• 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!

Stopping abortion the correct way

Patriotic Voter said:
How can a zygote, which is the only cell with its specific genetic code at the moment of fertilization, not be a new human life?
Click to expand...
I do not consider it a new life. The sperm was alive, the ovum was alive, so of course the zygote is alive. The life isn't new. I can't even say the cell is new, because it is essentially the ovum transformed by fertilization and most of the sperm is just waste. So really, only the DNA is new.
 
Typical of the pro-choice-for-women-but-not-for-men set, you have cited two circumstances that comprise small percentage exceptions as a basis for an entire argument.

When used properly birth control pills and Nuva rings are 99% and 98% effective and still over 90% effective when used "typically."

If you'd like, I can post quotes from various former surgeon generals and other preeminent medical experts saying that an abortion is never required to save the life of the mother. Here's one from a famous abortion advocate:

Alan F. Guttmacher, M.D., “the father of Planned Parenthood,” longtime abortion advocate whose name was used for Planned Parenthood’s sister organization, the Guttmacher Institute: “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.”

But let's stipulate that there are some conditions that, while not-life threatening, may nevertheless be harmful to the mother, such as gestational diabetes. Let's say that maybe 4% of pregnancies result in GD that can't be controlled and end up being harmful to the mother.

If I concede that 4% and the small percentage of cases in which a woman got pregnant using birth control reasonably correctly, will you then concede all other cases?

Of course you will not.

Which means that it's a disingenuous argument to begin with. It's a red herring.

As for your last line, you women IMO would be well advised to stop playing the victim on this issue. It's obvious that you do not support choice for men, so the, "All those mean old men just want to control women" narrative is transparent. It doesn't matter whether men and women are both financially responsible for a child, using the same logic as for abortion, if the man doesn't want the child, he shouldn't be forced to support it. The fact that the woman is choosing for both of them in no way means that the man had a choice.

In fact, flip it around. If abortion is illegal, that means the choice has been made for both men and women, at least financially. So since it has been made for both parties, that makes it o.k. for women to not have a choice?

As for the "piece of furniture" argument, then adults in comas are fair game? If not, why not?
 
How about providing a link? BTW, "almost any" does not mean every. Hundreds of women die every year in the US from pregnancy related causes. MY medical team has told me pregnancy would likely be fatal for me. I'll take their word over some dude I don't know any day.
 
BroHaHa said:
Typical of the pro-choice-for-women-but-not-for-men set, you have cited two circumstances that comprise small percentage exceptions as a basis for an entire argument.
Click to expand...

I never said or implied the entire argument is based on two supposedly rare (but more common than anti-choicers think) situations. What makes you think I did?

BroHaHa said:
When used properly birth control pills and Nuva rings are 99% and 98% effective and still over 90% effective when used "typically."
Click to expand...

There you go - an admission that non-surgical contraception does not always work and, therefore, blaming women for not using it is stupid.


What I am seeing here is you think women who need abortions for medical reasons do not matter just because most women who have abortions are not diabetic. Can you concede that point?


The dad should be forced to pay a paternity fee if he raped her but not when the parents are engaged or married and raising their baby together IMO.

BroHaHa said:
In fact, flip it around. If abortion is illegal, that means the choice has been made for both men and women, at least financially. So since it has been made for both parties, that makes it o.k. for women to not have a choice?
Click to expand...

If abortion was illegal, obviously neither of them had a right to make a choice either way for any reason. The government invaded their business and violated the Constitution if that happened.

BroHaHa said:
As for the "piece of furniture" argument, then adults in comas are fair game? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Adults are not innocent. They have already sinned during childhood. So being in a coma does not compare in any way to a clump of nonspecific stem cells.
 
I support a "paper abortion" for men, as long as they have to pay at least 5% of the least costly option for the woman, abortion plus any attendant costs (e.g., travel). However, the idea that pregnancy is not bad for women is ridiculous.

According to your citation from Guttmacher, almost any patient can live through pregnancy.
Well, guess what? That means not all women can live through it.

Sweden has just about the lowest mortality rate for childbirth for women, and even though they have socialized medicine that is recognized as fabulous, and prenatal, childbirth, and postnatal care is, too, some women still die every year, and the US childbirth mortality rate for women is over twice as high.

That's just whatever deaths are used in calculating the childbirth mortality rate. In fact, some women die in late pregnancy, some in childbirth, some in the 42 days after childbirth, some in the six months after childbirth, and some in the first year after childbirth, of deaths which can all be traced to pregnancy-related causes. But most deaths past the 42 days are not even considered, and some within those 42 days are not considered, even though they are traceable.

Only a couple of decades ago, some states would report that women in their twenties and thirties died of heart attacks or strokes without bothering to add that the reason was childbirth labor, because they didn't want people to know childbirth was killing them.

And that's just deaths. I have recently read somewhere that in the US, of childbirths where women don't die, some really huge percent of them nearly die. In pregnancies that aren't aborted, about one-third of the women are seriously injured or ill, with significant numbers permanently injured.

Even in those pregnancies/childbirths where women are supposedly completely healthy, the good health they had before pregnancy usually never returns. They have to adjust to a whole new body.

And some research has shown that women who have never gave birth to children constitute a much bigger percentage of women over 90 years of age - it appears that those who give birth to them die a lot earlier. If they did not fully and freely consent to the pregnancy, that would obviously be alienation of their right to years of their lives.

I'm sick of people trivializing pregnancy and childbirth and acting as if they can just take it for granted. If the government bans abortion, it will serve them all right if women just give up sex for good.
 
Your criteria applies to an unborn baby well before birth. I guess we just saw the record for a baby born at 21 weeks who appears to be surviving.

But there's a problem with your criteria. Adults in comas can't do what your criteria demands. Are they not human beings? If so...why? They can't do most or in some cases, all of the things you require babies to be able to do to get human status.

And you were the one counting cells.
 
No offense, but most of these rebuttals are not worth replying to. But I'll do so anyway if you can quote the part of the constitution that guarantees the "right" to an abortion. (Hint...it's not in there. The populist court made it up.)
 
BroHaHa said:
No offense, but most of these rebuttals are not worth replying to. But I'll do so anyway if you can quote the part of the constitution that guarantees the "right" to an abortion. (Hint...it's not in there. The populist court made it up.)
Click to expand...

You know it is in there if you graduated from high school.

If you refuse to accept anything I said as a fact, I refuse to accept anything you said as a fact. I will be happy to change my mind if you can prove all of your claims are 100% accurate, based only on completely unbiased sources. You have not tried to do that yet.

There is no reason to stop your attempt to have a reasonable discussion by turning around and going back to the same old conservative lies. I thought you were better than this.
 
Last edited:
BroHaHa said:
No offense, but most of these rebuttals are not worth replying to. But I'll do so anyway if you can quote the part of the constitution that guarantees the "right" to an abortion. (Hint...it's not in there. The populist court made it up.)
Click to expand...
Can you quote the part that forbids it? After all it does list a number of other prohibited things that the government can not do.
 
prometeus said:
Can you quote the part that forbids it? After all it does list a number of other prohibited things that the government can not do.
Click to expand...
I know. There's no enumerated right for adults to have consensual sex. There's no enumerated right to move to another state. There's no enumerated right to have kids. Yet all of these things are protected as rights....because laws to prevent or ban such things would violate people's other rights.

Thank you 9th Amendment.
 
prometeus said:
Can you quote the part that forbids it? After all it does list a number of other prohibited things that the government cannot do.
Click to expand...

I certainly can!

Actually, everyone who graduated from high school can do it. Abortion opponents say what they wish was true.
 
That doesn't sound like a bad thing in itself but it feels a little artificially limited and restricted. It's not as if people who consider abortion because of economic factors only faces those issues at the time of pregnancy and the kind of people who need support aren't always going to be seeking an abortion. More and better support for those living in poverty in general could have a wide range of benefits, reducing abortions being just one of them.

In general, I'd suggest the primary aim should be to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place, and that kind of support can play a role in achieving that. I also don't see why any of this needs to be related to the concept of "pro-life" or general restrictions on abortion provision at all. It is perfectly possible to want to minimise the number of abortions that are performed without wanting it to be heavily restricted, banned or criminalised.
 
Two paragraphs in that article demonstrate that giving out diapers, rent money and onesies is not solving the real problem.

"Warren sighed. She told the volunteer that she’d learned something upsetting on the drive over. Another single mother, had died by suicide earlier that week. "It was just so sad that she felt like she doesn’t have no support and she’s just going to end it all. ‘I’m tired of having my kids around all the time. Like, I know I’m strong, but I need a break."

And then there is this quote from the end of the article: "

""I’m sorry,” April had said in a voice that hitched and sank with sadness. “I know you’ve helped me a lot lately. I’m sorry, but I need a little more help. I’m sorry.” (This was) a mother of four whom antiabortion activists had talked out of terminating a fifth pregnancy, would need formula and rent assistance. She’d need wipes and diapers, and then, after the baby was potty-trained, so much more than that."

That there are kind and loving women raising money, providing supplies and listening without religious strings attached is a wonderful thing. To pretend as the anti-abortion movement does that it is really addressing the problem of unwanted pregnancies, high abortion rates, desperate women with too many children and dysfunctional families that drive mothers to suicide is refusing to face a reality.

Free diapers and onesies are a big help to new mothers . 15 year olds do not wear onesies.
 
Let me clarify two things. First, any adult who, after birth, for some time period was conscious and made some decisions, however trivial, even in infancy, has certainly demonstrated the capacity to be a person. Once someone has objectively done that, we can talk about mental personhood even if, later on in a coma, they can't do it, and we should try to get them to do it again.

In fact, none of the unborn has ever done that.

One criterion for personhood is to have an independent body so that one is not threatening the well being of someone who is already an independent body and has objectively demonstrated mental personhood.

There is no born infant who threatens the well being of someone like that. All the unborn do it. Pregnancy is not good for women. It is a living sacrifice each one makes in order to bring other human beings/persons into the world.

If you are not threatened by pregnancy, it would be simple decency to recognize that sacrifice should be voluntary.

That women also make sacrifices so men can have sex is a reality. Men almost always want to have sex more than women do. If abortion rights are not recognized, men should have sex by themselves.
 
killing them softly...

 
I actually quite agree with the premise in the article cited...but not the motivation. "Punishing women" is just a stupid leftist political ploy and does nothing to address the real issue...dead babies.

But abortion IS nothing more than a political football. If there was a committment to doing what is right for both th mother and child...it would be awesome...but who would give a ****? A small number. People like the one cited in the OP. Some others...but not many.
 
The premise of the article that volunteerism and a large supply of paper diapers solves the abortion problem is false. The problem is systemic, endemic, political and religious. Until there is honest, intelligent, science based sex-education in all schools, until there is universal insurance that cover the best women's contraceptives for all women, until we have the social integrity to tell the hypocrites and the nosey that other peoples sex lives are not their business and until the religious right starts using their money for humanity instead of inhumanity then we will have unwanted pregnancies and 800,000 abortions a year. Until then we have bumbling idiots thinking that free paper diapers and onesies solve the problem.
 
choiceone said:
Poetic images are not debate points.
Click to expand...
As we gently and tenderly slaughter the babies.....

Come on...the comment was laughable. Killing with kindness is no less killing.
 
The premise is that if people actually cared more about people than political causes, we could reduce abortions. And come on now...its ****ing laughable that you think the root cause in unwanted pregnancies is that the participants dont know that what they are doing can lead to a baby. Equally stupid is your argument about contraceptives. Even in cases where contraceptives were 'limited' the were only limited in the realm of abortion causing preventative measures.

Your arguments are left wing memes. Its ****ing sad.
 
If it were your body, it would be your choice.

As for me, I gave up sex when I was still dishy because it just wasn't worth the risk. And if abortion is banned, perhaps more women will make that choice.
 
How can something be a 'fact' if it is impossible to prove?

Or do you have scientific proof that life begins at conception?
 
Perhaps with your extensive knowledge of biological processes you could enlighten us all on how passing out paper diapers and onesies, not contraceptives, prevents unwanted pregnancies. We await your dissertation.

And while the editor of you magnum is opus is reviewing for accuracy, grammar, syntax and spelling perhaps they could give this word salad a tweak, so it made sense. "Even in cases where contraceptives were 'limited' the were only limited in the realm of abortion causing preventative measures."
 
Last edited:
See....you think that is word salad...and I think you just proved you havent a ****ing clue what was decided regarding insurance and contraception.
 
The Work Outing said:
How can something be a 'fact' if it is impossible to prove?
Click to expand...

On this topic, that question is irrelevant because everyone is required to learn it in middle or high school. It only applies to religion and we are talking about mammalian biology.

The Work Outing said:
Or do you have scientific proof that life begins at conception?
Click to expand...

This is a long list of biologically accurate statements by experts who specialize in the subject:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…