• 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 Question To Pro-Choice People

Re: @ least two errors there


So a blog is a source? A blog.

I gave you the words of GOvernor Northam

“So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he went on. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

No, Virginia’s Governor Did Not Endorse Killing Babies | HuffPost

Where in the proposed law does it allow for babies to be killed after it is born. Please cite that.
 

How can you write that when you've been answered many times...mostly that you need to prove that that is a pro-choice argument (your OP claim)...when it is not. You need to prove that it's not just the pro-choice response when you (mostly religious) people try to use science to erroneously prove that the unborn are entitled to a right to life. Science has nothing to do with that and if the pro-life people wouldnt keep pretending it did, we wouldnt have to respond to it.

Now...where is your proof that pro-choice people use the argument that the unborn are not human lives?
 
Last edited:
Re: A critique of reason


Prove it.

We're saying that pro-choice people do not use that argument...denying that the unborn are not a human life.

Please provide proof or admit your OP argument has failed.
 
Re: @ least two errors there


Forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will would never be 'right in God's eyes' either.

So that is why it's up to the woman to decide...you are not allowed to sin and use force against her. It's between her and God.

You are not allowed to use force of law on women...God gave us all free will so that means your desire to use force on women and usurp His Authority is an abomination.
 

LOL Science does not believe in souls and does not make judgments about when a fetus becomes a human being either. Are fingernail clippings and snot human too? They have human DNA.
 
Re: A critique of reason

Peter King said:
biological life might start at conception, but that does not mean a whole of a lot IMHO. Simple cells with no consciousness or even functioning brains do not constitute a person,
Click to expand...
:roll:

Just another contortion to dehumanize a human being.

Just proves my OP: why do you go through all these nonsense just to try dehumanize a human being?
What is it to you if the fetus is human or not - if you think the woman has the sole right to her body?



that is just a simple fact.
Click to expand...

Just because you think it is, does not make it fact.



If your brain is dead, you are brain dead and allowing that person to die is for most people not that much of an issue, if it is an issue at all. As long as there is no functioning brain, no consciousness, how can you claim that a person exists?
Click to expand...

Allowing someone to die, is quite different from actively pursuing the death of a NATURALLY LIVING human at his initial stage in life. Lol. Don't you see your faulty argument?




I don't care about your faulty view! You can keep on believing that - as long as you don't force me to accept it as a fact. :lol:

I'm not simply presenting my view when I say human life begins at conception.
I'm simply stating a scientific fact! :shrug:
 
iguanaman said:
LOL Science does not believe in souls and does not make judgments about when a fetus becomes a human being either. Are fingernail clippings and snot human too? They have human DNA.
Click to expand...

EH? Irrelevant!

Who's talking about souls?

I already told you, I'm using secular arguments!


You're the only one who keeps bringing up souls in this thread! :mrgreen:
Go to religion section if you're craving for souls......:lamo
 
Last edited:
Re: @ least two errors there


Don't you get it? The OPEN LETTER is posted in that blog! Read it!

Boy, I never imagine that trying to do you a favor by responding to your question as to what a
"post-abortion" is.....would become such a pain.

You want to know what post-abortion means - well, there it is!


I already regret responding to your question! I should've just let you keep wondering what it is!

Take it, or leave it!

Bye.
 
:roll:

Bye, Olnate. I can only take a small dose of you.....even though I love you very much too.
You can be quite a pain!

Bye. Don't catch me anytime soon, okay?
Gimme a break. :lol:
 
tosca1 said:
EH? Irrelevant!

Who's talking about souls?

I already told you, I'm using secular arguments!


You're the only one who keeps bringing up souls in this thread! :mrgreen:
Go to religion section if you're craving for souls......:lamo
Click to expand...

I told you before, the secular argument is WEAK. Science does not make judgments on humanity. That is for religions. You know that full well.
 
Re: A critique of reason


No, I value a human being above all, hence my opposition to the death penalty. But a zygote is not a human being yet, at birth or close before that moment is a human being, early in the pregnancy it is not.

And yes, I think the woman has the sole right to her body in the early part of her pregnancy, that you do not respect a woman's right to privacy is more dehumanizing to human beings than abortion.

tosca1 said:
Just because you think it is, does not make it fact.
Click to expand...

Well, just because you think the opposite also means that it is not a fact.

tosca1 said:
Allowing someone to die, is quite different from actively pursuing the death of a NATURALLY LIVING human at his initial stage in life. Lol. Don't you see your faulty argument?
Click to expand...

No, I don't see the faulty argument because it is not a faulty argument, not only is it a valid argument but at the time that abortion is legal none of these issues are an issue because brain birth is not a issue. Almost all abortions take place far before that takes place.


Great, except my facts are just as factual as your "facts" and please don't believe it on my account just as long as you don't expect me to view your opinions as facts either.
 
tosca1 said:
:roll:

Bye, Olnate. I can only take a small dose of you.....even though I love you very much too.
You can be quite a pain!

Bye. Don't catch me anytime soon, okay?
Gimme a break. :lol:
Click to expand...

This would be so much easier over a beer...or six. :lol:

Sucks, cuz I thought I gave you a decent answer. Oh well.

PS: You're the biggest pain of the pains in the pains on the pains. You pain.
 
iguanaman said:
I told you before, the secular argument is WEAK. Science does not make judgments on humanity. That is for religions. You know that full well.
Click to expand...
:lol:

What judgement are you on about? Who's talking about judgement on humanity?
Are you confusing this with another thread?
 
OlNate said:
This would be so much easier over a beer...or six. :lol:

Sucks, cuz I thought I gave you a decent answer. Oh well.

PS: You're the biggest pain of the pains in the pains on the pains. You pain.
Click to expand...

I thought you said bye already???
 
Re: @ least two errors there

marke said:
Leftists believe as long as the execution is comforting then there is nothing wrong with it, and they reference the 'agonizing court ordered 2 week slow starvation death' of poor helpless defenseless Terri Schiavo as an example of a mercy killing.
Click to expand...

Nobody stopped her from getting up and ordering a cheeseburger. She was brain dead.

There IS such a thing as mercy killing, though, and it happens all the time. It usually takes the form of a morphine overdose, administered by nurses who actually give a **** about human suffering, not just holding out the false hope that a miracle will happen (they don't). Of course, religious people often prefer their relatives to suffer endlessly because they believe that Jebus occasionally agrees to magically heal people. Doctors (scientists) know better and, to their credit, find other ways to relieve the suffering.
 
Re: @ least two errors there


It says a lot about the religious and their belief in the afterlife. You would think they would not want modern medicine to artificially deprive sick people of their "heavenly gift" if they actually believed it to be true.
 
Re: @ least two errors there


You regret it because you cannot point to one quote from the proposed law that speaks to killing, executing, or murdering a baby after it is born.

Northam quote shows how he believes the proposed law would be applied.

Rather interesting you cannot quote the proposed law.The specific words that show post birth abortion even exists.Babies cannot be aborted after they are born. Killing a baby is infanticide and clearly illegal.
 
Re: @ least two errors there


She was persistent vegetative....not brain dead....but your point is clearly taken. In absence of a written living will or such....doctors will depend on the next of kin to decide for them. My family knows that if I was pvs that there is no way in hell I would want to be artificially fed for years. I will haunt them in their dreams if they ever did that.

Families frequently listen to cases like Schiavo and Quinlan and Munoz and form emphatic opinions.Why should they not be respected?
 
Re: @ least two errors there


The disciples of the devil found a way to nail Jesus to the cross while attempting to make themselves appear justified for the murder. The Pharisees were not justified in condemning Jesus and the democrats are not justified in hating Trump and trying to remove him from office.
 
Re: @ least two errors there

Scrabaholic said:
The USA has not been in existence for 4,000 years. smh
Click to expand...

God's supreme law has been around longer than that. Many laws in the US were originally inspired by God's laws.
 
Re: @ least two errors there

Did someone suggest an abortion for him?
 
Re: @ least two errors there

marke said:
God's supreme law has been around longer than that.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough only for a limited number of people. Why were all those other people created only to be denied knowledge about their creator and about the laws?
 
Re: @ least two errors there


Her brain was damaged when she lost air for an extended period. Her husband likely strangled her and when she did not die he made up the crap story that she had told him she wanted to die if she ever became disabled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…