• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Aren't we all missing the big picture?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Actually, if you are in the military a sunburn that prevents you from performing your miltary duties is cause for punishment under the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice). In the Army you'd likely get what is called an Article 15 which could come with a fine as well as some sort of "extra-duty."

Nice - you liken booger picking to abortion. Ask yourself this question: if I let my boogers continue to grow would they eventually be able to live outside my body? Boogers, poop, urine, snot, ear wax, etc. are waste products produced by the body that need to be removed for sanitary reasons. Most of which will eventually remove themselves as part of the cleansing process. Of course, I'm sure some "human beings" could be considered waste. Embryonic & fetal humans are stages of life not waste matter.

I fear you don't understand the difference between life & waste.
 
HAha... you mean that a booger is not LIFE! Holy Cow! :lol:
Thank you for also proving my initial point.

Dude, please understand your own point before you get too lost.
Hahaaa.. :lol: Seriously... You brought up the point about it being HUMAN parts, not me. The question which you utterly failed to provide was what I then addressed and you have totally missed in an absolutely feeble manner.

This is about what is human...not what will become human.
This is about what the mother’s rights are for something that is not yet A HUMAN and that is a part of THEIR body, much like THEIR skin or Kidney.

My comparison of an embryo to a booger only shows that I think that neither are Human Beings...but rather, parts of a human with no sentient characteristics. This also goes to my whole point...that until these four questions are answered, understood and accepted there will be no agreement as to what to do next.


Arthur Fonzarelli
it's a HUMAN embryo
it's a HUMAN fetus
Click to expand...

This is not about what will BECOME human.
This is about what IS human.
THIS IS WHY I ASKED THESE SEQUENTIAL QUESTIONS!!

When a person joins the military, they are forfeiting their bodies and their lives to an organization that will use them as they think best. If you harm the militaries investment (your body that is now theirs) then you can be punished). I hope that you follow this, it is quite clear.

Human skin is as alive as a Human embryo.
Detach either from the host human and they will both wither away into compost.
Regardless, My four questions stand unanswered and they are still the root of the issue at large.

Do you understand?
If I am not being clear, let me know.
If I am seriously missing something, let me know. (I could be and this post is to be taken seriously in terms of content but not tone, I am joking with my attitude just to let you know) YOU IDIOT!
 
Last edited:
BodiSatva said:
This is not about what will BECOME human.
This is about what IS human.
Click to expand...

I thought this is about the idea that pro-life people aren't realizing all the implications of making abortion illegal?
 

Yes, it is not possible to attack a persons opinion without some collateral damage to the person.

So what? My attacks were not about a person, it was about their ideas.
 

This thread is about the theory that if abortion is made illegal, the market for abortions will be driven underground, making it unsafe.

Sorry, I call it like I see it. The overall concept is idiotic.

I've already explained why. You fail to take into account the loss of life under the current method. You made a sweeping assumption that more people would die under a law reversal then is diying today, which is a highly illogical position to defend.

You miss all kinds of other reasons for its idiocy as well. First, removing Roe vs Wade puts this issue back into the state legislature where it belongs. If someone only needs to cross state lines, how will the market move underground?

In a nutshell what I see is a bunch of people crying because we reject this big picture as being nothing more then a few scribbles of incoherent thought and called you on it.
 
Wide Latitude

Not within the context of what Arthur and I are discussing.

I think that in the broader scope of what is being discussed here, they do realize the implications of making abortion illegal, they just think that the implications are irrelevant to saving the life of the unborn child.

I already addressed your "derail"ing worry.
Address this worry of yours before addressing me again.
I am either derailing this topic or I am not.
If you are talking to me, then you are either derailed with me or you think that I did not in fact derail this topic.
Either way, you need to take responsibility for your accusations.
I do not let people off, a person is either accountable for what they say or they are a joke of a person and not a whisp of energy should be wasted on them in any serious fashion until they act in an appropriate manner.

Are you trying to get me on something? It certainly appears that you are trying to be clever and make some sort of point that appears to be equally irrelevant. Are you? If so, just say what it is, Be a man about it. Otherwise, address what I said to you or move on.

zymurgy

Yes, it is not possible to attack a persons opinion without some collateral damage to the person.

So what? My attacks were not about a person, it was about their ideas.
Click to expand...

So what? Well…you said that you were…
“attacking the topic itself, not a specific poster.”

You were wrong. By your own admission you later state…
“Yes, it is not possible to attack a persons opinion without some collateral damage to the person.”

In response to BodiSatva’s, “What do you think that a person is comprised of if not their concepts and thoughts?”

So a person IS their ideas and opinions, and that is what you attacked.
You attacked the person.
End of story.

That is my point, that you were contradicting yourself and in this point I was right. You are now attempting to justify yourself.

I wonder how many other things that you say or do are contradictory?
How many other cases have you presented that are flat out false? Just a thought to ponder.
 
Last edited:
Wide Latitude said:
I thought this is about the idea that pro-life people aren't realizing all the implications of making abortion illegal?
Click to expand...
I did warn you. It's going the usual way, I'll give another two cents but this is boring me now.
zymurgy said:
I've already explained why. You fail to take into account the loss of life under the current method. You made a sweeping assumption that more people would die under a law reversal then is diying today, which is a highly illogical position to defend.
Click to expand...
No one fails to take into account aborted fetuses, but many dispute whether they should be considered as people while 'in utero'. The point of the thread is that if banned, mothers will very likely be put at risk by unsafe abortion. As far as I know you cannot say that more 'people' will be killed as while some mothers will be put at risk of death, some may not get an abortion* (don't start celebrating yet) because of the prohibition. From your perspective banning abortion could put more mothers at risk but 'save' (for want of a better term) more babies, balancing the actual number of deaths with the current situation. Of course, for others who do not prescribe to your belief that all unborn are living people (as opposed to a dependent component of a larger biological organism- the mother) banning it would not 'save' any person, but rather kill more people when mothers seek unlicensed abortions, and deny a choice to those who are bullied and intimidated into keeping a child they may not want or be able to support.

*
zymurgy said:
If someone only needs to cross state lines, how will the market move underground?
Click to expand...
Because not everyone can afford to do so, a serious issue for poor communities. And on the subject of poor communities, read some books, they are beset by the problems caused by the breakdown of the traditional family, deny those communities abortion and you are only adding to the problems caused by the fatherless young men accounting for so much crime and violence. The irony would be if a state that banned abortion started complaining about rising crime rates 15 years down the line. How would you feel if your child was murdered or raped by a thug who was fathered by a man who never stuck around, born into poverty, raised by the street and fell into crime, all because his mother was denied the choice to abort him? You heard the phrase poetic justice? Go for it, ban it. It'll be worth it if I get the chance to say "I told you so".:smile:

zymurgy said:
In a nutshell what I see is a bunch of people crying because we reject this big picture as being nothing more then a few scribbles of incoherent thought and called you on it.
Click to expand...
It's called foresight. And consider yourself called.:lol:
 

Do everybody a favor and report me if you think I initiated personal attacks.

Otherwise the large colored font about something other then the topic of this thread is annoying as heck.
 
JamesRichards said:
I did warn you. It's going the usual way, I'll give another two cents but this is boring me now.
No one fails to take into account aborted fetuses, but many dispute whether they should be considered as people while 'in utero'.
Click to expand...

This entire thread fails to take it into account. your displeasure is some of us wouldn't play that game.

haha, it "bores you'. Oh well.
 
zymurgy

I proved a point, that is all.

What does colored font have to do with being correct about the point?

Why would reporting you do everybody a favor?

I am a big boy and I can handle the smack-talk...I would never report anybody for personal attacks even though you, zymurgy, did initiate a personal attack.
 

The large colored font is annoying. I expressed an opinion. Got it?

And reporting me rather then hijacking this thread to argue about a personal attack is troll like behavior, this is why you would be doing everybody a favor by reporting me rather then pretending to be a mod. You have no mod powers, stop acting like you do.

Lastly, I did not engage in personal attacks. Attacking someones position is not attacking them. If you still feel I did, report me. Otherwise stop trolling so we can get back to the point of the thread.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Hmm. Doing my daily patrol of the abortion forum, not really expecting to see much 'cause it's been relatively tame down here for awhile....and then I stumble upon this discussion.

Here's a thought. Get the thread back on track, or this thread will be closed. And stop with the bickering over whether or not someone was insulting someone else. If that person felt insulted, I invite them to report the post, and it will be dealt with. Otherwise, there's nothing more to see there, so move it along, folks.
 
I would like to focus on this issue for the moment, if you don't mind.
Yes.

Any state will do. Please provide a link, also.

I'll bet you anti-prostitution laws have to do with either money (taxation, specifically) or the spread of S.T.D.s.
 
Yes, the large, colored font is annoying to me as well. The default font and color works fine for most people. If your intended audience is the visually impaired, you should be aware that there are tools at their disposal to increase font size and use contrasting colors.

zymurgy said:
This thread is about the theory that if abortion is made illegal, the market for abortions will be driven underground, making it unsafe.

Sorry, I call it like I see it. The overall concept is idiotic.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether or not it was a personal attack, it doesn't do you any good to defend your position with remarks like that.

I've already explained why. You fail to take into account the loss of life under the current method. You made a sweeping assumption that more people would die under a law reversal then is diying today, which is a highly illogical position to defend.
Click to expand...

Then discuss it. Explain why you think it's highly illogical. Refrain from using words like idiotic in your response. Challenge yourself a little bit. If you can't talk intelligently about your opinion, what are you doing here?

You fail to take into account those that suffer serious side effects but don't die. Botched abortions can cause all sorts of complications, not all of which lead to death.

You miss all kinds of other reasons for its idiocy as well. First, removing Roe vs Wade puts this issue back into the state legislature where it belongs. If someone only needs to cross state lines, how will the market move underground?
Click to expand...

As someone already said, not everyone who needs an abortion has the means to cross state lines. You and I, who sit behind our computers in our nice houses don't always have an accurate view of how others live their lives.

In a nutshell what I see is a bunch of people crying because we reject this big picture as being nothing more then a few scribbles of incoherent thought and called you on it.
Click to expand...

I see we've gone from "idiotic" to "incoherent". Marvelous.

BodiSatva said:
I think that in the broader scope of what is being discussed here, they do realize the implications of making abortion illegal, they just think that the implications are irrelevant to saving the life of the unborn child.
Click to expand...

I hadn't considered that, to be honest. But that would be tough to defend, I think.


I'm not sure how many times I can read the word "derail" in a paragraph without getting dizzy.

Either way, you need to take responsibility for your accusations.
Click to expand...

As in... what? You want me to say it again?

I do not let people off, a person is either accountable for what they say or they are a joke of a person and not a whisp of energy should be wasted on them in any serious fashion until they act in an appropriate manner.
Click to expand...

I'm not looking to be "let off" by you or anyone else. By "appropriate manner", do you mean that there is an established standard on this forum? Or are these your own personal guidelines? If they are, may I see them in advance, or is it a find-out-as-you-go type of system?
 
BodiSatva said:
darn double posts
Click to expand...
FYI: You can delete you own posts within the same time as you can edit them. If you click on the "edit" button, "delete" will appear as one option at the bottom right of the window.
 
Jerry said:
I would like to focus on this issue for the moment, if you don't mind.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

Yes.

Any state will do. Please provide a link, also.
Click to expand...

Alabama: http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/13A-12-121.htm

Still trying to figure out what the point of the exercise was. Are you just trying to find out how much research I'm willing to do?

I'll bet you anti-prostitution laws have to do with either money (taxation, specifically) or the spread of S.T.D.s.
Click to expand...

That's why I picked a bible belt state.

I was thinking about what you said earlier:

You will have to substantiate every claim you make. Yes.
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the point of this debate. It's an exchange of ideas and opinions. It's not a legal case, and there is no judge. I am not required to substantiate everything I say, so you can invalidate if I can't or won't. If you want to disagree with me, then do so. But don't pretend that my ideas are not valid because I can't give you a link to a website for everything I say.
 
Wide Latitude said:
Alabama: http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/13A-12-121.htm
Click to expand...
That link doesn't give reason as to why prostitution was made illegal, which is what your point was.

Something can be illegal, sure, but the fact of it's ilegality does not automaticly mean that it is ilegal because it is considered immoral.

Wide Latitude said:
Still trying to figure out what the point of the exercise was. Are you just trying to find out how much research I'm willing to do?
Click to expand...
It's the norm of Debate. I'm not the first to demand a source of you, I'll not be the last.

Why do you require Star to back up her claim that most illegal abortions were performed by doctors in sterile clinical settings then? Her Wikipedia link wasn't good enough so you asked for something more recent than 46 years, why?

If this is just an exchange of ideas and opinions, not legal cases, and there is no "judge", why do you even request that she reference her views when you are hesitant to do same?

As she must, so must you.
 
Jerry

Thank you.
I did not realize that.

Wide Latitude

They are just guidelines for appropriate and responsible adult behavior.
I don't make them up, I just understand how it really is.

I weave personal responsibility into my debates and use peoples words against them in an effort to display contradictions or other mess up in order to discover who can communicate effectivily and who can't.

zymurgy is an exaple of one that starts whining about stuff when he has no substance to actually discuss. I find out quickly who has substance. You do. Not by submitting or anything, but by simply admitting that you had not thought of what I expressed even after we started off "rough" or whatever. It is all good.

I was glad to see that you chose to address my statement of substance first...anyway, I don't have a lot more to offer regarding this subject. I have already stated what I feel the issue is and I have also stated what I feel about this subject.

Lastly...yes, it would be tough to defend...that has always been my point with pro-lifers.

zymurgy

gee-whiz buddy...that was your opinion?

HAha...yeah...
I know.
It is obvious.
I got it.
I had it already.
Did you get this then?
Do you get it know?
Will you express this opinion about opinions again?

I am not a mod.
I am not acting like I am a mod.
My status is that of one of a higher understanding than that of a simple mod.

You yourself said, "“Yes, it is not possible to attack a persons opinion without some collateral damage to the person.”

Collateral Damage is causing harm to that person. Intentional attack to a person's opinion with prior knowledge that there will be Collateral Damage to that person is admission that you are attacking the person...the thing is that you are hiding and not admitting the obvious. Now you are contradicting yourself again? That is strange behavior. Are you doing this intentionally? Gee...I hope so, the alternative is a little disturbing.

I always laugh at those that concern themselves with "trolls". :lol:
Don't be such a sucker. Trolls! Hahaaa...

As if I am a troll. If you don't understand my point, that is fine. If you need to label it in a negative fashion so that it is easier to dismiss, that is fine. If the way I express myself is too dynamic for you to comprehend, that is fine.

How could I hi-jack this thread? I never gave it any real thought.
Nobody can hi-jack a thread, can they? How would I do that?
Is it actually possible to tuck up my lap-top and attach this thread to it physically...snicker a little with a deep sneer, and run off into the crowd with a menace such as has never been felt before? :lol:
 
Wide Latitude said:
Then discuss it. Explain why you think it's highly illogical. Refrain from using words like idiotic in your response. Challenge yourself a little bit. If you can't talk intelligently about your opinion, what are you doing here?
Click to expand...

Actually I have defended it quite extensively. None of my specific points have been countered.

Furthermore, it is you that make the claim that allowing the deaths of infants will prevent more evils, yet haven't backed that up one iota.


You fail to take into account those that suffer serious side effects but don't die. Botched abortions can cause all sorts of complications, not all of which lead to death.
Click to expand...

Why should I take that into account. It is happening already. Reducing the number of abortions will further reduce the number of complications.

The priomary complication, BTW, is the inability to have children in the future.
 
Jerry said:
That link doesn't give reason as to why prostitution was made illegal, which is what your point was.
Click to expand...

Ok, valid.

Something can be illegal, sure, but the fact of it's ilegality does not automaticly mean that it is ilegal because it is considered immoral.
Click to expand...

There are some things for which substantiation does not exist. You & I both know that prostitution legislation is an attempt to legislate morality. I cannot prove it, and you cannot disprove it - but that doesn't mean it isn't true or false.



It depends on what the statement is. Statistics should be able to be substantiated, but it's not always that easy. Bottom line is that there are going to be truths about our society that you can't back up with a link to a website.
 
I was glad to see that you chose to address my statement of substance first...anyway, I don't have a lot more to offer regarding this subject. I have already stated what I feel the issue is and I have also stated what I feel about this subject.
Click to expand...

Neither do I - it's good to see people exchanging ideas and opinions, but it's bad to see people debate who can't back up their argument with reasoning.
 
zymurgy said:
Actually I have defended it quite extensively. None of my specific points have been countered.
Click to expand...

You've defended it? In what thread? Your 'specific points' seem to be attacks.

Furthermore, it is you that make the claim that allowing the deaths of infants will prevent more evils, yet haven't backed that up one iota.
Click to expand...

It's not being presented to you as a fact. It's an idea. If you don't agree with it, then tell me why. Again, please refrain from attacking while doing so.

Why should I take that into account.
Click to expand...

Because it's part of the issue - that's why you should take it into account! You can't ignore it just because it doesn't fit into your world.

It is happening already. Reducing the number of abortions will further reduce the number of complications.
Click to expand...

You are familar with the concept of statistics, right?

Let me give you a specific situation: I'm a doctor, and I performed 100 surgeries two years ago. Only 6 people died from complications. Last year, I performed only 10 surgeries, but 5 people died from complications. I must be a better doctor now, right, because less people died?

Do you see how utterly pointless that last statement was?

The priomary complication, BTW, is the inability to have children in the future.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. What's your point again?
 
You obviously didn't understand my point as I did not suggest that a "human" embryo was simply a part of a human. I was pointing out that it is "human." (please try to keep up)

This is about what is human...not what will become human.
This is about what the mother’s rights are for something that is not yet A HUMAN and that is a part of THEIR body, much like THEIR skin or Kidney.
Click to expand...
sorry Hank, not so. Skin sheds periodically; not so much like an embryo or fetus. A kidney; while it would take surgery to remove, it does not stop the growth or progression of life. (are you with me?)

this is where we disagree (shocker)

This is not about what will BECOME human.
This is about what IS human.
THIS IS WHY I ASKED THESE SEQUENTIAL QUESTIONS!!
Click to expand...
again...this where we disagree. My belief is that an embryo of the human species is human. (stay with me now)

nice that you can understand a joke...I suppose a woman in the military can't get pregnant as that would/could harm the military's investment...nor can they get an abortion as that could also harm their investment...drink alcohol, smoke, etc...play a sport on your off time that resulted in a broken arm/leg...all things that could prevent you from performing your military duties. (I didn't lose you; did I?)


Actually because of science that human embryo can live outside the host human. Skin is not nor does it ever become a separate living thing.

Throughout a prenancy that fetus/baby/human (or whatever you choose to call it) is living & growing. The only way it dies is if there is a miscarriage or an action to stop it from living. That action could be starvation, excessive drug use, an abortion, etc. Skin has its own life cycle in which it dies & sheds from the body without you doing a thing. You cannot keep the skin alive as with an embryo or fetus. Certainly if you did nothing to support the growth of the life inside a woman it would likely die; so would the woman. Also note that if you did nothing to support the life of an infant it would die as well. Skin, a kidney, etc. will never develop a heartbeat or brainwaves. However, an embryo/fetus will. If the question is "at what point?" I don't know the science but my belief is still that life begins at conception because it takes action to stop that life from growing. (sure hope I didn't lose you along this journey)

NOTE: Scott Peterson was convicted of a double homicide. How can that be if he only killed one person?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…