• 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!

Today we see if the Supreme Court of America values a woman's life or not

Ginger Ale said:
This thread isn't about that. It's about women who want children, get pregnant and have a medical issue.
There's no reason your morals should take precedence over a woman's health. :rolleyes:

Are you saying your willing to let women who want children suffer irreparable damage, or death from complications so that you can prevent women you think are whores from having abortions? Sounds like it's worth it to ya. Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. I have said before (in this very thread) I am pro life with exceptions to rape, incest, and life of the mother.
 
roguenuke said:
That's not how responsibility works. You can have a line of responsible choices to make. It doesn't stop at a single event. Just like if your child is running around the house and falls onto a heavy object laying around, that doesn't mean you just let your child lie there bleeding and/or in pain because the responsible thing to do would have been to stop them from running around the house or pick up that dangerous object or limit where they ran around in. Those things I listed would have been responsible to do, yes. But once you get past that point, you are talking new choices for what is or isn't responsible. It may be to take them to the doctor, or to the ER, or just to comfort them. But it isn't to leave them there because you missed being responsible at the start.

It isn't about caring for a baby once born. It's about being pregnant. You are trying to turn pregnancy into a punishment for sex.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Pregnancy is not a punishment, it is a possible consequence. Consequences are not always bad. Hell, there are consequences for breathing (you stay alive).
 
donhughesmusic said:
Not at all. Pregnancy is not a punishment, it is a possible consequence. Consequences are not always bad. Hell, there are consequences for breathing (you stay alive).
Click to expand...
Consequences can have choices to alleviate them, including abortion, because that is better for the person. You are trying to claim that abortion shouldn't be an option, a choice simply because you don't like it.
 
weaver2 said:
A specific behavior works for you to solve a problem. You consider your solution moral and you believe everybody should behave the the same way and if they don't they should be punished because punishment always stops people from doing things they shouldn't do. Easy-peasy problem
Click to expand...
That decision isn't a moral decision, it is a practical one. If you don't want to be pregnant, what is the easiest way to not get pregnant?
 
donhughesmusic said:
The had kids BECAUSE they couldn't afford them? What?
Click to expand...
If they chose not to have an abortion, but they had children anyway, then they had children they couldn't afford, if they knew beforehand that they couldn't really afford them, wouldn't likely be able to afford them.
 
donhughesmusic said:
Not at all. Pregnancy is not a punishment, it is a possible consequence. Consequences are not always bad. Hell, there are consequences for breathing (you stay alive).
Click to expand...
That's a matter of opinion.
donhughesmusic said:
Absolutely not. I have said before (in this very thread) I am pro life with exceptions to rape, incest, and life of the mother.
Click to expand...
And I am pro choice with no restrictions whatsoever. What'd your point?
 
roguenuke said:
Consequences can have choices to alleviate them, including abortion, because that is better for the person. You are trying to claim that abortion shouldn't be an option, a choice simply because you don't like it.
Click to expand...
Wrong again, I have ironed out my exceptions numerous times which you fail to acknowledge.
 
roguenuke said:
If they chose not to have an abortion, but they had children anyway, then they had children they couldn't afford, if they knew beforehand that they couldn't really afford them, wouldn't likely be able to afford them.
Click to expand...
If you can't afford something, you don't go out and get it. I can't afford a Tesla, I don't go get it.
 
donhughesmusic said:
That decision isn't a moral decision, it is a practical one. If you don't want to be pregnant, what is the easiest way to not get pregnant?
Click to expand...
But sometimes, it happens. When it does, abortion is am option.
 
donhughesmusic said:
That decision isn't a moral decision, it is a practical one. If you don't want to be pregnant, what is the easiest way to not get pregnant?
Click to expand...
It is a moral decision though. There are many reasons to have sex, and many people think that they are "protected". You have circled back around to pregnancy being a punishment for having sex. It is a potential consequence, but one that doesn't have to be just "too bad, it has to continue". Pregnancy is the consequence, but birth doesn't have to also be the consequence. Abortion is an option to alleviate that "consequence", just as if you get an STD, you can take meds for that STD in many cases, to alleviate that consequence.
 
donhughesmusic said:
If you can't afford something, you don't go out and get it. I can't afford a Tesla, I don't go get it.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Sex doesn't normally cost money for most people. You can have sex for free. A pregnancy could result from sex. An abortion can cost relatively little compared to going through a pregnancy and/or birth and then raising a child. Some people have moral issues with having an abortion, and that's fine, as the point of prochoice is for people to choose for themselves. But it might also result in them having children they can't afford, especially if they aren't willing to give them up for adoption. They may already have children, and another one is simply too much for them, especially if the new child is going to have health issues that are expensive.

My son has 6+ doctors now, and although I wouldn't give him up for the world, many people would not be able to afford the doctor visits, hospital visits, medications, and just the stress, not to mention many jobs aren't nearly as flexible as mine and my husband's, which would also mean missed time from work. While I might not have know about this before he was born, and it wouldn't have changed anything for me, my family if we had, as we knew we could do handle it, there are people who know they can't handle this sort of thing, and may find out before the birth or simply fear it because they already have a child like this and the possibility of another may be rather high, too high for them. That doesn't mean it is healthy for people to stop having sex. And no birth control is 100%. There is sterilization, but then many women have trouble finding a doctor willing to do even a tubal ligation before they're in their 30s, maybe even 40s.
 
Ginger Ale said:
I resort to what this thread is about. ER care for pregnant women with complications that require an abortion in Idaho. It seems you are just hell bent on being able to call women baby killers. You can get your rocks off with that all day long, but it isn't going to make this thread about it, it's just going to make you ugly.

I'll take this post as a yes, you don't care if women die from sepsis as long as they're not having an abortion. You don't care if doctors in Idaho's ER have such a threat on their shoulders they can't treat patients without fear of losing their job, or going to jail. You don't care if that's putting women in a dangerous position, as long as you can call them all "baby killers" you're good! You give me little reason to think otherwise.
Click to expand...
1 million babies are killed by women in the name of convenience. Yes...that makes them baby killers. To justify that you dehumanize life. That makes you....worse.
 
donhughesmusic said:
If you can't afford something, you don't go out and get it. I can't afford a Tesla, I don't go get it.
Click to expand...
You seem to have strong opinions on what others should endure, and what choices they should make but, what happens to the woman trying to make a baby and at the 18 weeks she starts bleeding, has incredible pain and goes to the ER? Do the docs send her home because they're afraid of going to jail? Do they intervene because they're afraid of neglecting a patient and getting sued by the family? Do they call the state's lawyers and ask, if they can tell at what time they can intervene and stop the pain and suffering of this woman? I've had a miscarriage, it's incredibly painful, and scary. Thankfully it was before my states ban, and I got the care I needed. It was already an emotionally tearing time, I can't imagine if my states government made me suffer physically on top of it.

You talk about consequences, are these the consequences you're ok with for an abortion ban? I find that cruel.

That's the point here. Right now because of this law, women who want kids and have complications are suffering, getting sick, and could die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom