• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Abortion KILLS An Innocent Human Being [W: 459]

Fedor50

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2014
Messages
616
Reaction score
63
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,729
Reaction score
20,428
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?

I'm surprised you waited 2 years to post this simplistic question here in DP's abortion forum. Good luck with the backlash.
 

Fedor50

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2014
Messages
616
Reaction score
63
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The unborn have no rights and are not human beings

An unborn is most certainly a human being.

Tell me Sangha...if you have not always been a human being, what species did you belong to before you became human?
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
31,802
Reaction score
35,485
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?

WOW!!!!!!!!

This is...

This is just...

tumblr_o06z7d6ly41tbi7vpo1_500.gif
 

Fedor50

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2014
Messages
616
Reaction score
63
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm surprised you waited 2 years to post this simplistic question here in DP's abortion forum. Good luck with the backlash.

Backlash against what? Protecting human rights? Stating the unadulterated truth? Let me ask you...

Do you believe that your right to "whatever" outweighs another human beings actual right to live?
 

Fedor50

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2014
Messages
616
Reaction score
63
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
WOW!!!!!!!!

This is...

This is just...

tumblr_o06z7d6ly41tbi7vpo1_500.gif

Instead of the evasion how about you try actually answering the VERY basic and simple question. Do you believe that your right to "whatever" outweighs another human beings actual right to live?
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,043
Reaction score
37,630
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Backlash against what? Protecting human rights? Stating the unadulterated truth? Let me ask you...

Do you believe that your right to "whatever" outweighs another human beings actual right to live?

The mother's life is the first consideration compared to the unborn's life.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,729
Reaction score
20,428
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Backlash against what? Protecting human rights? Stating the unadulterated truth? Let me ask you...

Do you believe that your right to "whatever" outweighs another human beings actual right to live?

You're questioning the wrong guy here. If you check out the threads in the abortion forum here, you'll find I'm not the guy you have issues with.
 

Fedor50

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2014
Messages
616
Reaction score
63
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The mother's life is the first consideration compared to the unborn's life.

Interesting... So you believe that you have the right to kill another human being if you view YOUR LIFE as more important?
 

Fedor50

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2014
Messages
616
Reaction score
63
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You're questioning the wrong guy here. If you check out the threads in the abortion forum here, you'll find I'm not the guy you have issues with.

Okay fair enough. Thanks for contributing to the thread pal :)
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
79,835
Reaction score
59,132
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?

First, prove that the unborn are innocent.
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,043
Reaction score
37,630
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Interesting... So you believe that you have the right to kill another human being if you view YOUR LIFE as more important?

The unborn are not human being yet. The mother's life is ENTIRELY more important than the unborn. The unborn is a secondary consideration compared to the mother.
 

Fedor50

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2014
Messages
616
Reaction score
63
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
First, prove that the unborn are innocent.

Easy enough.

innocent - adj. - Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless

Which part of this definition does not describe an unborn human being?

P.S: Unless you are interested in getting embarrassed, you really should back away from this debate.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
79,835
Reaction score
59,132
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Easy enough.

innocent - adj. - Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless

Which part of this definition does not describe an unborn human being?

P.S: Unless you are interested in getting embarrassed, you really should back away from this debate.

Do you mean "crime or offense" legally, as they pertain to sin, or both?
 

Fedor50

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2014
Messages
616
Reaction score
63
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The unborn are not human being yet. The mother's life is ENTIRELY more important than the unborn. The unborn is a secondary consideration compared to the mother.

Again, you do not have a CLUE what you are talking about. An unborn is certainly a human being.

If you really are interested in what is, and isn't a human being, I suggest that you begin with this short bibliography of medical school textbooks. Turn to the page numbers given and you will see that they state explicitly that we are human beings from the time we are conceived.

KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN page 14

SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE page 49

MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT page14

DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS pages 286–99

Here are a few more just for fun.

"the proposition that an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology" T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5, 55.EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, vii. )

So now that you have been proven wrong, are you going to actually change your position or will you CONTINUE to say things that are simply untrue?
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?

I've been a Foster dad of medically-fragile children since 1999. My last one - who was also one of my first, and who has aged out of the 'system' and I'm now "just" his caregiver instead of being his Foster dad - is sitting about six feet away from me as I type this. As a result of his fetal drug syndrome, he's got a trach, a g-tube, cleft palate, rods in his back, seizure disorders, and - while he understands our communications to him - he cannot communicate to us. He can't tell us where it hurts. I sat down with a pen and paper in 2005 to figure out how much in taxpayer dollars it costs every year to care for him. At the time, it was a quarter million dollars per year (very little of which went to us - it was more for meds, 24/7 nurses, and medical care). He was only one of several that we've cared for over the past seventeen years.

He will never - repeat, never - be able to care for himself. He's likely to outlive me...and the cost of his annual care will always be footed by the taxpayers.

Sure, we love him...but it's getting close to time for us to retire - we are getting a bit too old to care for him, so he'll have to go to someone else. That's the nature of the caregiving system. And we've seen enough to know to NOT blame the mother - there's no way to know what she was going through at the time, and we can see how heartbreaking it must have been for her...and how little support from the state that a biological mother gets for taking care of a medically-fragile child. That's why it falls on people like my wife and myself.

So you have to ask yourself, when there are many kids like this born every year who will NEVER be able to care for themselves, who will ALWAYS be a great burden not only on the family and on the taxpayer, but also on the school system (they all go to public schools, since private schools don't have the wherewithal for such kids...and this is one of the reasons private schools spend less per student - because they don't have to teach the ones who are really expensive)...at what point does your personal ethical believe in the sanctity of the unborn become too impractical for the real world?
 

Fedor50

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2014
Messages
616
Reaction score
63
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Do you mean "crime or offense" legally, as they pertain to sin, or both?

This is not rocket science. Innocent is a legal term. It means a human being who has not committed an illegal crime or offense.

Like I told you before, you really should back out of this debate because quite clearly you are unprepared.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
79,835
Reaction score
59,132
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is not rocket science. Innocent is a legal term. It means a human being who has not committed an illegal crime or offense.

Like I told you before, you really should back out of this debate because quite clearly you are unprepared.

Legal then. Which country's laws are we talking about here?
 

Fedor50

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2014
Messages
616
Reaction score
63
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I've been a Foster dad of medically-fragile children since 1999. My last one - who was also one of my first, and who has aged out of the 'system' and I'm now "just" his caregiver instead of being his Foster dad - is sitting about six feet away from me as I type this. As a result of his fetal drug syndrome, he's got a trach, a g-tube, cleft palate, rods in his back, seizure disorders, and - while he understands our communications to him - he cannot communicate to us. He can't tell us where it hurts. I sat down with a pen and paper in 2005 to figure out how much in taxpayer dollars it costs every year to care for him. At the time, it was a quarter million dollars per year (very little of which went to us - it was more for meds, 24/7 nurses, and medical care). He was only one of several that we've cared for over the past seventeen years.

He will never - repeat, never - be able to care for himself. He's likely to outlive me...and the cost of his annual care will always be footed by the taxpayers.

Sure, we love him...but it's getting close to time for us to retire - we are getting a bit too old to care for him, so he'll have to go to someone else. That's the nature of the caregiving system. And we've seen enough to know to NOT blame the mother - there's no way to know what she was going through at the time, and we can see how heartbreaking it must have been for her...and how little support from the state that a biological mother gets for taking care of a medically-fragile child. That's why it falls on people like my wife and myself.

So you have to ask yourself, when there are many kids like this born every year who will NEVER be able to care for themselves, who will ALWAYS be a great burden not only on the family and on the taxpayer, but also on the school system (they all go to public schools, since private schools don't have the wherewithal for such kids...and this is one of the reasons private schools spend less per student - because they don't have to teach the ones who are really expensive)...at what point does your personal ethical believe in the sanctity of the unborn become too impractical for the real world?

I read your personal story and will cut to the chase. So you believe that human beings who are (or will be) a burden to society should be killed?

So you are in favor of killing the homeless too right?
 

Fedor50

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2014
Messages
616
Reaction score
63
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Legal then. Which country's laws are we talking about here?

The United States. And still you continue to avoid the question...

Again, do you right to whatever outweigh another human beings actual right to live?

It is such a SIMPLE question but most pro-choicers find it IMPOSSIBLE to answer.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,392
Reaction score
21,370
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
79,835
Reaction score
59,132
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The United States. And still you continue to avoid the question...

Again, do you right to whatever outweigh another human beings actual right to live?

It is such a SIMPLE question but most pro-choicers find it IMPOSSIBLE to answer.

United States law? Interesting. So if an unborn fetus is guilty of a crime in another country then abortion would be acceptable to you?

Anyway, there are so many laws in the United States that nobody can plausibly provide a reliable number, but estimates are over 300,000. So if a fetus is guilty of one of those laws and is therefore not innocent, abortion would be acceptable to you?
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,043
Reaction score
37,630
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The United States. And still you continue to avoid the question...

Again, do you right to whatever outweigh another human beings actual right to live?

It is such a SIMPLE question but most pro-choicers find it IMPOSSIBLE to answer.
Because the question is stupid and moronic to begin with.

Having a abortion is not comparable at all to a murder.
 
Last edited:

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,392
Reaction score
21,370
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?

The argument is compelling, always has been (you are not the first one to come up with this.) Our laws however have a different take on this. Until the laws are changed, and it passes a likey Constitutional challenge, then the argument is basically for not.
 
Top Bottom