• 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!

Why the rape and incest exclusion.

craig said:
Wouldn't it be a better to compromise by making abortions before midterm a matter of choice and after require a doctor certify that the life of the mother is in danger and require legal permission to perform an abortion? It is extreme to consider either an unborn child is present after conception or that an unborn child is not present during the third trimester.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. Some women dont even know they're pregnant until they give birth. It does boggle the mind but it happens. Not only that, some states have restricted access to abortions so much, women cant GET an abortion that quickly when they finally do find they're pregnant. In some of the very large states, there is only ONE facility left where they can get an abortion...they may need to take off work, spend the night, (so need to save up even more $$$), travel, etc.

But most of all, no woman has to give any reason why she needs an abortion and does not need the govt's permission to do so. If her life situation, job, loses her partner and place to live, etc etc etc...she does not need to ask permission and the govt doenst have the right to force her to give birth against her will. Women's 'security of the person,' bodily autonomy, is protected under the 4th. There are several precedents that protect this.
 
craig said:
Wouldn't it be a better to compromise by making abortions before midterm a matter of choice and after require a doctor certify that the life of the mother is in danger and require legal permission to perform an abortion? It is extreme to consider either an unborn child is present after conception or that an unborn child is not present during the third trimester.
Click to expand...

Might not be unreasonable but I don't consider it likely to ever gain traction.

Ending elective abortions will never be accomplished judicially or legislatively anyway.
 
Lursa said:
In some of the very large states, there is only ONE facility left where they can get an abortion...they may need to take off work, spend the night, (so need to save up even more $$$), travel, etc.
Click to expand...

my my my, such inconvenience.
 
Dayton3 said:
my my my, such inconvenience.
Click to expand...
Well it may cost her her job, it costs considerable $$ for procedure, travel, motel, and the longer she has to save $$, the later the abortion occurs...which so many get upset over.

And if she cant afford that, she sure cant afford a kid :D Heh...you walked right into that one.
 
Lursa said:
Well it may cost her her job, it costs considerable $$ for procedure, travel, motel, and the longer she has to save $$, the later the abortion occurs...which so many get upset over.

And if she cant afford that, she sure cant afford a kid :D Heh...you walked right into that one.
Click to expand...

If she doesn't have a job then getting time off for an abortion should be easy.

You didn't think that through obviously.
 
Lursa said:
Absolutely not. Some women dont even know they're pregnant until they give birth. It does boggle the mind but it happens. Not only that, some states have restricted access to abortions so much, women cant GET an abortion that quickly when they finally do find they're pregnant. In some of the very large states, there is only ONE facility left where they can get an abortion...they may need to take off work, spend the night, (so need to save up even more $$$), travel, etc.

But most of all, no woman has to give any reason why she needs an abortion and does not need the govt's permission to do so. If her life situation, job, loses her partner and place to live, etc etc etc...she does not need to ask permission and the govt doenst have the right to force her to give birth against her will. Women's 'security of the person,' bodily autonomy, is protected under the 4th. There are several precedents that protect this.
Click to expand...
Your objection about the difficulty of getting an abortion would be solved with the compromise. Your support of late term abortions of likely viable children will never have wide support.
 
Dayton3 said:
If she doesn't have a job then getting time off for an abortion should be easy.

You didn't think that through obviously.
Click to expand...
Many hourly jobs dont provide much or any sick time, or vacation time, so she may lose the job OR have to take 2-3 days off unpaid. Then taking the bus (not supposed to drive right away) or get a motel if it's far...more $$$. You are not very in touch with real life for younger people are you?

So try again: And if she cant afford that, she sure cant afford a kid :D Heh...you walked right into that one.
 
craig said:
Your objection about the difficulty of getting an abortion would be solved with the compromise.
Click to expand...
It's not, women still need to travel hours for the procedure in some states. That requires time lost from work ($ in some cases), travel ($) esp by bus since cant drive right after, and an overnight stay ($). The longer it takes to save enough $$, including for the procedure, the later the abortion will take place. Then add if she doesnt even learn she's pregnant until 10-12 weeks, which is not uncommon.

Your support of late term abortions of likely viable children will never have wide support.
Click to expand...
Viability isnt until ~24 weeks. That's a long way from 'early' term.

And late term abortion doesnt need support...RvW didnt set any limit for abortions but it did give states the autonomy to decide if *after* viability (24 weeks) they wanted to restrict it. At least 9 states dont have any limits. Neither does all of Canada.

Interestingly enough...NO abortions of healthy viable fetuses take place in ANY states. So no laws are needed anyway.
 
Lursa said:
It's not, women still need to travel hours for the procedure in some states. That requires time lost from work ($ in some cases), travel ($) esp by bus since cant drive right after, and an overnight stay ($). The longer it takes to save enough $$, including for the procedure, the later the abortion will take place. Then add if she doesnt even learn she's pregnant until 10-12 weeks, which is not uncommon.
Click to expand...

If getting an abortion is important it should require sacrifice.
 
MamboDervish said:
Funny you should ask. What a coincidence. I've often wondered - why were rape and incest excluded from the "ten commandments"?
Sounds like someone must have been listening to a burning bush, eh?
Click to expand...

 
Dayton3 said:
If getting an abortion is important it should require sacrifice.
Click to expand...
You are ignoring the point. If she cannot afford an abortion, she cant afford a child. You cant even be honest about that.

And I agree...getting the abortion is an investment in the woman's health and future and is worth the sacrifice.
 
Elvira said:
Regardless of the means, the child did not ask to be conceived so why should they be punished?
Click to expand...
That is my own position, and, the only logically consistent one for the pro life cause.

:) But people are often terrible about being consistent, or logical, when powerful emotions are at play
 
Lursa said:
Sure you do. If they are the same as people...then you cannot kill them in cases of rape and incest.

Can you kill a baby that's born from rape? Can you kill a toddler that's the result of incest? No. So what distinction is there to be made, legally, for the unborn?
Click to expand...

Isn't this what some anti choicers say to us - if it's okay to kill the unborn, why not the born, too?
 
Scrabaholic said:
Not at all. It is easy to be against abortion when you know you will never be pregnant.
Click to expand...

So you are saying then that only a woman of child bearing age can have a position regarding abortion?

That would be discrimination.
 
VanceMack said:
Oh dood...no. See...the only people that cling to the misguided notion that 'zefs' are un-human are people like yourself that celebrate the slaught of unborn children to soothe the shame of knowing they are responsible for the slaughter of some 800 thousand unborn children a year. Dehumanize them, feel a little less dehumanized yourself. In fact...at least 4 European contries have laws affirming the Constitutional rights of unborn children. In the US, some 30 states have laws specifically addressing and protecting the rights of the unborn child, and inf act use that name as their standard. Another 8 states have partial laws protecting the human rights of unborn children.
Click to expand...
Just wondering, how much did it bother you not being born before you were born? I know it didn't bother me any
 
Scrabaholic said:
Not at all. It is easy to be against abortion when you know you will never be pregnant.
Click to expand...
Yes. The unborn are so morally uncomplicated. The trouble starts when they need food, housing and an education
 
Arlette said:
Just wondering, how much did it bother you not being born before you were born? I know it didn't bother me any
Click to expand...
Would it bother you if a child is murdered that you have never met? If so...why?
 
Arlette said:
Are you going to answer my question or just divert?
Click to expand...
Well...since I wasnt murdered before I was born I cant say. Would it bother you if a child is murdered that you have never met? If so...why? I'm not sure if you have ever had a baby or ever plan to have a baby...but if you were 8 months pregnant and someone kicked you and killed your baby, would you be pissed at the assault of you but be fine with your unborn child being murdered?
 
VanceMack said:
Well...since I wasnt murdered before I was born I cant say. Would it bother you if a child is murdered that you have never met? If so...why? I'm not sure if you have ever had a baby or ever plan to have a baby...but if you were 8 months pregnant and someone kicked you and killed your baby, would you be pissed at the assault of you but be fine with your unborn child being murdered?
Click to expand...
Of course you can't say because you were not aware of your existence.
No. Otherwise I would be bothered all day long about events that I have no control over.
Abortion is about control, denying women agency
 
VanceMack said:
Well...since I wasnt murdered before I was born I cant say.
Click to expand...
?? You couldnt say if you were 'murdered' :rolleyes: before you were born either. How about answering his question, without the emotional neediness, before asking your own? Why not recognize & acknowledge the meaningless emotional manipulation that's attempted when people have to resort to 'imagining' the unborn in women they dont even know?

Why not develop a real argument based on either the law or morality...or both?
 
Arlette said:
Of course you can't say because you were not aware of your existence.
No. Otherwise I would be bothered all day long about events that I have no control over.
Abortion is about control, denying women agency
Click to expand...
No...abortion is about saving lives...something we routinely do in this country because we value life...even if we dont know who those people are. However I agree there are people that have devalued life in general so much that they can dehumanize unborn children so they can justify their slaughter to defend the woman's right to kill a baby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom