• 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 wasn't abortion and "women's reproductive rights" more important to voters?

Gordy327 said:
What difference does it make? Conception can occur regardless of the circumstances, be it rape, incest, or consensual. That's nature. All you're doing is selecting which circumstances are appropriate or not for abortion, which is also a hypocritical position. And regardless of the circumstances, an embryo/fetus inhabits and feeds off the woman's body & bodily resources. She cannot be legaly compelled to have her body used to support another without consent, just as no one else can have their bodies used for another, per established legal precedent.
Click to expand...
My point that her comparing an embroyo or fetus to some alien invader, rapist or kidnapper, without making the distinction between pregancy from rape and pregnancy from consensual intercourse is a bit over the top.
 
MAGAnificent said:
My point that her comparing an embroyo or fetus to some alien invader, rapist or kidnapper, without making the distinction between pregancy from rape and pregnancy from consensual intercourse is a bit over the top.
Click to expand...
There is no distinction as far as gestation goes. It's still an embryo/fetus and abortion evicts it. So complaining about abortion in certain circumstances and not others is hypocritical. Why should abortion be allowed in rape or incest situations but not in consensual sex situations? The unborn is still an unborn in all situations.
 
Gordy327 said:
There is no distinction as far as gestation goes. It's still an embryo/fetus and abortion evicts it. So complaining about abortion in certain circumstances and not others is hypocritical. Why should abortion be allowed in rape or incest situations but not in consensual sex situations? The unborn is still an unborn in all situations.
Click to expand...
You are welcome to continue missing the point.
 
MAGAnificent said:
The above only applies in cases of rape or incest. Consensual sex is another matter. To nature, it's an invitation. And the concept of comparing an embroyo or fetus brought about by consensual intercourse to a rapist or kidnapper is beyond the pale.
Click to expand...

What does nature have to do with it? We dont deny skiers or drivers the safest medical procedures when they have accidents, do we? "Gravity" is "nature," right? Skiers fall victim to it sometimes. Were their broken legs "invited by gravity?" :rolleyes: So the answer is "No, we dont deny them."

Consensual sex is legal, acceptable social behavior, there is no legal or moral foundation to punish the woman for her birth control failing. So why should she be denied the safest medical procedure because of that accident?

And dont shift this to some other argument (move the goal post), I'm using your post and argument and countering it directly.

MAGAnificent said:
My point that her comparing an embroyo or fetus to some alien invader, rapist or kidnapper, without making the distinction between pregancy from rape and pregnancy from consensual intercourse is a bit over the top.
Click to expand...

What's the distinction in the humanity or status of the unborn? All you are focusing on is punishing the woman...so...it's not about killing the unborn, it's about punishing the woman for something that you consider "her fault," implying her having sex is wrong. That's judgement and you admit it's not about protecting the unborn.

This is the truth about a great many anti-choicers...it's not about protecting the unborn, if it was, no exceptions would be made for rape or incest or even the woman's health. It's about blaming the woman for her behavior and punishing her with...a child. That dehumanizes them both.
 
Last edited:
MAGAnificent said:
The above only applies in cases of rape or incest. Consensual sex is another matter. To nature, it's an invitation. And the concept of comparing an embroyo or fetus brought about by consensual intercourse to a rapist or kidnapper is beyond the pale.
Click to expand...
Nope.

When a woman consents to have sexual intercourse, every individual man has to get individual consent to the act with him individually.

If she consents to have PIV sex with X, that doesn't mean she consented to anal sex with him, let alone that she consented to have X's offspring implant in her uterus.

Again, if she consents to have sex with X on Thursday night once or twice, that doesn't mean she consents to have sex with anyone on Saturday or Wednesday or a week from the coming Sunday.

Consent to sexual intercourse is very specific. If the embryo is NOT X and she consented to sex only with X, she didn't consent to his child, so it IS rape. If the embryo implants and she didn't consent to implantation, it IS rape. If his 20 year old son tried to have sex with her a week later on the grounds that she consented to have sex with his dad a week earlier, or tried to violate her internal sex organs on the grounds that she consented to PIV sex with his dad, none of us would claim it wasn't rape. An embryo doesn't get a pass.
 
MAGAnificent said:
The above only applies in cases of rape or incest. Consensual sex is another matter. To nature, it's an invitation. And the concept of comparing an embroyo or fetus brought about by consensual intercourse to a rapist or kidnapper is beyond the pale.
Click to expand...
Nope. @Gordy327 is right. Allowing an exception is hypocritical. One either is against abortion or they support it.
 
Bodi said:
Nope. @Gordy327 is right. Allowing an exception is hypocritical. One either is against abortion or they support it.
Click to expand...

Either it's murder or it's not. They want to have it both ways...whichever slut shames women most it seems.

If it's a pregnancy from rape or incest...it's ok to kill it...because it's not her fault.​
​
If it's because her birth control failed or will 'just' destroy her kidneys or its defective but "might" survive...she chose to have sex so you cant kill it...it's "her consequences"...using the child as punishment. (So "Christian!" It dehumanizes both.)​

A few anti-choicers dont make those exceptions...so at least they're consistent, if even more cruel.
 
Bodi said:
Nope. @Gordy327 is right. Allowing an exception is hypocritical. One either is against abortion or they support it.
Click to expand...
There is no such rule of one's opinions. You do not get to decide everyone else's parameters. I am against abortion being used as a form of "Oops I did not intend to get pregnant" birth control. It should be restricted to "rape incest, or mortal danger to the life of the mother. However I am pragmatic enough to know I do not make the laws.
 
choiceone said:
Nope.

When a woman consents to have sexual intercourse, every individual man has to get individual consent to the act with him individually.

If she consents to have PIV sex with X, that doesn't mean she consented to anal sex with him, let alone that she consented to have X's offspring implant in her uterus.

Again, if she consents to have sex with X on Thursday night once or twice, that doesn't mean she consents to have sex with anyone on Saturday or Wednesday or a week from the coming Sunday.

Consent to sexual intercourse is very specific. If the embryo is NOT X and she consented to sex only with X, she didn't consent to his child, so it IS rape. If the embryo implants and she didn't consent to implantation, it IS rape. If his 20 year old son tried to have sex with her a week later on the grounds that she consented to have sex with his dad a week earlier, or tried to violate her internal sex organs on the grounds that she consented to PIV sex with his dad, none of us would claim it wasn't rape. An embryo doesn't get a pass.
Click to expand...
You are still not getting the point. I suppose you never will.
 
MAGAnificent said:
There is no such rule of one's opinions. You do not get to decide everyone else's parameters. I am against abortion being used as a form of "Oops I did not intend to get pregnant" birth control. It should be restricted to "rape incest, or mortal danger to the life of the mother. However I am pragmatic enough to know I do not make the laws.
Click to expand...
This is not about an opinion... this is about language. It is hypocritical to apply two different rules to the same thing. You either support Choice or you support Oppression.
 
Bodi said:
This is not about an opinion... this is about language. It is hypocritical to apply two different rules to the same thing. You either support Choice or you support Oppression.
Click to expand...
That is not rational enough to warrant a detailed response.
 
MAGAnificent said:
There is no such rule of one's opinions. You do not get to decide everyone else's parameters. I am against abortion being used as a form of "Oops I did not intend to get pregnant" birth control. It should be restricted to "rape incest, or mortal danger to the life of the mother. However I am pragmatic enough to know I do not make the laws.
Click to expand...
You offer no rational or legal basis why it should be restricted at all.
MAGAnificent said:
You are still not getting the point. I suppose you never will.
Click to expand...
When do you plan on making a point? Something besides "opinion" anyway.
MAGAnificent said:
That is not rational enough to warrant a detailed response.
Click to expand...
In other words, you're conceding the point as you have no rebuttal.
 
MAGAnificent said:
There is no such rule of one's opinions. You do not get to decide everyone else's parameters. I am against abortion being used as a form of "Oops I did not intend to get pregnant" birth control. It should be restricted to "rape incest, or mortal danger to the life of the mother. However I am pragmatic enough to know I do not make the laws.
Click to expand...

Using birth control isnt "oops." But it's not 100% as you know. So then women using birth control should still be allowed to have abortions, right?
 
MAGAnificent said:
You are still not getting the point. I suppose you never will.
Click to expand...
That is a Classic Pivot move employed by ones that have been thoroughly defeated in regular debate. Well done...

Now, can you debate with some facts for a change?
 
Josie said:
Looking back at the campaigns, election and everything in between, why do you think abortion wasn't more important to voters?
Click to expand...


Abortion was way down the list.

Suburban moms were expected to turn out for Harris big time on the abortion issues but as it turned out, they didn't think it was all that important.

Suburban moms think there should be some limitations on abortion.

The democrats spent millions on advertising spreading outright lies that republican candidates would ban abortions everywhere............................ and the moms saw right through the lies.
 
MAGAnificent said:
You are welcome to continue missing the point.
Click to expand...

MAGAnificent said:
You are still not getting the point. I suppose you never will.
Click to expand...

MAGAnificent said:
That is not rational enough to warrant a detailed response.
Click to expand...

MAGAnificent said:
Yawn.........
Click to expand...

MAGAnificent said:
No, it means the rant was not rational enough to warrant a detailed response. How did Roevember go?
Click to expand...

@Gordy327 you can see the level of debating skills that this guy has. 🤭
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom