Debate: Should abortion be legal?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:50:08 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Debate: Should abortion be legal?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Debate: Should abortion be legal?  (Read 3592 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 20, 2017, 10:18:48 PM »
« edited: February 21, 2017, 12:55:07 AM by Beet »

The "pro-choice" argument is that a woman's right to control her pregnancy outweighs any right claimed for the embryo or fetus, which pro-choice advocates see as not yet having the full rights of a person. The pro-choice side sees abortion as a private medical decision that must not be made by the government. This was the essential holding in the landmark Supreme Court of the United States 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade, and it is accepted by most in the pro-choice community.

The "pro-life" argument is that an embryo (or, in later stages of development, a fetus) is a human being ”entitled to protection” from the moment of either conception or implantation and therefore has a right to life that must be respected. According to this argument, abortion is homicide. Many take it a step further and say that, unless this homicide is somehow justified, perhaps because it is necessary to save the life of the woman, then abortion is murder.

Edit: Remember, the no position-taking rule is in effect. If you state your view, please give at least some reasoning or justification.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2017, 10:44:34 PM »

Not that I'm opposed to this thread by any means, but I do wonder how many times there has been a thread on this since Atlas started. I remember at least a couple from last year.

Anyway, let the arguing and refusal to change one's mind commence!
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2017, 10:49:52 PM »

Not that I'm opposed to this thread by any means, but I do wonder how many times there has been a thread on this since Atlas started. I remember at least a couple from last year.

Anyway, let the arguing and refusal to change one's mind commence!

Yeah, I don't see much good coming from this thread. We all know more or less where each other stands.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2017, 12:41:55 AM »

Ideally, I think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances except for the life of the mother, but I would be happy even with rape and incest exceptions being made.  I see it pretty simple:  I view life as beginning at conception, and as such I believe that human life trumps the "choice" of the mother during the course of a pregnancy.  The video in my signature encapsulates my views on this subject, though he uses stronger languages than I tend to.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2017, 12:52:57 AM »

I would be happy even with rape and incest exceptions being made.

Huh, I'm surprised. I'm aware of the pro-life arguments for this position, but I didn't expect you to be particularly sensitive to them.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,951
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2017, 02:26:01 AM »

I would be happy even with rape and incest exceptions being made.

Huh, I'm surprised. I'm aware of the pro-life arguments for this position, but I didn't expect you to be particularly sensitive to them.

It may seem a little utilitarian, but with 97% of abortions (at least) not being a result of those two things, I really don't view those cases as a hill worth dying on and would be satisfied with the greatly reduced prevalence of abortions that would result even if those exceptions were made.  Furthermore, I would argue that it's a hindrance to argue about those "tougher cases" while the vast majority of abortions do not fit into either category, as Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin can attest, two pro-lifers who would be in the Senate today were they more conciliatory on this issue.

Of course, once abortion is prohibited in all but those 3 instances, God willing, I would obviously support further restrictions on it in the rape/incest categories, but we are so far away from having that debate IMO at this point.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2017, 10:32:58 PM »

My position is simple. All lives start at conception, with unique DNA and RNA. Regardless of how the life began, it is owed our protection and has a legal right to survive unless it directly threatens the mother's life or the child is not expected to be viable to birth.

Roe versus Wade should be overturned and a Human Life Constituonal Amendment enacted. At the very least a 20 week abortion ban.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,131
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2017, 12:23:32 AM »

My position is: Roe v. Wade must be overturned, because it was not an accurate interpretation of the Constitution. The correct meaning of the Constitution must be affirmed. Abortion simply is not a constitutional right. Neither is the "right to control one's own body," the "right to privacy" (in the substantive sense), or "reproductive autonomy." The issue must be returned to the political control of the states.
If it is returned to the states, as it should be, then I would vote for an amendment to my state's constitution to say that our state government is powerless to ban abortion; that it is a "right" protected by our state constitution. Nevada has already adopted the same sort of thing. I am ready, willing, and able to leave women's bodies alone because so many of them insist on that very thing. I am uncomfortable with the pro-life point of view that "abortion is murder," but that so few of the people saying so are willing to punish a woman who asks to get an abortion. Remember the stink that was raised last year when Trump started off saying something to that effect - he believed women who ask to get an abortion and then one is performed should be punished - and then he backed away from that position. Why? It makes perfect sense that if "abortion is murder," then an abortion doctor is like a hired hit-man. The primary instigator of the crime, and the one who deserves the most punishment, is the one who asked that the crime be performed.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2017, 01:37:31 AM »

My position is: Roe v. Wade must be overturned, because it was not an accurate interpretation of the Constitution. The correct meaning of the Constitution must be affirmed. Abortion simply is not a constitutional right. Neither is the "right to control one's own body," the "right to privacy" (in the substantive sense), or "reproductive autonomy." The issue must be returned to the political control of the states.
If it is returned to the states, as it should be, then I would vote for an amendment to my state's constitution to say that our state government is powerless to ban abortion; that it is a "right" protected by our state constitution. Nevada has already adopted the same sort of thing. I am ready, willing, and able to leave women's bodies alone because so many of them insist on that very thing. I am uncomfortable with the pro-life point of view that "abortion is murder," but that so few of the people saying so are willing to punish a woman who asks to get an abortion. Remember the stink that was raised last year when Trump started off saying something to that effect - he believed women who ask to get an abortion and then one is performed should be punished - and then he backed away from that position. Why? It makes perfect sense that if "abortion is murder," then an abortion doctor is like a hired hit-man. The primary instigator of the crime, and the one who deserves the most punishment, is the one who asked that the crime be performed.

I agree that Roe is an utterly absurd decision from a constitutional standpoint and, if I were in the SCOTUS at the time, I would have voted against it.

That said, overturning it now would mean triggering draconian anti-abortion legislation in at least half the States, with horrifying consequences for women all over the country. The political climate on abortion has degraded so much from the 1970s that the stakes keep getting higher. Of course, Roe is itself largely responsible for this degradation, and that's the great tragedy of the American pro-choice movement.
Logged
progressive85
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,312
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2017, 07:02:43 PM »

I'm beginning to think this country is obsessed with abortion and it's making us sick.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,131
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2017, 10:16:48 PM »

My position is: Roe v. Wade must be overturned, because it was not an accurate interpretation of the Constitution. The correct meaning of the Constitution must be affirmed. Abortion simply is not a constitutional right. Neither is the "right to control one's own body," the "right to privacy" (in the substantive sense), or "reproductive autonomy." The issue must be returned to the political control of the states.
If it is returned to the states, as it should be, then I would vote for an amendment to my state's constitution to say that our state government is powerless to ban abortion; that it is a "right" protected by our state constitution. Nevada has already adopted the same sort of thing. I am ready, willing, and able to leave women's bodies alone because so many of them insist on that very thing. I am uncomfortable with the pro-life point of view that "abortion is murder," but that so few of the people saying so are willing to punish a woman who asks to get an abortion. Remember the stink that was raised last year when Trump started off saying something to that effect - he believed women who ask to get an abortion and then one is performed should be punished - and then he backed away from that position. Why? It makes perfect sense that if "abortion is murder," then an abortion doctor is like a hired hit-man. The primary instigator of the crime, and the one who deserves the most punishment, is the one who asked that the crime be performed.

I agree that Roe is an utterly absurd decision from a constitutional standpoint and, if I were in the SCOTUS at the time, I would have voted against it.

That said, overturning it now would mean triggering draconian anti-abortion legislation in at least half the States, with horrifying consequences for women all over the country. The political climate on abortion has degraded so much from the 1970s that the stakes keep getting higher. Of course, Roe is itself largely responsible for this degradation, and that's the great tragedy of the American pro-choice movement.

And then there will be backlash against those draconian laws, and then before you know it legislators and/or voters start discussing how to deal with the issue of abortion by crafting compromise legislation. Compromising on the issue of abortion is the direction the Supreme Court has been headed in anyway, beginning with Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which is still no reason to respect the legality of what the Court did in Casey any better than what it did in Roe).
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2017, 01:51:59 PM »

My position is: Roe v. Wade must be overturned, because it was not an accurate interpretation of the Constitution. The correct meaning of the Constitution must be affirmed. Abortion simply is not a constitutional right. Neither is the "right to control one's own body," the "right to privacy" (in the substantive sense), or "reproductive autonomy." The issue must be returned to the political control of the states.
If it is returned to the states, as it should be, then I would vote for an amendment to my state's constitution to say that our state government is powerless to ban abortion; that it is a "right" protected by our state constitution. Nevada has already adopted the same sort of thing. I am ready, willing, and able to leave women's bodies alone because so many of them insist on that very thing. I am uncomfortable with the pro-life point of view that "abortion is murder," but that so few of the people saying so are willing to punish a woman who asks to get an abortion. Remember the stink that was raised last year when Trump started off saying something to that effect - he believed women who ask to get an abortion and then one is performed should be punished - and then he backed away from that position. Why? It makes perfect sense that if "abortion is murder," then an abortion doctor is like a hired hit-man. The primary instigator of the crime, and the one who deserves the most punishment, is the one who asked that the crime be performed.

I agree that Roe is an utterly absurd decision from a constitutional standpoint and, if I were in the SCOTUS at the time, I would have voted against it.

That said, overturning it now would mean triggering draconian anti-abortion legislation in at least half the States, with horrifying consequences for women all over the country. The political climate on abortion has degraded so much from the 1970s that the stakes keep getting higher. Of course, Roe is itself largely responsible for this degradation, and that's the great tragedy of the American pro-choice movement.

And then there will be backlash against those draconian laws, and then before you know it legislators and/or voters start discussing how to deal with the issue of abortion by crafting compromise legislation. Compromising on the issue of abortion is the direction the Supreme Court has been headed in anyway, beginning with Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which is still no reason to respect the legality of what the Court did in Casey any better than what it did in Roe).

I think it's more likely that it will behave similarly to other hot-button local issues, like gun rights or right to work laws. Legislators of the majority party will simply ram through their preference, and the opposition will vigorously attempt to campaign on the issue. If they are successful, they will try to ram through an alternative, and so on. As a result, legislators will no longer be able to campaign on local issues. You'll have a ton of "I would vote for X because she's the best candidate, but we disagree on abortion so I have to vote Y" at the local and Congressional levels.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2017, 07:21:31 AM »
« Edited: April 09, 2017, 07:28:17 AM by Special Boy »

I think any exception just for rape and incest is silly. There would be no one willing to perform abortions only for that reason and how would  it be figured out in time and who would figure it that an exception is justly raised instead of someone simply breaking a Holy Law? And the "incest" part. Are we encouraging people to have sex with people they are related to? Can women and couples avoid the law by saying they are 2nd cousins? Is the exception designed to understand that abortion may at least be understandable when there is a likely chance the fetus will grow into a seriously deformed child?
These exceptions also don't send the message that we worship Life but rather that we basically view consent as something that can't be revoked once given and that the law simply punishes that poor choice and not just or primarily to protect the fetuses.

Basically, it makes a personhood law into an anti-sodomy/fornication/adultery law.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 09, 2017, 08:07:41 AM »

Yes. The moralisation of women's gynecological health has been an unfortunate development.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 09, 2017, 11:51:49 AM »

This is an issue where I sympathize with both sides: on the one hand, I agree with conservatives that abortion (especially when conducted late in a pregnancy) is an appallingly inhumane procedure; on the other hand, I agree with liberals that poor women, unmarried women, and women of color are less fit to raise children.

I'm always going to be conflicted on this one.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 09, 2017, 02:09:45 PM »

I agree with liberals that poor women, unmarried women, and women of color are less fit to raise children.

what the actual f**k
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 09, 2017, 02:21:10 PM »

I agree with liberals that poor women, unmarried women, and women of color are less fit to raise children.

what the actual f**k

Well, the decision to terminate a pregnancy seems like one that no woman would take lightly, so if those demographics are more likely to make that decision (and they are, by far), then there must be a good reason for it. Or do you disagree?
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,190
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 09, 2017, 02:23:08 PM »

I will say i am unsettled by the demands by American liberals to make abortion legal at any time for any reason. It's just weird - it's not like there is a huge horde of psycho women that declare they want abortion at 8 and a half months for fun - third trimester abortions are only for medical reasons so there is really no reason to even leave the potential for non-viable late abortions open.

Basically the pro choice side don't focus enough on a universal  and cheap access to early abortions (ignoring that many rural areas now have no clinics at all). That's the most important issue - if the left was forced to swallow waiting restrictions AND mandatory counselling AND a twenty week ban AND ultrasounds I'd consider it a worthy deal if you managed to get the GOP to agree that a first trimester abortion is a right.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2017, 02:23:49 PM »

I agree with liberals that poor women, unmarried women, and women of color are less fit to raise children.

what the actual f**k

Well, the decision to terminate a pregnancy seems like one that no woman would take lightly, so if those demographics are more likely to make that decision (and they are, by far), then there must be a good reason for it. Or do you disagree?

What part of "pro-choice" don't you understand?
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 09, 2017, 02:29:45 PM »

I agree with liberals that poor women, unmarried women, and women of color are less fit to raise children.

what the actual f**k

Well, the decision to terminate a pregnancy seems like one that no woman would take lightly, so if those demographics are more likely to make that decision (and they are, by far), then there must be a good reason for it. Or do you disagree?

What part of "pro-choice" don't you understand?

Oh, come on man, show a little creativity!

Poor women, unmarried women, and women of color are more much more likely to have abortions. Now, you either think that the women who have abortions do so for reasonable reasons, in which case you consider the fact that I just stated to be a good thing, or you think that it's a bad thing that poor women, unmarried women, and women of color are more likely to have abortions, in which case you might want to do something about it.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2017, 02:35:57 PM »

I agree with liberals that poor women, unmarried women, and women of color are less fit to raise children.

what the actual f**k

Well, the decision to terminate a pregnancy seems like one that no woman would take lightly, so if those demographics are more likely to make that decision (and they are, by far), then there must be a good reason for it. Or do you disagree?

What part of "pro-choice" don't you understand?

Oh, come on man, show a little creativity!

Poor women, unmarried women, and women of color are more much more likely to have abortions. Now, you either think that the women who have abortions do so for reasonable reasons, in which case you consider the fact that I just stated to be a good thing, or you think that it's a bad thing that poor women, unmarried women, and women of color are more likely to have abortions, in which case you might want to do something about it.

Or maybe, just maybe I don't consider myself to be in a position to be a judge of the validity of a woman's "reason" for having an abortion - which is the standard, non-creepy liberal position.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 09, 2017, 02:42:03 PM »

Or maybe, just maybe I don't consider myself to be in a position to be a judge of the validity of a woman's "reason" for having an abortion - which is the standard, non-creepy liberal position.

How boring! Also, how anti-polity - telling people what is and is not reasonable behavior, is precisely what the government is for.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2017, 05:37:19 PM »

I will say i am unsettled by the demands by American liberals to make abortion legal at any time for any reason. It's just weird - it's not like there is a huge horde of psycho women that declare they want abortion at 8 and a half months for fun - third trimester abortions are only for medical reasons so there is really no reason to even leave the potential for non-viable late abortions open.

Basically the pro choice side don't focus enough on a universal  and cheap access to early abortions (ignoring that many rural areas now have no clinics at all). That's the most important issue - if the left was forced to swallow waiting restrictions AND mandatory counselling AND a twenty week ban AND ultrasounds I'd consider it a worthy deal if you managed to get the GOP to agree that a first trimester abortion is a right.

Plus it makes them look like a pro-life caricature.

Yes. The moralisation of women's gynecological health has been an unfortunate development.

Roll Eyes

Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 09, 2017, 05:39:25 PM »


Sorry I don't choose my political views based on how #edgy they sound.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2017, 05:50:12 PM »

anyways. there's no case in which a person has a right to use another person's body without their consent, regardless of how lifesaving it might be. why on earth should fœtuses/embryos have more rights than already-born people?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 12 queries.