• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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.

Keep it or kill it?

a pregnant woman should be able to have an abortion when ever she wants during her pregnancy unless her life is in danger
 
a pregnant woman should be able to have an abortion when ever she wants during her pregnancy unless her life is in danger

I don't understand you.
I'm really trying to, i'm not making fun of you, okay?
A pregnant woman's life would never be more endangered by abortion than it is by pregnancy.
Ending a pregnancy is always safer than continuing it.
First trimester abortion is over twelve times safer than pregnancy and childbirth, and late-term abortion is still about four times safer.

Did you think that late abortions were dangerous to women's health?
They are safer than childbirth.

That is not to say that they are ideal; they are not as safe as early abortions.
And women who want children gladly assume the risks inherent in gestation and childbirth.
But there is no reason to force women who do not want to be pregnant to assume these risks.
 
But there is no reason to force women who do not want to be pregnant to assume these risks.

i absolutely agree w/ you. abortion is like 7 times safer for women than childbirth. what i mean is that i think women should be allowed to get an abortion unless it will seriously endanger their lives. if the abortion will endanger them, then i think it is better to take your chances w/ childbirth.
 
i absolutely agree w/ you. abortion is like 7 times safer for women than childbirth. what i mean is that i think women should be allowed to get an abortion unless it will seriously endanger their lives. if the abortion will endanger them, then i think it is better to take your chances w/ childbirth.

Ending a pregnancy would never endanger a woman more than continuing it would.
So I guess you support complete and unrestricted access to abortion, like I do.
Good to meet you; welcome.
 
:rofl

I am sorry...I can't help it!!!!
 
Jerry said:
It's all about rebellion...of a feeling of entitlement...emotion, not reason, which is why children should not have children.

Blah, blah, blah. Good thing you aborted two of yours then, and gave the other two away. Kudos to you, Jer, you paragon of rectitude. :roll:

Yes, I do feel entitled to bodily sovereignty. The same as a man.
The rules are not different for me because of my gender.

I wouldn't call it a good thing, just true. I was there, thats how I can relate.

My having adopted out 2 children shows the flaw in the OP question, "Keep it or kill it", as though those are the only options. One does not have to keep nore kill.

Strange how one is so quicly accused of being a hypocrit when they speak out against what they have do in the past. Your reasoning would have me believe that a recovering alcohawlic should not tell children not to drink.

Heh, if non of my children were ever aborted then a Pro-Choicer could just say "have any of your children ever been aborted? No? then you have no room to speak.....", so, either way, if PC is set to argue a position, PC will find a way.
 
nort_12345 said:
i absolutely agree w/ you. abortion is like 7 times safer for women than childbirth. what i mean is that i think women should be allowed to get an abortion unless it will seriously endanger their lives. if the abortion will endanger them, then i think it is better to take your chances w/ childbirth.

Ending a pregnancy would never endanger a woman more than continuing it would.
So I guess you support complete and unrestricted access to abortion, like I do.
Good to meet you; welcome.

WOW!
This is cool....I'm like the first person ever who will be able to say this and NOT violate Godwin's Law:

Pro-Choice and Nazis: Not that different after all.
 
i think you're confusing pro-choice people with conseratives

The "support complete and unrestricted access to abortion" is not a conservative value, so there is no confusion on my part.
 
i hate it when conservatives say that instead of aborting you can put the child up for adoption. then what? the kid stays in a home until 18. yeah, some kids will get adopted. well then the republicans can adopt all of those kids. there are thousands if not millions of kids up for adoption that will never get adopted. great childhood.
 
It's also not a Nazi value, so I think you have, in fact, served as yet another example of Godwin's Law.
thank you. and conservatives and nazis are both fascists and racists

One wonders why a Nazi would make such an argument then.

But no, the member in question is a Nazi, so I have not violated Godwin's law.
So cool.
 
i hate it when conservatives say that instead of aborting you can put the child up for adoption. then what? the kid stays in a home until 18. yeah, some kids will get adopted. well then the republicans can adopt all of those kids. there are thousands if not millions of kids up for adoption that will never get adopted. great childhood.

Letting my party off the hook, aye?

Per your argument Independent/Democrat/Green Party/Libertarian Conservatives can support adoption over abortion and you would only make Republicans adopt all said unwanted children. Hm, well, if your average Republican is rich, like the stereo-type suggests, then there should be a way for them to do so.

However, your idea assumes that those directly involved in producing said unwanted children should not and/or do not hold any level of responsibility or liability for the children being created when unwanted, and for their being unwanted once created.

I don't agree with that premise, so I can not agree with your proposed solution either.
 
One wonders why a Nazi would make such an argument then.

But no, the member in question is a Nazi, so I have not violated Godwin's law.
So cool.

Uh . . . dude? Look closer. That's Bill O'Reilly in front of the Nazi flag, and nort is a liberal, according to his "leaning." According to his post-counter, he's a freaking Communist. So that would be NOT a Nazi, then.
 
that's not what i said. many conservatives believe that instead of aborting, people should adopt. do you know how many more children there would be up for adoption. so if that's what the conservatives want, then they better be adopting all those kids.
 
Uh . . . dude? Look closer. That's Bill O'Reilly in front of the Nazi flag, and nort is a liberal, according to his "leaning." According to his post-counter, he's a freaking Communist. So that would be NOT a Nazi, then.

socialist but communist is still better than a nazi
 
Uh . . . dude? Look closer. That's Bill O'Reilly in front of the Nazi flag, and nort is a liberal, according to his "leaning." According to his post-counter, he's a freaking Communist. So that would be NOT a Nazi, then.

Ah, I stand corrected.
Sorry Nort.

...though now I am left to wonder why someone would deliberately use an avatar and knowingly make posts which violate Godwin's Law, as doing so flies in the face of the logic-banner so sought by Pro-Choice.
 
Ah, I stand corrected.
Sorry Nort.

...though now I am left to wonder why someone would deliberately use an avatar and knowingly make posts which violate Godwin's Law, as doing so flies in the face of the logic-banner so sought by Pro-Choice.

apology accepted.

i compared billo (that's what i call him) to the nazis because he is a fascist. but rush limbaugh would work also.
 
that's not what i said. many conservatives believe that instead of aborting, people should adopt. do you know how many more children there would be up for adoption. so if that's what the conservatives want, then they better be adopting all those kids.

Well, the Conservative position is not completely represented in your post.

People should generally refrain from risking pregnancy until they are in a loving, committed, stable marriage. Sexual relations between people in a serious engagement is a common exception given by Conservatives.

Married couples who do not want any, or just any more, children, should have themselves fixed.

Those who do become pregnant should marry and form a home for their child, rather or not they planned on it, rather or not it is very, very disruptive to their lives. If they do not want the child, something is wrong with the parent. It is their error to not feel and express love to their child and to not place the child as THE priority.

In these cases I suggest appropriate counseling for the parents, as it is clear that something is wrong with them.

In the situations where marriage is just imposable, such as one or both parent(s) being already married (assuming polygamy is illegal at this time and place), in the event of rape or incest, etc., the single parent should raise the child with the help of family.

When the parents themselves are children, have physical or mental disabilities or any number of other factors which totally impair their ability to provide for their child, then adoption is a viable option.

So, we start with reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies to begin with.

Then, those who are capable raise their own children.

We will still have children waiting to be adopted, of coarse, as being unwanted is not the sole reason why children are placed in foster care.

I have a foster brother who went into the system with his sister when both of his parents were arrested for Possession with Intent to Distribute.

Yet despite the fact that children are placed for foster-adoption when their parents are locked up for Federal convictions, I have yet to hear someone forward your argument and suggest that everyone opposed to (insert Federal offence of choice here) should adopt all sorts of children out of the system; and so I am inclined to assume that your argument is not genuine.

That’s how this Non-Denominational Christian Fundamentalist, Independent Conservative represents it.
 
apology accepted.

i compared billo (that's what i call him) to the nazis because he is a fascist. but rush limbaugh would work also.

I'm looking right at your avatar and I see (I'm know I'm going to spell this wrong) Kim Jung Ill.

lol

Limbaugh?
Quite the entertainer!
 
I have a foster brother who went into the system with his sister when both of his parents were arrested for Possession with Intent to Distribute.

Edit

**Drug Trafficking and Assaulting a Federal Agent.

Minor detail, but it may prove relevant some where....I never know.
 
Back
Top Bottom