• 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 For Pro Lifers (1 Viewer)

D

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
12,478
Reaction score
3,498
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This is a question for people who are pro life, people who want abortion all together banned. What about cases of maternal life, where the mom is suffering from complications from the pregnancy and could die if she doesn't get an abortion? Some countries such as Venezuela, Paraguay, Madagascar, and certain African countries ban abortion but make exceptions of the mom's life is in danger, and then there's countries such as Nicaragua which ban abortion all together even if the mom's life is in danger. So in Nicaragua even if the mom could die if she keeps the baby, she cannot legally get an abortion. Usually if the mom dies the baby dies too. So do you agree with countries such as Nicaragua?
 
Still waiting to hear from pro lifers on this.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Still waiting to hear from pro lifers on this.
Click to expand...

There are also pro-lifers like me who hold to their own beliefs but stay out of the secular law fight altogether...
 
Hi there! So a couple things to address this question. First, I want to contextualize this argument because I have often heard health challenges for the mother used as an argument to justify all abortions, including those in perfectly normal and healthy pregnancies, and I do not believe this is a legitimate argument to justify abortion.

First of all, late-term abortions (when the baby has the chance to survive outside of the womb) or partial-birth abortions are never needed to save the life of a mother. In dangerous situations, babies are delivered, often via c-section, such as in the case of Placenta Previa which threatens both the mother and the baby. So this argument has to be restricted to pregnancies very early on when the baby will not survive outside of the womb, and health challenges cannot be used to justify late-term or partial-birth abortions.

In the case of very early abortions where the baby will not survive if delivered, life threatening situations in the case of pregnancy are very rare. Even Planned Parenthood director said, "Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” So it is an extremely small percentage of lives that are threatened by pregnancy and this small percentage should not be applied to all abortions and be used to justify it.

So just to put this in context, health complications cannot justify abortions where the child has to chance to survive outside the womb and are rarely an argument for early pregnancies. But let's say we are in the very rare situation where the mother's life (not health but life) is in danger. First of all, a doctor cannot say with certainty that the mother will die if the pregnancy continues. There are cases where the risk is high that she will not survive the pregnancy, but doctors cannot predict the outcome with certainty, and in fact there are many incidents when a doctor has said a mother may die if her pregnancy continues, yet she chooses to carry her baby and both she and the baby survive the high-risk pregnancy just fine. So I don't think an abortion is justified if the mother "might" die because if there is the chance both she and the baby will live, the doctors should do all they can to keep both the mother and the baby alive, rather than killing the child. I don't believe a possible death is justification for a certain death. And because there has not been a situation where a mother is guaranteed to die if the pregnancy continues, I believe that instead of ending the life of the baby, the solution should be to fight for the lives of both the mother and baby. Situations where lives are lost during pregnancy is terrible and heartbreaking, so thankfully we live at a time when medical technology can do so much to protect the lives of mothers and babies involved in high-risk pregnancies.
 
DebateChallenge said:
This is a question for people who are pro life, people who want abortion all together banned. What about cases of maternal life, where the mom is suffering from complications from the pregnancy and could die if she doesn't get an abortion? Some countries such as Venezuela, Paraguay, Madagascar, and certain African countries ban abortion but make exceptions of the mom's life is in danger, and then there's countries such as Nicaragua which ban abortion all together even if the mom's life is in danger. So in Nicaragua even if the mom could die if she keeps the baby, she cannot legally get an abortion. Usually if the mom dies the baby dies too. So do you agree with countries such as Nicaragua?
Click to expand...

If the mother is going to die and the baby is not viable outside the womb then the baby wouldn't survive, save the mother. If the baby is viable then deliver the baby to save them both.
 
Here's my problem when people use extremely rare circumstances like medical emergencies or rape to bait pro-lifers into a "gotcha!".

Pro-choice people aren't making these arguments out of empathy for sick mothers or rape victims. They're making them to justify their position that abortion should be free, legal, and on demand for everyone. It's a red-herring.

Even if pro-lifers did make a compromise to support abortion in these extremely rare cases, it wouldn't change anything. Pro-choicers wouldn't be any happier and they'd certainly continue pushing a wider agenda to have abortion legalized completely and unreservedly. If you really were concerned about medical emergencies or rape pregnancies, we could all easily come together and set a reasonable compromise. But most supporters of abortion won't do that because they want much, much more.

For the record, I would 100% support abortions for these cases if it meant we could also put in reasonable limits on the other 99.9% of abortions.
 
Crusader13 said:
Here's my problem when people use extremely rare circumstances like medical emergencies or rape to bait pro-lifers into a "gotcha!".

Pro-choice people aren't making these arguments out of empathy for sick mothers or rape victims. They're making them to justify their position that abortion should be free, legal, and on demand for everyone. It's a red-herring.

Even if pro-lifers did make a compromise to support abortion in these extremely rare cases, it wouldn't change anything. Pro-choicers wouldn't be any happier and they'd certainly continue pushing a wider agenda to have abortion legalized completely and unreservedly. If you really were concerned about medical emergencies or rape pregnancies, we could all easily come together and set a reasonable compromise. But most supporters of abortion won't do that because they want much, much more.

For the record, I would 100% support abortions for these cases if it meant we could also put in reasonable limits on the other 99.9% of abortions.
Click to expand...

But the problem is that the pro lifer is not asking for a reasonable compromise. Instead they are demanding that their compromises be seen as being reasonable when they are not.

Nor do i need to use sick mothers or rape as a justification. At best they would be used to point out just how ludicrous is the contradictory nature of the pro lifers argument.

Abortion should be legal as it is a medical issue and not a legal issue.
 
Crusader13 said:
If you really were concerned about medical emergencies or rape pregnancies, we could all easily come together and set a reasonable compromise. But most supporters of abortion won't do that because they want much, much more.

For the record, I would 100% support abortions for these cases if it meant we could also put in reasonable limits on the other 99.9% of abortions.
Click to expand...

There is no compromise needed. Abortion should never be legislated. It is a matter between a woman and her doctor. Thankfully, in my country, it's a medical issue, not a legal one.
 
soylentgreen said:
But the problem is that the pro lifer is not asking for a reasonable compromise. Instead they are demanding that their compromises be seen as being reasonable when they are not.

Nor do i need to use sick mothers or rape as a justification. At best they would be used to point out just how ludicrous is the contradictory nature of the pro lifers argument.

Abortion should be legal as it is a medical issue and not a legal issue.
Click to expand...

Discussing the morality around ending a human life isn't reasonable? Sorry, you're wrong.

You give any pro-lifer an early deal right now and they'd take it without blinking. Free, taxpayer-funded abortion with 5-star service on demand for any woman raped or suffering from a medical emergency, in exchange we get to put reasonable measures on the other 99% of abortions (ie, eliminating abortions out of convenience, regret, dissatisfaction with the gender of the child etc). I'm pretty sure even the Pope would take that deal and put a generous amount of money forward to fund it.

That's called a compromise. We are willing to satisfying the pro-choice movements biggest justification for abortion, and all we ask is that you do the same for ours. But pro-choicers would never go for it because they don't give a damn about these cases of burdened women. They just use them as mascot for their cause.
 
Crusader13 said:
Discussing the morality around ending a human life isn't reasonable? Sorry, you're wrong.

You give any pro-lifer an early deal right now and they'd take it without blinking. Free, taxpayer-funded abortion with 5-star service on demand for any woman raped or suffering from a medical emergency, in exchange we get to put reasonable measures on the other 99% of abortions (ie, eliminating abortions out of convenience, regret, dissatisfaction with the gender of the child etc). I'm pretty sure even the Pope would take that deal and put a generous amount of money forward to fund it.

That's called a compromise. We are willing to satisfying the pro-choice movements biggest justification for abortion, and all we ask is that you do the same for ours. But pro-choicers would never go for it because they don't give a damn about these cases of burdened women. They just use them as mascot for their cause.
Click to expand...

I did not say a discussion was not reasonable. i said that you are demanding that your compromise be seen as reasonable.

Your particular compromise is ludicrous and rejected. Mainly because it is nothing more than hyperbole.
A woman's reasons for getting an abortion is between her self and her doctor. Not a political football for you to own.

Nor is making ridiculous suggestions like 5 star treatment anything more than a sign of just how little thought or intelligence you have put into thinking this through.

Your morality is complete bull****. You obviously care more for an idealist position than you do for human life as you are quite ready to disregard the life being had by the woman who must according to you have no say in how she spends her life.

You are of course wrong. The biggest justification for the pro choice side is that as you have just demonstrated, your lack of an ability to say anything sensible on the subject. That and the actual fact that the real justification of pro choice is that it is a woman's right to make a choice, not yours.
 
This is the only exception when abortion must be allowed. Since it's the baby hurting the mother - an assault. Since it's only doctors who are able to save her, they must do so; otherwise, the doctor should be charged with crimes related to criminal negligence. All other actions of abortion are murder.
 
soylentgreen said:
I did not say a discussion was not reasonable. i said that you are demanding that your compromise be seen as reasonable.

Your particular compromise is ludicrous and rejected. Mainly because it is nothing more than hyperbole.
A woman's reasons for getting an abortion is between her self and her doctor. Not a political football for you to own.

Nor is making ridiculous suggestions like 5 star treatment anything more than a sign of just how little thought or intelligence you have put into thinking this through.

Your morality is complete bull****. You obviously care more for an idealist position than you do for human life as you are quite ready to disregard the life being had by the woman who must according to you have no say in how she spends her life.

You are of course wrong. The biggest justification for the pro choice side is that as you have just demonstrated, your lack of an ability to say anything sensible on the subject. That and the actual fact that the real justification of pro choice is that it is a woman's right to make a choice, not yours.
Click to expand...
The driving purpose for "pro choice" (actually pro-murder) is for a "woman's right to choose", like you said. But what about the 50% of abortions upon babies who are female? Why don't they get to have the choice of living and not being murdered because her mom wanted to try having sex without a condom because it'd feel better? The term "pro choice" as it's usually meant is the complete opposite of that meaning.
 
Last edited:
TheLeadSpitter said:
The driving purpose for "pro choice" (actually pro-murder) is for a "woman's right to choose", like you said. But what about the 50% of abortions upon babies who are female? Why don't they get to have the choice of living and not being murdered because her mom wanted to try having sex without a condom because it'd feel better? The term "pro choice" as it's usually meant is the complete opposite of that meaning.
Click to expand...

Once again we are given an excellent example of how the pro life do not give a reasonable argument but instead demand that their comments be deemed reasonable when they are not.

It is not pro murder that is simply a attempt at an emotional argument. Nor is attempting to demonise women a reasonable argument.
 
soylentgreen said:
Once again we are given an excellent example of how the pro life do not give a reasonable argument but instead demand that their comments be deemed reasonable when they are not.

It is not pro murder that is simply a attempt at an emotional argument. Nor is attempting to demonise women a reasonable argument.
Click to expand...

Dude...simply saying "your opinion doesn't count because I don't like it" isn't an argument. You are the exact definition of the problem on both sides. You refuse to compromise, mainly because you can't even recognize a compromise when it presents itself.

All reasonable people agree that women should be able to have an abortion in cases of rape and murder. Most Republicans would gladly put that on the table in exchange for reasonable restrictions around the remaining abortions, at which point we can continue the discussion until another compromise is reached, and another, and another until we reach a perfect middle ground. The fact that you don't even want to entertain the thought of trying and simply claim that Conservative allowing women to have an abortion in necessary cases is not a compromise (when it clearly is) shows you don't care in the slightest about right, wrong, or equality. You care about power and your agenda. Stop using false sympathy and the trauma of rape victims or dying mothers as a herald for your cause. It's despicable.
 
Scrabaholic said:
There is no compromise needed. Abortion should never be legislated. It is a matter between a woman and her doctor. Thankfully, in my country, it's a medical issue, not a legal one.
Click to expand...
Says the person who was not aborted.
 
raerae said:
Hi there! So a couple things to address this question. First, I want to contextualize this argument because I have often heard health challenges for the mother used as an argument to justify all abortions, including those in perfectly normal and healthy pregnancies, and I do not believe this is a legitimate argument to justify abortion.

First of all, late-term abortions (when the baby has the chance to survive outside of the womb) or partial-birth abortions are never needed to save the life of a mother. In dangerous situations, babies are delivered, often via c-section, such as in the case of Placenta Previa which threatens both the mother and the baby. So this argument has to be restricted to pregnancies very early on when the baby will not survive outside of the womb, and health challenges cannot be used to justify late-term or partial-birth abortions.

In the case of very early abortions where the baby will not survive if delivered, life threatening situations in the case of pregnancy are very rare. Even Planned Parenthood director said, "Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” So it is an extremely small percentage of lives that are threatened by pregnancy and this small percentage should not be applied to all abortions and be used to justify it.

So just to put this in context, health complications cannot justify abortions where the child has to chance to survive outside the womb and are rarely an argument for early pregnancies. But let's say we are in the very rare situation where the mother's life (not health but life) is in danger. First of all, a doctor cannot say with certainty that the mother will die if the pregnancy continues. There are cases where the risk is high that she will not survive the pregnancy, but doctors cannot predict the outcome with certainty, and in fact there are many incidents when a doctor has said a mother may die if her pregnancy continues, yet she chooses to carry her baby and both she and the baby survive the high-risk pregnancy just fine. So I don't think an abortion is justified if the mother "might" die because if there is the chance both she and the baby will live, the doctors should do all they can to keep both the mother and the baby alive, rather than killing the child. I don't believe a possible death is justification for a certain death. And because there has not been a situation where a mother is guaranteed to die if the pregnancy continues, I believe that instead of ending the life of the baby, the solution should be to fight for the lives of both the mother and baby. Situations where lives are lost during pregnancy is terrible and heartbreaking, so thankfully we live at a time when medical technology can do so much to protect the lives of mothers and babies involved in high-risk pregnancies.
Click to expand...

So, just to be clear, if I follow your logic correctly, if a doctor has determined that there is a 99.9999999999999999999999 % chance the mother will die if she carries to term, it is your contention the mother should take that .00000000000000000000000001 % of survival and attempt to carry to term, and deliver ? Is that the argument you are making ?
 
I am an avid defender of abortion rights, in the face of theocratic anti-abortion rhetoric, and unapologetically.

A more pointed question is one of fetal viability. A baby can almost always be delivered safely to a mother if the life of the mother is threatened. C-Sections are very safe (though still less safe than abortion, oddly.) and the majority of women who carry, if threatened with their life, would probably choose this option to save them both, and just so.

The more pointed fetal viability question is one of ethics, compassion, and of course choice.

Is it ethical to force a woman to carry to term a fetus that is not viable? Is it constitutionally legal for the state to enforce this? Is it moral to force a woman to term and force a non-viable life to term just for it to die?

I think there is a very compelling argument to be made against the social conservative position here, and some other points, that I'll get to in a moment.

Ignoring the breach of privacy laws an overturn of Roe would entail, which could of course have massive impact on our right as people to our bodies, let's focus on the second question above. Is it constitutionally legal to force a woman to carry a non-viable fetus to term?

Unequivocally no. You are forcing a woman to carry to term a dead body, enduring 9 months of hardship, a potential multiple days in labor (which is the preferred delivery method, since C-Section has been linked to difficulty with future pregnancies; this is the definition of cruel and usual punishment, and I think any reasonable person (sans religious demagogues) would agree with me that it is not reasonable to think the woman should be forced to term.

Let's look at this, also; rape babies. Now, the social conservatives will say "Two wrongs don't make a right." I'll say three wrongs a liar of you it makes. The 3rd wrong is the indentured servitude of the woman to a rapists' child; a life of raising the offspring of violence; a life of working for something that is the result of an egregious violation of the woman's rights as an individual. Moreover, the rapist would still, in many states (or all), have access to the child.

This is also cruel and unusual punishment, as any reasonable person would agree with me.

So the question you posed in the OP is a fraud. You win the debate on the question of fetal viability (and in alot of cases, developmental issues that would result in a lifetime of servitude for parents, like severe autism and other things), and on the rape question. You lose when you ask a question that would have won this debate before we figured out how to get a fetus out of a woman and on life support.
 
Crusader13 said:
Dude...simply saying "your opinion doesn't count because I don't like it" isn't an argument. You are the exact definition of the problem on both sides. You refuse to compromise, mainly because you can't even recognize a compromise when it presents itself.

All reasonable people agree that women should be able to have an abortion in cases of rape and murder. Most Republicans would gladly put that on the table in exchange for reasonable restrictions around the remaining abortions, at which point we can continue the discussion until another compromise is reached, and another, and another until we reach a perfect middle ground. The fact that you don't even want to entertain the thought of trying and simply claim that Conservative allowing women to have an abortion in necessary cases is not a compromise (when it clearly is) shows you don't care in the slightest about right, wrong, or equality. You care about power and your agenda. Stop using false sympathy and the trauma of rape victims or dying mothers as a herald for your cause. It's despicable.
Click to expand...

You have not presented a compromise. Instead you displayed arrogance and condescension by not even bothering to understand the pro choice side.

No, you need to face up to the fact that your position is not an attempt at compromise. It is instead a self made contradiction on your part. It is your claim that it is unreasonable to end a human life yet you have no problem with that in the case of rape. Is it that the child of a rape is not human? Is their life of no value and therefore easily discarded? How do you go from ending a human life is bad to ending a child conceived of rape is good? Why is it that when a woman decides she wants an abortion that is bad but when you decide an abortion is appropriate then that is good?

Yours is not a compromise yours is making a special plea for an instance that does not need one.

I find it laughable that i would even consider what a conservative wants in this case. It is not about what conservatives want. It is about the fact that it is a woman's right to make a choice not the conservative.

It needs to be pointed out that it is you who are using rape as an emotional plea to obtain what you laughably refer to as a compromise which in fact is nothing more than an arrogant demand that only conservatives have the right to decide what is best for a woman. The pro choice side does not distinguish the reasons for an abortion but instead maintains that that is a discussion between the woman and her doctor.

You are the one who foolishly said that it is about conservatives " allowing" , which tells us that the need for power and the desire to control women is your agenda.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom