• 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!

It is time for abortion to stop being a political football.

Thank you, but that wasn't actually my point in the OP either.

My point was that believing this is an issue that is going to be "solved" by government is likely a vain hope.
I know. So I'll offer something on topic.

I do believe it can be 'solved' by government for any woman. It's mostly solved now. They choose what they need.

If people that arent pregnant dont like it, it doesnt matter...they're not the ones with the 'problem' to be solved.
 
That's the point. What I gave are the endpoints. The closer a pregnancy gets to birth, the tougher a moral concern it is. I didn't think I'd have to spell it out.
Actually, you did have to spell it out. It's a discussion forum, it's up to you to present your position and support it. Or argue it.

You, OTOH, chose to throw crap out there and see what stuck, in order to not have to commit yourself. Because your information on this issue, based on your posting, is severely lacking. That shouldnt bother you much...you are always able to do the homework to be better prepared.

You'll probably deny this, too. "No, no, no ,no no, no- it's all the same." I suspect you're uncomfortable acknowledging some things because you think it weakens your position, that anti-abortion people will see what you say and abortion will be banned.

Is there a question in there, related to the subject? If so...please re-state.

The bold is ludicrous tho, as people here will tell you I am very straightforward on this issue and apparently, and this is the wild part: you dont seem to understand that women have a Constitutional right to have an abortion. That is protected by law. It's a joke if you think that my Internet posting is going to change that. (Or yours) :rolleyes:

Good gravy, all this typing over these few relatively straightforward things. That's it for me- I'm outta here!
You came in with some (very limited) assumptions and now, rather than learning more, you retreat. It's a discussion forum, people trade ideas and argue their views.

Meh, see ya.
 
"Poland delays abortion ban as nationwide protests continue
Anti-government rallies continue over court’s ruling to restrict access to terminations
Demonstrators holding ‘women’s strike’ placards block a street in Warsaw. Photograph: Kacper Pempel/Reuters
Shaun WalkerCentral and eastern Europe correspondent: Tue 3 Nov 2020 09.16 ES
Poland’s rightwing government has delayed implementation of a controversial court ruling that would outlaw almost all abortion after it prompted the largest protests since the fall of communism." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/03/poland-stalls-abortion-ban-amid-nationwide-protests

30,0000 angry women protesting against the Polish government doesn't sound like the "exact middle between two extremes" has been found nor does it sound like either side has backed off and dropped the issue.

I'm assuming that your statement about getting whores back in line is meant to be funny. It isn't. Women who seek abortions aren't whores. They are women who understand that many lives will be adversely effected if they bring a child or another child into the family.
this is more recent.

in the previous polish election, abortion wasn't even considered.
 
Every Republican nominee for the Supreme Court has to go through the abortion litmus test. Additionally, Democrats are so afraid of speaking out against abortion to the degree they've been blocking basic anti-infanticide legislation in Congress. Margaret Sanger supported eugenics and targeted Planned Parenthood facilities in largely minority neighborhoods to prevent minority babies. To this day Planned Parenthood continues to operate in mostly minority neighborhoods.

Down the conservative Christian rabbit hole of infanticide once again.
The situation you are talking about as reported by the AP :https://apnews.com/article/ec121b3d9db53764f0468c012b6813c2
"Dubbed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, the bill would have required that doctors care for a newborn baby who survived an abortion the same way they care for other newborns. If doctors failed to give medical care to a living baby, they would face criminal penalties."
...........Republicans have repeatedly tried to use parliamentary tactics to force a vote in the Democrat-controlled House, but have been batted back each time. The U.S. is one of only seven countries that permits abortions past 20 weeks, according to Mr. McConnell. The Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, vowed to make this vote a 2020 issue. “For the Democrats, a newborn slated for extermination before birth is fair game even after birth. This is infanticide. The only thing Americans can do to protect these most vulnerable babies is to vote out of office those who fail to protect them,” Father Pavone said."

Democrats are not blocking anti-infanticide laws. Every state has laws making the killing of an infant a criminal act. They are blocking a proposal to make a partially born fetus into a person with legal rights: just one law short of full personhood for all fetuses. Why does this matter.?

Currently the conservative Christian anti-abortion belief is rightly seen as a Constitutional issue. The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Clearly, if the federal government makes a law saying abortion is illegal it is establishing the religious dogma of one religion as law. Oppressive religious laws are exactly what the founding fathers were trying to escape. So as long as the Church and evangelicals are seen as they are not going to get abortion banned or control women's contraceptives by calling them abortifacients. But......if they can get legal personhood for the fetus than they can use civil law to ban abortion b or y calling it killing of a legal person.

Catholics and evangelicals are not doctors. They have no expertise in the malformations that can happen during pregnancy. Yet the proposed law will impose their religious beliefs on a family, woman and doctor trying to make the tragic decisions about what to do with a fetus or dying baby with serious life threatening and irreversible genetic malformations. This is not a matter for nosy church bigots. Only the doctor and the family can make these decisions.
 
She promoted birth control to create a "better race." She wanted to minimize abortion, but was definitely supportive of it. She wanted to use birth control to minimize abortion which she considered a necessary evil... which is to say the standard pro-choice position among Americans today.



Bullshit.


One final misconception about Mrs. Sanger must also be addressed, it seems, and in this case the truth will terribly inconvenience the propaganda efforts all around. It is not right, pace Planned Parenthood, that Margaret Sanger declined to advocate abortion on grounds that it was then a dangerous and illegal surgery. “There are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician,” she wrote in 1920, and “we know that abortion, when performed by skilled hands, under right conditions, brings almost no danger to the life of the patient.” On the evidence in “The Woman Rebel,” the real reason Sanger declined to advocate abortion, notwithstanding the law’s flexibility and what she took to be the procedure’s safety, is that abortion appalled her.

She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics: “I do not approve of abortion.” She called it “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” a “horror.” She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names who perform operations for the price of so-and-so.” She called the results of abortion “an outrageous slaughter,” “infanticide,” “foeticide,” and “the killing of babies.” And Margaret Sanger, who knew a thing or two about contraception, said that birth control “has nothing to do with abortion, it has nothing to do with interfering with or disturbing life after conception has taken place.” Birth control stands alone: “It is the first, last, and final step we all are to take to have real human emancipation.”

 
I always think it's odd that people want to get rid of PP based on one of the original founders. Previously posted:

Blaming Margaret Sanger's views on racism/eugenics for *today's* PP organization is like blaming the FF's like Jefferson, who kept slaves for how we interpret the Constitution *today*. Society evolves and moves on and institutions do so as well.​
If you want to throw out PP because of Sanger's views, shall we throw out the Constitution as well because of slave-owning founders? :doh​
 
Down the conservative Christian rabbit hole of infanticide once again.
The situation you are talking about as reported by the AP :https://apnews.com/article/ec121b3d9db53764f0468c012b6813c2
"Dubbed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, the bill would have required that doctors care for a newborn baby who survived an abortion the same way they care for other newborns. If doctors failed to give medical care to a living baby, they would face criminal penalties."
...........Republicans have repeatedly tried to use parliamentary tactics to force a vote in the Democrat-controlled House, but have been batted back each time. The U.S. is one of only seven countries that permits abortions past 20 weeks, according to Mr. McConnell. The Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, vowed to make this vote a 2020 issue. “For the Democrats, a newborn slated for extermination before birth is fair game even after birth. This is infanticide. The only thing Americans can do to protect these most vulnerable babies is to vote out of office those who fail to protect them,” Father Pavone said."

Democrats are not blocking anti-infanticide laws. Every state has laws making the killing of an infant a criminal act. They are blocking a proposal to make a partially born fetus into a person with legal rights: just one law short of full personhood for all fetuses. Why does this matter.?

Currently the conservative Christian anti-abortion belief is rightly seen as a Constitutional issue. The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Clearly, if the federal government makes a law saying abortion is illegal it is establishing the religious dogma of one religion as law. Oppressive religious laws are exactly what the founding fathers were trying to escape. So as long as the Church and evangelicals are seen as they are not going to get abortion banned or control women's contraceptives by calling them abortifacients. But......if they can get legal personhood for the fetus than they can use civil law to ban abortion b or y calling it killing of a legal person.

Catholics and evangelicals are not doctors. They have no expertise in the malformations that can happen during pregnancy. Yet the proposed law will impose their religious beliefs on a family, woman and doctor trying to make the tragic decisions about what to do with a fetus or dying baby with serious life threatening and irreversible genetic malformations. This is not a matter for nosy church bigots. Only the doctor and the family can make these decisions.
In the 3rd paragraph this sentence "So as long as the Church and evangelicals are seen as they are not going to get abortion banned or control women's contraceptives by calling them abortifacients." should read

So as long as the Church and evangelical's anti-abortion efforts are seen as unconstitutional they are not going to get abortion banned or control women's contraceptives by calling them abortifacients.
 
Democrats are not blocking anti-infanticide laws. Every state has laws making the killing of an infant a criminal act. They are blocking a proposal to make a partially born fetus into a person with legal rights: just one law short of full personhood for all fetuses. Why does this matter.?
You should read the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. It's a very short bill that essentially says if a baby is born during a botched abortion it must be given the same medical treatment as any other baby that is born. It allows for punishment to medical professionals who kill the baby. It protects the mother from any legal consequences. Democrats oppose because they say they want the leave the matter to the states and the law is redundant. However, research shows this situation does in fact happen under current law and therefore the law requires clarification for prosecution of medical professionals who kill babies born alive. Democrats are punting this issue because they don't want to go on record saying they support not killing babies that are born alive following an abortion attempt.
 
"She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics "
We still turn women away from abortion under certain circumstances. And, her views on abortion changed over time. She eventually ended up justifying it.

She built her career on the concept that abortion was an evil that needed to be stopped or limited. She pushed for birth control and personal responsibility to be the "cure" for abortion. She also wanted to specifically target minority women to prevent them from procreating because she felt they were diluting the gene pool. Later in life she loosened her position on abortion and felt it was sometimes justified.
 
We still turn women away from abortion under certain circumstances. And, her views on abortion changed over time. She eventually ended up justifying it.

She built her career on the concept that abortion was an evil that needed to be stopped or limited. She pushed for birth control and personal responsibility to be the "cure" for abortion. She also wanted to specifically target minority women to prevent them from procreating because she felt they were diluting the gene pool. Later in life she loosened her position on abortion and felt it was sometimes justified.


Bullshit. She did NOT target minority women. She advocated for birth control for ALL women who wanted to limit the size of their families. And she was DEAD before PP started doing abortion. smh
 
Bullshit. She did NOT target minority women. She advocated for birth control for ALL women who wanted to limit the size of their families.
That is at odds with the facts and her own writings.

And she was DEAD before PP started doing abortion. smh
Care to take a guess as to why that may have been? Let's exercise a little critical thinking. I'm confident that if you spend a small amount of effort prior to pretending to understand something you'll come away seeming less absurd.
 
Last edited:
You should read the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. It's a very short bill that essentially says if a baby is born during a botched abortion it must be given the same medical treatment as any other baby that is born. It allows for punishment to medical professionals who kill the baby. It protects the mother from any legal consequences. Democrats oppose because they say they want the leave the matter to the states and the law is redundant. However, research shows this situation does in fact happen under current law and therefore the law requires clarification for prosecution of medical professionals who kill babies born alive. Democrats are punting this issue because they don't want to go on record saying they support not killing babies that are born alive following an abortion attempt.

Killing a live baby whether born during an abortion or born naturally is infanticide and is a crime in every state. The"Abortion Survivors" law is redundant.
The only recorded instance I know of happened in Dr. Kermit Gosnell's clinic. Gosnell is serving three life sentences for killing live babies born during the abortion procedure. I have read the bill. It allows Catholic and evangelical organizations to make decisions that they have no expertise or ethical reason to assume, decisions that are rightfully the responsibility of doctors and parents in dealing with the life of a child born seriously malformed. It forces parents and doctor to keep alive a child that will live less than a year, willnever be sentient, and will be in pain most of the time from the extreme measures these organizations require in order to keep the child alive instead of allowing it to die naturally.

The bill is intrusive, unethical and totally unnecessary. It is being promoted in the effort to establish personhood for a fetus. No doctor other than Gosnell, is killing healthy normal live babies whether born during an abortion or born naturally. Why would they? They would lose their license to practice a very well paid business and be jailed. It is not to their advantage to kill normal babies. If you know of cases where they are doing this please post a link.
 
Women will remain scapegoats for some time.
 
We still turn women away from abortion under certain circumstances. And, her views on abortion changed over time. She eventually ended up justifying it.

She built her career on the concept that abortion was an evil that needed to be stopped or limited. She pushed for birth control and personal responsibility to be the "cure" for abortion. She also wanted to specifically target minority women to prevent them from procreating because she felt they were diluting the gene pool. Later in life she loosened her position on abortion and felt it was sometimes justified.
Prove it. You are lying
 
You should read the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. It's a very short bill that essentially says if a baby is born during a botched abortion it must be given the same medical treatment as any other baby that is born. It allows for punishment to medical professionals who kill the baby. It protects the mother from any legal consequences. Democrats oppose because they say they want the leave the matter to the states and the law is redundant. However, research shows this situation does in fact happen under current law and therefore the law requires clarification for prosecution of medical professionals who kill babies born alive. Democrats are punting this issue because they don't want to go on record saying they support not killing babies that are born alive following an abortion attempt.

If the bill is so ethical and so necessary why aren't other religious organizations and established ethics commissions not supporting it. It seems extremely odd that two sects with rather long histories of abuse of young children and women are now so concerned with the lives of children fated to die of incurable genetic malformations.
 
Killing a live baby whether born during an abortion or born naturally is infanticide and is a crime in every state. The"Abortion Survivors" law is redundant.
And yet, there's some evidence that it does occur. Would be great if there was a federal law against it. Additionally, Democrats love to pass redundant legislation for the sole purpose of expressing support for something. Strange they won't support this...

Moving past that. Do you support the bill? It sounds like you don't. Odd.
 
There's many types of abortion that are still illegal. This doesn't require proof, only a small amount of common sense. I think you're lying.
Your claim about sanger is dismissed.


You are lying
 
And yet, there's some evidence that it does occur. Would be great if there was a federal law against it. Additionally, Democrats love to pass redundant legislation for the sole purpose of expressing support for something. Strange they won't support this...

Moving past that. Do you support the bill? It sounds like you don't. Odd.
Murder is already illegal
 
......... She (Ms Sanger) also wanted to specifically target minority women to prevent them from procreating because she felt they were diluting the gene pool. Later in life she loosened her position on abortion and felt it was sometimes justified.

Ms. Sanger targeted poor women with serial pregnancies that were literally killing them. Wealthy women has access to the diaphragms and spermicides through their private doctors. In the cities most poor women were 1st generation immigrant women whose families spoke broken English and worked at very low paying jobs if they could find work at all. In the rural areas the women she reached out to were poor farmers wives many of whom were Black. When Ms Sanger was part of the eugenics movement the term "race" meant the human race and it was the "human race" the the eugenics movement sought to improve. Race did not mean minorities of any kind. There are a few passages in her writings that make this clear. Here are two. If you want further confirmation that "race" meant "human race" I'd be happy to post them for you

"Some method must be devised to eliminate the degenerate and the defective; for these act constantly to impede progress and ever increasingly drag down the human race."

"In addition to its salutary effect on the future germ plasm of the human race, Birth Control will be an effective force in the solution of the problem of the social evil, and in the control of venereal diseases."

Ms Sanger was not a racist. From Wikipedia: "
Sanger worked with African American leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and the leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem.[73] Sanger secured funding from the Julius Rosenwald Fund and opened the clinic, staffed with black doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of black doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press as well as in black churches, and it received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, the co-founder of the NAACP and the editor of its magazine, The Crisis.[74][75][76][77] Sanger did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects.[78] Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Coretta and Martin Luther King Jr.; when he was not able to attend his Margaret Sanger award ceremony, in May 1966, Mrs. King read her husband's acceptance speech that praised Sanger, but first said her own words: "Because of [Sanger's] dedication, her deep convictions, and for her suffering for what she believed in, I would like to say that I am proud to be a woman tonight."[79]

From 1939 to 1942, Sanger was an honorary delegate of the Birth Control Federation of America, which included a supervisory role—alongside Mary Lasker and Clarence Gamble—in the Negro Project, an effort to deliver information about birth control to poor black people.[80] Sanger advised Dr. Gamble on the utility of hiring a black physician for the Negro Project. She also advised him on the importance of reaching out to black ministers, writing"

Let me state it again: Sanger was not ever a racist
 
Murder is already illegal
But, is it enforced at the federal level? When you have states like Virginia the legalities are starting to get blurred. And that's the point. You don't want to say you support a bill that says you can't let a baby die if it was born as an accident of an abortion. You're side-stepping the issue when basic common decency is that you should protect the life of the baby. But, you're afraid to stand up for the life of the unwanted because it doesn't fit the political narrative.

A blanket law at the federal level saying you can't kill a newborn baby just because it's unwanted is not politically correct among liberals.
 
Back
Top Bottom