• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A monster gets life!

tosca1 said:
If my dog and your child are both drowning....I'll try my best to save your child.
Click to expand...
And?

Those are your own personal morals, ethics, values and beliefs.
Not everybody has the same. Do you not understand that?
 
X Factor said:
I've seen that argument too, not to mention all those that display actual hostility for the little "cancerous parasite". It'll be downright laughable to me when some of those very same people come on here and condemn Gosnell.
Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me how people can be so extreme that they become what they hate. In the case of those who are so profoundly ignorant of basic biology that they would call a fetus a parasite while supporting the killing of one right up to the day of delivery, I would say that they are so devoid of basic decency and reason that for all intents and purposes they inhabit the same point in the political spectrum as their polar opposite. The extreme left and the extreme right simply look in different directions as they spout their idiocy. It is not any sort of humanistic, life-affirming philosophy either proffers.
 
Excon said:
You are spinning again and you were assuming.
Normal loving parents can choose to abort as well.
So stop with your ridiculous assumptions that they can't.
Click to expand...

Normal loving parents can not choose to abort without losing the title. They can be forced to abort of course, but they can not choose to do so. Being called a loving person depends on being a loving person. Showing disregard for life is not loving behavior.
 
Henrin said:
Normal loving parents can not choose to abort without losing the title. They can be forced to abort of course, but they can not choose to do so. Being called a loving person depends on being a loving person. Showing disregard for life is not loving behavior.
Click to expand...
Wrong. This is nothing but your opinion. And therefore an assumption on your part, because loving parents can choose to abort for many different reason.
So stop assuming.
 
Excon said:
Wrong. This is nothing but your opinion. And therefore an assumption on your part, because loving parents can choose to abort for many different reason.
So stop assuming.
Click to expand...

I'm doing nothing but using reason and using words correctly.

Loving: feeling or showing love or great care.
 
Scrabaholic said:
12345
Click to expand...

You still have no point. For one thing, I am against abortion AND the death penalty. However, the drugs are administered remotely. The doctors do not inject the patient directly. As I said, which was correct, the doctors have to participate to examine the condemned and confirm death.

Being that I am against the death penalty anyway, your point is moot.
 
Henrin said:
Normal loving parents can not choose to abort without losing the title. They can be forced to abort of course, but they can not choose to do so. Being called a loving person depends on being a loving person. Showing disregard for life is not loving behavior.
Click to expand...

Obviously some people don't get the concept of "normal loving parents." Some people should NEVER be parents, perhaps not even allowed to babysit a child, considering they would put the life of a dog before the life of the human being they are in charge of or even created.
 
ChrisL said:
Obviously some people don't get the concept of "normal loving parents." Some people should NEVER be parents, perhaps not even allowed to babysit a child, considering they would put the life of a dog before the life of the human being they are in charge of or even created.
Click to expand...

I agree.

We see in the news parents or grandparents abusing their own flesh and blood. A set of grandparents have been found guilty of the starving death of their own grandchild.



TORONTO – An inquest into the starvation death of a five-year-old boy at the hands of his grandparents is hearing that the other children in the house were told to call him a pig.
She says Jeffrey and the other sister were only allowed out of their bedroom for meals and even then they had to stand in what she called the “pig corner.”
Click to expand...
Boy, 5, starved to death by grandparents was called a pig, inquest hears - Toronto | Globalnews.ca

They must've equated the children to pigs - not that I'm saying it's okay to starve a pig.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Because it was straight up murdered by a money grubbing pig who should be publicly hung and left to rot.
Click to expand...

You mean he should have killed the kid a few weeks earlier?
 
ChrisL said:
You still have no point. For one thing, I am against abortion AND the death penalty. However, the drugs are administered remotely. The doctors do not inject the patient directly. As I said, which was correct, the doctors have to participate to examine the condemned and confirm death.

Being that I am against the death penalty anyway, your point is moot.
Click to expand...

You didn't read it very carefully. It said that some doctors do administer the injection.

In fact, physicians helped design the lethal injection protocol. We provide the intravenous access, monitor the patients, administer the injections, and declare death.
Click to expand...

BTW, all I was doing was correcting your assertion that doctors don't participate in executions - no more, no less.
 
tosca1 said:
1. Keyword: HUMAN.

2. A child at a certain age may have the mental capability of a dog - or vice versa.

3. I've heard it said that a kitten (at a certain stage) pretty much behaves like a toddler. The comparison stops there.

4. The difference is that he is a human child. He's not an offspring of any dogs. Or cats.

5. Big difference.
Click to expand...

1. Really shouldn't matter

2. Correct

3. Depends on the mental capabilities of the toddler hell even a kitten ''behaves'' like a full grown adult that has severe mental retardation. So in both cases, not persons because of that.

4. I already know this but it's not really a big difference until the ''human child'' is about 3 years of age that's when they start putting direct value on their own existence and you know what I mean by that.

5. Not until after a couple of years and also pointing out the species difference is not really going to help
 
tosca1 said:
If your child and a dog are both drowning - who do you suggest I try to save first?
Do you want me to flip a coin over it?

Answer.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much the same scenario made by my fellow pro choicers replacing the ''dog'' with embryos sitting in the fridge and change the drowning to house fire.

Anyways, I will answer save the one that has the most mentation above the other one which could be the dog but in most cases it would be the child
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
He probably couldn't confess it for all the world to see - he does places his dog above his own child.
Click to expand...

The reason I can see Excon nor answering it is because you failed to be specific you didn't include how the weather was and how far out they're in the water.

And also the chances of it happening are extremely slim as well.
 
Zariak said:
I dislike abortion as well, but, in my opinion, our time is better spent preserving the sanctity of life for those who are already born.
Click to expand...

Heck even pro lifers can't do that even and turn towards abortion.

Pro lifers think they can multitask which often comes out with disappointing results.
 
Gardener said:
It never ceases to amaze me how people can be so extreme that they become what they hate. In the case of those who are so profoundly ignorant of basic biology that they would call a fetus a parasite while supporting the killing of one right up to the day of delivery.
Click to expand...

The fetusacts like a parasite but is not one.

They take your body resources without (usually) your conscious continued consent and should be allowed to be killed because of that.

We already agree with this since no one has a problem with mosquitos and lampreys being killed for the same reason as well.
 
Scrabaholic said:
You didn't read it very carefully. It said that some doctors do administer the injection.



BTW, all I was doing was correcting your assertion that doctors don't participate in executions - no more, no less.
Click to expand...

The whole thing just goes against a doctor's oath, to never harm and only to heal (to ad lib - of course that's not exactly what is says, but you get the meaning).
 
RabidAlpaca said:
That's like saying "hitmen are thriving under these murder bans, we should legalize murder and bring it into the light."
Click to expand...

False analogy. Hitmen do not kill their clients, illegal abortionists do. 1000's of women are mutilated and killed by abortionists in countries where abortion is illegal.
 
ChrisL said:
The whole thing just goes against a doctor's oath, to never harm and only to heal (to ad lib - of course that's not exactly what is says, but you get the meaning).
Click to expand...

I totally understand your point. I suppose their answer would be that by taking part, they are making sure it's done humanely and thereby reducing harm. This is just speculation, though.
 
Scrabaholic said:
I totally understand your point. I suppose their answer would be that by taking part, they are making sure it's done humanely and thereby reducing harm. This is just speculation, though.
Click to expand...

I suppose that makes sense.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
1. Really shouldn't matter

2. Correct

3. Depends on the mental capabilities of the toddler hell even a kitten ''behaves'' like a full grown adult that has severe mental retardation. So in both cases, not persons because of that.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, we should identify the kitten as a person, can we? If the kitten can compare to mental capabilities of children, and even adult with mental retardation.....and if you're observant, adult cats can show some simple common sense comparable to, and sometimes even lacking in some full-grown men (that shows no retardation)....then cats should be identified as persons.

Why shouldn't we elevate the status of the cat?


4. I already know this but it's not really a big difference until the ''human child'' is about 3 years of age that's when they start putting direct value on their own existence and you know what I mean by that.

5. Not until after a couple of years and also pointing out the species difference is not really going to help
Click to expand...

So you're saying, a toddler - like the fetus - should not be considered a person?


You may think that way but I just simply don't buy that. Listen to what you're proposing - it smacks of madness! It smacks of Hitlerian reasoning....thus I draw a parallel between the evils of Nazism and the pro-choice stance. All we need is a convincing few leaders to stimulate and sound rational, and the there'll be the mass lemmings who'll gobble it all up.

You're entitled to your own opinion, though.

I, however still maintain that even though there is similarities at certain stages, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person is a non-person....or the kitten can be identified as person!
 
Last edited:
Furthermore, why is it so surprising to see that there could be some similarities in traits or capabilities between animals and humans? Aren't there any similarities in our DNA?

If you believe in evolution, then this article should be up your alley!




Chimpanzees now have to share the distinction of being our closest living relative in the animal kingdom. An international team of researchers has sequenced the genome of the bonobo for the first time, confirming that it shares the same percentage of its DNA with us as chimps do. The team also found some small but tantalizing differences in the genomes of the three species—differences that may explain how bonobos and chimpanzees don't look or act like us even though we share about 99% of our DNA.

"We're so closely related genetically, yet our behavior is so different," says team member and computational biologist Janet Kelso of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. "This will allow us to look for the genetic basis of what makes modern humans different from both bonobos and chimpanzees."
Click to expand...

http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives

Hurray! We're not people after all! We are chimps!:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom