• 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!

To the extent abortion should be allowed, and conditions that should be met

Usually I'm quite sympathetic to your posts, and I am here on issues of the sex of the doctor and more than one doctor. But it's important to stop with this "life of the mother" crap. We need to say "endangers the health or life of the woman" because the health of the woman is also important, notably at 18 weeks, when continuing a problem pregnancy could put her at risk of becoming infertile, having a heart attack which would harm her health, but not her life, etc. Again, if the fetus has a really serious, but not fatal, deformity, why would that not be as important? In most cases of abortion past 18 weeks, the issue of health and not just life is why we constantly have to object to the stupidity of anti-choicers.
I do assume that words like mother and woman are synonymous. But as the debate also includes the idea that the woman is 18 weeks pregnant then the word mother should be as appropriate as saying a woman. I would have no problem with a sentence such as, a woman's choice but it's the mothers health. But I am pretty sure it would only confuse the anti-choicers.
And I am aware of health issues versus life threatening issues debate in pregnancy and also treat that as synonymous until whoever I am debating makes the distinction between the two. All the points you bring up about health issues are easily backed by links. The anti-choicers argument to lose.
 
So, basically, you're just pro-choice and plan to support pro-choice laws, no restrictions by law, but you have some limits for yourself. If you'll vote pro-choice, who could object save one of the anti-abortion freaks?
Well otherwise I'll have a pole up my ass either way, if simply I disagree with everyone, I'll move to a place where I agree with most of the laws then.
 
Well otherwise I'll have a pole up my ass either way, if simply I disagree with everyone, I'll move to a place where I agree with most of the laws then.
Striving for personal choice would do you well. You've put your opinion up for debate on here. Sharing your opinions is also a choice, which should be respected and is, when it stays an opinion.
This country is going through an authoritarian phase conducted by the extremist on the right. They're imposing their opinions, and requiring us to obey by law or threaten jail time. Women are getting physically and emotionally damaged by this. To say it's a hot topic right now is an understatement.
 
I do assume that words like mother and woman are synonymous. But as the debate also includes the idea that the woman is 18 weeks pregnant then the word mother should be as appropriate as saying a woman. I would have no problem with a sentence such as, a woman's choice but it's the mothers health. But I am pretty sure it would only confuse the anti-choicers.
And I am aware of health issues versus life threatening issues debate in pregnancy and also treat that as synonymous until whoever I am debating makes the distinction between the two. All the points you bring up about health issues are easily backed by links. The anti-choicers argument to lose.
There's a reason why I don't think the word mother is appropriate in this context. If a woman has a miscarriage at 18 weeks, it's just a miscarriage and isn't classed as a stillbirth. No death certificate is issued for a miscarriage. In contrast, if a woman has a miscarriage in late pregnancy, say 28 weeks, but is dead when it emerges, that is called a stillbirth and a death certificate is required.

When women have had miscarriages, I don't know of anyone who claims they are mothers of deceased children except conservative Catholics and possibly Evangelicals. All the people I have known, even Christians of other identities, consider a miscarriage to occur before a woman is a mother - when she can only be a mother-to-be.

I think it's more confusing for the anti-choicers if they don't understand that women who are pregnant before the embryo/fetus can be a stillbirth if it dies are never mothers. I don't want them to think these women are mothers because they aren't.
 
I personally believe that abortion past 120 days is unjustifiable unless the mother's life is at an undeniable risk. I also do think there should be filed reports for abortion to keep history for medical track records. The process should be quick and not determined by some state, but proscribed by a physician of choice, preferably another woman.
What about the life of another fetus?

There's a reason that I have gone from "restricted when heartbeat is heard" (and yes, you can see early posts of mine on this board, from many, many years ago where I said this) to "it should always be between the pregnant person and their doctor". I think any abortions that would be considered "unethical" can be addressed by a doctor's medical ethics board. The reality should be that there are going to be exceptions that can't always be covered by laws and any laws are going to likely be more restrictive than we would want them to be. There are just too many potential cases that we can't account for easily with laws.

Less than 200 abortions occur past 28 weeks. 120 days doesn't give nearly enough time to cover everything. Not even close. That doesn't even get up to when a person is likely to have their ultrasound to check on health of fetus.
 
Obviously, since most of the abortions are at around 6-8 weeks
But most important abortions, such as those for fetal anomalies or even health problems of pregnant person will occur after 20 weeks, after the ultrasound, which your limit doesn't even reach.
 
A baby is highly active around 19 weeks, likely very active. Maybe it's personal reasoning others won't understand.

There still isn't much scientific study on the phases of pregnancy and the ability of a fetus to feel or respond.

For female doctors, I don't think men make good doctors for women in general. Some female doctors are dismissive, but most of them actually understand how other women feel and understand the female body more. Especially coming from my personal experiences with male doctors, which I wouldn't feel comfortable speaking on.
Sperm is generally highly active all the time. Plenty of bugs are highly active. What does "highly active" have to do with when an abortion shouldn't occur?

We know that a fetus has no ability to feel pain until at least 24 weeks, as there isn't the necessary brain/nerve development to allow for it before that point. And any "responses" from a fetus are not intentional, purposeful, as the fetus has no concept of what it is, let alone what is going on outside the space it's in.
 
There's a reason why I don't think the word mother is appropriate in this context. If a woman has a miscarriage at 18 weeks, it's just a miscarriage and isn't classed as a stillbirth. No death certificate is issued for a miscarriage. In contrast, if a woman has a miscarriage in late pregnancy, say 28 weeks, but is dead when it emerges, that is called a stillbirth and a death certificate is required.

When women have had miscarriages, I don't know of anyone who claims they are mothers of deceased children except conservative Catholics and possibly Evangelicals. All the people I have known, even Christians of other identities, consider a miscarriage to occur before a woman is a mother - when she can only be a mother-to-be.

I think it's more confusing for the anti-choicers if they don't understand that women who are pregnant before the embryo/fetus can be a stillbirth if it dies are never mothers. I don't want them to think these women are mothers because they aren't.
Very few women would have reached the stage of 18 weeks pregnancy and not looked into a mirror and claimed they are now a mother. As inaccurate as that statement would be, a person would have to be completely lacking in empathy to not understand that there is also a truth to that statement. Mother hood is as much a state of mind as it is a constant stream of children.

It should also be emphasised that there is a big difference between a woman wanting an abortion and a mother being told that she needs an abortion or she will die, ( or suffer some health related issue).

It is not that women are not mothers. it is that woman can be mothers. Women and men have the same ability in that they can be whoever they want to be, whether it is a father or mother or a doctor or truck driver. The only difference here seems to be that women are being told when to be mothers by men who refuse to let anyone tell them they have parental duties too.

The anti-choicers being confused about words such as woman and mothers is a ship that sailed long ago. Much of these threads is about dealing with their misconceptions. Women are not inherently evil who live off the earnings of men and mothers do not spend the day sipping latte's and ignoring the kids. Their arguments are usually based on throwing out confusion about the meaning of words.

Better to celebrate the fact that women can be mothers than tip toe around something being used to create confusion any way.
 
Very few women would have reached the stage of 18 weeks pregnancy and not looked into a mirror and claimed they are now a mother. As inaccurate as that statement would be, a person would have to be completely lacking in empathy to not understand that there is also a truth to that statement. Mother hood is as much a state of mind as it is a constant stream of children.

It should also be emphasised that there is a big difference between a woman wanting an abortion and a mother being told that she needs an abortion or she will die, ( or suffer some health related issue).

It is not that women are not mothers. it is that woman can be mothers. Women and men have the same ability in that they can be whoever they want to be, whether it is a father or mother or a doctor or truck driver. The only difference here seems to be that women are being told when to be mothers by men who refuse to let anyone tell them they have parental duties too.

The anti-choicers being confused about words such as woman and mothers is a ship that sailed long ago. Much of these threads is about dealing with their misconceptions. Women are not inherently evil who live off the earnings of men and mothers do not spend the day sipping latte's and ignoring the kids. Their arguments are usually based on throwing out confusion about the meaning of words.

Better to celebrate the fact that women can be mothers than tip toe around something being used to create confusion any way.
Nope. If you have a miscarriage before the fetus is viable, it's a miscarriage, not a stillbirth. If you don't give birth, you're NOT A MOTHER, even if you're a mother-to-be. To pretend otherwise in your private life is fine, since people spend their whole private lives making up fictions and living in them. But to force that fiction on OTHER PEOPLE is outrageous. The anti-abortion crowd has to be taught not to do it, and nothing works more effectively in that regard as much as objective consistency does.
 
There is only one standard I would accept for abortions. If the person carrying the fetus wants to terminate it...at any time.

What are the practical and moral differences between aborting a fetus 5 minutes before birth, and killing a baby 5 minutes after birth?

Because I believe in personal autonomy. Can you name one law in America that restricts what a male does with his body?

Yes. It's illegal pretty much everywhere for a male to jerk off in public.
 
What are the practical and moral differences between aborting a fetus 5 minutes before birth, and killing a baby 5 minutes after birth?

Before birth, the fact that if you dont have her consent, you violate a woman's body, her rights to due process, bodily autonomy, self-determination, and risk her life and health and future.

Moral and legal differences.

Yes. It's illegal pretty much everywhere for a male to jerk off in public.

Sounds like a public health issue...are there other bodily fluids that people can voluntarily just dump or deposit in public? And before you bother, breast feeding in public, the breast milk goes into the baby.
 
What are the practical and moral differences between aborting a fetus 5 minutes before birth, and killing a baby 5 minutes after birth?



Yes. It's illegal pretty much everywhere for a male to jerk off in public.
The problem with the "5 minutes before birth" argument is that it isn't happening, not in reality, not when natural labor occurs. Doctors have to agree to perform an abortion and the vast majority of doctors wouldn't do one at that point. And the fact that it is legal in several states up to that point yet no one can find a case (where the doctor wasn't actually convicted of crimes for that) where they have performed such abortions. Doctors are still held to ethical standards. It would be unethical in most cases to perform an abortion after natural labor has started for reasons other than

It is also illegal for a woman to masturbate in public. And it is a public health risk, sanitation issue, the same as being naked in most places is/should be. That is not an unequal law.
 
The problem with the "5 minutes before birth" argument is that it isn't happening, not in reality, not when natural labor occurs. Doctors have to agree to perform an abortion and the vast majority of doctors wouldn't do one at that point. And the fact that it is legal in several states up to that point yet no one can find a case (where the doctor wasn't actually convicted of crimes for that) where they have performed such abortions. Doctors are still held to ethical standards. It would be unethical in most cases to perform an abortion after natural labor has started for reasons other than

You're missing the point, the point being that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

It is also illegal for a woman to masturbate in public.


And it is a public health risk, sanitation issue, the same as being naked in most places is/should be.

How do you figure?

That is not an unequal law.

Neither are abortion restrictions. They apply equally to all birthing persons, be they men or women.
 
I'd just like to see what other people have to say.


There is of course more nuance between pro-life and pro-choice.

Personally, I think no abortion should take place past 120 days, unless it's to save the mother's life. At 120 days, it's practically having a soul of its own without a doubt, and still pregnancy is still a very significant and should be treated as something with respect. The mother's life is still significant

Before, I think in situations of rape, mental & physical instability, and some other extreme cases.

And even earlier, around the first 12 weeks, reasoning such as finical struggles, etc, are questionable for me.

I also think an abortion shouldn't be administered without a medical report filed by 2 or more credible (female) physicians.

"practically having a soul of its own." Can we get even more arbitrary?
 
I personally believe that abortion past 120 days is unjustifiable unless the mother's life is at an undeniable risk. I also do think there should be filed reports for abortion to keep history for medical track records. The process should be quick and not determined by some state, but proscribed by a physician of choice, preferably another woman.

Its just an arbitrary rule with no foundation in logic or principle.
 
You're missing the point, the point being that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Why? There are several states with no restriction on timeframe and those states dont have elective abortions of healthy, viable (~24 weeks) fetuses. It's not happening in any states, laws or not.

So why does there have to be a line drawn "somewhere" for something that doesnt occur? The entire country Canada has none, and also doesnt see any women having such abortions.
 
Why? There are several states with no restriction on timeframe and those states dont have elective abortions of healthy, viable (~24 weeks) fetuses. It's not happening in any states, laws or not.

So why does there have to be a line drawn "somewhere" for something that doesnt occur? The entire country Canada has none, and also doesnt see any women having such abortions.

There already is a line drawn in those states. It's arbitrarily drawn at birth.
 
There already is a line drawn in those states. It's arbitrarily drawn at birth.

OK. And in those states, that "line" works...no women have aborted those birthed. "Could have", didnt.

So no "other" line needs to be drawn, how does that sound?
 
OK. And in those states, that "line" works...no women have aborted those birthed. "Could have", didnt.

So no "other" line needs to be drawn, how does that sound?

85% of people in this country live in states where it's illegal to have abortions on demand after viability or something close to that, including those living in CA, NY, IL, HI, PA, MA, CT, DE, WA, and RI.

78% of Americans do not believe abortion should be generally legal in the third trimester.

So obviously a ton of people disagree with you.
 
85% of people in this country live in states where it's illegal to have abortions on demand after viability or something close to that, including those living in CA, NY, IL, HI, PA, MA, CT, DE, WA, and RI.

78% of Americans do not believe abortion should be generally legal in the third trimester.

So obviously a ton of people disagree with you.

You didnt answer my question. I conceded your point. I asked you:

OK. And in those states, that "line" works...no women have aborted those birthed. "Could have", didnt.​
So no "other" line needs to be drawn, how does that sound?​

What reason is there to have a law for something that doesnt happen? One that may slow or block the necessary emergency medical attention a woman needs...like has happened in TX more than once already?
 
You didnt answer my question. I conceded your point. I asked you:

OK. And in those states, that "line" works...no women have aborted those birthed. "Could have", didnt.​
So no "other" line needs to be drawn, how does that sound?​

What reason is there to have a law for something that doesnt happen? One that may slow or block the necessary emergency medical attention a woman needs...like has happened in TX more than once already?

You haven't established that it "doesn't happen." You just claimed that it doesn't.
 
You haven't established that it "doesn't happen." You just claimed that it doesn't.

I cant find data that doesnt exist. The incidents are rare enough, if they're out there, they dont get recorded. You'll have to prove me wrong if you dont believe it.

You just dont want to answer.
 
I cant find data that doesnt exist. You'll have to prove me wrong if you dont believe it.

You just dont want to answer.

I didn't make a claim about whether it happens or not, or whether that's relevant to this discussion. You did. If an act seriously negatively impacts the life of someone other other than the actor, and doesn't have a significant countervailing benefit, it should be illegal either way.
 
I didn't make a claim about whether it happens or not, or whether that's relevant to this discussion. You did. If an act seriously negatively impacts the life of someone other other than the actor, and doesn't have a significant countervailing benefit, it should be illegal either way.

There is no 'someone else' but I did show that it already does put women's lives at risk...and potentially moreso.

We dont stop people from driving cars because of the high potential AND reality that it kills "someone other than the actor." (Driving could be way more restricted to save lives.)
 
You're missing the point, the point being that a line has to be drawn somewhere.






How do you figure?



Neither are abortion restrictions. They apply equally to all birthing persons, be they men or women.
Birth. That is where personhood starts. That is where they are no longer attached to the person. That is where the state considers them a person, counts them on a census, gives them recognition legally.

Are you seriously trying to argue that masturbation doesn't cause bodily fluids to be discharged?

Abortion restrictions restrict what a human female, someone who can get pregnant can do with their body anywhere. Not being legally able to do something in public is very different than not being able to legally do something at all. Not being able to masturbate in public does not at all harm a person, put them in danger. Being pregnant always increases risk to the person who is pregnant.
 
Back
Top Bottom