Total topics: 16
This just end from Australia news, a trans woman wants a uterus transplant just to have the "awesome privilege" of having an abortion.
You barren women, I know this is a fecal stink slap in the face.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
Banning abortion doesn't have to mean forcing a woman to carry a baby to term .
We all agree .
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
Throw away, destroy all birth control except for simply self control.
Who's going to find problems or find themselves in a problem with that?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
Doesn't this position eventually have to relinquish and turn pro life?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
Legal Argument
(1) Murder is the taking of an innocent person’s life.
(2) According to the law, a pregnancy is not recognized as a person.
(3) Therefore, abortion is not murder.
Premise 2 is arbitrary. What if the law is wrong? Then, the conclusion must also be wrong.
If everyone wants a good argument with this reasoning, then debaters should agree on a specific definition of personhood that the law can recognize.
The law argument is circular reasoning and irrelevant until the debaters agree on a logical definition of personhood.
Personhood Argument
It's easier said than done to come up with a good concept of personhood. Finding a coherent concept of personhood is a philosophical exercise and a rabbit hole.
Some people think viability is the answer, which I’m unconvinced about.
Many premature births require medical assistance to survive. Requiring medical assistance isn’t the typical idea of viability, which one thinks.
A healthy, full-term baby fits this ideal concept of viability since it can survive without medical assistance. However, most people couldn’t agree with this extreme case of viability since many consider abortion in the third-trimester murder.
However, medical viability depends on the capabilities of advanced medical care, which once didn’t exist and could improve in the future.
The fetus/embryo/(input early stage) is a clump of cells and not a human being
Many people think that a pregnancy is a group of cells that is no more a human being than a foot or hand. However, the pregnancy at conception is a human organism and continues to be the same human organism when it dies. On the other hand, a clump of cells does not constitute a human organism and can’t grow into one.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to say that pregnancy is a human being at the initial stage of their life and continues to be for their existence.
I have tackled what I perceive as implausible arguments for abortion. These are some sources for arguments against abortion that have influenced me.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Trump and DeSantis will need to go right wing to get the nomination. The democrats can hammer them over abortion laws. It was a huge factor in the last election and will be again in 2024
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Long before the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, researchers noticed a link between women having abortion access and a reduced risk of violence from men. In the wake of the court's decision, the opposite is happening and abortion restrictions have led to a significant uptick in intimate partner violence. Amna Nawaz discussed more with NewsHour health reporter Laura Santhanam.
Crystal Justice, chief external affairs officer for the National Domestic Violence Hotline, has heard a lot of gutting cases of domestic violence from hotline callers over the years. But since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June, Justice told Jezebel that a few calls, in particular, have stood out to her—namely one woman who said her partner was intercepting her birth control pills after learning she was having them mailed to her. She eventually became pregnant but lived in a state where abortion is banned, and called the hotline desperate to learn her options.Domestic Violence Hotline Reports 99% Increase in Calls Post-RoeThe hotline told Jezebel how abortion bans are now in the "toolbox of abusive partners."
Discuss
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
Since Roe v Wade was decided, everyone learned how and why SCOTUS ruled in favor of allowing women to obtain an abortion. That decision hinged on women's right to privacy. Despite the precedence standing for nearly 50 years, SCOTUS got it wrong. There is no right to "privacy" in the 14th Amendment. However, there is a clause within that amendment that directly applies to "personal liberty."
"Liberty is the right of a person to do as they please, assuming their actions do not violate any laws or infringe on the rights of others. What is personal liberty? Personal liberty's definition is the right of individuals to be free of arbitrary restraint or bondage. In short, personal liberty allows people to live as they choose without interference from others unless it is for a good, legally-established reason."
The legal definition of liberty is the right a person has to behave as they like, subject only to interference for appropriate government reasons (such as the protection of other citizens' liberties)."
A pregnancy is not [a] person with all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the laws bestowed upon actual persons upon their birth. The pregnant girl/woman is [a] person. A pregnancy is not [a] person. It's even codified into law, the definition of what [a] person, human being, child and individual shall be understood to mean, is as follows:
- (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
- (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or "extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
- (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
- (Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)
What the 14th Amendment does in fact state regarding the legal rights, privileges and equal protections of the law for persons is ... that they are only bestowed upon [a] person once they are either born or naturalized. Since this topic involves abortion, being born is the only legal standard clearly demarcated within the 14th Amendment that establishes those rights, privileges and equal protection of the law upon a person.
Read the rest of the post here: https://samflynn0514.wixsite.com/americaindenial/post/scotus-got-roe-v-wade-wrong-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-have-come-to-know
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
@RationalMadman
Offer me 3 topics and the sides you want on them. I'll pick one of them.
Original response here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8895/posts/374093
TOPIC ONE:
Racism is not a driving factor in (in)equality in the United States; any perceived disparity has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.
TOPIC TWO:
Social-psychology and the Law play a central role in the Abortion debate that is oft ignored. So much so that those who advocate for the pro-life position believe abortion is legal murder and that [a] full-blown "human being" exists at conception worthy of all the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law (in other words, they confuse cellular life with personhood in favor of ignoring the 14th Amendment - AND - fetal viability).
TOPIC THREE:
The issues surrounding violent encounters with police where black (mostly, and specifically) and brown people are concerned have more to do with the culture of those minorities and very little to do with the culture of policing. The social-psychology of policing is nuanced and more reactionary than proactive. As a result, their actions are predicated on the "in the field" (boots on the ground) circumstances on a case-by-case basis (e.g. no two traffic stops are equally the same; each one is always unpredictable).
As I agree with each topic I listed/put forth, I will take the PRO side on each.
- We will need to agree on the timeliness of responses (how many days to research and respond; takes time to read, formulate and write a cogent response).
- We will need to agree that when citing sources, so that each of us understand the context of each citation, no less than two quotes from each citation must be used giving context/relevance to why the cited source was even used as it directly relates to the argument/point being proffered.
- We will need to agree on no actual fallacious uses of the ad hominem argument (valid observations of attitude, behavior and demeanor are excluded).
- We will need to agree not to write lengthy paragraphs, but rather break down the points so its easily readable and coherent.
- We will need to agree to respond point by point and not convolute the discussion. In other words, do not take A1 and retort on it after you retort to A6. An orderly debate/discussion is necessary for not only our benefit, but the readers/voters as well.
- We will need to agree on credible sources where the author(s) have demonstrated their veracity by a clear bibliography of research conducted to substantiate their respective pieces. Opinion Editorials have to be judged on the sources they cite. Absolutely NO genetic fallacies will be used or tolerated.
- We will need to agree to stay on the subject agreed to and no deviations off the subject matter (no red herring or non-sequitur arguments).
- We will need to agree to keep as much subjective emotions out of the agreed upon topic so as to keep the format as productive as possible. Only objectivity backed by verifiable facts followed by the citations given to back each claim up.
If you have any terms to add, please do so. Otherwise, that's about all (the most important ones that come to mind) that I can think of off the bat.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
94% of ALL abortions take place BEFORE 14 weeks gestation, the majority of those being BEFORE 6 weeks gestation. Absolutely. Positively. NO BABY involved.
Words have meaning. That meaning is defined by the context in which they are given. Semantics matters. Syntax matters. When you use words out of context, out of syntax, and semantically incorrect...you end with emotively charged terms based on a perverted context in which they are given. As a result, many words are used as misnomers and many are also conflated with others, albeit incorrectly. Terms like baby, child, children...the "pro-life" crowd never, ever uses the scientifically accurate terminology of any of the stages of pregnancy. Be it biology, psychology, legally, or reproductively. They are too truthful, too dry and meaningless for them because they cannot handle the truth of it all.
The obvious ignorant (uneducated) #prolife bandwagon considers #conception = to [a] #humanlife or [a] #humanbeing. Problem with that statement is, #cellularlife does NOT equal #ahumanbeing or #personhood.
Cellular life (i.e., conception), the basic biological criteria for #life, is merely potentiality. Without #viability (capable of extrauterine survival), the pregnancy is immaterial. It will not exist until it gestates long enough within the female #womb, period.
Again, 94% of ALL abortions are BEFORE 14 weeks, and viability is technically 19-20 weeks. Less than 1.2% of ALL abortions are AFTER 22-24 weeks. So, the whole "baby killers" argument is unsubstantiated uneducated nonsense. While there are some late term abortions, they are far, few and between (the noted 1.2%).
While fertilization, or conception, meets the very basic biological criterial for cellular life, that cellular life simply does not equal an actual #humanbeing. It just doesn't; as potentiality can never equal actuality. And yet the pro-life crowd keeps using incorrect terminology, misnomers, to describe accurately labeled stages of human reproductive development of a pregnancy. Baby this, baby that.
A zygote is NOT a baby.
A blastocyst is NOT a baby.
An embryo is NOT a baby.
An unviable fetus is NOT a baby.
An initial heartbeat does NOT equal a baby either. A heartbeat only means that an albeit immature organ (not entirely fully developed) is functional. Take the embryo/fetus out of the womb too early (before 19-22 weeks), and it will cease to exist. That being said, #viability is the ONLY issue that should concern anyone where a pregnancy is concerned. This proves why 94% of ALL abortions are before 14 weeks gestation, the majority of those being before 6 weeks. NO girl or woman wants to be responsible for the outright death of a viable fetus (i.e., if viable, an actual "baby"). Despite viability, the pregnancy still has no legal rights outside of Roe v Wade (i.e. - prohibition of late term abortions for mere contraceptive purposes).
Yes, many come back at me with the laws concerning double homicide of a pregnant woman; yet the fact remains that both the state and federal laws written of same categorize or ascribe the label of "legal victim" to the pregnancy, regardless of stage, and never that of [a] human being. The legislators knew that to state otherwise would immediately conflict with established case law (precedence) and Roe v Wade; not to mention the 14th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. So that argument is dead in the water (pardon the pun).
The undeniable fact remains, that without fetal #viability there can be NO actualized "human being."
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
From Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles to Liz Wheeler, they all get it wrong on abortion.
None of them (pro-lifers) have the requisite intellect to grasp the simple fact that potentiality ≠ actuality. Never has. Never will.
At conception the very (very) basic biological criterion for cellular “life” is met. That cellular life (ie, zygote) ≠ [a] human being. Neither does a blastocyst, embryo, or an unviable fetus. That’s just a scientific fact of human physiology and biology.
The ONLY stage of gestational development where the fetus can be equates to that of [a] human being is the point of fetal viability. It is at this point of development within the womb that the viable fetus can survive outside the womb without further gestational development. With ir without medical intervention.
To call a zygote, blastocyst, embryo and unviable fetus the emotively charged term, “baby,” is an implicit misnomer. It’s factually inaccurate on all levels.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
I want to hear from pro-lifers that are pro-life without religious reasons. I was raised in the conservative Christian US south, I am painfully well-versed in the religious reasons, but I'm curious as to what non-religious pro-lifers belief and why.
I'm primarily framing this discussion within an American context but am open to hear from anyone.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
DEMOCRATS CLOSE the GAP in TWO POST-ROE v. WADE SPECIAL ELECTIONS
Aaron Blake@WashPo
Two months ago, Republicans hailed the takeover of a Democratic seat in a South Texas special election as proof of their 2022 momentum. Ten days later, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and since then there have been more and more signs that this momentum might not be all it was cracked up to be.
That culminated Tuesday in Democrats over-performing in the second straight special election since Roe was overturned, in Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District. Similar to Nebraska’s 1st District just days after the court’s action, Republicans still held the conservative-leaning seat but by a smaller margin than they’d like and by a smaller margin than in 2020.
In Nebraska, the GOP won by six points in a district that Trump had carried by 15 in 2020. In Minnesota, the margin is currently four points in a district Trump won by 10.
These are hardly massive shifts, and these are merely two out of 435 districts. We shouldn’t oversell the results in one, two or even five districts as predictive. But those results don’t seem commensurate with an impending red wave in the 2022 midterms, which not along ago seemed like it was indeed building.
History suggests such special elections held so close to the next election can be revealing of what may come the next November — though not always.
Democrats held on to a GOP-leaning district in Arizona in June 2012 after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and went on to hold the presidency that November. In June 2014, a late special election in Florida showed Republicans significantly over-performing the 2012 presidential election results, shortly before they flipped the Senate. The story was similar in an Ohio special election in June 2016, shortly before Trump won the presidency. In 2018, the Democrats’ takeover of the House was preceded by another Ohio special election — in August — in which they very nearly picked off a district that had favored Trump by double-digits.
(These are single special elections, but this late in an election cycle, we generally don’t have many to compare. And when we do, there are sometimes factors that make them very difficult to read, including when they feature two candidates of the same party.)
Other late special elections have been less telling. In 2010, Democrats hailed their ability to hold a conservative-leaning district in western Pennsylvania in May, but they still got drubbed that November. And 2020 featured both a surprising GOP pickup in California in May and a big Democratic overperformance in Upstate New York the next month — the GOP won by just five points in a district Trump had carried by 25 — before Democrats reclaimed both the Senate and the presidency in November.
If there’s one encouraging thing for Democrats about these two post-Roe special elections — and whether they might tell us some larger dynamic — its in how closely they mirrored one another.
As The Washington Post’s Lenny Bronner noted, the data on both races show the Democrats over-performing in Democratic-leaning and generally more populous areas, suggesting their base was more mobilized, relative to Republicans.
Here’s how that looks:
The Republican congressman-elect in Minnesota, Brad Finstad, effectively matched Trump’s performance in rural, red counties. But he did significantly worse than Trump in more competitive and bluer areas. Democrat Jeff Ettinger was able to improve upon President Biden’s margins by enough in those areas to bring this district from a 10-point Republican one to a four-point Republican one.
There was some question after the Nebraska special election about precisely why Democrats had done better there. The seat was vacant after GOP congressman Jeff Fortenberry, was convicted on three felony counts and resigned. And history shows scandals can create some funky results in the ensuing special election (including perhaps in that California district in 2020). Maybe this wasn’t really about Roe; maybe it was for very local reasons.
But the outcomes in Minnesota and Nebraska — combined with their party’s generic ballot numbers improving of late — give Democrats some license to believe the fundamentals are getting better for them, because the results in both races were so similar despite all the different variables involved.
That doesn’t mean they’re gong to hold both the House and Senate come November; that’ll be very difficult, given how narrow their majorities are. And history suggests Democrats need to do better than merely drawing even on the generic ballot, which is about where they are now. Things also can and will change.
But over-performing in races three to four months before the general election is surely better than the alternative. And we’ll have a couple more special elections to examine in the coming weeks — both in Upstate New York on Aug. 23 — to help us evaluate the trends.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I just had a very heated argument with someone/people close to me about Roe v Wade and what the implications are and where things are going. It didn't end friendly or well.
I believe we are developing into a generation where love is just not even a factor anymore. It's not about 'sex is immoral' it's about are you really going sticking your dick in a woman or opening your legs to a man and going 'hmm I can justify killing this conceived being later based on my pleasure, my needs, my everything because I want this pleasure now, me me me me me'?
If you are actually selfish, be smart and disciplined. I can honestly tell you that I don't empathise with or understand people who genuinely can't enjoy foreplay if they have no condom around and are not on the pill, who 'need that risk' to get the thrill. I don't think it's justifiable or 'yeah yeah I get it you were drunk and high and whatever else, maybe you just love each other that much'.
The whole mentality of the left-wing who are pro-unrestricted-abortion is becoming do what you want, when you want and to hell with the consequences. It is the mentality of an impulsive teenager yet I know middle aged people who have it (at least for others) because they feel a 26 year old woman has no way to control how she acts on her urges.
I am not here to say I am anti-abortion in the first trimester or that I am totally against plan B whatsoever but please understand that's a human you just killed and living beings are not to be toyed with.
How the fuck can the left wing say that dependent homeless people, the disabled, the elderly and the poor should be cared for and nurtured at the sake of the rich and then say differently when it's a foetus and the mother has already harbored it inside her for several months? Hell, what the fuck is a woman doing for 6 months to just go 'na let's ditch it'?
I don't say I don't get it, I actually do and I am a passionately progressive guy but progress and libertinism are not the same damn thing and it is clear to me today that I am not a sheer liberal, I am a progressive and they are not the same brand of left wing.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
TheUnderdog has asked me the following: “If someone told you they were pro choice because they didn’t want foster kids getting PTSD in the foster system, how would you respond?” I figured I’d share my answer publicly, because I really detest this form of argument from the Pro Choice camp.
The argument posited is that it is moral to make abortions due to concerns over conditions after birth. For the sake of argument, I will be assuming that in this hypothetical scenario the child will be certainly born into non-ideal conditions.
The very first thing to examine is the morality of the act itself. If the act is obviously amoral (that is, neither moral nor immoral) or moral, then having the abortion would be a no-brainer and we could end the discussion here.
Recall from my debate with Seldiora,
“Those in favor of abortion assert there is a difference between being a human being and being a human person. The human being is simply a member of the species Homo sapiens, but personhood is based on other qualities that are developed over time. This is how, despite abortion objectively and irrefutably killing a human being, Pro-Choice advocates can still manage to justify the practice. They say killing a human being is fine, as long as it is not a human person.However, using the Pro-Choice’s own line of reasoning, the uncertainty principle states that there are 4 potential possibilities of abortion:1. The fetus is a person, and that is known.2. The fetus is a person, but it is unknown.3. The fetus is not a person, and that is known.4. The fetus is not a person, and that is unknownThere are ramifications to each:1. You have committed brazen homicide.2. You have committed manslaughter3. You have done nothing wrong.4. You have committed criminal negligence.In 3/4ths of scenarios, the abortion is not justified.However, 2/4ths of these scenarios are impossible. No one can say with absolute certainty that abortion does not kill a human person. At best, someone can be strongly convinced that it does not, but they have no capacity to prove so....This throws out options 1 & 3, along with the only justifiable abortion scenario, leaving only unjustifiable scenarios.”
OK, so there is no way abortion as an act is not immoral in some form or fashion. So clearly, then, the matter is worth digging into deeper.
Now, even if abortion as an act is immoral, an immoral act could still be justified if it is outweighed by a positive good. This depends on three things: the degree of the immorality of the act, the degree of the positive good, & whether there are alternative options available to circumvent the immoral act and attain the positive good.
Regarding the first, I think both options 2 & 4 present a great evil.
Abort73 furthers:
“Uncertainty as to whether a building is occupied does not give an exterminator the right to fumigate. Uncertainty as to whether an overturned bassinet is empty does not give a truck driver the right to plough through it. Uncertainty as to whether a walk-in freezer has been vacated does not give a night manager the right to lock and bolt it. Uncertainty as to whether a high climber has moved to another tree does not give a lumberjack the right to fell the timber. And uncertainty over whether a person is really dead does not give a mortician the right to light the furnace. Personal conviction makes no difference. The absence of human life must be completely verified before any of these actions can take place.”
I also think it wouldn’t be inaccurate to reject the Pro-Choice differentiation between humanity and personhood altogether.
Further citing my debate with Seldiora,
“Because the Pro-Choice metrics of defining personhood are indistinct and immeasurable, the voter should prefer the objective Pro-Life standard: “To kill a member of the Homo sapiens without justification is immoral.”Under this standard, the abortion debate is instantly settled.......Indeed, it is better to draw the line at killing a human being. If we did not, what else would be the metric we use to draw it?If PRO thinks personhood begins with consciousness, then people in a vegetable state, suffering brain damage, or severely developmentally handicapped are “not people” under PRO’s logic and can be freely killed with no moral repercussion.If PRO thinks life begins with the “ability to respond to stimuli,” we run into the same logical blunders: what about people in a vegetative state?The baby is also able to respond to stimuli as early as 8 weeks, well within the first trimester, when the majority of abortions happen.Maybe PRO thinks it is “viability,” that is also nonsensical. Are people on life support who are technically “unviable” less than a human person?
This would escalate the severity of the crime to blatant murder.
The other thing to consider is the circumstances that has lead to the perceived need of such an abortion, starting with the decision to have sexual intercourse in the first place. An act of evil is less severe if the actor was forced to make the decision due to circumstances out of their control (i.e. rape). Yet that’s not what we see for greater than 99.5% of abortion cases.
Abortions happen typically when a couple has sex without taking proper precautions.
A study took polls of those who had abortions and asked them if they were using condoms or contraceptives at the time of pregnancy, and they asked them if they were using these consistently.
While 42% of the condom-users reported failure, inconsistent use was reported by half of those using condoms as well. Once you consider that only 1/250 condoms breaks (0.4%), the study shows that inconsistent use was the biggest contributor to unwanted pregnancy.
The results are similar with contraceptives, which are 91%+ effective, as 3/4ths of those taking them reported inconsistent use.
Using a condom consistently, and using a contraceptive if it fails consistently is next to foolproof statistically. There is also the tried and true method of abstinence.
IEP furthers:
“when a person voluntarily engages in a behavior which can produce reasonably foreseeable consequences, and the agent is a proximate and primary cause of those consequences, then it follows that the agent has obligations with respect to those consequences. In the case of procreation, the child needs care. To fail to provide it is to allow harmful consequences to obtain. Since the agent is causally responsible for the existence of a child in need of care, then the agent is morally responsible to provide it. “
The agent should not simply forgo their responsibility by killing that child. Such an act is beyond abhorrent.
Moving to the second factor, then, abortion must reap a very large positive good in this scenario to outweigh the act itself… Unfortunately, it doesn’t. It is preferable to live in crappy conditions than to not live at all.
I addressed this some in my debate with Seldiora, when he asked: “what about disabled children, who may live an entire life of suffering?”
To which I responded:
“As you have admitted, life is a continuous process. If this is the case, why stop preventing the suffering at birth? Why not kill 80 year old disabled people so that their remaining years will be pain-free?
Hopefully you will see CON’s point. Furthermore, who are you to decide which life is or is not worth living? What level of suffering is the threshold? Where do you draw the line?”
Expanding this idea to poverty, Abort73 writes:
“Isn't it true that there are born-children, today, who are growing up in poverty? Has anyone ever heard someone argue that the mothers of these born-children should have the right to kill them, since they can't afford to raise them? No one makes such an absurd and heartless argument because we all know that no amount of financial hardship is sufficient rationale for killing another human being, particularly an innocent child. On a practical level, there are more crisis pregnancy care centers in America today than there are abortion providers. They all function to help bring women through their pregnancies by providing them the emotional and financial assistance they need to carry to term and, if need be, place for adoption (which would relieve all future financial obligation). When help is needed, help can be found.”
This form of argument additionally assumes that if you live impoverished or in crappy conditions your life is nothing but pain. That’s objectively false in every case without fail.
C. Everett Koop, who pioneered the field of pediatric surgery, points out that
"some of the most unhappy children have all of their physical and mental faculties, while some of the happiest youngsters have borne burdens which most of us would find very difficult to endure."
In every life, there is the good & there is the bad. Even if there is a little good and a lot of bad, who are we to say that life is not worth living? Additionally, who are we to say that someone’s conditions won’t improve over time?
Research shows there are 3 basic things that any person can do to be successful: finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until 21 to marry and have children.
The results speak for themselves:
“Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year).”
Addressing the foster home PTSD thing specifically, if anything the presence of foster homes and orphanages supports my argument.
Tying this into the third factor (that is, “whether there are alternative options available to circumvent the immoral act and attain the positive good”), a foster home or an orphanage is not at all a net negative existence. While it’s true that these systems are not perfect, overall they are very positive forces for society. Have you heard anyone argue to kill born orphans so that they can avoid the prospective chance of developing PTSD (Which, by the way, many people live with just fine)?
Thought not.
If those options exist, then, how then do we justify abortion? The answer is simple: we can’t.
That’s why many people argue the orphanage/foster care system will be overrun if we outlaw abortion.
Newsflash: it won’t.
Abort73 writes:
"The National Council for Adoption (NCFA) points out that "there are many couples hoping to adopt for every one adoptable infant." Their studies show that one-third of all women, aged 18-44, have considered adopting, and their coverage of the dramatic rise in international adoptions is further evidence that the demand to adopt is well ahead of the number of infants available to be adopted.
The NCFA also points out that roughly 98% of the unmarried women who give birth decide to parent their baby. Only 2% place for adoption.10 If you apply that percentage to the number of pregnancies currently being aborted each year, the abolition of abortion would require the adoption of approximately 20,000 additional babies each year.....
A second point to consider is this. If abortion were not an option, if women had to carry their children to full term and fathers couldn't bail themselves out of child support by paying for an abortion... The number of unplanned pregnancies would almost certainly go down. As it stands now, abortion is a safety net”
Finally, even if none of that were true, we could look back to what I said earlier:
“Using a condom consistently, and using a contraceptive if it fails consistently is next to foolproof statistically. There is also the tried and true method of abstinence.”
Those constitute alternatives in of themselves, do they not?
Hope this answers your question, TheUnderdog.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
So awhile back I committed some Red Herrings in abortion debate. I'm curious if anyone on the other side would like to defend what I take to be hypocrisy. I do not assume any one pro-life person to believe in each of the following; it's rather a starting point for potential discussion.
- I'm curious how beliefs in stripping women of their rights for the benefit of strangers (AKA "the unborn"), line up with investing in a border wall and a general anti-immigrant stance? After-all people who die trying to cross the border could live if given residence in the homes of citizens at the expense and against the wishes of said citizens.
- Stances against universal health care, which would raise the quality of life for any children forced to be born against the wishes of the mother, and likely make less women want abortions when there's not the up front cost of around $12,000 to give birth in a hospital.
- Gun access at the expense of life. Just universal background checks is estimated to be able to prevent over 1000 murders per year.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics