• 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!

[W:962]The right to intervene in someone's private life.

Right, and since it’s her body and she’s the one who gets preggers, he should totally think twice about the penis plunging.

If you decide against wearing a condom, lots of baaaaad things can happen. Unintended consequences and all that.
Lots of bad things happen if the woman is not on birth control either. She should also think twice about having sex.
 
I did answer your question, just not to your specifications. I am fully committed to my answer. This is not a game.
And it's not a solution. One has to decide if there's not a consensus.

WHich one? If it's not the woman, you are admitting that you believe a man should be able to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. Sounds awful right? So of course you wont admit to it.
You also neglected to mention a 5th option for the woman. She has the baby and gives it up for adoption. Hell, you can drop a baby off at any firehouse in the country it seems like.
It's the same as 'she has a baby.' It still requires she take all the physical risks. Those are severe painful consequences even when someone wants a baby. Again, she cannot escape consequences.

So it's not fair at all, is it? And yet you still believe a man has the right to demand a woman go thru that if she doesnt want a baby? Yes or no? Why should HE get to decide?
 
Lots of bad things happen if the woman is not on birth control either. She should also think twice about having sex.
Of course she should. And as I wrote, she cant escape consequences if she gets pregnant. She has to accept that.

So then why shouldnt the man? He knew ahead of time too, why should he be treated differently?
 
Lots of bad things happen if the woman is not on birth control either. She should also think twice about having sex.
But it’s her body. You can’t get pregnant. What part of this are you struggling with? If it sounds unfair, dunno what to tell ya. You lose the right to decide about your semen the moment you agree to give it away.
 
And it's not a solution. One has to decide if there's not a consensus.

WHich one? If it's not the woman, you are admitting that you believe a man should be able to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. Sounds awful right? So of course you wont admit to it.

It's the same as 'she has a baby.' It still requires she take all the physical risks. Those are severe painful consequences even when someone wants a baby. Again, she cannot escape consequences.

So it's not fair at all, is it? And yet you still believe a man has the right to demand a woman go thru that if she doesnt want a baby? Yes or no? Why should HE get to decide?
Show me where I said "the man has the right to demand a woman go through that". I ****ing dare you.

I said THEY have to come to a consensus. There is no other way around it. What part of THEY do you not understand?
 
Show me where I said "the man has the right to demand a woman go through that". I ****ing dare you.
It's in what you refuse to answer. You wont admit that there has to be a tiebreaker.

What happens if the man cant make her change her mind?

Of course it will come down to the woman's decision, which you also dont like.
I said THEY have to come to a consensus. There is no other way around it. What part of THEY do you not understand?
They do not. She has Constitutional rights. There's no point in a law where neither can prevail...a judge would have to rule and that would come down to her Const rights being violated if she doesnt consent.
 
It's in what you refuse to answer. You wont admit that there has to be a tiebreaker.

What happens if the man cant make her change her mind?

Of course it will come down to the woman's decision, which you also dont like.

They do not. She has Constitutional rights. There's no point in a law where neither can prevail...a judge would have to rule and that would come down to her Const rights being violated if she doesnt consent.
There are also risks to the mother of having an abortion which you neglect to address. Since we are talking about health...


Women who have had abortions are 160% more likely than people who had the baby to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment, and remained high for up to 4 years after the abortion.

44% complained of nervous disorders.
36% had sleep disturbances.
31% had regrets about their decision.
11% were prescribed psychotropic medicine.
65% had some sort or symptoms of PTSD.
30% to 50% of women reported experiencing sexual dysfunction.
60% experienced suicidal ideation.
28% ATTEMTED SUICIDE. (suicide rates of women who had the baby were cut in half).
Women who had abortions twice as likely to become heavy smokers. (Smoking causes pretty bad health issues too, probably more so than having a baby)
45% of all abortions are repeat abortions.

There are more stats in the article that I did not mention, but it seems clear to me that having an abortion is much riskier than having the baby, at least psychologically, which can also lead to physical issues.
 
There are also risks to the mother of having an abortion which you neglect to address. Since we are talking about health...
OMG, what do you think I was writing when I listed abortion as a consequence?


Women who have had abortions are 160% more likely than people who had the baby to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment, and remained high for up to 4 years after the abortion.

44% complained of nervous disorders.
36% had sleep disturbances.
31% had regrets about their decision.
11% were prescribed psychotropic medicine.
65% had some sort or symptoms of PTSD.
30% to 50% of women reported experiencing sexual dysfunction.
60% experienced suicidal ideation.
28% ATTEMTED SUICIDE. (suicide rates of women who had the baby were cut in half).
Women who had abortions twice as likely to become heavy smokers. (Smoking causes pretty bad health issues too, probably more so than having a baby)
45% of all abortions are repeat abortions.

There are more stats in the article that I did not mention, but it seems clear to me that having an abortion is much riskier than having the baby, at least psychologically, which can also lead to physical issues.
You are making my point for me, thanks.

Women cannot escape the consequences of a pregnancy. She knew this before she had sex and knows she'll have to accept consequences if she takes the risk.

Why do you believe the man, who also knew before they had sex that there might be consequences, should be able to get out of them? He also chose to take the risk...why shouldnt he also have to accept the consequences?
 
OMG, what do you think I was writing when I listed abortion as a consequence?


You are making my point for me, thanks.

Women cannot escape the consequences of a pregnancy. She knew this before she had sex and knows she'll have to accept consequences if she takes the risk.

Why do you believe the man, who also knew before they had sex that there might be consequences, should be able to get out of them? He also chose to take the risk...why shouldnt he also have to accept the consequences?
I agree that he also should accept the consequences!!!! My comment on not paying child support and other consequences was sarcastic!!!!!
 
I agree that he also should accept the consequences!!!! My comment on not paying child support and other consequences was sarcastic!!!!!
That's a consequence. His not being able to tell the woman how to deal with the pregnancy is a consequence.

He knows it before he decides to sleep with her...he makes a choice.
 
That's a consequence. His not being able to tell the woman how to deal with the pregnancy is a consequence.

He knows it before he decides to sleep with her...he makes a choice.
Agreed. All I am saying is that ending the life of the kid in my opinion is wrong, regardless of what any laws may say (slavery was legal at one time, does not make it right). We all can go around and around this issue for years and none of our minds will be changed. I will say that your opinions on the matter I respect much more than others on here. Hell you and I probably agree on a lot of other things, this issue we just don't.
 
Agreed. All I am saying is that ending the life of the kid in my opinion is wrong,
That's just BS. You went from going on and on about the couple agreeing by consensus...to keep or abort.

regardless of what any laws may say (slavery was legal at one time, does not make it right). We all can go around and around this issue for years and none of our minds will be changed. I will say that your opinions on the matter I respect much more than others on here. Hell you and I probably agree on a lot of other things, this issue we just don't.
And now you just retreat from every argument that you tried to make...and which I countered. You did not reply considerately a number of times. I may respect your position on other issues, I do, but I do not respect when someone continually bobs and weaves to try and gain traction on their agenda and then dont acknowlege it.
 
That's just BS. You went from going on and on about the couple agreeing by consensus...to keep or abort.


And now you just retreat from every argument that you tried to make...and which I countered. You did not reply considerately a number of times. I may respect your position on other issues, I do, but I do not respect when someone continually bobs and weaves to try and gain traction on their agenda and then dont acknowlege it.
How is saying we are not going to agree retreating? If anything I am saving my own breath (or in this case fingers)? I did not retract any arguments. I did not switch sides. I answered questions MY way, not yours. Where did I retreat from anything? Just because you don't like how I respond to a question does not make it a non answer. If people don't like how I answer questions, or think my answers are non answers, that is their problem, not mine. I did not retreat from anything that I said. I said what I wanted and thet is the end of it. Message boards are like the window in my bedroom. If I don't want to talk about it anymore, I stop. If I don't like to hear the kids outside, I shut the window.

I gave my arguments. You countered with other arguments. Where is the retreat? This isn't boxing with your bob and weave analogy. This is typing points of view on a message board. I did not retreat, I just chose to stop arguing the subject altogether. It it makes you feel better to think that I am retreating than more power to you.
 
How is saying we are not going to agree retreating? If anything I am saving my own breath (or in this case fingers)? I did not retract any arguments. I did not switch sides. I answered questions MY way, not yours. Where did I retreat from anything?
That's just BS. You went from going on and on about the couple agreeing by consensus...to keep or abort. That's not 'I'm against abortion,' that's 'they should share the CHOICE.'

Just because you don't like how I respond to a question does not make it a non answer. If people don't like how I answer questions, or think my answers are non answers, that is their problem, not mine. I did not retreat from anything that I said. I said what I wanted and thet is the end of it. Message boards are like the window in my bedroom. If I don't want to talk about it anymore, I stop. If I don't like to hear the kids outside, I shut the window.
I just wanted honesty and a reasonable foundation for your position. You switched up the argument over and over, trying to gain some traction.
I gave my arguments. You countered with other arguments. Where is the retreat? This isn't boxing with your bob and weave analogy. This is typing points of view on a message board.
You saying we wont agree based on a false statement is a retreat. See my first statement above, again.
 
That's just BS. You went from going on and on about the couple agreeing by consensus...to keep or abort. That's not 'I'm against abortion,' that's 'they should share the CHOICE.'


I just wanted honesty and a reasonable foundation for your position. You switched up the argument over and over, trying to gain some traction.

You saying we wont agree based on a false statement is a retreat. See my first statement above, again.
I am absolutely against abortion except in cases or rape, incest, or imminent risk of life of the kid or mother. Just because I bring up other arguments (like the father and mother coming to a consensus) has nothing to do with my beliefs. This is a debate site, and I am bringing up other arguments.

My opinions on abortion are based on how I was raised as a child, and how I was raised is none of anyone's business. You want a foundation? Killing kids is wrong.

Saying we won't agree is not a retreat, it is a fact. One man's excuse is another man's reason.
 
I am absolutely against abortion except in cases or rape, incest, or imminent risk of life of the kid or mother. Just because I bring up other arguments (like the father and mother coming to a consensus) has nothing to do with my beliefs. This is a debate site, and I am bringing up other arguments.
Well we werent arguing your opinion that abortion's wrong...we were arguing specific other arguments.

And if those arent valid to you...say that you're playing Devil's Advocate because otherwise it's disingenous.
My opinions on abortion are based on how I was raised as a child, and how I was raised is none of anyone's business. You want a foundation? Killing kids is wrong.
I dont remember asking you a personal question, so your rather angry response is odd.
Saying we won't agree is not a retreat, it is a fact. One man's excuse is another man's reason.
We wont agree. However you just admitted that you introduced other arguments into the thread, WITH ME, and then just dropped them when I proved my views. That's retreat. It's certainly not debating in good faith.
 
1. "Usually" does not mean "always". Where are your statistics that back up your "usually" claim??

2. I agree with you that most people are decent and act civilly... key word though is "most". Just because most people act civilly does not mean all. What about them? We cater to the LGBTQ community, which makes up a small portion of the population, why can't we help that segment without resorting to ending lives?

As I pointed out in other abortion threads the following study showed that 44 percent of the men in a committed relationship instigate the abortion discussion.

From Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change:

One study found that 44% of husbands instigated the abortion decision. 2 If the couple is dependent on the wife’s income to supplement the household budget, a new baby is often seen by the man primarily in terms of the negative impact it will have on the family’s finances. Or he may not be willing to see his wife’s attention diverted away from himself as she cares for the young child.

From:

 
If he wants her to abort, or is not in the picture that is an entirely different story. While I would not agree with an abortion, I would not begrudge the mother of that decision. Where I have a problem is saying the father has no say whatsoever. As long as the father is in the picture and wants to have the baby, he has just as much say as the mother. Relationships are not 50%-50%, they are 100%-100%, just like parenthood. If society says that the father does not have as much say, then society should not judge the father for not sticking around, because his say apparently doesn't mean anything.
He should only have as much say as the woman gives him. It's not his body that faces the ravages of pregnancy and childbirth.
 
There are also risks to the mother of having an abortion which you neglect to address. Since we are talking about health...


Women who have had abortions are 160% more likely than people who had the baby to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment, and remained high for up to 4 years after the abortion.

44% complained of nervous disorders.
36% had sleep disturbances.
31% had regrets about their decision.
11% were prescribed psychotropic medicine.
65% had some sort or symptoms of PTSD.
30% to 50% of women reported experiencing sexual dysfunction.
60% experienced suicidal ideation.
28% ATTEMTED SUICIDE. (suicide rates of women who had the baby were cut in half).
Women who had abortions twice as likely to become heavy smokers. (Smoking causes pretty bad health issues too, probably more so than having a baby)
45% of all abortions are repeat abortions.

There are more stats in the article that I did not mention, but it seems clear to me that having an abortion is much riskier than having the baby, at least psychologically, which can also lead to physical issues.
Five years after having an abortion, over 95 percent of the women in a landmark UC San Francisco study said it was the right decision for them.

The findings, published Sunday, Jan. 12, 2020, in Social Science & Medicine, come as many states are requiring waiting periods and counseling for women seeking abortions, based on the assumption that they may regret having them.

But the researchers at UCSF’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) found no evidence that women began to regret their decisions as years passed. On the contrary, the women reported that both their positive and negative feelings about the abortion diminished over time. At five years, the overwhelming majority (84 percent) had either positive feelings, or none at all.

 
Lots of bad things happen if the woman is not on birth control either. She should also think twice about having sex.


Today the vast majorly of women use birth control consistently.

Over 92 percent of women in the United States are being responsible and using Birth Control responsibility.
But no artifical birth control is 100 percent effective and there are “ unexpected pregnancies “



Actually , 64.1 percent of women in the United States use sterilization or article birth control meds or devices consistently.
Oh, and the other 34.9 are not practicing unsafe sex.

17 percent are not sexually active and another 7.5 are pregnant or trying to become pregnant.

Leaving less than 8 percent who are high risk who are sexually active but not using birth control or protection.

To be fair some of those may be using the rhythm method or another natural method to try to avoid pregnancy.

Stats are from following link:

Almost Two-Thirds of Women in the U.S. Use Some Form of Birth Control | SE
 
There are also risks to the mother of having an abortion which you neglect to address. Since we are talking about health...


Women who have had abortions are 160% more likely than people who had the baby to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment, and remained high for up to 4 years after the abortion.

44% complained of nervous disorders.
36% had sleep disturbances.
31% had regrets about their decision.
11% were prescribed psychotropic medicine.
65% had some sort or symptoms of PTSD.
30% to 50% of women reported experiencing sexual dysfunction.
60% experienced suicidal ideation.
28% ATTEMTED SUICIDE. (suicide rates of women who had the baby were cut in half).
Women who had abortions twice as likely to become heavy smokers. (Smoking causes pretty bad health issues too, probably more so than having a baby)
45% of all abortions are repeat abortions.

There are more stats in the article that I did not mention, but it seems clear to me that having an abortion is much riskier than having the baby, at least psychologically, which can also lead to physical issues.

My sources disagree with the link you posted.

I have posted this before.

From the American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion



The Task Force concluded that there is no credible evidence that a single elective abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in and of itself causes mental health problems for adult women.

The task force took many studies worldwide and the methodology used and that was the conclusion of the study.


You are free download and read the 2008 study yourself.



Also:

According to 44 studies conducted worldwide from 1990 to 2011 that included several million women...
women with unwanted pregnancies who had abortions did not suffer more than those who gave birth.




Abortion Not A Mental Health Risk But Unwanted Pregnancies Are, Studies Find


Among women with unwanted pregnancies, those who had abortions were no more likely to suffer from problems including anxiety or depression than women who gave birth, the analysis by the U.K.'s National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health found.


Mental Health and Abortion Task Force Report
 
There are also risks to the mother of having an abortion which you neglect to address. Since we are talking about health...


Women who have had abortions are 160% more likely than people who had the baby to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment, and remained high for up to 4 years after the abortion.

44% complained of nervous disorders.
36% had sleep disturbances.
31% had regrets about their decision.
11% were prescribed psychotropic medicine.
65% had some sort or symptoms of PTSD.
30% to 50% of women reported experiencing sexual dysfunction.
60% experienced suicidal ideation.
28% ATTEMTED SUICIDE. (suicide rates of women who had the baby were cut in half).
Women who had abortions twice as likely to become heavy smokers. (Smoking causes pretty bad health issues too, probably more so than having a baby)
45% of all abortions are repeat abortions.

There are more stats in the article that I did not mention, but it seems clear to me that having an abortion is much riskier than having the baby, at least psychologically, which can also lead to physical issues.
Your source for this questionable information is Physicians for Life. If you go to their web page you will find that they are militantly anti-abortion with the same lack of truthfulness as all the other anti-abortion organizations when it comes to honesty about women, abortion, embryology, morals, sex education and statistics. It is impossible to check the source of the statistics you have posted because none of their sites will give sources that can be traced on the internet. Here is the list of currents events they are promoting. All of them belong to the extreme ends of the anti-abortion spectrum

Upcoming Events​

40 Days for Life International Campaign
NationalProLifeChalkDay.com
The National Day of Remembrance for Aborted Children Honor the grave sites of our unborn brothers and sisters.
Pregnancy Helplines: 888-4-OPTIONS, 800-712-HELP


The leading source from which most of these statistics come is a book published by Regenergy Publishers. They claim to be the major publishers of conservative literature in the US.

When you can quote honest statistics and studies get back to me and I will listen. Mean while get you information from some other source than Physicians for Life. They have no interest in honesty.
 
Last edited:

So there are folks who think it should be more heavily regulated or outlawed. Mississippi has one abortion clinic in the entire state, but it's working hard to get rid of that one, too. So, at least in this state, it has almost, de facto, been outlawed already, and it isn't the only state passing anti-abortion laws. That's what.


 
So there are folks who think it should be more heavily regulated or outlawed. Mississippi has one abortion clinic in the entire state, but it's working hard to get rid of that one, too. So, at least in this state, it has almost, de facto, been outlawed already, and it isn't the only state passing anti-abortion laws. That's what.




Roe v Wade has been reviewed and reaffirmed by several different Supreme Courts since 1973.

Let’s review when Casey V Planned Parenthood was decided and many conservatives were hopeful that Roe would be overturned , it was not overturned. In fact the best the Conservative justices could give their conservative base was the made up undue burden clause.

Which actually came back to bite Texas conservatives who tried to pass laws requiring all abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.


Look at :Whole woman’s Health v Hellerstedt


From the following:

………
Because the make-up of the Court had changed and become more conservative since Roe was first decided, many people believed that the Court might use this case to overturn Roe altogether.

In a 5-4 decision the Court reaffirmed its commitment to Roe and to the basic right of a woman to have an abortion under certain circumstances.

Justice O’Connor, who authored the majority opinion, argued that stare decisis required the Court to not overturn Roe. Stare decisis is the general principal that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from.

(However, the doctrine of stare decisis is not always relied upon. From time to time, the Court overrules earlier precedent that the Justices believe had been wrongly decided.) O’Connor argued that a generation of women had come to depend on the right to an abortion. Nonetheless, certain restrictions were upheld.

As a result of the case, a woman continues to have a right to an abortion before the fetus is viable (before the fetus could live independently outside of the mother’s womb). The Court held that states cannot prohibit abortion prior to viability. However, the states can regulate abortions before viability as long as the regulation does not place an “undue burden” on the access to abortion. After fetal viability, however, states have increased power to restrict the availability of abortions.

From:

Landmark Supreme Court Cases | The Casey Case: Roe Revisited?

 
Murder is a crime, so it's a valid analogy.

Zefs are not human beings. FACT. They cannot be murdered in my country. Your country is the same one that elected trump. 'Nuff said.

Well, yes, murder is a crime, but, like I said, you can't legally "murder" a dog. And we don't bring someone up on a separate criminal charge if the bitch is carrying puppies. Anyway, at what point do you think a fetus moves beyond being considered little more than property or an extension of the woman to become a human being? Is it the Medieval (Canadian ;)) belief that that occurs only after it's born, or does it occur sooner? In this country we've moved beyond that belief to at least regard a fetus or embryo a separate victim, depending on the jurisdiction. That's when the double think occurs, depending on who's doing the killing.

 
Back
Top Bottom