• 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!

Most of us should have been aborted

And your answer is?

Isnt picking a stage of life to kill a human arbitrary?
Not before it is actually a person.

I will ask you the same question nobody is willing to answer. Are you going to start to give zygotes SS numbers?
 
When it can survive outside the womb on its own...about 24 weeks is about the earliest I would start to consider the rational of offering fetuses some rights of personhood....notice I said SOME RIGHTS OF PERSONHOOD.
Hmmm, I think I looked that up once. Wasn't 7 ounces the smallest baby that has survived outside the womb?
 
Hmmm, I think I looked that up once. Wasn't 7 ounces the smallest baby that has survived outside the womb?
22 week is the earliest anywhere at any time. So now you want to change the goalpost from time to size? Your desperation is showing.
 
I'll ask again. Which post did I not answer a question?

Can states ban Plan B since, in some cases, it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting?
 
22 week is the earliest anywhere at any time. So now you want to change the goalpost from time to size? Your desperation is showing.
I didn't change any goal post. Modern medicine did.
Are you not comfortable with modern medicine?
 
Can states ban Plan B since, in some cases, it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting?
To be honest, I do not know how the morning after pill works.
 
To be honest, I do not know how the morning after pill works.

I just told you... In some cases, it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting... Do you believe that conception is part of God's plan for a woman?
 
Why are you so angry when the OP's post is literally calling out a stupid and willfully ignorant reason to justify abortion?

Assuming that the OP doesn't care about children being massacred is not only dishonest, but is very childish and pathetic.
The OP made up a ridiculous hypothetical, stating we almost ALL would've been aborted had abortion been legal, then tried to use it as an emotional appeal for the government to control people's bodies. Sorry, I prefer freedom over government tyranny, but to each his own.

If you don't care about the truth then move along and spread your lies elsewhere.
And don't tell me I don't care about children being massacred. You lefties have slaughtered millions of future children and are fighting like crazy to kill millions more. Thank goodness the Supreme Court has slowed your murderous rampage.
And what are you talking about....hypothetical? Do you even know what hypothetical means? Find one sentence of the OP that is not true.
Your idiotic OP claims that we almost ALL would've been aborted had abortion been legal in the mid 20th century. It's a ridiculous hypothetical meant to spur an emotional response because you can't argue your point on merit. Nobody cares about your ****ing feelings. You may prefer government control over your body but the rest of us don't.

Something tells me you don't cry over the genocide when you jerk off, so you don't even believe your own nonsense.

To be honest, I do not know how the morning after pill works.
Anti-choicers in a nutshell. You don't even understand the things you oppose.
 
I didn't change any goal post. Modern medicine did.
Are you not comfortable with modern medicine?
Again the earliest a fetus has survived birth anywhere at any time or any size is 22 weeks. Nobody is arguing that there should be a standard based on the potential size of a newborn baby, or that the potential size of a baby once born should have anything to do with anything EXCEPT YOU!
 
Do you believe the miracle of life is part of God's plan for a woman?
A woman can't get pregnant without a man.
If she could it would be a miracle.
But that's only happened once.
I don't want to involve religion. The argument against killing future children is so strong it can stand on its own. You don't have to be religious to know snuffing out future human life is barbaric.
 
I just told you... In some cases, it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting... Do you believe that conception is part of God's plan for a woman?
I'll have to get more information. Are you a reproductive doctor?
 
A woman can't get pregnant without a man.
If she could it would be a miracle.
But that's only happened once.
I don't want to involve religion. The argument against killing future children is so strong it can stand on its own. You don't have to be religious to know snuffing out future human life is barbaric.
"Future human life". So when you jerk off, you're committing genocide, because all of those sperm had the potential to become future human life?
 
A recent thread titled "Was Your Lifesaver's Life Just Saved?" was a real eye opener. The number 2 reason pro-choicers cited for abortion was that the baby would grow up to be a criminal anyways and society would be better off to end it's life before it escaped from the womb.
But by far, the number 1 reason to abort was that the mother was low income. It was repeated over and over and we've seen it in just about every abortion thread.
If you are over the age of 50 you probably should have been aborted according to today's pro-choicers' standards. If you are older than 60, you likely had even less money growing up.... unless of course, you were lucky enough to be conceived by parents who had higher than average incomes. That excluded everyone in my neighborhood. All my neighborhood friends should have been aborted 6-7 decades ago. Our parents worked their butts off and still struggled for necessities. No kids in my neighborhood had luxuries.
Minority neighborhoods had it even worse.
Go back to the pioneer days with dirt floors, no running water, no electricity, no hospitals, little food, no toilet paper. Heck, they didn't have DP forums. They were much worse off than today's poor. Why in the world would you not abort your fetus?
So, go ahead and cite other reasons for abortion if you want, but you liberals need to stop with this nonsense of using the number one reason to abort as financial. History has shown you are wrong. Most of us older folks here on DP are living proof of that.

Try some empathy for a change. Try understanding what it might feel like to be pregnant and to fear that you don't have enough resources to take care of your child, to give them the quality of life you think they deserve.

You can still think about it and come to the same conclusion that abortion is immoral, but at least try to understand instead of just having blind contempt. I think this is one of the major reasons people are so angry about Friday's ruling. It's as if the people who wrote it - all presumably quite well off financially and otherwise - don't want to understand what that's like to have that anxiety.
 
A woman can't get pregnant without a man.
If she could it would be a miracle.
But that's only happened once.
I don't want to involve religion. The argument against killing future children is so strong it can stand on its own. You don't have to be religious to know snuffing out future human life is barbaric.

So conception is NOT a miracle as you said earlier? You do realize that the Catholic church, six of the nine justices are Catholics, believe that contraception interferes with God's plan and is a sin. Can a state with a large Catholic population be able to ban contraception?
 
Its not a baby YET. Its not a person YET and therefore has no rights of personhood and at best does not deserve them until there is a chance that it can survive outside the womb.

That (bolded above) assertion is based on nothing in the Constitution so what (if anything) did you use (other than your personal opinion) to determine that (legal or moral) ‘fact’?

BTW, that (bolded above) appears to be the (legal or moral) basis for Casey v. PP, a derivative of Roe v. Wade, said to limit (end?) the (alleged) “privacy right” basis for abortion on demand.

You seem to have decided that the stage (level?) of fetal development is (somehow) important, yet there is no expectation that the modern medical care alternative to abortion is (or even should be) premature delivery (instant personhood?) and intensive care for months (for that newly created person) once any pregnant woman decides that a (deemed) ‘viable’ unborn child is no longer wanted by her.
 
So, go ahead and cite other reasons for abortion if you want, but you liberals need to stop with this nonsense of using the number one reason to abort as financial. History has shown you are wrong. Most of us older folks here on DP are living proof of that.
The number one reason to oppose government control of woman's bodies is not financial. The number one reason is that it's not your or anyone else's business what a woman decides to do when she becomes pregnant.
 
I'll have to get more information. Are you a reproductive doctor?

LMAO... No, why would I need to be a reproductive doctor to know there are MANY opponents of Plan B for precisely the reason I stated.
 
A woman can't get pregnant without a man.
If she could it would be a miracle.
But that's only happened once.
I don't want to involve religion. The argument against killing future children is so strong it can stand on its own. You don't have to be religious to know snuffing out future human life is barbaric.
This argument is not only not strong. It is non-existent. In fact while it is clear that the SC is now full of religious zealots shoving their religious beliefs down every other citizen's throat, go find this argument against killing future children in the Majority Opinion in Dobbs v Jackson.
 
So conception is NOT a miracle as you said earlier? You do realize that the Catholic church, six of the nine justices are Catholics, believe that contraception interferes with God's plan and is a sin. Can a state with a large Catholic population be able to ban contraception?
Where did I say conception is a miracle? Where did I say I am Catholic?
You people keep making stuff up.
 
"Future human life". So when you jerk off, you're committing genocide, because all of those sperm had the potential to become future human life?

Sperm isn't an individual human life. A ZEF is.
 
Just heard a discussion on FOX.

They cited a CNN commentator who felt that abortion should be an option if the baby would be born with some kind of condition, such as Down syndrome.

The FOX hosts were outraged by such an idea.

But some people (including me) agree with that CNN talking head. If a person has Down syndrome (or autism, I might add), one might not be able to take care of oneself in this vale of tears.

Yes, I realize that some people might ask, "Why not abort anyone who is different?"

The OP refers to aborting people who may live lives of poverty.

Both sides have valid points.

The FOX hosts opined that no one has the right to decide who should be born and who should not.

Other people feel that a woman has a responsibility to abort if a child might have a very terrible time existing in this world.
 
That (bolded above) assertion is based on nothing in the Constitution so what (if anything) did you use (other than your personal opinion) to determine that (legal or moral) ‘fact’?

BTW, that (bolded above) appears to be the (legal or moral) basis for Casey v. PP, a derivative of Roe v. Wade, said to limit (end?) the (alleged) “privacy right” basis for abortion on demand.

You seem to have decided that the stage (level?) of fetal development is (somehow) important, yet there is no expectation that the modern medical care alternative to abortion is (or even should be) premature delivery (instant personhood?) and intensive care for months (for that newly created person) once any pregnant woman decides that a (deemed) ‘viable’ unborn child is no longer wanted by her.

Is there a right to marital privacy in the constitution? Can states ban contraception?
 
LMAO... No, why would I need to be a reproductive doctor to know there are MANY opponents of Plan B for precisely the reason I stated.
What are you even talking about? I simply stated I don't know how it works...,nothing more.
 
Back
Top Bottom