• 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!

Sorry, i just don't get it.

Because many of us understand the psychological impact (harm) that carrying the pregnancy to term can cause the mother. Also, such abortions amount to a very small percentage over all. Of course the unborn baby in question is completely innocent of the circumstances of its creation, those circumstances may fit into the catagory of "defense" of the mother. Many of the rape and incest pregnancies that do occur are to children where the physical impact of a pregnancy may be as harmful or more harmful than the psychological impact.

The problem with these exceptions, as well-intended and humane as they are, is that the law still requires the mother to prove that she was raped. She may have been too traumatized to report it, particularly if she's underage. Laws against abortion often ignore reality and have unintended consequences that impact prenatal care even for those who have no intentions of having an abortion.


One large medical recruiting firm said it recently had 20 obstetrician-gynecologists turn down positions in red states because of abortion laws. The reluctance extends beyond those interested in providing abortion care, as laws meant to protect a fetus could open doctors up to new liabilities or limit their ability to practice.

Potentially criminalizing medical care is going to have consequences well beyond just outlawing abortions. You're going to see shortages in the number of people qualified to deliver babies safely for mothers who have absolutely no intention of having an abortion. These laws put them in danger too.
 
The problem with these exceptions, as well-intended and humane as they are, is that the law still requires the mother to prove that she was raped. She may have been too traumatized to report it, particularly if she's underage. /quote
Agreed. Unfortunately this also makes prosecuting Rape difficult. No law can be written that isn't affected by the victim's willingness to participate in the investigation/prosecution.
Laws against abortion often ignore reality and have unintended consequences that impact prenatal care even for those who have no intentions of having an abortion./quote
Laws against everything suffer the same problems which, in my view, is a general argument against federal laws. It is very challenging to write an effective law while keeping it compassionate.



Potentially criminalizing medical care is going to have consequences well beyond just outlawing abortions. You're going to see shortages in the number of people qualified to deliver babies safely for mothers who have absolutely no intention of having an abortion. These laws put them in danger too.
Slippery slope fallacy.
 
So, in the case of "elective" sex, you favor forcing upon her the responsibilities of giving birth. Somewhat of a finely parsed distinction don't you say? /quote
With freedom comes responsibility.
Yet, you've little qualms in allowing her to"fix" her pregnancy in cases of rape/incest. /quote
That's not true. I said I acknowledge the necessity of the exception, not that I "have little qualms" with it.
Apparently not, if they happen to be a product of rape/incest. You traverse from pragmatism to idealism in one irrational swoop!/quote
Actually, your false comparison is irrational not to mention being based on a false premise.
Why is your (uninvolved) moral resolutions regarding these situations more applicable than the woman's whose actually carrying the unborn?
Who said that it was "more applicable"?
 
Abortion is not legally considered or recognized as a homicide./quote
False. It is not legally considered or recognized as murder. It is indeed a homicide.
What people believe is irrelevant. It is about actual reality.
It's not irrelevant. This thread is all about what people believe.
 
Laws against everything suffer the same problems which, in my view, is a general argument against federal laws. It is very challenging to write an effective law while keeping it compassionate.

Slippery slope fallacy.

It's not a slippery slope fallacy; it's a direct consequence of criminalizing a medical procedure that has legitimate healthcare purposes. Obstetrics care is going to be comparatively worse in the states that have abortion restrictions than in those that are more liberal. You may not want to see that, but that's the reality. People are going to suffer because of it, including those who have no intention of having abortions.
 
Because many of us understand the psychological impact (harm) that carrying the pregnancy to term can cause the mother. Also, such abortions amount to a very small percentage over all. Of course the unborn baby in question is completely innocent of the circumstances of its creation, those circumstances may fit into the catagory of "defense" of the mother. Many of the rape and incest pregnancies that do occur are to children where the physical impact of a pregnancy may be as harmful or more harmful than the psychological impact.

Personally, I would rather see the child put up for adoption than aborted, but acknowledge that denying abortion in these cases is draconian.
Because if abortion is murder, you're saying that sometimes murder is acceptable? Of an innocent? Seriously? I can see you not wanting to feed or clothe or shelter or educate. But murder? Really?
 
False. It is not legally considered or recognized as murder. It is indeed a homicide.

It's not irrelevant. This thread is all about what people believe.
Cite the law that equates abortion with homicide!
The problem is, people seem to want to go by belief. But reality is not always reflective of that.
 
It's not a slippery slope fallacy; it's a direct consequence of criminalizing a medical procedure that has legitimate healthcare purposes. Obstetrics care is going to be comparatively worse in the states that have abortion restrictions than in those that are more liberal. You may not want to see that, but that's the reality. People are going to suffer because of it, including those who have no intention of having abortions.
Sorry, it is. Along with everything you said here.
 
Because if abortion is murder, you're saying that sometimes murder is acceptable? Of an innocent? Seriously? I can see you not wanting to feed or clothe or shelter or educate. But murder? Really?
Self defense is not murder. In my view, the harmful affects of a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest may justify abortion on the grounds of self defense.
 
The law doesn't change the meaning of words.
The law defines the words and how they're applied. If you can't point out where the law equates abortion with homicide, then your assertion is void.
 
Self defense is not murder. In my view, the harmful affects of a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest may justify abortion on the grounds of self defense.
Ah, so killing the innocent baby is now self defense? And the harmful effects resulting from rape are worse than killing an innocent? What are those harmful effects that are worse than murder?
 
Ah, so killing the innocent baby is now self defense? And the harmful effects resulting from rape are worse than killing an innocent? What are those harmful effects that are worse than murder?
Considering pregnancy can result in harm or even death against the pregnant woman, then an argument can be made that abortion is "self defense." And abortion is not murder. Neither is there a baby in an abortion.
 
The law defines the words and how they're applied. If you can't point out where the law equates abortion with homicide, then your assertion is void.
English is English, buddy. Words mean things.
 
Ah, so killing the innocent baby is now self defense? And the harmful effects resulting from rape are worse than killing an innocent? What are those harmful effects that are worse than murder?
If it puts the mother's life at risk. I agree that it's a stretch, but see it as a necessary exception.
 
English is English, buddy. Words mean things.
And the legal definition and application is what matters.
 
Just seems like a primitive urge to control, and poor strategy to boot.

If they wanted women to keep their babies, they'd provide direct incentives to have\raise children.

Compelling irresponsible people to have children isn't a winning strategy.
 
Sure, as well as pro-life. Recognizing your right to X doesn't mean anyone has to enable your X, it means no one can deny your right to X.
Nope. You're just pro birth.
 
Considering pregnancy can result in harm or even death against the pregnant woman, then an argument can be made that abortion is "self defense." /qoute
That it can doesn't necessarily mean it does.
And abortion is not murder. Neither is there a baby in an abortion.
Abortion is not murder, it's homicide. So what is being aborted, a puppy?
 
That it can doesn't necessarily mean it does.

Abortion is not murder, it's homicide. So what is being aborted, a puppy?
Abortion is neither murder nor homicide and you have not offered any legal source proving otherwise. The only thing being aborted is an embryo/fetus, which is not legly considered a human being or person.
If someone threatens you with harm, does that mean they can or will harm you and are you allowed to defend yourself when under threat?
 
Really? What's the legal definition of "matters"?
Abortion is a matter of law and falls under a legal purview. It seems you can't support your assertion from a legal standpoint and are just grasping at straws now.
 
Abortion is neither murder nor homicide and you have not offered any legal source proving otherwise. /quote
There need not be a legal source. The definition of the word suffices.
The only thing being aborted is an embryo/fetus, which is not legly considered a human being or person./quote
Where does the law say a fetus is not a person?
If someone threatens you with harm, does that mean they can or will harm you and are you allowed to defend yourself when under threat?
If you feel you are at risk of death or grievous bodily harm, you can protect yourself. You will likely have to explain your reasoning in court, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom