Debate Now Honest Debate About Abortion: Rules Posted

[Mr. Friscus]

My point is that there are ethical reasons to have an abortion. If the pregnancy is determined to put the mother at serious risk and she is needed by other already born children, what should the choice be? Woman who are unable to conceive other than via fertility pills often are faced with multiple babies that have little chance to live unless one or more are removed from the womb. Should a woman be required to take to full term a baby so damaged it has little or chance to experience life?

Yes. It's a human being and deserves constitutional protections.

I'll do my best to be respectful to this theoretical couple.. but if they don't have the balls to care for the life they produced just because it wasn't pristine and exactly what they wanted, they need to own their short-coming, not try to claim false-compassion for the 9 month child they want to murder (I rarely use the word in the context of an abortion debate, but killing a 9 month old baby in the wound is murder). That child wants to live, no matter what condition it's in. Human psychology is filled with programming to maintain their lives. That child is a programmed human. That life should be respected and allowed the ability to be adopted and thrive to the best of their ability. No family/doctor bureaucracy should be able to snuff out a human life. Give the life a chance.

If the law is that doctors cannot perform an UNNECESSARY abortion, then there should be no time limit given on when abortion becomes necessity.

You can't have a law that uses terms like "unnecessary".. because it's so easily manipulated. I could name a many ways a radical doctor could justify an immoral abortion for a seeking mother that aren't "necessary".. such as a "mother's mental health", which has been mentioned as a reason in modern pro-abortion rhetoric.

That's not acceptable, no matter how much of a victim someone wants to make her out to be.

In a culture of life there must be protection for the unborn, yes, but not at the expense of giving government tyrannical authority that takes all choice from the mother, father, doctor.

It's not tyranny to protect a defined innocent life from a mother, father, and doctor that want to kill it. That's where government shines in its moral obligation.

 

[rampart]

You're missing the mark twice here:

1. Of course I meant voluntary "high volume" sex
2. You're speaking of the extreme exception, I'm speaking of the more common, general issue.



Nobody said anything you said. If you have to strawman and be extremely hyperbolic, perhaps this thread isn't for you.

we are talking about the "extreme exceptions" that have suddenly become commonplace in texas. idaho, and my home state louisiana. coming soon to a state like yours.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

we are talking about the "extreme exceptions" that have suddenly become commonplace in texas. idaho, and my home state louisiana. coming soon to a state like yours.

You're saying it's commonplace for a 13 year old to be raped by her step-father?

I'd like some data on that one. It sounds like you're just fear-mongering. That will get you nowhere in an actual debate. It holds no weight.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. It's a human being and deserves constitutional protections.

I'll do my best to be respectful to this theoretical couple.. but if they don't have the balls to care for the life they produced just because it wasn't pristine and exactly what they wanted, they need to own their short-coming, not try to claim false-compassion for the 9 month child they want to murder (I rarely use the word in the context of an abortion debate, but killing a 9 month old baby in the wound is murder). That child wants to live, no matter what condition it's in. Human psychology is filled with programming to maintain their lives. That child is a programmed human. That life should be respected and allowed the ability to be adopted and thrive to the best of their ability. No family/doctor bureaucracy should be able to snuff out a human life. Give the life a chance.



You can't have a law that uses terms like "unnecessary".. because it's so easily manipulated. I could name a many ways a radical doctor could justify an immoral abortion for a seeking mother that aren't "necessary".. such as a "mother's mental health", which has been mentioned as a reason in modern pro-abortion rhetoric.

That's not acceptable, no matter how much of a victim someone wants to make her out to be.

It's not tyranny to protect a defined innocent life from a mother, father, and doctor that want to kill it. That's where government shines in its moral obligation.

A government given power to control all abortion is strong enough to mandate abortion if you put people with that mentality into power. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

A government given power to control all abortion is strong enough to mandate abortion if you put people with that mentality into power. Be careful what you wish for.

I'm not sure where you're getting the term "all" from. Nobody said that.

It reads like a statement that thinks it sounds smart.. but it's not applicable here.

Care to address the points I made? What say you about the theoretical couple who didn't get the shiny convertible and want to bail on their responsibility?

 

[Flopper]

You'd have to define your terms. Does "pro-life" mean all abortion? Despite my personal stance, I offered 5 weeks, or at the heart beat.

And hey, ending slavery was a minority opinion back in the 1800's.. would you be trying to use the pro-slavery poll numbers as a club on those who spoke against it as you're doing here with abortion numbers?

Address the issue, not whether it's "acceptable".. our society has had MANY things that became popular that were disgusting. That's a very poor metric to use.

Pro-life is an ideological position which opposes abortion.

Probably true. But the pill is safe only through the first 10 weeks. And while more than 90% of abortions are done within the first 20 weeks it is almost impossible to find data of how many of those abortions are between 10 and 20 weeks.

But your point is well taken. Short of outlawing the abortion pill, the states will have little control over that. It all comes down to the ethics and values of the mother, whether she considers that being she helped create to be a human baby or something acceptable to kill and put in the trash. I choose not to judge the decision women make in these matters.

But I do want our culture to recognize that the developing baby is a human being. Not a human soul makes in into and out of this world without going through that stage. And I want a world that promotes a culture of life and not throwaway babies.

According to the CDC, 91 percent of all abortions are performed in the first trimester which is 10 to 12 weeks. The abortion pill is effective at ending pregnancy up to 12 weeks gestation. Medical Abortions (abortion pill) accounts for 63% of the abortions in the US up from 53% last year. Medical abortions are projected to rise to 87% in 5 years.

My point is that abortion laws are being created that we will not be able to enforced. Even if a federal law is passed, which would be repealed the first time democrats got control of government, we would will still not be able to enforce it.

Best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies either through contraception or abstinence. Forced births mandated by the state is not the answer and ultimately it will fail.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not sure where you're getting the term "all" from. Nobody said that.

It reads like a statement that thinks it sounds smart.. but it's not applicable here.

Care to address the points I made? What say you about the theoretical couple who didn't get the shiny convertible and want to bail on their responsibility?

I think irrelevant to the points I have been arguing and you ignored the theoretical examples I used to support my point of view. I don't know how to explain it any better than I already have and really hate being goaded into repeating myself. We're on the same side of the fence but just disagree on what policy should address it. I'm going to pop some Amish popcorn and watch a good movie now. Have a lovely evening yourself.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Pro-life is an ideological position which opposes abortion.

According to the CDC, 91 percent of all abortions are performed in the first trimester which is 10 to 12 weeks. The abortion pill is effective at ending pregnancy up to 12 weeks gestation. Medical Abortions (abortion pill) accounts for 63% of the abortions in the US up from 53% last year. Medical abortions are projected to rise to 87% in 5 years.

My point is that abortion laws are being created that we will not be able to enforced. Even if a federal law is passed, which would be repealed the first time democrats got control of government, we would will still not be able to enforce it.

Best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies either through contraception or abstinence. Forced births mandated by the state is not the answer and ultimately it will fail.

I think we're approaching this issue from different perspectives, and that's fine. Especially on this website, information based, non-flaming debate is a good thing. Here are my thoughts on what you posted.

You're referring to what is easiest on the populace, where I'm referring to what is morally correct, or what is protecting innocent human life. Human beings can be an inconvenience, Abortion presents this conflict (as does a populace for tyrannical dictators, but I digress)...

We need to define what human being is, and act accordingly. There are issues like the economy that can be based on public opinion, but when a human life deserves protection isn't one of them. That is an objective standard.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I think irrelevant to the points I have been arguing and you ignored the theoretical examples I used to support my point of view. I don't know how to explain it any better than I already have and really hate being goaded into repeating myself. We're on the same side of the fence but just disagree on what policy should address it. I'm going to pop some Amish popcorn and watch a good movie now. Have a lovely evening yourself.

I appreciate the respectful convo and look forward to more in the future. Enjoy the movie...

 

[Flopper]

Agreed

That statement is not only illogical and irrational, but it's scary.

1. Why should a singular woman decide when a human being becomes a human being based on how she feels or what her life situation is? A human is a human no matter what the situations are.

2. What if a doctor is a psychopath who doesn't mind killing babies?

So many major politicians say that line too.. it equates to asking a mob boss and a crooked cop if your life is worth protecting.

My... What a horrible mindset to have about the gift of life. You're referring to a beautiful biological reality that women have the superpower of making children. That's what makes women uniquely special. You appear to be in the doldrums and think it's a curse.

If the human is alive, the state has the right to protect that life from a mother who wants to kill it for likely selfish reasons.

The "STATE"... and the power of "MEN with GUNS" should be used to protect human life from those who wish to immorally kill it.

In your perfect world, how is the state going to make the decision?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

In your perfect world, how is the state going to make the decision?

They need to define what a human is. I think it's a valid question. It's a dangerous one though, because who can trust anyone to define it. We've seen hysterics against the SCOTUS in the past years, with radicals claiming horrible things against them for quite honestly uncontroversial, moderate decisions.

I think with today's feminist ideology, there's no honest path to defining a human. There's no philosophical approach, only a union mentality in what benefits the desires/conveniences of a woman. They are a union so strong and aggressive that will likely become violent and resort to anarchy in their pursuit of their ideals IMO. We've seen massive hysterics of crazed radicals banging on the doors of the SCOTUS during Roe v. Wade hearings, and SCOTUS judges' homes being surrounded by intimidating protestors... and even an assassination attempt on Judge Kavanaugh that was largely suppressed by the media because they don't want him to be a victim.

this type of violence and political radical activism is a horrible influence on the seeking of what human is. They want to bully people into compliance by force and intimidation.. even the SCOTUS judges themselves.

 

[Votto]

It is far more complex than to slavery. Slaves were born humans. The idea of "what is a human" involves the philosophical as well as the medical and biological.

Not really. It is as complicated as you wish to make it

The unborn are human, at least, they always seem to be born human.

They are just in one of many stages of life is all.

But just like with slavery, abortion puts dollar bills back in our wallet as most abortions are done for financial reasons.

The love of money.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Not really. It is as complicated as you wish to make it

The unborn are human, at least, they always seem to be born human.

They are just in one of many stages of life is all.

But just like with slavery, abortion puts dollar bills back in our wallet as most abortions are done for financial reasons.

The love of money.

You're severely reaching. It has severely different factors. Try to charm it up all you like, it's no accurate analogy.

 

[Votto]

You're severely reaching. It has severely different factors. Try to charm it up all you like, it's no accurate analogy.

What makes something living and what makes something human and how can something be living before being human?

Back in the day, the slave was looked at as a glorified ape, so they were looked at as living but were treated like cattle.

The unborn is no different in this regard as they are looked at as living but also beneath the standards of being equals to actual human beings.

Why?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

What makes something living and what makes something human and how can something be living before being human?

Back in the day, the slave was looked at as a glorified ape, so they were looked at as living but were treated like cattle.

The unborn is no different in this regard as they are looked at as living but also beneath the standards of being equals to actual human beings.

Why?

There is a huge difference in this issue.

Slaves were still considered humans. You couldn't be in front of a police officer, put a pistol to the back of a slave's head, and legally murder them without being arrested, as far as the law is concerned.

That's the end of the discussion. There's no comparison at all.

 

[martybegan]

Pro Live/Pro Choice.

91% of abortions are performed by end first 12 weeks. 98.7% are performed within first 20 weeks. Late term abortions after the first 20 weeks are almost always due to medical complications. Rather than deal with abortions laws, most OB-GYNs in pro-life states will not perform abortions even if it is medical necessary because it puts doctors in a situation where they will have justify their decision or face lost of their license or even prison. Abortion should between doctor and patient not the goverment. This is why I believe abortion should be a medical not legal decision.

If they believe in abortions, they should perform them and let the abortion rights groups defend them.

 

[martybegan]

That position seems completely contradictory to me. I see why actual images upset you.

Images of what? fluffy cotton?

 

[martybegan]

A sperm is a lifeform. How many have you murdered?

No, it's a cell with only half the DNA of a person.

it's like crying over losing a hair follicle.

 

[martybegan]

You largely can, it can be lightly referenced sure... but no childish flame wars in this thread please.

Well, if a life is a life, then it deserves protection.

Meanwhile, the "whims of the mother" line holds minimal weight when compared to a life. Most abortions arise from said mother participating in acts that, well, are designed to produce children.

It amazes me how many don't understand that sex causes impregnation.

My opinion and yours differ in the absoluteness you show in the protection of said life. Not a negative critique, just a critique.

Many leftist positions are designed to ignore responsibility for and consequences of ones actions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Granted, a very polarizing topic in today's political landscape.

However, I'm happy to discuss the topic with people in good faith who aren't seeking to ego-post, troll, slander, insult, etc. Such discourse is just boring, and I lose interest.

Rules:
1. No political references or accusations. It's about the act of abortion only.
2. No flaming/insults
3. No involving religion.

My take:
At this time, Abortion should be banned after 5 weeks, or what some states view as the "heart beat bill". As science increases on the human fetus (fetus means "offspring"), it increasingly tells us that earlier and earlier measures must be taken to protect it.

This is a unique scenario that is sex-specific, thus, one cannot approach it if you view both sexes as completely and entirely equal in all physical aspects (which is biologically easily proven to be untrue).

I think there are 2 modern viewpoints on abortion.

One is from a victim mentality, with the primary focus on how the consequences of high-volume sex are "forced" onto women, how it's some sort of biological unfairness, how only women can dictate when a life should begin, how consequence-free sexual pleasure is a "right" despite biological truths, and how they should be able to be "freed" from this biological truth by putting their own interests in front of the "consequence" (aka natural cause) of the action they chose to participate in.

The other is from two mentalities, one from the philosophical, the other from the medical. It simply seeks to innocently define what human life is, and no sexes are excluded from discussing this topic, as it effects all humanity. It addresses what the act of sex causes, establishes the differences that the act has on men and women, and acknowledges how these results manifest in society. It promotes the idea that men and women are biologically different, and how that truth will manifest differently in the world by their abilities and choices. It is compassionate to the vulnerable, innocent possible-beings that are voiceless to speak out in the name of supporting their right to their own life/existence, and references medical definitions of life to provide evidence to support these claims.

What Say you?

Mind your business and leave people alone.

Problem solved, debate over.