• 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!

Should abortion be restricted/banned? Make your case!

Gordy327

Gordy327

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Messages
22,714
Reaction score
18,775
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ever since the Dobbs v JWHO (No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. 215, 2022), the heat has been turned up on the already hot topic of abortion. Many states had "trigger" laws in effect to restrict abortion at arbitrary times, such as 8, 8, 12, 15, 20, ect weeks gestation, usually without any justifiable reason. I (and others) have sometimes asked what is the significant difference in gestation to warrant restrictions at such designated points? But the question I probably ask most often on abortion matters is, what is the rational and legal reason to restrict abortion at all? Most seem to argue from their feelings and/or beliefs, rather than with anything solid or objective. Some deflect by deferring to the states, saying something along the lines of, "the states can do it," which isn't really a reason at all for restrictions. Other try to argue based on "it's a life/baby/child" assertion. But that is more a scientific determination than a legal one and is probably based on emotion (or the appeal to) more than reason.

So for anyone who thinks abortion should be restricted or even banned, provide a rational and legal reason. Make your case!
 
Gordy327 said:
Ever since the Dobbs v JWHO (No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. 215, 2022), the heat has been turned up on the already hot topic of abortion. Many states had "trigger" laws in effect to restrict abortion at arbitrary times, such as 8, 8, 12, 15, 20, ect weeks gestation, usually without any justifiable reason. I (and others) have sometimes asked what is the significant difference in gestation to warrant restrictions at such designated points? But the question I probably ask most often on abortion matters is, what is the rational and legal reason to restrict abortion at all? Most seem to argue from their feelings and/or beliefs, rather than with anything solid or objective. Some deflect by deferring to the states, saying something along the lines of, "the states can do it," which isn't really a reason at all for restrictions. Other try to argue based on "it's a life/baby/child" assertion. But that is more a scientific determination than a legal one and is probably based on emotion (or the appeal to) more than reason.

So for anyone who thinks abortion should be restricted or even banned, provide a rational and legal reason. Make your case!
Click to expand...
It's between a woman and her doctor and its nobody else's business. Certainly not the government.
 
RESTRICTED. NEVER BANNED.

And the only reason I even say restricted is to legally prevent late term abortions UNLESS it's medically necessary for ANY reason.
 
Last edited:
No restrictions, no reasons to curtail. If it's not born, it isn't a person. And yes, I get that there is not much but an umbilical's distinction between two minutes before delivery and two after, but them's the breaks. Inside a person? Not yet a person. Anything else second classes according to sex.
 
reinaert said:
No restrictions, no reasons to curtail. If it's not born, it isn't a person. And yes, I get that there is not much but an umbilical's distinction between two minutes before delivery and two after, but them's the breaks. Inside a person? Not yet a person. Anything else second classes according to sex.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that's up to the doctor. No law against abortion doesn't mean entitlement. Doctors can't be required to perform an abortion that they object to anymore than they can be required to supervise an execution.
 
Grand Mal said:
Yeah, but that's up to the doctor. No law against abortion doesn't mean entitlement. Doctors can't be required to perform an abortion that they object to anymore than they can be required to supervise an execution.
Click to expand...
Depends on their contract, their privileges agreements, and jurisdictional law, no?

If there is a duty to save at a hospital of last resort for a contracted physician on call, their personal objections mean **** all, yeah?
 
reinaert said:
Depends on their contract, their privileges agreements, and jurisdictional law, no?
Click to expand...
Yeah. I'm speaking from a Canadian perspective where doctors are in private practice and they bill the government health insurance. And there are no laws around abortion. But that doesn't mean doctors are required to perform procedures they object to.
reinaert said:
If there is a duty to save at a hospital of last resort for a contracted physician on call, their personal objections mean **** all, yeah?
Click to expand...
To save, for a doctor practicing in a hospital, yeah, they'd be required to do whatever was required to save a life. And if the doctor decided a C-section could fill that requirement there should be nobody second-guessing the decision in the moment. I don't know how reviews of emergency measures work.
 
Grand Mal said:
Yeah. I'm speaking from a Canadian perspective where doctors are in private practice and they bill the government health insurance. And there are no laws around abortion. But that doesn't mean doctors are required to perform procedures they object to.

To save, for a doctor practicing in a hospital, yeah, they'd be required to do whatever was required to save a life. And if the doctor decided a C-section could fill that requirement there should be nobody second-guessing the decision in the moment. I don't know how reviews of emergency measures work.
Click to expand...
My wife's wheelhouse. Asking her right now. She said, 'Hard question. Good question. Not super likely.' She is composing a letter right now for her hospitallist.
 
She says if the patient was in-house, they would have paneled any high risk pregnancies long before this tends to arise as an emergent situation.
 
I think we should just trust women more. A late term abortion is called an adoption unless the baby is DOA. No restrictions required, no doctor is going to kill an 8 or 9 month fetus when it can live outside the womb. Let's just be honest, we don't trust women. I mean, we only got the right to vote in this country a hundred years ago. We only got jobs men have 50 years ago. It's not like things are fair when it comes to women. I think it's ridiculous that we're still begging to be trusted to make good decisions for ourselves if I'm honest.
 
Gordy327 said:
Ever since the Dobbs v JWHO (No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. 215, 2022), the heat has been turned up on the already hot topic of abortion. Many states had "trigger" laws in effect to restrict abortion at arbitrary times, such as 8, 8, 12, 15, 20, ect weeks gestation, usually without any justifiable reason. I (and others) have sometimes asked what is the significant difference in gestation to warrant restrictions at such designated points? But the question I probably ask most often on abortion matters is, what is the rational and legal reason to restrict abortion at all? Most seem to argue from their feelings and/or beliefs, rather than with anything solid or objective. Some deflect by deferring to the states, saying something along the lines of, "the states can do it," which isn't really a reason at all for restrictions. Other try to argue based on "it's a life/baby/child" assertion. But that is more a scientific determination than a legal one and is probably based on emotion (or the appeal to) more than reason.

So for anyone who thinks abortion should be restricted or even banned, provide a rational and legal reason. Make your case!
Click to expand...
No restricted or banned-------just prevented . It is a long-term goal if you do it right....
 
tshade said:
No restricted or banned-------just prevented . It is a long-term goal if you do it right....
Click to expand...
Prevention is great. But that's not really the issue here. when prevention fails and pregnancy occurs, then it becomes an issue whether to continues a pregnancy or not and why.
 
Grand Mal said:
Yeah, but that's up to the doctor. No law against abortion doesn't mean entitlement. Doctors can't be required to perform an abortion that they object to anymore than they can be required to supervise an execution.
Click to expand...
No doctor is required to perform an abortion. It is up to a doctor's discretion to perform an abortion or not. But certain states are trying to impose legislation to prosecute doctors who do perform an abortion, thereby making abortion more difficult to obtain for the woman. That's part of the problem.
 
tshade said:
I didn't mean "preventing the Preg..." , I meant preventing the abortion
Click to expand...
Preventing a pregnancy does in effect prevent an abortion. But once pregnancy occurs, abortion becomes an option. A woman is free to not have an abortion if she chooses. Beyond that, there is no reason to "prevent" an abortion outside of illogical legislation and government overreach.
 
Gordy327 said:
Preventing a pregnancy does in effect prevent an abortion. But once pregnancy occurs, abortion becomes an option. A woman is free to not have an abortion if she chooses. Beyond that, there is no reason to "prevent" an abortion outside of illogical legislation and government overreach.
Click to expand...
I think there is every reason to prevent it---but not by making it illegal. The U.S. needs to put huge emphasis on children and families so as to make it unlikely anyone would choose abortion in the first place. I know of no one who ever "wanted" an abortion, buy I do know of many women who chose abortion out of desperation, etc, etc....and other reasons...
 
tshade said:
I think there is every reason to prevent it---but not by making it illegal. The U.S. needs to put huge emphasis on children and families so as to make it unlikely anyone would choose abortion in the first place. I know of no one who ever "wanted" an abortion, buy I do know of many women who chose abortion out of desperation, etc, etc....and other reasons...
Click to expand...
Indeed! It's not secret that the birth rate is falling in Asia, and the Americas where people also work the most to afford necessities. If we had some social safety nets, like Sweden, or France, I think having a child would a good option. It's no wonder their population is growing like a weed, the benefits new parents get are awesome!
 
Ginger Ale said:
I think we should just trust women more. A late term abortion is called an adoption unless the baby is DOA. No restrictions required, no doctor is going to kill an 8 or 9 month fetus when it can live outside the womb. Let's just be honest, we don't trust women. I mean, we only got the right to vote in this country a hundred years ago. We only got jobs men have 50 years ago. It's not like things are fair when it comes to women. I think it's ridiculous that we're still begging to be trusted to make good decisions for ourselves if I'm honest.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Nobody randomly gets a late term abortion. That's a brutal emotional decision at that point. If that decision is being made I can't imagine it is for flippant reasons.
 
tshade said:
I think there is every reason to prevent it---but not by making it illegal. The U.S. needs to put huge emphasis on children and families so as to make it unlikely anyone would choose abortion in the first place. I know of no one who ever "wanted" an abortion, buy I do know of many women who chose abortion out of desperation, etc, etc....and other reasons...
Click to expand...
A woman's reasons for wanting & having an abortion is her own, be it desperation, finances, environment, or that she simply does not want children/family or whatever else. But the discussion isn't about the reasons for abortion. Rather, it's about the reasons why abortion should be restricted.
 
Last edited:
Gordy327 said:
A woman's reasons for wanting & having an abortion is her own, be it desperation, finances, environment, or that she simply does not want children/family or whatever else. But the discussion isn't about the reasons for abortion. Rather, it's about the reasons why abortion should be restricted.
Click to expand...
THIS is the underlying discussion. No need for banning or restricting if the incentive NOT to have an abortion is adequate & much more positive. Trumpers need a broader mind, otherwise nothing gets solved............and THAT is the bottom line of the "discussion"-------or is that concept a bit too complex????
 
tshade said:
THIS is the underlying discussion. No need for banning or restricting if the incentive NOT to have an abortion is adequate & much more positive. Trumpers need a broader mind, otherwise nothing gets solved............and THAT is the bottom line of the "discussion"-------or is that concept a bit too complex????
Click to expand...
No, the discussion is about why abortion should be restricted at all. If a woman wants an abortion regardless of her circumstances, good or bad, then abortion is an option and there is no rational or legal reason to restrict it. I have yet to hear any actual reason why it should be restricted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom