of such huge government that makes choices that SHOULD be a very personal decision. THAT is what is 'disgusting'. I don't think that the government has any right to be involved in even late-term abortions.
 

sissy-boy

Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
thoracle said:
How about the baby's rights? There are many, many, many ways that a woman can prevent pregnancy, not the least of which is keeping her legs closed. Why are ABSOLUTELY INNOCENT children punished for the moral and/or intellectual shortcomings of the body he or she was cursed to start out in? Can I invite 20 people to a party, discover that there's not enough food for all of them, decide I don't want to put in the effort to cook for the extra guests I am responsible for inviting, and then just kill the excess guests? If murder for my own convenience is wrong, so is abortion. I think there should be a 'point system' where a tramp who gets herself knocked up is permitted one abortion (in the first trimester)= 1 point. If she does it again...=2nd point. 3 points = involuntary sterilization. Rape or incest cases would be exempt. 2nd trimester abortions should result in manslaughter charges against the killer and her accomplice (the "doctor"). Any 3rd trimester abortion should result in murder charges against the killer and her accomplice. The same way that 3 dui's costs you your driver's license, 3 utterly dispassionate murders should cost you your reproducing license. I know, personally, no less than 4 of these murderers. They are ALL spoiled, selfish, promiscuous party girls who killed the child in the name of preserving their physical appearance, or out of selfish concerns for their future time management. Murder is murder, the fact that you justify murder by talking about rights is hypocracy on a biblical scale. If it doesn't bother you to let a doctor reach up in your guts and brutally dismember and remove your OWN CHILD, it shouldn't bother you to let another doctor reach up in your guts and remove the death row you call your ovaries.

A fetus is not a child, and neither is a zygote. Instead of being 'Born Again' why don't you just GROW UP?!
 

sissy-boy

Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Navy Pride said:
This thread is disgusting.........

Then why are you reading it and posting in it??

Wouldn't it have been easier to simply GO ELSEWHERE?!
 

thoracle

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
sissy-boy said:

A fetus is not a child, and neither is a zygote. Instead of being 'Born Again' why don't you just GROW UP?!
Born Again? haha. I am not a religious person. If a zygote and a fetus are not a child, tell me the way a child is formed? I was really hoping for an intelligent attempt at a legitimate defense of the murder of children, and as usual, got the standard 'Me, me, me and me' heartless, cold, weak-bash-the-weaker, 'the-growing-life-is-not-alive', line of bs. Your name fits you. See if you can search the vast group of occasionally intelligent baby-killers and find a real answer to the question. I think every non-rape, non-incest abortion lover hates themselves and their lives, and deep down wishes they had been aborted. So do I. How about we legalize aborting the mother? Why should she be allowed to act like an irresponsible slut, again and again, and then murder the child(ren) because of her failings? Why not allow people to say an infant is not a person, and kill them at will? A toddler? A kindergartener? How about we say you're not a person until you can vote, and can therefore be killed on the whim of your parent at any time before you are 18? We should allow abortion once, followed by summary sterilization. Then everyone is happy. The baby is dead(pro-choice cheer!), and the heartless female, with no maternal instinct, never has to worry about a new life causing her to get one? Every person who believes it is ok to murder another human being, should begin with the human in the mirror. Then everybody would REALLY be happy. I, as I said, am not a religious person, but I really hope that the bible is true, and that Pete gets the true answer at the gates, and that ALL those who snuffed out life like popping a pimple, burn.
 
Last edited:

KevinWan

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
steen said:
Actually, if the embryo is exposed to alcohol, there is a responsibility to abort in order to avoid bringing up a child suffering the horrendous consequenses and life-long suffering from this
In which case she wouldn't seek an abortion, and as such, we wouldn't be discussing her actions. So its a red herring. Care to focus on the issue, please?
Thats awful... I can't understand why one would abort their child because of their own irresponsibility. Life is precious, and cannot just be thrown out because one might have a bad life. I'd rather have a bad life than no life at all. Saying life should just be thrown out simply because its bad is like denying the elderly medical treatment because their lives are going to just go down hill for the rest of their existence.

steen said:
If she choses to bring a child into this world, she owes it the best possible chances. That is completely irrelevant to her decision before birth about whether to abort or not. You are pushing a red herring.
The point I was making there was entirley relevent. I was pointing to the fact that the fetus is indeed life. If a woman can have to care for the fetus within her, and have compassion for that child... then the fetus is indeed life. Compassion and connection to another life does not occur if it is not life. No one has compassion for their livers or stomachs. Abortion can never be legal if the fetus is life, which it is.

steen said:
Your claim is outright false. Notably, the Declaration of Independence is not a law. It is a statement of intent regarding seeking independence from another country. It is not established law, and whatever pa.rts did not make it into the US Constitution thus solidly was rejected by the Democratic Process.
The Declaration is not a law, however, it does have legal binding over the ideaology and culture of our country. Our country was founded on the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness. They are indeed rights in this country. The Supreme Court would overturn any law which SOLIDY, indisputably violates these ideals. The Consitution is not the sole legal document that rules our country. Many others come into play, in Constitutional law.

steen said:
So next time you want to claim anything about rights, don't be so silly as to seek your "evidence" from something unrelated to rights, thanks. It then won't waste our time or expose your ignorance of what a law or a right is.
Except a kidney patient, or a prisoner on Death Row f.ex. So your claim is false. Could you please restrict yourself to making true statements instead of interspersing so many false ones?
I would agree that the Death penelty is unconstitution.. but a dying kidney patient is not. The Consitution cannot possibly guarantee your right to live to the end of time, never dying.
 
Top Bottom