• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why ban abortion??

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
What is the point? Even if abortion is illegal it will be still carried out, only in back alleys with coathangers. Procedures that might kill not only the life inside the woman but the woman herself.

In a perfect world there would be no abortions or at least very few on special conditions such on medical grounds. But we are imperfect as a species, so we live in an imperfect world. Wiping out abortion may be impossible, but we can lessen the number of abortions.

1. Adoption reforms to make the adoption process more efficient. There are alot of childless couples waiting to adopt. (I include homosexuals in this as well). Run a campaign persuading women to give birth and consider adoption.
2. More sexual awareness. Treating sex like a taboo is gonna result in the teenager rebelling - just like smoking. Studies report that more sexual aware a country is, the smaller the teenage pregnency rate. The Netherlands has one of the smallest abortion rate and teenage pregnency rate in Europe and it is legal to have sex at 14 there. I know some of you want to keep your teenagers innocent and in denial. But this is the real world.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
GarzaUK said:
Even if abortion is illegal it will be still carried out, only in back alleys with coathangers. Procedures that might kill not only the life inside the woman but the woman herself.
Well, as much as I agree with you, I don't think this argument holds water.

While abortions occur regardless of laws prohibiting them, so do murders-- and the basis of anti-abortion arguments is that killing an unborn child is murder. We can't use the atrocious murder rate as justification to repeal laws prohibiting it.

Also, statistics show that the vast majority of illegal abortions were performed by licensed medical doctors in a clinical setting. "Back alley abortions" are practically a myth, with the rare exceptions more attributable to poverty and stupidity than to legal status.

GarzaUK said:
Wiping out abortion may be impossible, but we can lessen the number of abortions.
I agree with this for no other reason than to create more children for infertile couples to adopt and to bolster our birth rates. Also... abortion is generally wasteful compared to more preventative forms of birth control.

I also agree with your proposed reforms. Regarding your comments about "innocence and denial"... I think that's the major problem with conservative politics in the US right now. Conservatives take an admirable stance concerning the government's role in promoting morality and responsibility... but they do so in willful ignorance of reality.

They are attempting to deal with the world as they want it to be, instead of how it actually works.
 
F

FallingPianos

Korimyr the Rat said:
Well, as much as I agree with you, I don't think this argument holds water.

While abortions occur regardless of laws prohibiting them, so do murders-- and the basis of anti-abortion arguments is that killing an unborn child is murder. We can't use the atrocious murder rate as justification to repeal laws prohibiting it.

Also, statistics show that the vast majority of illegal abortions were performed by licensed medical doctors in a clinical setting. "Back alley abortions" are practically a myth, with the rare exceptions more attributable to poverty and stupidity than to legal status.



I agree with this for no other reason than to create more children for infertile couples to adopt and to bolster our birth rates. Also... abortion is generally wasteful compared to more preventative forms of birth control.

I also agree with your proposed reforms. Regarding your comments about "innocence and denial"... I think that's the major problem with conservative politics in the US right now. Conservatives take an admirable stance concerning the government's role in promoting morality and responsibility... but they do so in willful ignorance of reality.

They are attempting to deal with the world as they want it to be, instead of how it actually works.

I agree completely... except that i'd like to add that the problem with "innocence and denial" is in no way isolated to the conservative movement. liberals can be just as willfuly ignorant. especially concerning economics.

it seems to me that the general trend, is that conservatives are more concerned with the process for solving problems, then the outcomes itself. for example, they are likely to promote abstinence-only education for the sake of abstinence, regardless of how that effects the teenage pregnancy rates. a few of them acknowledge that they are hurting the teenage pregnancy rates, but many simply deny it because it hurts their case for absinence-only.

liberals on the other hand, are very likely to have a clear vision of what the ideal society ought to look like, but will try to use brute force to make society that way, whether or not it actually works. socialism, etc is the prime example.

ok, that was a tangent. I just always feel the need to bring such things up when people blame the conservative movement or the liberal movement, for things that are really much more universal.
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I believe more women choose to kill their unborn babies today since it is legal and socially acceptable. When it was not legal and completely socially unacceptable it was done much less by far.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
star2589 said:
liberals can be just as willfuly ignorant. especially concerning economics.
Certainly, but as you note, they are willfully ignorant concerning economics. My argument was specifically related to morality.

I'd also point out that "liberals"-- or the moderate Left-- are generally not as ignorant of economics as they are portrayed to be. They're willing to accept some economic loss in exchange for security and protection of what they believe to be basic rights. Some "socialistic" policies are also economically effective, such as public schooling, public transportation, and public healthcare.

Of course, as you go farther Left and start entering social democrat-- or Green-- territory, you start seeing people who don't understand the effectiveness of economic inequality or people who engage in blatant class warfare.

star2589 said:
it seems to me that the general trend, is that conservatives are more concerned with the process for solving problems, then the outcomes itself.
Yes. This is the basis of my objection-- they promote specific moral ideals over beneficial results. Since I don't generally agree with their specific moral ideals-- since they're derived from a religion I do not follow-- and I believe that the purpose of the government instilling moral values is to promote beneficial results, I find their efforts to be particularly frustrating.

star2589 said:
ok, that was a tangent. I just always feel the need to bring such things up when people blame the conservative movement or the liberal movement, for things that are really much more universal.
It's a fair complaint. There are a lot of partisan hacks out there, and I share your belief that they're generally doing far more harm than good.
 
F

FallingPianos

Korimyr the Rat said:
I'd also point out that "liberals"-- or the moderate Left-- are generally not as ignorant of economics as they are portrayed to be. They're willing to accept some economic loss in exchange for security and protection of what they believe to be basic rights. Some "socialistic" policies are also economically effective, such as public schooling, public transportation, and public healthcare.

Of course, as you go farther Left and start entering social democrat-- or Green-- territory, you start seeing people who don't understand the effectiveness of economic inequality or people who engage in blatant class warfare.
thats probably true. part of it, is that the people i've been surrounded by have been the social democrats and greens.

Korimyr the Rat said:
Yes. This is the basis of my objection-- they promote specific moral ideals over beneficial results. Since I don't generally agree with their specific moral ideals-- since they're derived from a religion I do not follow-- and I believe that the purpose of the government instilling moral values is to promote beneficial results, I find their efforts to be particularly frustrating.
yeah, its exactly the same for me. The most frusterating thing about it, is that when their moral ideas are derived from religion, that there is no way to reason with them, because religion is inherently unreasonable. There's often no way to change someone's mind without trying to change their religious beliefs, which isnt something Im going to try to do.
 

Indy

Phoenecian
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
2,089
Reaction score
408
Location
Chicago
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I am so glad to FIANALLY stumble upon a thread where everybody speaks politely to each other and there isn't any name calling etc. Really everybody, thanks for that. With that said:

I agree with most of the previous posts. I truelly think that if there was any way to join together the moderate republicans and the moderate demacrats into one "Purple?" party that the nation would be better off. The FAR right believe that absolutely no abortion should be allowed and all who practice it should be put to death like their unborn children, the FAR left believe that all abortions should be leagle up until the actual birth happends no matter how developed the child is. Both sides are rediculous. The truth of the matter is (even though I'm sure somebody will debate this) that the majority of americans agree with birth control, sex education, and early term abortions including and not limited to the morning after pill. Personally I think to debate that issue would show the debaters utter failure to grasp reality.

I also think that most americans are against extreme late term abortions and partial birth abortions. In a rape or incest case there is no excuse that the person can not get an abortion in the earlier terms of her pregnancy and to wait that long is kinda her fault. End of story.

Now, I believe those are the opinions of most of America (i.e. the moderates), whether or not I believe in them should hold no bearing to the subject at hand. Which leads me to my next point.

Since there even IS a debate on this (once again from both extreme poles of the political spectrum) means that no legislation should be made or even attempted on banning all abortions or allowing partial birth abortions. Doing so is nothing short of trying to force the minorities viewpoint onto the majority which is NOT how a demacratic system is intended to work.

If you don't like abortion, fine. If your religeous views don't allow you to practice birth control or abortion, fine. If you think that all people who have an abortion or take part in one are going to hell, also fine. BUT, do not try to force your viewpoints onto the majority that obviously does not folow suit. DO NOT PRACTICE IN WHAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE. End of story. Just because it is legal to practice abortion does not mean that you have to. Why must other's practice your religon if they do not believe the same as you?

And for those who are trying to make the point that they are the "voice" of those unborn children who cannot speak for themselves, do so through counceling and persuation, not through brute force and scare tactics. It is far easier to talk to people and try to convince them to your way than it is to fight them into submission.

And lastly (I promise :2razz: ) the idea that making abortion illegal will somehow lower the numbers of abortion in this country is utter poppycock. Look at what happend during prohibition. Did the country stop drinking? No, in fact it went WAY out of hand and crime when dramatically up. Is that what you want to happen? I think not. I believe that it will hurt the cause more than help. In this day and age of medicine, do we truely believe that abortion drugs from other countries will not find their way into this country through gangs and mobs?

Once again, thanks for keeping this discussion civil and I would like to hear some opposing viewpoints on the matter and whether or not they believe we can come to a compromise. Or perhaps do you believe that there can be no compromise on this issue?

Just my two cents.
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
mnpollock said:
I am so glad to FIANALLY stumble upon a thread where everybody speaks politely to each other and there isn't any name calling etc. Really everybody, thanks for that. With that said:

I agree with most of the previous posts. I truelly think that if there was any way to join together the moderate republicans and the moderate demacrats into one "Purple?" party that the nation would be better off. The FAR right believe that absolutely no abortion should be allowed and all who practice it should be put to death like their unborn children, the FAR left believe that all abortions should be leagle up until the actual birth happends no matter how developed the child is. Both sides are rediculous. The truth of the matter is (even though I'm sure somebody will debate this) that the majority of americans agree with birth control, sex education, and early term abortions including and not limited to the morning after pill. Personally I think to debate that issue would show the debaters utter failure to grasp reality.

I also think that most americans are against extreme late term abortions and partial birth abortions. In a rape or incest case there is no excuse that the person can not get an abortion in the earlier terms of her pregnancy and to wait that long is kinda her fault. End of story.

Now, I believe those are the opinions of most of America (i.e. the moderates), whether or not I believe in them should hold no bearing to the subject at hand. Which leads me to my next point.

Since there even IS a debate on this (once again from both extreme poles of the political spectrum) means that no legislation should be made or even attempted on banning all abortions or allowing partial birth abortions. Doing so is nothing short of trying to force the minorities viewpoint onto the majority which is NOT how a demacratic system is intended to work.

If you don't like abortion, fine. If your religeous views don't allow you to practice birth control or abortion, fine. If you think that all people who have an abortion or take part in one are going to hell, also fine. BUT, do not try to force your viewpoints onto the majority that obviously does not folow suit. DO NOT PRACTICE IN WHAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE. End of story. Just because it is legal to practice abortion does not mean that you have to. Why must other's practice your religon if they do not believe the same as you?

And for those who are trying to make the point that they are the "voice" of those unborn children who cannot speak for themselves, do so through counceling and persuation, not through brute force and scare tactics. It is far easier to talk to people and try to convince them to your way than it is to fight them into submission.

And lastly (I promise :2razz: ) the idea that making abortion illegal will somehow lower the numbers of abortion in this country is utter poppycock. Look at what happend during prohibition. Did the country stop drinking? No, in fact it went WAY out of hand and crime when dramatically up. Is that what you want to happen? I think not. I believe that it will hurt the cause more than help. In this day and age of medicine, do we truely believe that abortion drugs from other countries will not find their way into this country through gangs and mobs?

Once again, thanks for keeping this discussion civil and I would like to hear some opposing viewpoints on the matter and whether or not they believe we can come to a compromise. Or perhaps do you believe that there can be no compromise on this issue?

Just my two cents.
I'd just say that since the nation hasn't voted on whether abortion should be legal or not it's tough to agree that most people would support it.

I think with condoms, birth control, and the morning after pill there should be no need for surgical abortions except when the mothers life is endanger and I don't consider myself to be an extremist.
 

Synch

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
564
Reaction score
16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Banning abortion would mean one thing..

More Democrats... which means they will make it legal against, lowering the # of Democrats in the future, Republicans will take control and ban abortion.

It's an endless cycle that way. :3oops:
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Korimyr the Rat said:
Also, statistics show that the vast majority of illegal abortions were performed by licensed medical doctors in a clinical setting. "Back alley abortions" are practically a myth, with the rare exceptions more attributable to poverty and stupidity than to legal status.
Could you give a link to some of those numbers please?
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
End of story said:
If you don't like abortion, fine. If your religeous views don't allow you to practice birth control or abortion, fine. If you think that all people who have an abortion or take part in one are going to hell, also fine. BUT, do not try to force your viewpoints onto the majority that obviously does not folow suit. DO NOT PRACTICE IN WHAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE. End of story. Just because it is legal to practice abortion does not mean that you have to. Why must other's practice your religon if they do not believe the same as you?
I observed the inherent, self-evident humanity of the unborn long before I accepted Christ, so please do not assume that opposing abortion is a religious practice or is derived purely from religious views.

Abortion is not up for a vote, and even if it were, ideas expressed here do not constitute such a vote, nor do any views expressed here = effecting legislation. The idea that a post is the same as forcing a view is misguided at best.

I believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of your ideological opposition. Pro life sees the unborn as a person. Ending it's life is no more or less justifyable than ending your's or mine. Pro life sees that there are 2 people physically involved in the pregnancy: the mother and the unborn. It is not a matter of what a woman can do with her own body, it is a matter of what a woman can do with someone ells's body. That someone ells being, as I said, the unborn.

***
Just braking your balls with the "End of story" bit. You see, when someone uses the fraze "end of story", they are dismissing all other points, and therefore are not worth debating with. The same is true for "cut and dry", "period" and the conjunction "but". Those are conversation-enders and fight-starters.

It's the same thing as if you said your piece, then left the room and closed the door. What, then, is the point in even reading your posts?
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Jerry said:
Could you give a link to some of those numbers please?
Yes, if you'll give me awhile to dig it up. It's not one of my pet arguments-- I've seen the evidence attached to pro-life refutations of the "rusty coathanger" scare tactic.

edit: http://www.ylcss.edu.hk/Intranet/E-Class/life/CHAPTERS/F-07.HTM#sect7

Pardon the source; it's obviously biased towards a right-to-life position, but it's also annotated and sourced. The numbers add up and their reasoning is relatively sound.
 
Last edited:

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Korimyr the Rat said:
Yes, if you'll give me awhile to dig it up. It's not one of my pet arguments-- I've seen the evidence attached to pro-life refutations of the "rusty coathanger" scare tactic.

edit: http://www.ylcss.edu.hk/Intranet/E-Class/life/CHAPTERS/F-07.HTM#sect7

Pardon the source; it's obviously biased towards a right-to-life position, but it's also annotated and sourced. The numbers add up and their reasoning is relatively sound.
Ah, thank you for that. It seems that neither side is impervious to extreme emotional actions.

About coat-hanger abortions, since in the 50's a woman could receve an abortion if her life were in danger, why isn't any of the blame for such coat-hanger abortions placed on the woman herself? Why doesn't she hold some, if not most, if not all of the responsibility for mutilating herself?

I mean, if a woman were placed in the position where she had to choose between carrying out a healthy pregnancy or seriously endangering her health, even her life, why is the result of her decision to go with the coat hanger placed on anyone other than herself?

I thought that this whole thing was a matter of privacy. It was her choice. If those 2 things are true, then she has no one to blame for her self mutelation but herself.
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Jerry said:
I mean, if a woman were placed in the position where she had to choose between carrying out a healthy pregnancy or seriously endangering her health, even her life, why is the result of her decision to go with the coat hanger placed on anyone other than herself?

I thought that this whole thing was a matter of privacy. It was her choice. If those 2 things are true, then she has no one to blame for her self mutelation but herself.
Excellent point.
 

jimmyjack

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
1,166
Reaction score
1
Location
U.K England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
GarzaUK said:
What is the point? Even if abortion is illegal it will be still carried out, only in back alleys with coathangers.

Then we should legalise murder for the same reason.
 

taxedout

NONE
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
949
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
mnpollock said:
And lastly (I promise :2razz: ) the idea that making abortion illegal will somehow lower the numbers of abortion in this country is utter poppycock. Look at what happend during prohibition. Did the country stop drinking? No, in fact it went WAY out of hand and crime when dramatically up. Is that what you want to happen? I think not.
This is somewhat of a silly argument.
If you would like to extend this same logic to the gun controll argument however, I'll be forced to reconsider my position.
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
How 'bout we ban it cause it's unconstitutional seeing as how our forefathers were interested in protecting us as well as our posterity.....

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I know this argument is weak, though I've seen weaker. However that pesky word "posterity" is in there and it certainly deserves at least some pause for consideration.
 
Last edited:

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
mnpollock said:
And lastly (I promise ) the idea that making abortion illegal will somehow lower the numbers of abortion in this country is utter poppycock. Look at what happend during prohibition. Did the country stop drinking? No, in fact it went WAY out of hand and crime when dramatically up. Is that what you want to happen? I think not.
According to About.com, in 1973 there were 774,600 abortions. This number has gon up tremendously, to 1,365,700 abortions in 1996.

Roe-v-Wade was argued on the basis of a woman's health. What Roe-v-Wade has become is abortion-on-demand. A right to privacy nor the woman's health are common ground for this discrepancy. Availability, however, is. Take away the easy availability and abortion occurrences will drop.

If you wish to liken your argument to probation then I suggest that you provide some numbers showing the quantity of liquor, both legal and illegal variants, from before, during and after probation.

As to the notion that Roe-v-Wade somehow provided a woman with the unalienable right to abortion-on-demand, consider the words of MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring*
"Of course, States must have broad power, within the limits indicated in the opinions, to regulate the subject of abortions, but where the consequences of state intervention are so severe, uncertainty must be avoided as much as possible".

Other than establishing a fetus as a "person", the other way to defeat Roe-v-Wade is for the states to be perfectly crystal clear on reasonable requirements to establish that the woman's life is in danger, or that the pregnancy was caused by rape or insest.

If the states can do this, then Roe-v-Wade is gon and the states are free to regulate abortion as they see fit.

Roe-v-Wade never contradicted the state's right to regulate abortion. Roe-v-Wade was about clarity of legal requirement.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
talloulou said:
I think with condoms, birth control, and the morning after pill there should be no need for surgical abortions except when the mothers life is endanger and I don't consider myself to be an extremist.
But per the last CDC evaluation of this, almost 60% of abortions were after msome form of contraceptive failure. Now, some of this is per the imperfect use and may be helped by sex-ed, but not all of it.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Jerry said:
I believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of your ideological opposition. Pro life sees the unborn as a person. Ending it's life is no more or less justifyable than ending your's or mine.
So can you give any example where a person can force another person to give them their bodily resources against their will? WHy does the personhood even matter? I certainly don't have the right to take your bodily resources against your will, even if I would die otherwise, and even if it would be of no consequense to you.

With such a low standard for bodily autonomy, why would fetal personhood matter at all?

Pro life sees that there are 2 people physically involved in the pregnancy: the mother and the unborn. It is not a matter of what a woman can do with her own body, it is a matter of what a woman can do with someone ells's body. That someone ells being, as I said, the unborn.
yes, you are saying that she can be forced to give of her bodily resources against her will, a duty NOBODY else suffers. How is that not discriminatory?
 
F

FallingPianos

steen said:
yes, you are saying that she can be forced to give of her bodily resources against her will, a duty NOBODY else suffers. How is that not discriminatory?
it is discriminatory. I discriminate between people who don't take care of strangers, and people who dont take care of their offspring.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
steen said:
So can you give any example where a person can force another person to give them their bodily resources against their will?
Hmmm......the fetus doesn't "force" it, so pregnancy doesn't apply.....I think that military people can be ordered to do this.

WHy does the personhood even matter?
The constitution only applies to "persons". See Roe-v-Wade section 9a.

I certainly don't have the right to take your bodily resources against your will, even if I would die otherwise, and even if it would be of no consequence to you.
You would have the right to use my bodily resources against my will if I were pregnant with you, because I would be in error if I did not wish to freely give it, and you, being unborn, are innocent of all crime, in all ways.

With such a low standard for bodily autonomy, why would fetal personhood matter at all?
Divelopmental stages are irrelevant. A person's life begins at conseption.
I thought that you knew that that is the point upon which pro life and pro choice disagree. If I were to accept your premis that a person's life does not begin at conseption, but at, say, 22-24 weeks allong, then I would have the pro choice conclusion that abortion is strictly a woman's medical privit matter.

The Supreme Court even agree with that point.

yes, you are saying that she can be forced to give of her bodily resources against her will, a duty NOBODY else suffers. How is that not discriminatory?
Not withstanding extenuating circumstances, it is the woman who decides rather she will expose herself to becoming pregnant. Since she is the one who makes that distinction, if anyone is discriminating, it is she.

As it is, if you see any unfairness here, it is assigned by nature, not man.

Your argument is just as silly as if I were to accuse others of discriminating against men for not allowing us naturally give of our bodily resources directly to the fetus when we wish it.

You'll have to excuse me for not shering the liberal's victim mentality and persecution complex.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
star2589 said:
it is discriminatory. I discriminate between people who don't take care of strangers, and people who dont take care of their offspring.
Well, there really isn't an "offspring" until it has sprung off, been born.

And I am happy that at least ONE prolifer has the guts to admit that they are discriminating against the woman as compared to the duties they place on everybody else.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Jerry said:
Hmmm......the fetus doesn't "force" it, so pregnancy doesn't apply.....
But YOU are trying to do this to her, so it does apply.

I think that military people can be ordered to do this.
nope.

The constitution only applies to "persons". See Roe-v-Wade section 9a.
But then, if the fetus was a person, would it have the right to use a woman's bodily resources against her will?

You would have the right to use my bodily resources against my will if I were pregnant with you, because I would be in error if I did not wish to freely give it, and you, being unborn, are innocent of all crime, in all ways.
But ONLY in that situation, right? So you ARE discriminating against the pregnant woman with a duty you want to exxcuse everybody else from, including yourself.

Divelopmental stages are irrelevant. A person's life begins at conseption.
So the sperm and egg are dead?

I thought that you knew that that is the point upon which pro life and pro choice disagree. If I were to accept your premis that a person's life does not begin at conseption, but at, say, 22-24 weeks allong, then I would have the pro choice conclusion that abortion is strictly a woman's medical privit matter.

The Supreme Court even agree with that point.
Rather, it mentions it.

Not withstanding extenuating circumstances, it is the woman who decides rather she will expose herself to becoming pregnant. Since she is the one who makes that distinction, if anyone is discriminating, it is she.
Nonsense. She no more consent to pregnancy than smokers consent to lung cancer. So until you object to the removal of tumors, that argument is hypocritical.

As it is, if you see any unfairness here, it is assigned by nature, not man.
Nope. As there is a medical treatment to alleviate the unwanted medical condition in the form of the medical treatment option of an abortion.

You'll have to excuse me for not shering the liberal's victim mentality and persecution complex.
You'll have to excuse me for not sharing the fascists oppressive hate mongering mentality and oppression complex.
 
F

FallingPianos

steen said:
Well, there really isn't an "offspring" until it has sprung off, been born.
I was trying to think of a word that refers to both a fetus's relationship to its mother, and a born childs relationship to its mother, that hasnt gotten you upset yet. :p

do you have a better suggestion?

steen said:
And I am happy that at least ONE prolifer has the guts to admit that they are discriminating against the woman as compared to the duties they place on everybody else.
I wouldnt call it discriminating against women, but thats probably for another debate.

and I'm not strictly pro-life. im ok with abortions that are done early enough in the pregnancy. I'm just pro-life compared to you, but practically everyone is.
 
Top Bottom