• 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!

"We want to outlaw abortion in Oklahoma"

So what? The reasons a woman might choose an abortion is none of your (our) business. It is a matter for her, her doctor, and her family. The government has no business sticking its nose into a woman's personal decision.

But now the USSC is about to declare there is no right to privacy, that your medical decisions and records are subject to perusal by the government. Congratulations.

The essence of the matter is that some people think that "life" begins at conception. And, therefore, once conceived (regardless of the manner of conception) then the egg becomes "human". Ipso-facto, a human is conceived and ultimately "born".

Let's remember the meaning of the word "born": Existing as a result of birth, which is given by the pregnant-female*.

Meaning she has "property-rights" upon the child. When does the child "obtain similar self-property rights of him-or-herself"? At an age attained as specified by whatever law in any given state. Methinks ...
 
Why? I cited the source, it won't bite you, if that's what you're afraid of; but there are plenty others, like Guttmacher for example - numbers vary slightly, but not significantly.

It'd be a profound breath of fresh air if lefties would abandon even a skosh of their own hypocrisy to apply that same logic to their "pet" laws. Laws like, oh I don't know - gun laws.
What gun laws? Never mind. We all recognize you're trying to hijack the thread because your antiabortion rhetoric is failing to persuade anyone.
 
I didn't say it was. Are you saying there shouldn't have to be a reason to abort a baby?
First, not a baby, a fetus. Use proper terminology.

Second, a woman who seeks an abortion should not have to provide a reason to you, me or the government. It's none of our business why she wants an abortion.
 
Ok - that all sounds very high minded and all - but c'mon, do you really expect us to believe the essence of the abortion argument is about a woman's sovereignty over her body?

As virtuous as that sounds, it seems to me that the issue is far less noble than that - being simply the right to legally abort her baby if she happens to get pregnant. Period. I mean, you can wrap it in pretty paper and put a bow and ribbon on it, but it doesn't alter the essence of the issue.
And truth be told, the vast majority of arguments FOR abortion rarely mention what you served up here as "the paramount issue."
The essence of the issue is it is none of your business. Why do you think that your input into a conversation between a woman and her doctor is is any way warranted?

If she decides to get her tubes tied, is that any of your business? No, it is not.

If she chooses to try IVF to bear a child is that any of your business? No, it is not.

So why on earth do you think it is any of your business if a woman seeks an abortion?
 
Asked and answered already - see my post #96

Ok - you want 'specifics'? Here they are:

Method #1 - Suction aspiration, or "vacuum curettage," is the abortion technique used in most first trimester abortions. A powerful suction tube with a sharp cutting edge is inserted into the womb through the dilated cervix. The suction dismembers the body of the developing baby and tears the placenta from the wall of the uterus, sucking blood, amniotic fluid, placental tissue, and fetal parts into a collection bottle.

Method #2 - Dilation and Curettage - In this technique, the cervix is dilated or stretched to permit the insertion of a loop shaped steel knife. The body of the baby is cut into pieces and removed and the placenta is scraped off the uterine wall. [14] Blood loss from D & C, or "mechanical" curettage is greater than for suction aspiration, as is the likelihood of uterine perforation and infection.

Method #3 - Chemical, also used in the first trimester. RU486 or Methotrexate are basically injected either into the uterus or muscle - both initiate the disintengration of the uterine environment that sustains, protects, and nourishes the baby, depriving it of the food, oxygen, and fluids he or she needs to survive.

Method #4 - Dilation and Evacuation - Used to abort unborn children as old as 24 weeks, this method is similar to the D&C. The difference is that forceps with sharp metal jaws are used to grasp parts of the developing baby, which are then twisted and torn away. This continues until the child’s entire body is removed from the womb. Because the baby’s skull has often hardened to bone by this time, the skull must sometimes be compressed or crushed to facilitate removal. If not carefully removed, sharp edges of the bones may cause cervical laceration. Bleeding from the procedure may be profuse.

Method #5 - Salt Poisoning (2nd & 3rd trimester) - A needle is inserted through the mother’s abdomen and 50-250 ml (as much as a cup) of amniotic fluid is withdrawn and replaced with a solution of concentrated salt. The baby breathes in, swallowing the salt, and is poisoned. The chemical solution also causes painful burning and deterioration of the baby’s skin. Usually, after about an hour, the child dies. The mother goes into labor about 33 to 35 hours after instillation and delivers a dead, burned, and shriveled baby. About 97% of mothers deliver their dead babies within 72 hours.

Method #6 - Dilation and Extraction or IDE - This procedure is used to abort women who are 20 to 32 weeks pregnant -- or even later into pregnancy. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist reaches into the uterus, grabs the unborn baby’s leg with forceps, and pulls the baby into the birth canal, except for the head, which is deliberately kept just inside the womb. (At this point in a partial-birth abortion, the baby is alive.) Then the abortionist jams scissors into the back of the baby’s skull and spreads the tips of the scissors apart to enlarge the wound. After removing the scissors, a suction catheter is inserted into the skull and the baby’s brains are sucked out. The collapsed head is then removed from the uterus.
Src.

Was that "specific" enough? Now maybe you can explain to all of us what is RIGHT about ANY of the above?

No; and again, asked and answered already - see my post #96. My use of the word 'convenience' wasn't to minimize but to summarize.

And don't presume to judge me - I know more about the "needs" and "circumstances" and "social and economic" issues faced by those who get pregnant than you imagine.
You might as well be describing the procedures used to remove an unwanted tooth. Again, it is none of your business why a woman might seek an abortion or have a tooth removed.
 
ABORTION LAWS

First, not a baby, a fetus. Use proper terminology.

Second, a woman who seeks an abortion should not have to provide a reason to you, me or the government. It's none of our business why she wants an abortion.

And when you might murder someone, would you consider that you need not provide a reason?

What we are talking about, here, is taking an individual's life. Birth, that is, to be imbued with "life", begins not with the impregnation of the fetus (as some like to think) but also when the child exits the uterus (as others like to think).

Now, you may not-at-all like that definitional-duality because it does not coincide with your own sentiment that birth begins with the impregnation of a female human-egg. But, "life" is not defined uniquely in that manner. The definition of "life" (from here): Life Begins at Fertilization

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception. "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote." "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

The fertilized-embryo is the beginning of life and therefore to kill it is tantamount to death. So, does a woman have the right to abrogate the life of a living human-creature even if in embryonic stage.

Yes, If the law allows her to do so! No, if the law does not allow her to do so!

Who makes the law in this matter of human life-or-death? We humans do, and we do it very differently depending upon national-sentiments. See here:
Map of the world's abortion laws
 
HISTORIC VIEW OF ABORTION IN AMERICA

From here: About six-in-ten Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases

More than a quarter-century of public views regarding abortion-rights in the US:

ft_2021.05.06_abortion_01.png
 
Again, it is none of your business to approve or disapprove of the reasons a woman seeks an abortion.

And please don't pretend to care about "a human life." Once that fetus develops into a newborn, you are done caring. You don't want to feed it, clothe it, provide it healthcare, or educate it. You couldn't care less if it spends its entire life in squalid filth and poverty.
Oh, but you'll be more than happy to build the prison you're going to put it in when the time comes.
privately held pay per bed prison industrial complex...
feed by the people of color kindergarten to prison pipeline...
and to add insult to injury; farm the inmates out as cheap labor...
and the beat goes ooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnn...
-Peace
 
Last edited:
ABORTION LAWS



And when you might murder someone, would you consider that you need not provide a reason?

What we are talking about, here, is taking an individual's life. Birth, that is, to be imbued with "life", begins not with the impregnation of the fetus (as some like to think) but also when the child exits the uterus (as others like to think).

Now, you may not-at-all like that definitional-duality because it does not coincide with your own sentiment that birth begins with the impregnation of a female human-egg. But, "life" is not defined uniquely in that manner. The definition of "life" (from here): Life Begins at Fertilization



The fertilized-embryo is the beginning of life and therefore to kill it is tantamount to death. So, does a woman have the right to abrogate the life of a living human-creature even if in embryonic stage.

Yes, If the law allows her to do so! No, if the law does not allow her to do so!

Who makes the law in this matter of human life-or-death? We humans do, and we do it very differently depending upon national-sentiments. See here:
Map of the world's abortion laws
So, based on this definition, it would be murder to abort an ectopic pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy has ZERO CHANCE of delivering a viable infant. Any woman who attempts to carry an ectopic pregnancy to term is at grave risk of death herself, but apparently, that is the preferable outcome to many anti-abortionists.
 
And when you might murder someone, would you consider that you need not provide a reason?
You've heard of cloning, correct? Every cell in our bodies have the potential of becoming another human being. Therefore, the government and all the right-to-lifers ought to be concerned every time you clip your toenails.

therefore, once conceived (regardless of the manner of conception) then the egg becomes "human". Ipso-facto, a human is conceived and ultimately "born".

How do you feel about fertilized embryos in a petri dish? That's essentially what is created when a woman seeks In Vitro Fertilization. Dozens of eggs are fertilized and some are then implanted in the woman's uterus. The unused embryos are then simply disposed of - MURDERED! Oh, the HORROR! The INHUMANITY!
 
So, based on this definition, it would be murder to abort an ectopic pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy has ZERO CHANCE of delivering a viable infant. Any woman who attempts to carry an ectopic pregnancy to term is at grave risk of death herself, but apparently, that is the preferable outcome to many anti-abortionists.

And that would be what percentage of pregnancies that apply?

About one in 50 (or 2%). All pregnancies are "chances" and in 2019, the infant mortality rate in the United States was 5.6 deaths per 1,000 live births. (0.6%)

So?

So, nothing - 18% of all pregnancies abort in the US. Now THAT is something ... !
 
And that would be what percentage of pregnancies that apply?

About one in 50 (or 2%). All pregnancies are "chances" and in 2019, the infant mortality rate in the United States was 5.6 deaths per 1,000 live births. (0.6%)

So?

So, nothing - 18% of all pregnancies abort in the US. Now THAT is something ... !
And 25% of all first pregnancies spontaneously abort. Again I ask, what business is that of yours?
 
Hands down the number one reason why abortion is "necessary" for most is convenience (what most will call "social and economic reasons")- so they don't have to pay the consequences for having had sex and managing to get pregnant in the process.

Statistically, that's about 96.5% of all reasons. All other reasons add up to about 3.5%. Source

Since when are things like making sure you keep your job, can put food on the table, keep a roof over your family's heads, uphold your obligations and commitments to church, community, employer, society, etc 'conveniences?" They're all necessities in life, and civilities and expectations in one's social contract. Is staying off welfare 'a convenience?'
No woman has an abortion unless she needs it. Your opinion of that "need" is unimportant, since you dont know her circumstances and you wont pay her consequences.​
Btw, what's wrong with having an abortion? Please be specific?

Of course you are welcome to consider the greater part of your life and responsibilities and commitments as 'conveniences' but most people and the dictionary would disagree. I'm sorry if you do feel that all in your life is so cheaply held.
 
And 25% of all first pregnancies spontaneously abort. Again I ask, what business is that of yours?

This is a "Debate Forum". (First pregnancies do not matter - too many are just "accidents". They are probably welcomed by most "mothers" who have them and terminate them just as quickly.)

PS: You go on "Ignore". Do learn "how-to-debate"!
 
This is a "Debate Forum". (First pregnancies do not matter - too many are just "accidents". They are probably welcomed by most "mothers" who have them and terminate them just as quickly.)

Do you have anything besides personal opinion to support that?

My question is, why on earth would a woman 'welcome' a pregnancy she does not wish to continue?

It seems you dont even recognize the costs, pain, risks of the medical procedure. You seem to view it as a trendy day off of work. That's incredibly insulting to women...do you have anything besides your personal 'feelings' to support that?
 
Back
Top Bottom