• 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!

Question about abortion.

Babies are innocent. Hardened criminals (murderers) are not.

You had to ask?
 
mac said:
In the case where it causes physical harm to the mother, I personally accept the need for abortion. Just like in the case of born humans, the only justification for self defense is the protection of one's own life.
Click to expand...

And just where are you going to draw that line? And HOW will you draw that line? Would you accept cardiomyopathy as a potential reason for abortion - I mean it does not always kill and only sometimes leaves the woman with a heart so floppy she needs to go on the transplant list (cardiomyopathy related to pregnancy is one of those weird and wonderful disorders that we really have no idea of why they happen) but it can leave women permanently disabled - is that a reason for abortion?

What about previous history of eclampsia - might cause the woman to tip over into HELLP syndrome - might not - is THAT a reason for abortion?

Will you accept permanent disability, probable life threatening disorder, possible inconvenience - what?

And the next question is - who decides? The woman herself? The woman and her doctor? Some special panel that includes at least a 5:1 pro life ratio?
 
RamFel said:
Babies are innocent. Hardened criminals (murderers) are not.

You had to ask?
Click to expand...

BABIES might be but we are talking about embryos and foetuses - you know those little collections of cells that might or might not become a baby
 
bowerbird said:
BABIES might be but we are talking about embryos and foetuses - you know those little collections of cells that might or might not become a baby
Click to expand...


Well, there's an overlap between the terms fetus and baby. One can be a fetus at 9, 23, 32 or 40 weeks gestation. We tend to call the fetuses that come out at 23 weeks, just as we do at term, babies even if their prognosis is terrible.
 
bowerbird said:
And just where are you going to draw that line? And HOW will you draw that line? Would you accept cardiomyopathy as a potential reason for abortion - I mean it does not always kill and only sometimes leaves the woman with a heart so floppy she needs to go on the transplant list (cardiomyopathy related to pregnancy is one of those weird and wonderful disorders that we really have no idea of why they happen) but it can leave women permanently disabled - is that a reason for abortion?

What about previous history of eclampsia - might cause the woman to tip over into HELLP syndrome - might not - is THAT a reason for abortion?

Will you accept permanent disability, probable life threatening disorder, possible inconvenience - what?

And the next question is - who decides? The woman herself? The woman and her doctor? Some special panel that includes at least a 5:1 pro life ratio?
Click to expand...

If a doctor determines that an abortion is necessary to protect the mother's life, than he is ethically justified in performing one.
 
mac said:
If a doctor determines that an abortion is necessary to protect the mother's life, than he is ethically justified in performing one.
Click to expand...

Congrats you just described the "health clause" that is in most anti-abortion legislation and it is the same clause that allows my state to have an abortion rate not that much different from the USA
 
Jryan said:
How can republicans be pro life and pro death penalty at the same time?
Click to expand...

pro life/ pro death penalty, pushing to cut nutritional programs that help feed poor children, sending our young men and woman to foreign countries to fight and die for corporate oil
 
bowerbird said:
Congrats you just described the "health clause" that is in most anti-abortion legislation and it is the same clause that allows my state to have an abortion rate not that much different from the USA
Click to expand...

Which says you either have a lot of high risk pregnancies, or a lot of unethical doctors.
 
Im an independent and Im pro-Choice and support the death penalty.

Also I know many Republicans that are pro-choice.
 
Jryan said:
How can republicans be pro life and pro death penalty at the same time?
Click to expand...

Easy... people guilty of killing others have forfeited their right to life and an innocent developing human has done nothing to merit being killed.
 
EarlzP said:
pro life/ pro death penalty, pushing to cut nutritional programs that help feed poor children, sending our young men and woman to foreign countries to fight and die for corporate oil
Click to expand...

Kennedy and LBJ were Democrats if I remember correctly...
 
Hierophant said:
Because they have deluded themselves into believing that every single person who was ever executed was guilty, and that every single human being is innocent (despite what their own religion states).
Click to expand...

Delusional would be if you believed this statement... :lol:
 
Jryan said:
How can republicans be pro life and pro death penalty at the same time?
Click to expand...

Because the rightwing has no principles and no morals. All they have are slogans which they repeat when convenient, and disregard when inconvenient.
 
Jryan said:
How can republicans be pro life and pro death penalty at the same time?
Click to expand...

How can liberals be "pro-choice" and against people being able to freely choose what ever firearm they want?

How can liberals be "pro-choice" and against people choosing to use school vouchers to send their kids to private school?

How can liberals be "pro-choice" and are for closed shops when forces people to join a union as a condition of employments instead of being able to freely choose whether or not they want to join a union?

Doesn't pro-choice mean that you are for people having choices?
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
How can liberals be "pro-choice" and against people being able to freely choose what ever firearm they want?

How can liberals be "pro-choice" and against people choosing to use school vouchers to send their kids to private school?

How can liberals be "pro-choice" and are for closed shops when forces people to join a union as a condition of employments instead of being able to freely choose whether or not they want to join a union?

Doesn't pro-choice mean that you are for people having choices?
Click to expand...

Personally, I think we should have a choice in all those areas as well, but I think most liberals are pro-choice in abortion because they think women should be free to choose their role in procreation. So it is quite a bit different than having the choice of how to educate your child, or buying a gun.
 
drz-400 said:
Personally, I think we should have a choice in all those areas as well, but I think most liberals are pro-choice in abortion because they think women should be free to choose their role in procreation. So it is quite a bit different than having the choice of how to educate your child, or buying a gun.
Click to expand...

They are able to choose their role in procreation without abortion.
 
sangha said:
Because the rightwing has no principles and no morals. All they have are slogans which they repeat when convenient, and disregard when inconvenient.
Click to expand...

Thats ridiculous. I don't think it is hard to imagine why someone would think abortion is immoral. Many people think we have a responsibility to raise the child if you become pregnant. Not too controversial if you ask me.

The death penalty is more about punishment and deterrence, if you are arguing from a conservative perspective I would suppose.
 
mac said:
They are able to choose their role in procreation without abortion.
Click to expand...

To a degree, but not allowing abortion would be an infringement upon this freedom. Not everyone has sex to make a kid, hopefully that is not a surprise. You might disagree with that, but it is pretty much a fact of life. Birth control is not 100% effective, thus you can see the obvious role of abortion, like it or not.
 
drz-400 said:
Personally, I think we should have a choice in all those areas as well, but I think most liberals are pro-choice in abortion because they think women should be free to choose their role in procreation. So it is quite a bit different than having the choice of how to educate your child, or buying a gun.
Click to expand...

Just like many people are pro-life because they believe that those in the womb have as much as right to life as those outside the womb.So it is quite different that being for the execution of a guilty person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom