Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Abortion Abortion Forum - A complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issue


View Poll Results: Would you still support abortion if you were convinced that abortions kill a Child?
Yes, I probably would 5 55.56%
No, I probably would not 4 44.44%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

Thanks Tree128Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 30th, 2016, 11:06 PM   #71
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
I'm not seeking to enforce new laws, homey.

I am pointing out inconsistencies and hypocrisies in the way the ones we already have are being selectively enforced by people like yourself.



I am not for "forcing" pregnancy on anyone.

However, I do feel that consent to sex it at least a consent to pregnancy and I believe the Supreme Court Justices might hold that view as well.

What else could they have been hinting at when they said "once a fetus is ruled a person, the case for abortion becomes near impossible to make?"

as it stands now abortion is legal, pumpkin.

you, being the big government guy that you must be wants to wast millions of tax payer dollars to try and make it illegal. if you were to succeed you would get another law passed, costing even more tax dollars, creating new government jobs to enforce the new laws all because for some reason or another you re under the misguided opinion that a clump of cells floating in the abdomen of a woman has more rights than the woman herself. you have every right to your opinion and i appreciate it. i don't understand how you have come to the conclusions that you have as they are usually reserved for the religious, that you say you are not and that i think is why i find them a bit intriguing.

how do you come to the conclusion that constitution applies to the tumor?
Thanks from imaginethat and Lyzza

Last edited by Sabcat; January 30th, 2016 at 11:12 PM.
Sabcat is offline  
Old January 30th, 2016, 11:07 PM   #72
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
And we have laws against medical malpractice for when that trust is abused.

Correct?
correct. but i am not talking about malpractice. i am talking about when surgery doesnt go as expected, when the surgeon mid operation discovers things are not what they thought they were going to be, and has to make a decision about what to do without being able to discuss it with the patient. this isnt malpractice, its just practice.

Quote:
And there are plenty of people who argue that those vaccines ARE in fact a violation of children's rights. You should consider googling it.
i know all about such loonies and crackpots. if they come near you, run.

Quote:
The laws already address this and if you can make a case for someone FORCING you to breathe their smoke, you will probably win your case against them.
not neccessarily forcing me, just being near me. they might even be considerate and move down wind, around the corner. but i still smell it and breathe it.

Quote:
The onus is on you to call the police and report the nuisance.
again, not that he is a nuisance, i just dont like his taste in music. its not too loud, its not late at night, it isnt unbearable, it just isnt my decision about whether i hear it or not, its his, i have no say.

Quote:
If he feels HIS rights are being violated by his neighbor driving their car, we have a legal/ judicial system to deal with that. We do not have the same to act in the defense of children in the womb. So, the man breathing the bad exhaust is being afforded HIS right to the equal protections of our laws and children in the womb? Not so much.
i call bullshit. there is no way you can sue your neighbour for driving their car. thats crap and you know it.

Quote:
Our Constitution does not allow for anyone to be deprived of their rights except by way of due process and children in the womb are not being afforded that right.
that may be the case. we need some laws governing late term abortions. i believe some jurisdictions do?
Thanks from Lyzza
hot dragon is offline  
Old January 30th, 2016, 11:13 PM   #73
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
You are twisting things again.

I nor anyone else is trying to force women to have unwanted pregnancies.

If a woman is pregnant - she already HAS the pregnancy - whether she wanted it or not.

I hope you use better logic and arguments in your defense of gun rights than you do in denying rights to prenatal children.

My opposition to abortion is no more tantamount to trying to run my neighbors life than your support for the right to keep and bear arms is.

I wonder if you support any laws against crimes against children at all. Do you support laws against rape and molestation?

If you do - then you are just as much as Statist as you claim I am.

And you are also a hypocrite for denying the same kinds of protections to children in the womb.
i cannot possibly respond to quotes you have pulled out of the archive and present here completely out of context AND combined with the views of another poster. please, you wanted a discussion, lets have one, i am happy to follow the process you have asked for, you ask me questions and i will answer them. this post of yours is pretty much the opposite to that.
Thanks from imaginethat, RNG and Twisted Sister
hot dragon is offline  
Old January 30th, 2016, 11:25 PM   #74
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
i cannot possibly respond to quotes you have pulled out of the archive and present here completely out of context AND combined with the views of another poster. please, you wanted a discussion, lets have one, i am happy to follow the process you have asked for, you ask me questions and i will answer them. this post of yours is pretty much the opposite to that.
Shit or get off the pot!
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old January 31st, 2016, 04:43 AM   #75
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
Words mean things. They are heavily debated and scrutinized, so I reject the idea that this is purely semantics.

Also, I can not tell from your comment whether you are talking about "life" in general and whether you are talking about an individual life.



I think one (objective) approach would be to examine the sciences and findings that have little to nothing to do with the abortion debate.

The sciences that have to do with Aging for example.

"Aging is a very natural process. It begins at conception and continues throughout the life cycle."



Given that you reject the idea of conception beginning a new individual's life, I still don't know what your views are on laws against murder as it relates to that.
Words mean in our language whatever the heck humans want those words to mean. Indeed, language definitions are entirely a subjective human construct. And there is nothing particularly objective, for example, about deciding the word "conception" means biological event "A," rather than it meaning biological events "X" and "Y." Or, defining the word "life" in a way so that "life" means the existence of characteristics "A and B and C" rather than the existence of characteristics "X and Y and Z."

And, while the definitions of words play a large role in other areas, such as in law, biologists aren't interested in what the word "life" happens to mean in our language. They are interested, instead, in understanding the nature of entities that exist rather than what those entities may or may not be called in our language.

And, to be sure, the question, "When does an individual human life begin?," is not a question which can be answered using the methods of science, particularly since defining words that are used in our language is not a method of science.


Quote:

“Our approach is to look at both adult and fetus as a biologist would: as parts of a complex and interconnected web of living things on our planet. Instead of asking about how a fetus resembles an adult human, we propose to ask how both of them differ from other living things, what it is that makes them uniquely human, and then to use this information in coming to policy decisions. Over the years, scientists have developed new understandings about life on our planet and about the nature of Homo sapiens. A good deal of this understanding has come since the original Roe decision and, to our knowledge, has been largely ignored in the ensuing debate. It shouldn’t be.

This is not to say that the abortion debate can be reduced, in the end, to a question of scientific fact. It can’t. Neither, however, can the debate be conducted intelligently if one ignores what scientists have learned about human beings and about the process by which a single fertilized egg develops into a newborn child. This truth is nowhere more evident than when legislators trying to grapple with the abortion issue turn to the scientific community and ask, “When does an individual life begin?”

This is not only the wrong question, it is a question that cannot be answered by use of methods of science. Any scientist who says it can either doesn’t understand the limits of our craft, has defined “life” in a way that he or she hasn’t made explicit, or is trying to be deceptive. We’ve seen examples of all three sources of error behind “scientific” answers to this question, by people on both sides of the abortion debate.

This question is sometimes confused with one that is more specifically biological: “When does life in general begin?” meaning, “When did living things first appear on the earth?” This more general question can, of course, be approached with the methods of science, although the fact of the matter is that life is one of those terms (like time) that scientists are usually quite content to use in a loose, colloquial way, but that they find extraordinary difficult to define with precision.

In the context of the abortion debate, life clearly means “the life of an individual.” So “When does life begin?” is still the wrong question. The only way we can define individual life is by making a list of the characteristics of an individual life and then seeing if the entity in question shares them. The only rational answer a biologist can give to the question “When does an individual life begin?” is to say, “Tell me what you mean by individual life, and I’ll tell you if this entity has it.” A biologist, in other words, cannot provide a definition of individual life (at least as that term is used in the abortion debate) solely from the biological sciences. He or she must go outside science for those sorts of definitions. For example, a geneticist can tell you that at conception a new combination of preexisting DNA has come into existence, but whether “life” has begun simply cannot be resolved by this information. This type of answer is profoundly unsatisfying, but it’s about all you can expect if you ask the wrong question.”



"The Facts of Life"
Harold J. Morowitz and James S. Trefil

Finally, in my opinion, legal versus illegal abortion is a matter which is centered on legal rights rather than on some scientific framework anyway.
Thanks from imaginethat, Sabcat and Lyzza

Last edited by baloney_detector; January 31st, 2016 at 05:06 AM.
baloney_detector is offline  
Old January 31st, 2016, 04:58 AM   #76
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 21,355
How many ways can a question be worded that one would expect a different outcome from the answers?

One is either anti-abortion or pro-choice. NOBODY is pro-abortion. A variation in the wording of a question is not going to change that stance, more than likely.

This is like the poll that was posted a couple days ago about 'wanting a refugee camp in your backyard.' Hell, no. Who would?! But, if the choices are limited, it may be the only civilized humanitarian way to deal with an issue.

The same with abortion. I would never WANT somebody to have an abortion. But, sometimes it's the only option for a woman - especially a very young unmarried one.
tristanrobin is offline  
Old January 31st, 2016, 06:14 AM   #77
Self Banned
 
Chuz Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
as it stands now abortion is legal, pumpkin.
Wait.

Whaaaaaat?

No kidding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
you, being the big government guy that you must be wants to wast millions of tax payer dollars to try and make it illegal.
It is not a 'Big Government' mindset to expect our government to enforce EXISTING laws more consistently. Neither is it a 'Big Government' ideology to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Was the push for the expansion of Marriage laws to include Gay unions an act of "Big Government" activism too- in your opinion?

Yes or no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
if you were to succeed you would get another law passed, costing even more tax dollars, creating new government jobs to enforce the new laws all because for some reason or another you re under the misguided opinion that a clump of cells floating in the abdomen of a woman has more rights than the woman herself.
No new laws would need to be passed to make abortions illegal. The only thing it takes for that is for the United States Supreme Court to reverse their ruling on Roe v Wade and for them to rule that personhood and Constitutional rights 'begin at conception.' That's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
you have every right to your opinion and i appreciate it. i don't understand how you have come to the conclusions that you have as they are usually reserved for the religious, that you say you are not and that i think is why i find them a bit intriguing.
If you read these two debates, you should see how the secular reasons for opposing abortion are not all that difficult to comprehend.

Debate: A human being in the Zygote, Embryo and Fetal stage of their life is "a human being" | Debate.org

Debate Topic: The (U.S.) Constitutionality of Legalized Abortions on Demand | Debate.org

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
how do you come to the conclusion that constitution applies to the tumor?
Show me where I (or anyone else) ever made that conclusion.
Chuz Life is offline  
Old January 31st, 2016, 06:28 AM   #78
Self Banned
 
Chuz Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
correct. but i am not talking about malpractice. i am talking about when surgery doesnt go as expected, when the surgeon mid operation discovers things are not what they thought they were going to be, and has to make a decision about what to do without being able to discuss it with the patient. this isnt malpractice, its just practice.
You are fast drifting away from the point. The premise was about whether or not anyone has the right to use their own body (autonomy) rights to VIOLATE the body / autonomy rights of another.

Are you claiming that a surgeon in a case like you described is VIOLATING the rights of their patient? or Not?


Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
i know all about such loonies and crackpots. if they come near you, run. not neccessarily forcing me, just being near me. they might even be considerate and move down wind, around the corner. but i still smell it and breathe it. again, not that he is a nuisance, i just dont like his taste in music. its not too loud, its not late at night, it isnt unbearable, it just isnt my decision about whether i hear it or not, its his, i have no say.
Then (again) in those cases, either your rights are NOT being violated, or you are not reporting the violation.

None of your scenarios supports the idea that anyone "has the right to violate the rights of others."

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
i call bullshit. there is no way you can sue your neighbour for driving their car. thats crap and you know it.
I disagree. If you can make the case that your rights are being violated, you can file a lawsuit against that violation. No matter what it is. The ACLU will help you too - if you can convince them of the violation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
we need some laws governing late term abortions. i believe some jurisdictions do?
Funny that you support THOSE laws at that time but not laws to protect those same children when they are only a few days younger than that point.
Chuz Life is offline  
Old January 31st, 2016, 06:42 AM   #79
Self Banned
 
Chuz Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
i cannot possibly respond to quotes you have pulled out of the archive and present here completely out of context AND combined with the views of another poster. please, you wanted a discussion, lets have one, i am happy to follow the process you have asked for, you ask me questions and i will answer them. this post of yours is pretty much the opposite to that.
Those quotes were not yours. I've now corrected that post.
Thanks from hot dragon
Chuz Life is offline  
Old January 31st, 2016, 06:54 AM   #80
Self Banned
 
Chuz Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
How many ways can a question be worded that one would expect a different outcome from the answers?
What question are you talking about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
One is either anti-abortion or pro-choice. NOBODY is pro-abortion.
I not only disagree with you on that - I can show you plenty of people who call themselves "pro-abortion."


Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
A variation in the wording of a question is not going to change that stance, more than likely.
I still don't know what question you are talking about. It would have helped if you quoted it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
This is like the poll that was posted a couple days ago about 'wanting a refugee camp in your backyard.' Hell, no. Who would?! But, if the choices are limited, it may be the only civilized humanitarian way to deal with an issue.
Okay, so you think my poll question was intended to effect a different outcome. Now I get where you are coming from.

The thing is, it's not a question that was intended for anything like that. I genuinely wanted to know how many abortion proponents would change their position on abortion - IF they were to be convinced that an abortion kills a child.

That's all.

Well, that and I wanted to know who those members are - so I can ask them some follow up questions too see how receptive they might be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
The same with abortion. I would never WANT somebody to have an abortion. But, sometimes it's the only option for a woman - especially a very young unmarried one.
Interesting.

Why would you not WANT someone to get an abortion?

Please be as detailed and specific in your explanation as you can possibly be.
Chuz Life is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Tags
abortion, child, chuz life, proponents, question



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Abortion Rights Leader Nails Hypocrisy Of Anti-Abortion Activists LongWinded Abortion 3 December 14th, 2015 04:06 PM
10-Year-Old Rape Victim Denied Abortion: The Horrific Realities of Abortion Bans LongWinded Abortion 32 December 7th, 2015 02:02 PM
Proponents Say They Have Signatures to Put Pot Legalization to a Vote in Calif. intangible child Money and Finance 0 December 14th, 2009 07:43 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.