• 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!

True or False - If Men Got Pregnant There'd Be No Abortion Debate

If Men Got Pregnant There'd Be No Abortion Debate

  • True

    Votes: 24 37.5%

  • False

    Votes: 30 46.9%

  • Potato

    Votes: 10 15.6%
  • Total voters
    64
Northern Light said:
Since anti-abortion law is patriarchal in nature, I would have to say yes. If men could get pregnant, the laws would be more lenient. Abortion law originates with the social conservative desire to control women. When women were property so were their uteruses. Men were never property. Ergo, men would not be willing to suffer the same restrictions that women have. Men rule this country and it's often the men who think they are the exception to the rule.

None of this matters, of course. Whether abortion is legal or not, it will still happen. It will just be the rich who get the best underground doctors, including male law makers.
Click to expand...

Yeah right, men were never slaves.

Excuse me...let MY people go!

The Irish Slave Trade
 
Henrin said:
I love the revenge style tactics. Besides that it doesn't even make sense as it would most likely involve more trauma to the woman than a regular abortion. If you want to fashion your views around revenge at least think it through.
Click to expand...

Not revenge in any way. Just the realism that passing laws that only effect others is and has always been the source of tyranny.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Dont want an abortion dont get one.
Click to expand...

Oh look, the anarchy argument is back.

Against rape?

Fine, don't rape anyone

Against homicide?

Fine, don't kill anyone.

Against theft?

Fine, don't take anything without someones consent.

So tell me, are you an anarchist or is this just a special occasion?
 
Henrin said:
I love the revenge style tactics. Besides that it doesn't even make sense as it would most likely involve more trauma to the woman than a regular abortion. If you want to fashion your views around revenge at least think it through.
Click to expand...

Not revenge in any way. Just the acceptance that passing laws that only effect others is the source of all tyranny.
 
Henrin said:
Oh look, the anarchy argument is back.

Against rape?

Fine, don't rape anyone

Against homicide?

Fine, don't kill anyone.

Against theft?

Fine, don't take anything without someones consent.

So tell me, are you an anarchist or is this just a special occasion?
Click to expand...

Wait this is an "anarchist argument" or is it a personal choice argument? Im gonna go with the one that is common sense, the latter.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Wait this is an "anarchist argument" or is it a personal choice argument? Im gonna go with the one that is common sense, the latter.
Click to expand...

I don't see why all the things I listed can't be considered a personal choice to harm others just like abortion.
 
shlunka said:
Define convenience. Sadam was an inconvenience, so he was killed. False equivalence, fractally yes, but not from the basic premise of "killing a living human being out of convenience is wrong.". Also must define human being, subjective. I.E, biological? Conscious? Societal? It's terribly ambiguous. Biologically a developing fetus is a human being to DNA extents, however, it's not consciously nor societally a human being. Rephrase statement to "Killing a fetus without justifiable inconveniencing is wrong." But what is justifiable inconveniencing? Can the parents support the child that results? What's the probability of poverty? Does the child have any debilitating defects? Too much ambiguity to say that depriving a developing individual of conscious life is inherently wrong "unless from a strictly Darwinian perspective of reproduction". Something is not inherently immoral, morals are subjective, morals are ambiguous, and as long as human life has various amounts of quality one cannot say that depriving an individual of a possibly painful existence is immoral.
Click to expand...

First, you can't call something I didn't say a false equivalence. You called Sadam an inconvenience then said it was a false equivalence to my use of inconvenience. That doesn't make any sense.

And if you read what I said, I said killing out of convenience is wrong. If there are severe medical issues, there is no moral issue. Killing something just to be lazy is a completely different category.

minnie616 said:
Like the earthworm.
Click to expand...

And this is why this is a dumbass thread. If we were like earthworms, what would be our abortion policy? Ridiculous.
 
minnie616 said:
Like the earthworm.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly redundant to have two sexes that both do the same thing.
 
PMZ said:
The Catholic Church ought to pay for the development of an artificial man womb into which aborted fetuses could be planted. The controversy would be over by morning.
Click to expand...

Now that made me laugh out loud.
But I think you make a very valid point.
 
Henrin said:
That doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly redundant to have two sexes that both do the same thing.
Click to expand...

The OP posed a scenario essentially asking what our abortion policies would be like if we were like earthworms. Something this absurd belongs in the basement.
 
JayDubya said:
This entire concept is backhanded flamebait garbage. It's not new, mind you; you're not the first to use it... but it has always been backhanded flamebait garbage.


"Duhr - yuo jus hate teh weomenz!"
Click to expand...

Approximately half of the innocent victims of abortion are girls, who would become women if they were allowed to live.

I find it very strange that those who defend a “right” to kill these girls get to accuse those of us who defend the right of these girls to live, of misogyny. Wanting them to die is surely the only position of the two that is or possibly can be hate-based.
 
Dragonfly said:
If Men Got Pregnant There'd Be No Abortion Debate

The laws would permanently be 100% choice.

True or false
Click to expand...

False, since women can get pregnant, and there are women on both sides of the abortion debate. There's no reason to expect it to be any different if men were the ones who got pregnant.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Something this absurd belongs in the basement.
Click to expand...

And yet you continue to post in this thread. Hmmmm....

And it's an abortion thread in the abortion section of the forum.

Don't like it, go pound sand, or stop posting in it. the CHOICE (see what I did there) is yours.
 
molten_dragon said:
False, since women can get pregnant, and there are women on both sides of the abortion debate. There's no reason to expect it to be any different if men were the ones who got pregnant.
Click to expand...

How many women are in the law making part of the equation?
 
Dragonfly said:
And yet you continue to post in this thread. Hmmmm....

And it's an abortion thread in the abortion section of the forum.

Don't like it, go pound sand, or stop posting in it. the CHOICE (see what I did there) is yours.
Click to expand...

Bro, you posed a question of how the world would be if we were like earthworms and both males and females could have babies. That's an absurd premise. Males only having babies would kind of make sense, both doesn't.

Why you even insisted to make both genders child bearing really blows my mind.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yes, but the OP scolded me when I assumed only the males gave birth. He explained that he wanted this scenario to be both male and female giving birth. It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

"Scolded"?????? lol....damn you're thin skinned.

Good thing it's Friday. Sounds like you need this weekend to hurry up and get here.
 
Here's one gallup poll, but you can find many other studies that say pretty much the same thing.

m2x_nmvi8k6jegg9dvd8aw.gif


Men aren't much more likely to be pro-choice than women. It's split fairly evenly. So this entire premise is ridiculous.

Dragonfly said:
"Scolded"?????? lol....damn you're thin skinned.

Good thing it's Friday. Sounds like you need this weekend to hurry up and get here.
Click to expand...

Well, it was so important to you to make that irrelevant distinction. Either way, it makes no sense at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom