• 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!

So, if abortion is murder...

That's one of the big problems with toilets, the life that gets flushed down there, the whole system lacks checks and balances. Zygotes should be named and registered, implemented with chips and liable for damages, who hasn't been kicked by one.

On a lighter note, I wonder what Chuz celebrates on his birthday.

I stopped celebrating my Birthday years ago and I haven't aged since.

:lamo
 
I stopped celebrating my Birthday years ago and I haven't aged since.

:lamo
I'm sure you have to go through lenghts to avoid having to add the 9 months to your tombstone, Chuz. After all, age defines the length of time that one has existed.
 
I'm sure you have to go through lenghts to avoid having to add the 9 months to your tombstone, Chuz. After all, age defines the length of time that one has existed.

What are you talking about?

Aging doesn't begin until we are planned and wanted or at least developed to a point where no-one can justify the denial anymore.

Don't you know anything?
 
Then shouldn't it be a felony to disturb, move, remove, conceal, or destroy human remains resulting from a miscarriage?

It seems to me that if a woman has a miscarriage, and we have defined the inseminated egg as a human being with all the rights that such status confers, then the appropriate action is for her to call 911 immediately and report that her child appears to have died.

Local law enforcement would then come to ensure that there was no foul play, and would remove the human remains from the scene after a coroner determined the cause of death. The remains would then be disposed of by burial or cremation by a licensed mortician.

As I understand it, many women don't even realize that their child has died, so just to be safe, this 911 call should be made anytime a woman menstruates after having had sex.

What do y'all think?

A misscarage is not an abortion.

You fail at life, please insert another quarter and try again.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Jerry, you are banned from posting in this thread. If you choose to do so despite this, it will be a 5 point violation for doing so.
 
Someone tried this line of argument with me on another forum and decided that if I didn't think every single miscarriage should have the police called in and interrogate the woman it meant I didn't actually care about the unborn. It was a bull**** fallacious argument then and it still is now. The police are not called in for every single death and autopsies are not required either unless there is actually reason to suspect foul play. Generally woman who have miscarriages should go to the hospital anyway and if a doctor finds no reason to suspect anything but a natural miscarriage then there is no logical reason to bring the police into the equation.

So you are saying that before 1973 there were lots of women illegally disturbing, moving, removing and/or destroying human remains and law enforcement was simply lax in tracking them down? Or are you saying that it wasn't illegal to disturb, move, remove or destroy human remains? (unless you were an archaeologist, the Medical Examiner's office, law enforcement, or a licensed mortician)

You know, there was a time when if someone in your family died you'd just drag their body out to the backyard, dig a hole, plop them in, say a prayer, stick a cross in the ground, and that'd be it.
 
Abortion was illegal until 1973. Noone got investigated for a miscarriage.

Gynecology is a relatively new field.
Certainly routine annual pelvic exams for healthy women weren't the norm before 1973, as they are today. Neither were monthly or weekly prenatal visits. Nor was prenatal care in general.
Doctors simply didn't know much about the healthy female reproductive system before the second half of the 20th century, not having had much opportunity to study it.
They didn't know- nobody knew, including females, who often do not realize they've miscarried- how incredibly common early miscarriages are.

Gynecology was more an art than a science before the women's liberation movement, when healthy women began to visit gynecologists en masse to receive contraception.
Even today, gynecology is an area that doctors are still learning about.

We live in a very different world than the one we lived in prior to 1973, when women only saw or spoke to doctors- GPs, typically- about their reproductive organs if they were having problems with them, and maybe not even then.

We live in a world where the government likes to keep medical records and compile health statistics, which was not the case prior to 1973, either.

The idea that "prior to Roe, doctors didn't keep track of miscarriages" is not a very compelling argument for why they wouldn't today.
Neither doctors, nor law enforcement agencies, nor the government, nor anyone else even kept track of abortions prior to Roe, even though they were illegal.
They didn't even keep track of failed abortions that resulted in women seeking medical attention.
The apparatus wasn't really in place to "keep track" of such things on a national level.
There weren't any computers.

We live in a different world now.
 
Neither doctors, nor law enforcement agencies, nor the government, nor anyone else even kept track of abortions prior to Roe, even though they were illegal.
They didn't even keep track of failed abortions that resulted in women seeking medical attention.
The apparatus wasn't really in place to "keep track" of such things on a national level.
There weren't any computers. We live in a different world now.

Just becuase something can or could be done (especially with new technology) that doesn't mean it will.

For example, sex-offenders are often required to provide their addresses and database kept up to date on them and their where abouts.

Something which is far more of a concern to the general public than a woman having a miscarriage.

How often does anyone ever take the time to look and see where the offenders are?

How accurate or up to date is the system Really?

The whole idea of tracking women for having a miscarriage is a joke anyway.

But aparently idiots and gullible people are going to believe what they "want" to believe despite the facts.
 
Just becuase something can or could be done (especially with new technology) that doesn't mean it will.

For example, sex-offenders are often required to provide their addresses and database kept up to date on them and their where abouts.

Something which is far more of a concern to the general public than a woman having a miscarriage.

How often does anyone ever take the time to look and see where the offenders are?

How accurate or up to date is the system Really?

The whole idea of tracking women for having a miscarriage is a joke anyway.

But aparently idiots and gullible people are going to believe what they "want" to believe despite the facts.

If all miscarriages are not investigated, how will law enforcement know which were spontaneous and which were caused? Or is the intention to merely pass an anti-abortion bill and then ignore it, sorta like it was before when abortion was illegal? If the intention is to enforce it, you cannot even catch a fraction of women aborting without such invasive measures as investigating every miscarriage.
 
If all miscarriages are not investigated, how will law enforcement know which were spontaneous and which were caused? Or is the intention to merely pass an anti-abortion bill and then ignore it, sorta like it was before when abortion was illegal? If the intention is to enforce it, you cannot even catch a fraction of women aborting without such invasive measures as investigating every miscarriage.

The intention is to protect and defend the rights of children in principle even if not in action.

A realitic thinking person knows that not every miscarriage is an indication of malice or foul-play.

That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we can or should criminalize the "intentional" killing of children by elective abortions.

One has absolutely no bearing on the other at all.
 
The intention is to protect and defend the rights of children in principle even if not in action.

A realitic thinking person knows that not every miscarriage is an indication of malice or foul-play.

That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we can or should criminalize the "intentional" killing of children by elective abortions.

One has absolutely no bearing on the other at all.

So you DO mean pass a law and then ignore it? Hide your head in the sand and pretend abortions don't exist.

Criminalizing abortion and ENFORCING that law means investigating by very invasive means. I doubt the populace would tolerate that level of invasion of privacy.
 
The intention is to protect and defend the rights of children in principle even if not in action.

A realitic thinking person knows that not every miscarriage is an indication of malice or foul-play.

That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we can or should criminalize the "intentional" killing of children by elective abortions.

One has absolutely no bearing on the other at all.

Actually, it has complete bearing on each other. We don't just dismiss dead adult bodies when we find them. We investigate the cause of their death. People are accounted for this country, and when someone goes missing, we search for them. If abortion is made illegal and zygotes are given citizenship rights and "personhood" status, then it only stands to reason that they would all have to be accounted for and monitored just like every other citizen in this country. Women would have to be tested monthly for possible pregnancies and their pregnancy reported. If that pregnancy terminates for some reason, it would have to be investigated. We would investigate an adult death or disappearance, and if we are to treat zygotes and embryos as equal to adults, then we have to have the same due process. Why wouldn't you want that? Why wouldn't you want to make sure that every single zygote - I mean, "person" - that comes into existence is accounted for and their death investigated?

You just want to ignore the possible deaths of thousands of people every month? Women could be drinking too much caffeine and causing a miscarriage of a zygote...I mean, person they didn't even know had taken up residence inside them, for crying out loud. It would be a travesty. I can't believe you wouldn't want a full investigation of every person's death in this country.
 
Last edited:
The intention is to protect and defend the rights of children in principle even if not in action.

A realitic thinking person knows that not every miscarriage is an indication of malice or foul-play.

That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we can or should criminalize the "intentional" killing of children by elective abortions.

One has absolutely no bearing on the other at all.

So you DO mean pass a law and then ignore it? Hide your head in the sand and pretend abortions don't exist.

Criminalizing abortion and ENFORCING that law means investigating by very invasive means. I doubt the populace would tolerate that level of invasion of privacy.

How you got that from what I said is a leap which could only take place in your own head.

There would be no invasive action necessary in banning elective abortions,... much the same as the "Partial Birth Abortion" procedure is banned now.

The law would largely govern what doctors can and can not do with regards to "elective" abortions.

I don't think you are giving me (or others) any credit for our recognizing the fact that many pregnancies miscarry,... or that there are some justifications for abortions (i.e. Life of the mother).
 
So you DO mean pass a law and then ignore it? Hide your head in the sand and pretend abortions don't exist.

Criminalizing abortion and ENFORCING that law means investigating by very invasive means. I doubt the populace would tolerate that level of invasion of privacy.

We're not going to go back to the way it was when abortion was a crime. Legal abortion is better for men too.

When Abortion Was a Crime

The legalization of abortion was a positive development for all women, not just those who seek abortions. Legal abortion represents an expansion of women's actual ability to control their reproduction, their sexuality, and their lives. The very availability of legal abortion provides a measure of freedom and control even for women who never use it, both because it can be counted on as a backup and because it symbolizes female sexual autonomy. The legal right to abortion sends the message to all women (and to men) that women have power over their own lives and are not controlled by men, the state, or the church. Finally, the ability to avoid motherhood helps to create new meanings for motherhood and fatherhood—as chosen and desirable life experiences rather than roles forced on women and men, willing or unwilling. The restriction or reversal of abortion rights sends the opposite message: women cannot be trusted to make moral decisions about children and family, but must be overseen and regulated by men; procreation is a state mandate not a choice; women's lives, sexuality, and bodies are not their own.



 
The OP does have a point.

If abortion were to become illegal again it would most probably be because the unborn, from the moment of conception, are given legal personhood. If that's the case, every pregnancy will have to be reported to the government and the fetus will be issued a "conception certificate" of some sort and its untimely death will have to be recorded as well, just like that of any other citizen.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it has complete bearing on each other. We don't just dismiss dead adult bodies when we find them. We investigate the cause of their death. People are accounted for this country, and when someone goes missing, we search for them. If abortion is made illegal and zygotes are given citizenship rights and "personhood" status, then it only stands to reason that they would all have to be accounted for and monitored just like every other citizen in this country. Women would have to be tested monthly for possible pregnancies and their pregnancy reported. If that pregnancy terminates for some reason, it would have to be investigated. We would investigate an adult death or disappearance, and if we are to treat zygotes and embryos as equal to adults, then we have to have the same due process. Why wouldn't you want that? Why wouldn't you want to make sure that every single zygote - I mean, "person" - that comes into existence is accounted for and their death investigated?

You just want to ignore the possible deaths of thousands of people every month? Women could be drinking too much caffeine and causing a miscarriage of a zygote...I mean, person they didn't even know had taken up residence inside them, for crying out loud. It would be a travesty. I can't believe you wouldn't want a full investigation of every person's death in this country.

Many of those are fair and probably well intended questions,.... But none of the answers to them have any bearing on whether or not an elective abortion unjustly denies the rights or personhood of a child.

The rights of children are not contingent upon whther or not it will be an inconvienience to society to have them recognized,...or that everyone will be forced to see every miscarriage as a dead person in a way that warrants an investigation.

I tried to address this disparity before when I offerd a "Compromise on Abortion."

Whether or not an abortion unjustly kills a child and what we as a society are going to do about it are two completely different issues... UNLESS you are of the mind that "because recognizing a fetus as a child might disrupt societal norms,... it's okay to deny them their rights and personhood."

If that's how you feel?

Say so.
 
How you got that from what I said is a leap which could only take place in your own head.
Pretty much what this says:
The intention is to protect and defend the rights of children in principle even if not in action.
"In principle even if not in action" implies no enforcement.


There would be no invasive action necessary in banning elective abortions,... much the same as the "Partial Birth Abortion" procedure is banned now.

The law would largely govern what doctors can and can not do with regards to "elective" abortions.

I don't think you are giving me (or others) any credit for our recognizing the fact that many pregnancies miscarry,... or that there are some justifications for abortions (i.e. Life of the mother).

If you don't ENFORCE the law, the invasive measures aren't necessary. You can't ENFORCE the law without them. Doctors aren't really necessary for abortions, it is a fairly simple procedure. You need to decide if banning abortion as a "principle" will satisfy your moral conscience, or if you really want to reduce the number of abortions. Because doing the first won't result in the second.
 
Many of those are fair and probably well intended questions,.... But none of the answers to them have any bearing on whether or not an elective abortion unjustly denies the rights or personhood of a child.

The rights of children are not contingent upon whther or not it will be an inconvienience to society to have them recognized,...or that everyone will be forced to see every miscarriage as a dead person in a way that warrants an investigation.

I tried to address this disparity before when I offerd a "Compromise on Abortion."

Whether or not an abortion unjustly kills a child and what we as a society are going to do about it are two completely different issues... UNLESS you are of the mind that "because recognizing a fetus as a child might disrupt societal norms,... it's okay to deny them their rights and personhood."

If that's how you feel?

Say so.

Has nothing to do with societal norms and everything to do with the reasons we don't grant rights to armadillos. And armadillos are more sentient than a zygote or embryo are.

If we're going to go granting citizenship rights to organisms that aren't physically capable of thinking and feeling, much less capable of sentience or sapience, then we're all going to starve to death.

There has to be line drawn for citizenship rights. And that line should at least be somewhere close to sentience and sapience.
 
Pretty much what this says: "In principle even if not in action" implies no enforcement. If you don't ENFORCE the law, the invasive measures aren't necessary. You can't ENFORCE the law without them. Doctors aren't really necessary for abortions, it is a fairly simple procedure. You need to decide if banning abortion as a "principle" will satisfy your moral conscience, or if you really want to reduce the number of abortions. Because doing the first won't result in the second.

As a realist and a logical thinking person,... this is not a "political" issue for me.

The logical sequence is to first find the facts, convince and compel others with those facts, which will then affect policy and laws in ways that reflect those facts and finally,... lastly,...reconcile the problems with implimenting those new laws and policies.

To change my findings on the reality, the facts and my principles,.... simply because of the forecasted / anticipated problems some see with implimentation???

That's insanely ludicrous to me.
 
Pretty much what this says:

"In principle even if not in action" implies no enforcement.




If you don't ENFORCE the law, the invasive measures aren't necessary. You can't ENFORCE the law without them. Doctors aren't really necessary for abortions, it is a fairly simple procedure. You need to decide if banning abortion as a "principle" will satisfy your moral conscience, or if you really want to reduce the number of abortions. Because doing the first won't result in the second.

No kidding. The miscarriage rate in this country would skyrocket. Of course, that would be assuming that anyone even KNEW about them to begin with. Women would just be forced to more closely monitor their pregnancy status and use the proper herbal abortifacients as early as possible so that they'd be the most effective. I think every women of childbearing age would have a pennyroyal plant in their home. (and aloe, wormwood, and black cohosh among others)

Of course, unintended pregnancies would skyrocket too since if we DID grant zygotes "personhood" and citizenship rights, we'd have to ban IUDs and hormonal birth control.
 
Has nothing to do with societal norms and everything to do with the reasons we don't grant rights to armadillos. And armadillos are more sentient than a zygote or embryo are.

If we're going to go granting citizenship rights to organisms that aren't physically capable of thinking and feeling, much less capable of sentience or sapience, then we're all going to starve to death.

There has to be line drawn for citizenship rights. And that line should at least be somewhere close to sentience and sapience.

Right.

An arbitrarily drawn point,... after which you can't stomach the denial anymore.

An Armadillo is not a human being.

In my view, a human being at any point in their life (as a member of our species) has a basic right to their life,... a life they are already living.

An Armadillo (not being a human being) does not.
 
Of course, unintended pregnancies would skyrocket too since if we DID grant zygotes "personhood" and citizenship rights, we'd have to ban IUDs and hormonal birth control.

I wonder what the percentage is,... of people who fight for human rights,.... who believe that basic human rights are "granted" rather than recognized?

Might be a good poll question.
 
Right.

An arbitrarily drawn point,... after which you can't stomach the denial anymore.
.

Not arbitrary at all. Purely scientific.

An Armadillo is not a human being.
So?

In my view, a human being at any point in their life (as a member of our species) has a basic right to their life,... a life they are already living.

An Armadillo (not being a human being) does not
Why not? What makes humans so special?
 
I wonder what the percentage is,... of people who fight for human rights,.... who believe that basic human rights are "granted" rather than recognized?

Might be a good poll question.

Rights are a social concept. I believe there are a couple polls and/or threads about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom