Debate Now Prove your case! Abortion: Right to Choose or Right to Live?

[Boss]

first debate that roe v wade doesn't exist and isn't binding. it is not about what your religious views dictate. it is about what GOVERNMENT has the right to impose.

Roe v. Wade is a court ruling on individual right to privacy. The government has no rights. The government has limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and the rights belong to us, the people, who are endowed with them by our Creator.

And I hate to break this to you but our religious views influence everything pertaining to our self-governing and can't be segregated from it. Not only that, but this is Constitutionally protected under our freedom of religion.

uh... yeah re roe. and? i think we all knew what the ruling says. the right right apparently doesn't understand it since they keep trying to pass laws that violate it. if you acknowledge that it is not governments place to interfere in this, as set forth in roe, then the constant drumbeat on the subject is pointless.

no one cares if you "self-govern" based on your religious views. the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for imposition of restrictions on the rest of us.

Courts don't create our laws, the people do. The SCOTUS has been historically horrible at establishing the laws we have to live under as a society. They told us for 85 years that slaves were property, rightfully owned by their masters. It told us for years that blacks should be segregated. It has upheld misogyny and sodomy laws, violated the hell out of basic human rights for Native Americans, kept women in their place long after they got the vote.

Now... HERE is where I have a problem with you...

"...the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for..."

They have the inalienable RIGHT to use their religious views as the basis for any damn thing they please. You do not have the right to restrict their religious influence.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Bottom line for myself is simply this: abortion is absolutely the killing of a human life. But for instances where carrying to term presents a substantial health risk to the woman, or in the case of rape, abortion shouldn't be allowed.

No such thing as an unintended pregnancy. What'd ya think might happen if you let a man ejaculate inside your vagina? We need to stop punishing babies for their mother's ignorance, stupidity, or irresponsibility. We like to say teens aren't mature enough to have sex, so what are we to make of those who're full-fledged adults who didn't think a guy ejaculating inside them might result in a pregnancy?

If we called abortion what it is, killing yuoro wn baby, perhaps we wouldn't be quite so cavalier about it making it out to be some woman's issue involving her right to choose. Choose what? To kill your own baby or not? Because that's what it boils down to.

 

[Votto]

I'll be happy to provide the final blow to the whole debate.

Obviously, a human being is not a human being until the birth fairy shows up and waves her magic wand over them as they pass out of the birth canal.

 

[Boss]

As the 'sperm donors' (for the time being, tech continues to improve, so for how much longer men are involved with a woman's pregnancy remains to be seen,) men should have say a 49% (less than equal since the woman carries the baby) say in things. If the doctor discovers some concern it could sway things out of the woman's hands then. But it's wrong to discount the man's desire altogether. But at the same time we don't wanna make his will equal since then rape becomes a means to control women making them pregnant, and forcing them to remain pregnant.

What would you do about who decides which doctor or people paying off doctors or women wanting to change doctors because she doesn't like him siding with daddy? I just see where this concept is wrought with problems. I definitely think men should be more involved and also should have to share the responsibility. Not sure how you get there.

My main objections to abortion is that it's uncivilized and degrading to who we are. I refuse to accept a society where abortion is used as birth control and without any moral conscience regarding human life. We're better than that.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

As the 'sperm donors' (for the time being, tech continues to improve, so for how much longer men are involved with a woman's pregnancy remains to be seen,) men should have say a 49% (less than equal since the woman carries the baby) say in things. If the doctor discovers some concern it could sway things out of the woman's hands then. But it's wrong to discount the man's desire altogether. But at the same time we don't wanna make his will equal since then rape becomes a means to control women making them pregnant, and forcing them to remain pregnant.

What would you do about who decides which doctor or people paying off doctors or women wanting to change doctors because she doesn't like him siding with daddy? I just see where this concept is wrought with problems. I definitely think men should be more involved and also should have to share the responsibility. Not sure how you get there.

My main objections to abortion is that it's uncivilized and degrading to who we are. I refuse to accept a society where abortion is used as birth control and without any moral conscience regarding human life. We're better than that.

I don't believe we're necessarily civilized whether we allow abortion or not. Our propensity for war seems to put that to bed nicely. A nation that continues to eagerly seek war is not going to be more or less civilized because of their acceptance of abortion.

I'd like us to simply be more honest about what it is and quit presenting it as a woman's issue. Equal pay is a woman's issue. Killing babies isn't. But I think what's happened is the debate's been framed that way since it's hard to get anyone to support "a woman's right to kill her own baby."

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your 'fact' is irrelevant. There is such a thing as a day old fertilized egg...

Facts are never irrelevant. All you did was state that I was wrong, you need to show evidence I am wrong. There is no such thing as "day old fertilized eggs" because they have become something else if they are fertilized. There can be day old unsuccessfully fertilized eggs, those are not human organisms. Again, the process of fertilization is only complete when the result is reproduction. The instant that happens, fertilization is complete and there is a new living organism produced. A "fertilized" egg would be an egg which has completed the fertilization process, thus technically an oxymoron.

What you are trying to do is put the genie back in the bottle and call a living organism a "fertilized egg" which is non-existing.

lol, if there's no such thing as a fertilized egg why does the term zygote exist in biology?

 

[NYcarbineer]

first debate that roe v wade doesn't exist and isn't binding. it is not about what your religious views dictate. it is about what GOVERNMENT has the right to impose.

Roe v. Wade is a court ruling on individual right to privacy. The government has no rights. The government has limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and the rights belong to us, the people, who are endowed with them by our Creator.

And I hate to break this to you but our religious views influence everything pertaining to our self-governing and can't be segregated from it. Not only that, but this is Constitutionally protected under our freedom of religion.

uh... yeah re roe. and? i think we all knew what the ruling says. the right right apparently doesn't understand it since they keep trying to pass laws that violate it. if you acknowledge that it is not governments place to interfere in this, as set forth in roe, then the constant drumbeat on the subject is pointless.

no one cares if you "self-govern" based on your religious views. the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for imposition of restrictions on the rest of us.

Courts don't create our laws, the people do. The SCOTUS has been historically horrible at establishing the laws we have to live under as a society. They told us for 85 years that slaves were property, rightfully owned by their masters. It told us for years that blacks should be segregated. It has upheld misogyny and sodomy laws, violated the hell out of basic human rights for Native Americans, kept women in their place long after they got the vote.

Now... HERE is where I have a problem with you...

"...the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for..."

They have the inalienable RIGHT to use their religious views as the basis for any damn thing they please. You do not have the right to restrict their religious influence.

The People also have the right to give women the right to an abortion, which they have.

 

[Boss]

Bottom line for myself is simply this: abortion is absolutely the killing of a human life. But for instances where carrying to term presents a substantial health risk to the woman, or in the case of rape, abortion shouldn't be allowed.

No such thing as an unintended pregnancy. What'd ya think might happen if you let a man ejaculate inside your vagina? We need to stop punishing babies for their mother's ignorance, stupidity, or irresponsibility. We like to say teens aren't mature enough to have sex, so what are we to make of those who're full-fledged adults who didn't think a guy ejaculating inside them might result in a pregnancy?

If we called abortion what it is, killing yuoro wn baby, perhaps we wouldn't be quite so cavalier about it making it out to be some woman's issue involving her right to choose. Choose what? To kill your own baby or not? Because that's what it boils down to.

I kind of agree with you, but I am a bit more understanding of those who don't share our pro-life view.

I believe a woman should have the right of choice, so if she is raped or victim of incestuous abuse, she has not had that right to choose. She deserves the chance to decide if she wants to have this baby. A mother in distress, facing the choice of her life or the fetus, should have the right to choice. In any other case, the woman made a conscious choice. She has already exercised that right. pregnancy is the result.

Now, people can make mistakes, and I believe we should try and give them a second chance when we can. I'm not so emotionally attached to a tiny embryo which hasn't yet developed it's neurological characteristics yet that I can't let go. Yes, it's human life and I'd rather it be nurtured and preserved, but I can understand if someone else has a different view. So I can accept first trimester abortions for first-time pregnancies, providing some counseling on abortion is required.

Beyond that, I would have some kind of board or court to determine if circumstances warranted an abortion on a case-by-case basis. No abortions would be allowed after first trimester with the exception of emergency 'life and death' situations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

first debate that roe v wade doesn't exist and isn't binding. it is not about what your religious views dictate. it is about what GOVERNMENT has the right to impose.

Roe v. Wade is a court ruling on individual right to privacy. The government has no rights. The government has limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and the rights belong to us, the people, who are endowed with them by our Creator.

And I hate to break this to you but our religious views influence everything pertaining to our self-governing and can't be segregated from it. Not only that, but this is Constitutionally protected under our freedom of religion.

There is no proof of a Creator, thus there is no place in a fact based argument for asserting the existence of a Creator as fact.

 

[Boss]

first debate that roe v wade doesn't exist and isn't binding. it is not about what your religious views dictate. it is about what GOVERNMENT has the right to impose.

Roe v. Wade is a court ruling on individual right to privacy. The government has no rights. The government has limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and the rights belong to us, the people, who are endowed with them by our Creator.

And I hate to break this to you but our religious views influence everything pertaining to our self-governing and can't be segregated from it. Not only that, but this is Constitutionally protected under our freedom of religion.

uh... yeah re roe. and? i think we all knew what the ruling says. the right right apparently doesn't understand it since they keep trying to pass laws that violate it. if you acknowledge that it is not governments place to interfere in this, as set forth in roe, then the constant drumbeat on the subject is pointless.

no one cares if you "self-govern" based on your religious views. the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for imposition of restrictions on the rest of us.

Courts don't create our laws, the people do. The SCOTUS has been historically horrible at establishing the laws we have to live under as a society. They told us for 85 years that slaves were property, rightfully owned by their masters. It told us for years that blacks should be segregated. It has upheld misogyny and sodomy laws, violated the hell out of basic human rights for Native Americans, kept women in their place long after they got the vote.

Now... HERE is where I have a problem with you...

"...the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for..."

They have the inalienable RIGHT to use their religious views as the basis for any damn thing they please. You do not have the right to restrict their religious influence.

The People also have the right to give women the right to an abortion, which they have.

Uhm.. No, the SCOTUS did that in Roe v. Wade.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Bottom line for myself is simply this: abortion is absolutely the killing of a human life. But for instances where carrying to term presents a substantial health risk to the woman, or in the case of rape, abortion shouldn't be allowed.

No such thing as an unintended pregnancy. What'd ya think might happen if you let a man ejaculate inside your vagina? We need to stop punishing babies for their mother's ignorance, stupidity, or irresponsibility. We like to say teens aren't mature enough to have sex, so what are we to make of those who're full-fledged adults who didn't think a guy ejaculating inside them might result in a pregnancy?

If we called abortion what it is, killing yuoro wn baby, perhaps we wouldn't be quite so cavalier about it making it out to be some woman's issue involving her right to choose. Choose what? To kill your own baby or not? Because that's what it boils down to.

I kind of agree with you, but I am a bit more understanding of those who don't share our pro-life view.

I believe a woman should have the right of choice, so if she is raped or victim of incestuous abuse, she has not had that right to choose. She deserves the chance to decide if she wants to have this baby. A mother in distress, facing the choice of her life or the fetus, should have the right to choice. In any other case, the woman made a conscious choice. She has already exercised that right. pregnancy is the result.

Now, people can make mistakes, and I believe we should try and give them a second chance when we can. I'm not so emotionally attached to a tiny embryo which hasn't yet developed it's neurological characteristics yet that I can't let go. Yes, it's human life and I'd rather it be nurtured and preserved, but I can understand if someone else has a different view. So I can accept first trimester abortions for first-time pregnancies, providing some counseling on abortion is required.

Beyond that, I would have some kind of board or court to determine if circumstances warranted an abortion on a case-by-case basis. No abortions would be allowed after first trimester with the exception of emergency 'life and death' situations.

I don't id as 'pro-life' as much as 'anti-infanticide.' I'm pro-death penalty (actually in favor of expanding it to include all violent criminals.)

Rape certainly should be a reason. But 'abusive incest' is in fact rape, but not all incest is abusive or rape, when it is it's rape not incest. Health or life of the mother is another.

Insofar as the legal definitions about it, I'm actually neutral. I wish it could be a personal decision involving an accurate depiction of the reality involved. But my involvement with it is more about depicting it accurately than anything else. If it were being depicted accurately, women who have abortions wouldn't be having regrets or nightmares about it since it only involved a right to make a decision and didn't invovle killing their babies. That they do have these after-effects suggest the debate isn't being framed accurately.

 

[Boss]

Your 'fact' is irrelevant. There is such a thing as a day old fertilized egg...

Facts are never irrelevant. All you did was state that I was wrong, you need to show evidence I am wrong. There is no such thing as "day old fertilized eggs" because they have become something else if they are fertilized. There can be day old unsuccessfully fertilized eggs, those are not human organisms. Again, the process of fertilization is only complete when the result is reproduction. The instant that happens, fertilization is complete and there is a new living organism produced. A "fertilized" egg would be an egg which has completed the fertilization process, thus technically an oxymoron.

What you are trying to do is put the genie back in the bottle and call a living organism a "fertilized egg" which is non-existing.

lol, if there's no such thing as a fertilized egg why does the term zygote exist in biology?

I didn't say there was 'no such thing' as a fertilized egg. Zygotes are produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum (female gamete) and a sperm cell (male gamete)—which combine to form the single diploid cell. (Already, no longer a fertilized egg (haploid) cell.) Such zygotes contain DNA derived from both parents, and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual.

Fertilization is a process. It is either successful or unsuccessful. During the zygote phase, the fertilization process is happening. There is not a "fertilized egg" but an egg in the process of fertilization with another haploid cell. The indication of successful fertilization is when the diploid cell reproduces. Fertilization is complete, but there is no longer an egg cell.

 

[jillian]

first debate that roe v wade doesn't exist and isn't binding. it is not about what your religious views dictate. it is about what GOVERNMENT has the right to impose.

Roe v. Wade is a court ruling on individual right to privacy. The government has no rights. The government has limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and the rights belong to us, the people, who are endowed with them by our Creator.

And I hate to break this to you but our religious views influence everything pertaining to our self-governing and can't be segregated from it. Not only that, but this is Constitutionally protected under our freedom of religion.

uh... yeah re roe. and? i think we all knew what the ruling says. the right right apparently doesn't understand it since they keep trying to pass laws that violate it. if you acknowledge that it is not governments place to interfere in this, as set forth in roe, then the constant drumbeat on the subject is pointless.

no one cares if you "self-govern" based on your religious views. the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for imposition of restrictions on the rest of us.

Courts don't create our laws, the people do. The SCOTUS has been historically horrible at establishing the laws we have to live under as a society. They told us for 85 years that slaves were property, rightfully owned by their masters. It told us for years that blacks should be segregated. It has upheld misogyny and sodomy laws, violated the hell out of basic human rights for Native Americans, kept women in their place long after they got the vote.

Now... HERE is where I have a problem with you...

"...the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for..."

They have the inalienable RIGHT to use their religious views as the basis for any damn thing they please. You do not have the right to restrict their religious influence.

The People also have the right to give women the right to an abortion, which they have.

Uhm.. No, the SCOTUS did that in Roe v. Wade.

the supreme court did not "give" the right. it exists. and has always existed historically until the religious right decided they wanted to stick their nose in other people's business). they articulated the right.

funny how protective of rights the right is... unless we're talking about women's rights or minority rights.

 

[Boss]

Roe v. Wade is a court ruling on individual right to privacy. The government has no rights. The government has limited powers enumerated in the Constitution and the rights belong to us, the people, who are endowed with them by our Creator.

And I hate to break this to you but our religious views influence everything pertaining to our self-governing and can't be segregated from it. Not only that, but this is Constitutionally protected under our freedom of religion.

uh... yeah re roe. and? i think we all knew what the ruling says. the right right apparently doesn't understand it since they keep trying to pass laws that violate it. if you acknowledge that it is not governments place to interfere in this, as set forth in roe, then the constant drumbeat on the subject is pointless.

no one cares if you "self-govern" based on your religious views. the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for imposition of restrictions on the rest of us.

Courts don't create our laws, the people do. The SCOTUS has been historically horrible at establishing the laws we have to live under as a society. They told us for 85 years that slaves were property, rightfully owned by their masters. It told us for years that blacks should be segregated. It has upheld misogyny and sodomy laws, violated the hell out of basic human rights for Native Americans, kept women in their place long after they got the vote.

Now... HERE is where I have a problem with you...

"...the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for..."

They have the inalienable RIGHT to use their religious views as the basis for any damn thing they please. You do not have the right to restrict their religious influence.

The People also have the right to give women the right to an abortion, which they have.

Uhm.. No, the SCOTUS did that in Roe v. Wade.

the supreme court did not "give" the right. it exists. and has always existed historically until the religious right decided they wanted to stick their nose in other people's business). they articulated the right.

funny how protective of rights the right is... unless we're talking about women's rights or minority rights.

It's not a right that always existed or Roe v. Wade wouldn't mean a thing.

The religious right has the same right to stick their noses in your business as everyone else in the society you live in. We don't live in the universe where everybody gets to live as they please and mind their own business. We have civilized society, where we work together in mutual cooperation to form a satisfactory and peaceful coexistence with each other.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Sperm trying to reach an egg represent a developing human life, by your standards.

No, of course it doesn't.

You really don't have much If you have to reduce somebody else to your own level of understanding.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sperm trying to reach an egg represent a developing human life, by your standards.

No, of course it doesn't.

You really don't have much If you have to reduce somebody else to your own level of understanding.

You set the rules for the game. Live with them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

uh... yeah re roe. and? i think we all knew what the ruling says. the right right apparently doesn't understand it since they keep trying to pass laws that violate it. if you acknowledge that it is not governments place to interfere in this, as set forth in roe, then the constant drumbeat on the subject is pointless.

no one cares if you "self-govern" based on your religious views. the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for imposition of restrictions on the rest of us.

Courts don't create our laws, the people do. The SCOTUS has been historically horrible at establishing the laws we have to live under as a society. They told us for 85 years that slaves were property, rightfully owned by their masters. It told us for years that blacks should be segregated. It has upheld misogyny and sodomy laws, violated the hell out of basic human rights for Native Americans, kept women in their place long after they got the vote.

Now... HERE is where I have a problem with you...

"...the objection is to those who try to use their religious views as the basis for..."

They have the inalienable RIGHT to use their religious views as the basis for any damn thing they please. You do not have the right to restrict their religious influence.

The People also have the right to give women the right to an abortion, which they have.

Uhm.. No, the SCOTUS did that in Roe v. Wade.

the supreme court did not "give" the right. it exists. and has always existed historically until the religious right decided they wanted to stick their nose in other people's business). they articulated the right.

funny how protective of rights the right is... unless we're talking about women's rights or minority rights.

It's not a right that always existed or Roe v. Wade wouldn't mean a thing.

The religious right has the same right to stick their noses in your business as everyone else in the society you live in. We don't live in the universe where everybody gets to live as they please and mind their own business. We have civilized society, where we work together in mutual cooperation to form a satisfactory and peaceful coexistence with each other.

You claim we have God given rights. I claim that if that is so - then abortion is a God given right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

I didn't say there was 'no such thing' as a fertilized egg. Zygotes are produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum (female gamete) and a sperm cell (male gamete)—which combine to form the single diploid cell.

So you didn't say "There is no such thing as a "day old fertilized egg" because that isn't how biology works."

Okay.....then someone else is writing posts under your name.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your 'fact' is irrelevant. There is such a thing as a day old fertilized egg...

Facts are never irrelevant. All you did was state that I was wrong, you need to show evidence I am wrong. There is no such thing as "day old fertilized eggs" because they have become something else if they are fertilized. There can be day old unsuccessfully fertilized eggs, those are not human organisms. Again, the process of fertilization is only complete when the result is reproduction. The instant that happens, fertilization is complete and there is a new living organism produced. A "fertilized" egg would be an egg which has completed the fertilization process, thus technically an oxymoron.

What you are trying to do is put the genie back in the bottle and call a living organism a "fertilized egg" which is non-existing.

lol, if there's no such thing as a fertilized egg why does the term zygote exist in biology?

I didn't say there was 'no such thing' as a fertilized egg. Zygotes are produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum (female gamete) and a sperm cell (male gamete)—which combine to form the single diploid cell. (Already, no longer a fertilized egg (haploid) cell.) Such zygotes contain DNA derived from both parents, and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual.

Fertilization is a process. It is either successful or unsuccessful. During the zygote phase, the fertilization process is happening. There is not a "fertilized egg" but an egg in the process of fertilization with another haploid cell. The indication of successful fertilization is when the diploid cell reproduces. Fertilization is complete, but there is no longer an egg cell.

The Science Dictionary says:

ZYGOTE :

A zygote is a fertilized egg containing two sets of chromosomes, one from the egg (oocyte) and one from the sperm. The zygote is a single cell and the result of a fusion between two gametes, an egg (female) and one sperm cell (male).

Go argue with them. Tell them they've made a mistake.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You set the rules for the game. Live with them.

A person would have to be monumentally stupid and ignorant to think either a sperm or an egg qualified as a human being on their own.

I set no "rules for the game" predicated upon such idiocy. It was you who did so.