• 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!

Abortion KILLS An Innocent Human Being [W: 459]

Fedor50 said:
So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?
Click to expand...

What percentage of abortions kill "guilty" human beings?:monkey
 
Fedor50 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I meant to say that a fetus is not a fully independent human being yet.
 
TheGoverness said:
I meant to say that a fetus is not a fully independent human being yet.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. You have said what you did in many threads now and have been corrected on the matter more than once.
 
Henrin said:
No, you didn't. You have said what you did in many threads now and have been corrected on the matter more than once.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you can actually read my mind now and tell me what my positions are, buddy. [emoji12]
 
Glen Contrarian said:
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?
Click to expand...

first of all, thanks for everything you do

secondly, what a beautifully written realistic presentation that most never want to think about
 
TheGoverness said:
I'm glad you can actually read my mind now and tell me what my positions are, buddy. [emoji12]
Click to expand...

Nothing I said requires reading your mind. All that is required to say what I did is to read your posts and watch you get caught several times saying the same thing.
 
Fedor50 said:
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.
Click to expand...

BS!

The problem is the same. Your questions are centered in your perceptions of right and wrong, but they are not centered on existing law on this matter.
 
_Sal said:
oh yeah, better break out the wine too we will surely need a drink soon
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this, about to open something up.
 
Henrin said:
Nothing I said requires reading your mind. All that is required to say what I did is to read your posts and watch you get caught several times saying the same thing.
Click to expand...
Maybe for YOU, that's what you thought I meant, but I actually believe that the mother's life is entirely more important than the unborn's because the unborn is entirely dependant on the mother to live. That's what I believe.
 
Fedor50 said:
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?
Click to expand...

The problem with your approach is that you're being an ideologue on this issue - to you, apparently, it's all-or-nothing. The same argument could be made against war. For instance, our drone strikes kill innocent women and children as "collateral damage" when we go kill a terrorist leader with a missile from that drone. Look at WWII - we killed literally millions of innocent women and children in our firebombing of Japanese cities. If one takes your all-or-nothing approach, then it must be unthinkable that we would ever do ANYthing that might result in the wrongful death of a child...including in war.

Let's not stop there. By the same logic, then we should outlaw ANYthing that might lead to birth defects, including the sale of alcohol to women of childbearing age, since fetal alcohol syndrome has the very same symptoms as I described above for fetal drug syndrome. I know this because we took two children in at first, one with FDS who is with me now, and one who had FAS - they really did have the same symptoms and disabilities...but the other one has since passed away - one of his behaviors was pulling his g-tube out and laughing while showing it to the caregiver.

That's the problem with being an ideologue - the logic might sound unshakable to that ideologue, but that ideologue is blinding himself to what happens in the real world.

To put it simply, I'm a believer in what I call "the Goldilocks Way", neither too far in one direction, nor too far in the other. Should we provide resources to encourage options other than abortion? Absolutely! But by the same token, we should not hinder them...because we, being men, canNOT know what is going through their minds, and the problems they face.
 
Cardinal said:
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?
Click to expand...

I am arguing US Law. An unborn human being is INNOCENT. Do you agree or disagree?

Oh yeah, and you STILL have not yet answered my question...

Again, does your right to whatever outweigh another human beings actual right to live?
 
Fedor50 said:
I am arguing US Law. An unborn human being is INNOCENT. Do you agree or disagree?

Oh yeah, and you STILL have not yet answered my question...

Again, does your right to whatever outweigh another human beings actual right to live?
Click to expand...

The unborn have no right to life.
 
TheGoverness said:
Because the question is stupid and moronic to begin with.

Having a abortion is not comparable at all to a murder.
Click to expand...

Whenever an abortion is performed an innocent human being is killed.

Again, answer the question...

Does your right to whatever outweigh another human beings actual right to live?

Tell me, why are you so desperate that women be allowed to continue to kill their children?
 
Cardinal said:
First, prove that the unborn are innocent.
Click to expand...

You do realize you're doing it backwards, right? It is up to you to prove guilt, not up to your opponents to prove innocence.
 
OrphanSlug said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually my argument is correct and legally sound. Here is my basic argument...

1. Unborns are human beings.

2. Human beings are being killed without legal consequence.

3. Human beings are being killed for no better reason than convenience.

4. Human beings (in the US anyway) have a right to live.

Now, I defy you to prove ANY of these points wrong.
 
Fedor50 said:
I am arguing US Law.
Click to expand...

I just find it an odd distinction to make. You're against abortion of the innocent, but only if they're innocent under United States law? Do you understand how bizarre that sounds?

An unborn human being is INNOCENT. Do you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

There are over 300,000 laws in the United States. Why would I make that assumption? For that matter, why do you?

Fedor50 said:
Oh yeah, and you STILL have not yet answered my question...

Again, does your right to whatever outweigh another human beings actual right to live?
Click to expand...

That question is beside the point. One of the qualifiers you used was "innocent," though innocent only of United States law. On that point, are these Federal laws, state laws or both? What about statutes that expire after a year? What if an unborn fetus breaks a law in one municipality but is innocent in the next? Must the woman get an abortion in the first municipality?
 
TheGoverness said:
Maybe for YOU, that's what you thought I meant, but I actually believe that the mother's life is entirely more important than the unborn's because the unborn is entirely dependant on the mother to live. That's what I believe.
Click to expand...

And now you're avoiding the fact you were caught lying to talk about a different matter.
 
Risky Thicket said:
What percentage of abortions kill "guilty" human beings?:monkey
Click to expand...

NONE. Now I have answered your question. Can you answer MY question?

Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?

So far not a SINGLE pro-choicer has been able to answer this very BASIC and SIMPLE question.
 
Henrin said:
And now you're avoiding the fact you were caught lying to talk about a different matter.
Click to expand...
I was not caught "lying".

I've already clarified my positions about this before. If you don't want to believe that then fine, I really don't care.

I place more importance on the mother than the unborn child, because the unborn is entirely dependant on the mother to survive, and as a result I view the fetus as a secondary consideration compared to the mother. And also because the unborn have no rights anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom