• 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!

Are they Pro-life Christians or just Pro-birth Christians?


Roe didnt decide third trimester abortions were/should be illegal. It left that up to the states. Just like Dobbs.

And you obviously choose to obscure the issue by not using precise terms...once again giving yourself wiggle room to not commit.

Human life, its beginning and definitions are biological in origin, settled, and fact. It's not up for discussion and legally, the definition doesnt change.

What you want is to change the legal status of the unborn human life. THAT is a different term. Why not be honest, straightforward? In the US, born persons have rights recognized. The status that has rights recognized is BORN. Further federal definition uses the word person. Why not stick with those if you want to discuss the legal aspects of abortion?

IMO, it's because you dont want to be pinned down on a position you know you cant really justify. Why you're afraid to be honest about your view is odd...you're in the abortion sub-forum but afraid to commit to your own position.
 
Lursa said:
Roe didnt decide third trimester abortions were/should be illegal. It left that up to the states. Just like Dobbs.
Click to expand...
Never claimed that it did. Read what I wrote more carefully.

Lursa said:
Human life, its beginning and definitions are biological in origin, settled, and fact. It's not up for discussion and legally, the definition doesnt change.
Click to expand...
There we differ. It is anything but settled.
 
NatMorton said:
Never claimed that it did. Read what I wrote more carefully.
Click to expand...

Ya kinda did, so I clarified it.

NatMorton said:
There we differ. It is anything but settled.
Click to expand...

You are wrong...human life is clearly defined even in grammar school text books. Please...tell me which part of this is inaccurate:

An individual human life with unique Homo sapiens DNA begins at fertilization/implantation.​

Your turn...which part is wrong or "not settled?"
 
You've wasted time asserting absolutely nothing not already in evidence.
Again, the Roe verdict was not a women's privacy rights vs. unborn right to life dichotomy.

Rather, it was a ruling regarding the rational accomodations for both positions.

That apparently wasn't satisfying to the anti-choice extremists....so here we are reading your defense of their uncompromising propaganda.
NatMorton said:
There's nothing partisan in what I'm asserting. If you cool your jets for a moment you'll see I have not proposed a specific legal definition for human life.
Click to expand...
Plausible deniability, perhaps. Though you're arguing in its favor. Is there a practice difference?
NatMorton said:
Yes, my views are limited to the aspects of this debate that are relevant.
Click to expand...
They're limited in general ...for the sake of bumper-sticker convenience and/or lack of depth and substance.
 
Lursa said:
Ya kinda did, so I clarified it.
Click to expand...
No, you've got that wrong (again).

We are not talking about a scientific defintion of human life. We are discussing a legal defintion, which bring with it an element of morality.
 
choiceone said:
could not have the right to use the woman's biological body without her consent to that use.
Click to expand...
Equating a human embryo to a parasite is a non-starter.
 
NatMorton said:
No, you've got that wrong (again).


We are not talking about a scientific defintion of human life. We are discussing a legal defintion, which bring with it an element of morality.
Click to expand...
Specify what the legal definition of "human life" is!
 
NatMorton said:
No, you've got that wrong (again).
Click to expand...

Feel free to requote and prove what I got wrong. I'm always open to that.

NatMorton said:
We are not talking about a scientific defintion of human life. We are discussing a legal defintion, which bring with it an element of morality.
Click to expand...

What legal definition of human life? If there isnt one, why do you feel the need to create or "nail down" one? Why not just define the legal status for the unborn? And if you want it changed, then make that case, that argument? Compare it to the legal status of born people in the US and go from there. Should the unborn have that legal status? Make that case...why invent something new?

As for the morality of it, there's usually a moral aspect to violating/protecting people's rights. Again, why do you need to introduce something specific for the unborn if you want them to have the same legal status as born people. Is that true, the blue bold? Yes or no and please explain.

Otherwise, you are just trying to control the discussion by inventing your own definition and then expecting others to argue it in that narrow window. Why invent new? Use what exists.

If you want to discuss a moral right to life for the unborn...why do you need a legal definition for human life? Just use the biological one.
 
I suspect you'll get more deflections and rhetoric rather than actual explanations.
 
Gordy327 said:
I suspect you'll get more deflections and rhetoric rather than actual explanations.
Click to expand...

If so, I'll continue to find it odd and rather timid to not respond directly.
 
Lursa said:
If so, I'll continue to find it odd and rather timid to not respond directly.
Click to expand...
It just means he has no valid or rational response. He stopped responding to me altogether. Of course I'll still address his posts and expose the flaws for all to see.
 
There are no christians in office.
 
NatMorton said:
It's the same question.
Click to expand...

Then why use the terms "define human life"? That is already biological fact. You want to define the legal status of the unborn...why not say that? It's more accurate.

Are you avoiding it so you can use the emotionally manipulative value of "human life?" "Human life" has no legal status, born or unborn.

Man, society, the judiciary, define legal status. How about you just be clear and plain? And you avoided all the other questions, of course. Do you believe the unborn should have the same legal status as born people? Yes or no and explain? (It is a debate forum)
 
NatMorton said:
It's the same question.
Click to expand...
How about answering the question: what is the legal definition of "human life?" Point out this definition in the law books!
 
Because he's being intentionally disingenuous and attempting to be emotionally manipulative.
 
Lursa said:
Then why use the terms "define human life"? That is already biological fact. You want to define the legal status of the unborn...why not say that? It's more accurate.
Click to expand...
Because "human life" is a term commonly used in state legislation when defining fetal rights.

I am being clear. You, on the other hand, are playing word games.
 
NatMorton said:
Because "human life" is a term commonly used in state legislation when defining fetal rights.
Click to expand...

So what? It's a given...it has Homo sapiens DNA and is alive. What argument will you bring that places that in doubt?

NatMorton said:
I am being clear.
Click to expand...

Great...where are your "clear" answers? You avoided that again. Why?

NatMorton said:
You, on the other hand, are playing word games.
Click to expand...

Dont lie, I'm trying to cut thru your word games and get to an actual discussion.
 
NatMorton said:
Because "human life" is a term commonly used in state legislation when defining fetal rights.
Click to expand...
Then provide the legal definition of it and where any state has enumerated fetal rights!
NatMorton said:
I am being clear. You, on the other hand, are playing word games.
Click to expand...
Not even a little.
 
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…