- Thread starter
- #21
I find this statement rather ironic...nobody seems to consider the consequences of allowing women the unfettered free will to abort unborn children either.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Debate Now Prove your case! Abortion: Right to Choose or Right to Live?
- Thread starter TemplarKormac
- Start date
I find this statement rather ironic...nobody seems to consider the consequences of allowing women the unfettered free will to abort unborn children either.
No problem. We can disagree, it's fine. Each of us is entitled to our opinion. No one sees every issue the same. But, I do stand by my opinion as I stated it.Abortions should be weighed case by case. For example: rape, incest, mentally handicapped, age, health issues, the chances of the baby being born with deformities and other abnormalities, risk factors such as the health of the mother, and a multitude of other factors. Abortion is not, and never has been a "cut and dry" question.
Oh, I could not disagree more.
It is VERY cut and dried, black and white, no grey, no ambiguity.
Abortion is never ever a question of rape, incest, handicap, sex of the fetus, risk to the woman or any of the other mud that is used to cloud the issue.
There is only one question: Does society have the right to force women to reproduce? The answer is a loud and resounding NO.
Perhaps if people looked at it differently ...
If it was male's reproduction that people wanted to control, would you feel the same? Would you want to force men to reproduce? If men were forced to support their offspring, would you look at abortion differently?
A man's body belongs to him. He can do and should be allowed to do anything he wants with it. If he wants to reproduce, he has that right. If he does not want offspring, he also has that right.
A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If she wishes to reproduce, that's her decision and her inalienable right. If she wishes to abort, her reasons are no one's business but hers and abortion should be easily and readily available on demand.
Needless to say, safe and effective birth control should also be easily and readily available to anyone, regardless of age.
No one seems to be able to state why the intrinsic rights of certain people should be suspended or why they should be controlled by either government or religion.
And, I notice you did not answer my questions:
If it were male's reproductive rights being discussed, would you have a different opinion? Would you be in favor of men being forced to reproduce? Should they then forced to support the resultant offspring?
Nor do those opposed to abortion ever consider the consequences of their quest.
I find this statement rather ironic...nobody seems to consider the consequences of allowing women the unfettered free will to abort unborn children either.
What "consequences" are you referring to?
- Thread starter
- #23
No problem. We can disagree, it's fine. Each of us is entitled to our opinion. No one sees every issue the same. But, I do stand by my opinion as I stated it.Oh, I could not disagree more.
It is VERY cut and dried, black and white, no grey, no ambiguity.
Abortion is never ever a question of rape, incest, handicap, sex of the fetus, risk to the woman or any of the other mud that is used to cloud the issue.
There is only one question: Does society have the right to force women to reproduce? The answer is a loud and resounding NO.
Perhaps if people looked at it differently ...
If it was male's reproduction that people wanted to control, would you feel the same? Would you want to force men to reproduce? If men were forced to support their offspring, would you look at abortion differently?
A man's body belongs to him. He can do and should be allowed to do anything he wants with it. If he wants to reproduce, he has that right. If he does not want offspring, he also has that right.
A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If she wishes to reproduce, that's her decision and her inalienable right. If she wishes to abort, her reasons are no one's business but hers and abortion should be easily and readily available on demand.
Needless to say, safe and effective birth control should also be easily and readily available to anyone, regardless of age.
No one seems to be able to state why the intrinsic rights of certain people should be suspended or why they should be controlled by either government or religion.
And, I notice you did not answer my questions:
If it were male's reproductive rights being discussed, would you have a different opinion? Would you be in favor of men being forced to reproduce? Should they then forced to support the resultant offspring?
Nor do those opposed to abortion ever consider the consequences of their quest.
I find this statement rather ironic...nobody seems to consider the consequences of allowing women the unfettered free will to abort unborn children either.
What "consequences" are you referring to?
The death of unborn children.
No problem. We can disagree, it's fine. Each of us is entitled to our opinion. No one sees every issue the same. But, I do stand by my opinion as I stated it.
No one seems to be able to state why the intrinsic rights of certain people should be suspended or why they should be controlled by either government or religion.
And, I notice you did not answer my questions:
If it were male's reproductive rights being discussed, would you have a different opinion? Would you be in favor of men being forced to reproduce? Should they then forced to support the resultant offspring?
Nor do those opposed to abortion ever consider the consequences of their quest.
I find this statement rather ironic...nobody seems to consider the consequences of allowing women the unfettered free will to abort unborn children either.
What "consequences" are you referring to?
The death of unborn children.
That's not a "consequence", that's your opinion of what abortion is.
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #25
No problem. We can disagree, it's fine. Each of us is entitled to our opinion. No one sees every issue the same. But, I do stand by my opinion as I stated it.Abortions should be weighed case by case. For example: rape, incest, mentally handicapped, age, health issues, the chances of the baby being born with deformities and other abnormalities, risk factors such as the health of the mother, and a multitude of other factors. Abortion is not, and never has been a "cut and dry" question.
Oh, I could not disagree more.
It is VERY cut and dried, black and white, no grey, no ambiguity.
Abortion is never ever a question of rape, incest, handicap, sex of the fetus, risk to the woman or any of the other mud that is used to cloud the issue.
There is only one question: Does society have the right to force women to reproduce? The answer is a loud and resounding NO.
Perhaps if people looked at it differently ...
If it was male's reproduction that people wanted to control, would you feel the same? Would you want to force men to reproduce? If men were forced to support their offspring, would you look at abortion differently?
A man's body belongs to him. He can do and should be allowed to do anything he wants with it. If he wants to reproduce, he has that right. If he does not want offspring, he also has that right.
A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If she wishes to reproduce, that's her decision and her inalienable right. If she wishes to abort, her reasons are no one's business but hers and abortion should be easily and readily available on demand.
Needless to say, safe and effective birth control should also be easily and readily available to anyone, regardless of age.
No one seems to be able to state why the intrinsic rights of certain people should be suspended or why they should be controlled by either government or religion.
And, I notice you did not answer my questions:
If it were male's reproductive rights being discussed, would you have a different opinion? Would you be in favor of men being forced to reproduce? Should they then forced to support the resultant offspring?
Nor do those opposed to abortion ever consider the consequences of their quest.
I find this statement rather ironic...nobody seems to consider the consequences of allowing women the unfettered free will to abort unborn children either.
Women have always had the "unfettered free will" to an abortion; laws prevented them from a safe and clean procedure; back alley abortions had no impact on women's will.
BTW, you might want to look up the definition of ironic.
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,947
- 9,979
- 2,040
No problem. We can disagree, it's fine. Each of us is entitled to our opinion. No one sees every issue the same. But, I do stand by my opinion as I stated it.Oh, I could not disagree more.
It is VERY cut and dried, black and white, no grey, no ambiguity.
Abortion is never ever a question of rape, incest, handicap, sex of the fetus, risk to the woman or any of the other mud that is used to cloud the issue.
There is only one question: Does society have the right to force women to reproduce? The answer is a loud and resounding NO.
Perhaps if people looked at it differently ...
If it was male's reproduction that people wanted to control, would you feel the same? Would you want to force men to reproduce? If men were forced to support their offspring, would you look at abortion differently?
A man's body belongs to him. He can do and should be allowed to do anything he wants with it. If he wants to reproduce, he has that right. If he does not want offspring, he also has that right.
A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If she wishes to reproduce, that's her decision and her inalienable right. If she wishes to abort, her reasons are no one's business but hers and abortion should be easily and readily available on demand.
Needless to say, safe and effective birth control should also be easily and readily available to anyone, regardless of age.
No one seems to be able to state why the intrinsic rights of certain people should be suspended or why they should be controlled by either government or religion.
And, I notice you did not answer my questions:
If it were male's reproductive rights being discussed, would you have a different opinion? Would you be in favor of men being forced to reproduce? Should they then forced to support the resultant offspring?
Nor do those opposed to abortion ever consider the consequences of their quest.
I find this statement rather ironic...nobody seems to consider the consequences of allowing women the unfettered free will to abort unborn children either.
Women have always had the "unfettered free will" to an abortion; laws prevented them from a safe and clean procedure; back alley abortions had no impact on women's will.
BTW, you might want to look up the definition of ironic.
Exactly.
Some seem to think that most abortions are
*for convenience
*a form of birth control
*done by Planned Parenthood and/abortion clinics
and the most important,
They believe that reversing Roe V Wade will stop most or some abortions.
From the time of the 2nd or 3rd pregnancy, we have had abortion and there is nothing that will ever change that.
Abortion is here to stay and even if you don't believe in the inalienable right to control one's own (male AND female alike) reproduction, surely you would agree that it MUST be safe for the woman and painless for the fetus.
Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
As was with my previous thread, there is no fancy thesis, or essay. Just a challenge to the readers to prove one way or the other whether the right to choose trumps the right to life or vise versa. To avoid being accused of bias, I will wait a bit before interjecting myself to this discussion. However, I reserve the right to enter the discussion at any point to argue from my point of view.
1. No ad hominem
2. No mention of any political party (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, et cetera)
3. All arguments must be substantiated by citing credible and objective sources.
4. No arguments based on emotional viewpoints.
5. If there is a scientific argument for either side, site credible peer reviewed studies only.
6. Anyone who fails to back up their argument with a credible, objective, or in scientific assertions a credible study, will forfeit their point to their opponent.
7. You may use religious belief to contextualize your point, so long as it complies with rules 5 and 6
8. Attempts to derail this thread will be actively monitored and reported to forum staff.
9. This thread will be governed under Zone 1 rules.
The so-called 'right to choose' is in reality just the right to infanticide. Whole logic hinges on a temporal arguement. That is, at this point it's just a fetus, and then later at this point it's a baby. But I would argue if you don't fiddle with it it's becomes a baby.
Some have made the case that life begins with neural activity, just as it ends when the brain ceases all activity (brain death.) If we go by this, then 'babies' begin around week 8 or 9 when their brains enable them to move autonomously.
Derideo_Te
Je Suis Charlie
- Mar 2, 2013
- 20,461
- 7,961
- 360
Some have made the case that life begins with neural activity, just as it ends when the brain ceases all activity (brain death.) If we go by this, then 'babies' begin around week 8 or 9 when their brains enable them to move autonomously.
Nope! The term autonomous (which means having the freedom to act independent of anyone else) fails because the fetus cannot survive outside the uterus pre-viability.
Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
Some have made the case that life begins with neural activity, just as it ends when the brain ceases all activity (brain death.) If we go by this, then 'babies' begin around week 8 or 9 when their brains enable them to move autonomously.
Nope! The term autonomous (which means having the freedom to act independent of anyone else) fails because the fetus cannot survive outside the uterus pre-viability.
Survival outside the womb isn't relevant. How many premature babies are born who'd die without aid in incubators?
Brain activity equals life and awareness.
Derideo_Te
Je Suis Charlie
- Mar 2, 2013
- 20,461
- 7,961
- 360
Brain activity equals life and awareness.
Not all brain activity equals awareness. Someone in a coma can show brain activity but they have no awareness. Infants don't achieve self-consciousness, or awareness of self, until around the age of 2 years old.
eots
no fly list
Abortions should be weighed case by case. For example: rape, incest, mentally handicapped, age, health issues, the chances of the baby being born with deformities and other abnormalities, risk factors such as the health of the mother, and a multitude of other factors. Abortion is not, and never has been a "cut and dry" question.
Oh, I could not disagree more.
It is VERY cut and dried, black and white, no grey, no ambiguity.
Abortion is never ever a question of rape, incest, handicap, sex of the fetus, risk to the woman or any of the other mud that is used to cloud the issue.
There is only one question: Does society have the right to force women to reproduce? The answer is a loud and resounding NO.
Perhaps if people looked at it differently ...
If it was male's reproduction that people wanted to control, would you feel the same? Would you want to force men to reproduce? If men were forced to support their offspring, would you look at abortion differently?
A man's body belongs to him. He can do and should be allowed to do anything he wants with it. If he wants to reproduce, he has that right. If he does not want offspring, he also has that right.
A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If she wishes to reproduce, that's her decision and her inalienable right. If she wishes to abort, her reasons are no one's business but hers and abortion should be easily and readily available on demand.
Needless to say, safe and effective birth control should also be easily and readily available to anyone, regardless of age.
.I should be forced to pay for a woman to abort her child ? really ?
Vigilante
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #33
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".
The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).
The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).
Sonny Clark
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #34
No you shouldn't.Abortions should be weighed case by case. For example: rape, incest, mentally handicapped, age, health issues, the chances of the baby being born with deformities and other abnormalities, risk factors such as the health of the mother, and a multitude of other factors. Abortion is not, and never has been a "cut and dry" question.
Oh, I could not disagree more.
It is VERY cut and dried, black and white, no grey, no ambiguity.
Abortion is never ever a question of rape, incest, handicap, sex of the fetus, risk to the woman or any of the other mud that is used to cloud the issue.
There is only one question: Does society have the right to force women to reproduce? The answer is a loud and resounding NO.
Perhaps if people looked at it differently ...
If it was male's reproduction that people wanted to control, would you feel the same? Would you want to force men to reproduce? If men were forced to support their offspring, would you look at abortion differently?
A man's body belongs to him. He can do and should be allowed to do anything he wants with it. If he wants to reproduce, he has that right. If he does not want offspring, he also has that right.
A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If she wishes to reproduce, that's her decision and her inalienable right. If she wishes to abort, her reasons are no one's business but hers and abortion should be easily and readily available on demand.
Needless to say, safe and effective birth control should also be easily and readily available to anyone, regardless of age.
.I should be forced to pay for a woman to abort her child ? really ?
Derideo_Te
Je Suis Charlie
- Mar 2, 2013
- 20,461
- 7,961
- 360
Abortions should be weighed case by case. For example: rape, incest, mentally handicapped, age, health issues, the chances of the baby being born with deformities and other abnormalities, risk factors such as the health of the mother, and a multitude of other factors. Abortion is not, and never has been a "cut and dry" question.
Oh, I could not disagree more.
It is VERY cut and dried, black and white, no grey, no ambiguity.
Abortion is never ever a question of rape, incest, handicap, sex of the fetus, risk to the woman or any of the other mud that is used to cloud the issue.
There is only one question: Does society have the right to force women to reproduce? The answer is a loud and resounding NO.
Perhaps if people looked at it differently ...
If it was male's reproduction that people wanted to control, would you feel the same? Would you want to force men to reproduce? If men were forced to support their offspring, would you look at abortion differently?
A man's body belongs to him. He can do and should be allowed to do anything he wants with it. If he wants to reproduce, he has that right. If he does not want offspring, he also has that right.
A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If she wishes to reproduce, that's her decision and her inalienable right. If she wishes to abort, her reasons are no one's business but hers and abortion should be easily and readily available on demand.
Needless to say, safe and effective birth control should also be easily and readily available to anyone, regardless of age.
.I should be forced to pay for a woman to abort her child ? really ?
Where is the law requiring you to do that?
Coloradomtnman
Rational and proud of it.
Unborn fetuses have the right to life. Seems pretty clear.
It's just that their right to life is superceded by a woman's right not to have the government intervene in her personal, reproductive, family decisions.
It's just that their right to life is superceded by a woman's right not to have the government intervene in her personal, reproductive, family decisions.
eots
no fly list
- Abortion Drug Mandate - The “preventive services mandate” grants the Department of Health & Human Services, the right to define “preventive services” that must be available cost-free (no copay, no deductible, etc.) to the insured. Under this mandate, the Department has required plans to include abortion-inducing drugs.
- This mandate coerces religiously affiliated organizations, pro-life groups, and morally opposed businesses to be complicit in providing coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs despite moral or religious objections.
- New studies show that all emergency contraceptive can cause early abortions.[8]
- Taxpayer Funding of Abortion in Obamacare SBA-List
eots
no fly list
so can she kill her baby an hour after birth ?Unborn fetuses have the right to life. Seems pretty clear.
It's just that their right to life is superceded by a woman's right not to have the government intervene in her personal, reproductive, family decisions.
Derideo_Te
Je Suis Charlie
- Mar 2, 2013
- 20,461
- 7,961
- 360
- Abortion Drug Mandate - The “preventive services mandate” grants the Department of Health & Human Services, the right to define “preventive services” that must be available cost-free (no copay, no deductible, etc.) to the insured. Under this mandate, the Department has required plans to include abortion-inducing drugs.
- This mandate coerces religiously affiliated organizations, pro-life groups, and morally opposed businesses to be complicit in providing coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs despite moral or religious objections.
- New studies show that all emergency contraceptive can cause early abortions.[8]
- Taxpayer Funding of Abortion in Obamacare SBA-List
Prevention of a pregnancy is not an abortion.
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,947
- 9,979
- 2,040
so can she kill her baby an hour after birth ?Unborn fetuses have the right to life. Seems pretty clear.
It's just that their right to life is superceded by a woman's right not to have the government intervene in her personal, reproductive, family decisions.
No.
That would be murder.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 78
- Views
- 734
- Replies
- 102
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 76
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 231
- Replies
- 49
- Views
- 691
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 58
- Replies
- 240
- Views
- 817
- Replies
- 122
- Views
- 332
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8084
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-