• 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!

Arguing for pro life . Yes it is possible . [W:506]

choiceone said:
You are sick. A woman does not see her body as a playground. The inside of it is PRIVATE and she has the right to decide who or what is going to be inside the most PRIVATE parts of it. It is unbelievable that you are so self-centered and selfish that you imagine your mother had an absolute obligation to grow your organism and give birth to you. She had no such obligation - she just did you a favor, and if you had any decent values you'd be grateful for the favor instead of trying to justify your own selfishness.
Click to expand...
Seeing as Iam adopted, yea my mother did see it as an obligation to have me. Then pass me on to a wonderful family that was better equipped to raise me.
Funny though, you dont see it as sick to kill a child as long as it has not taken its first breath outside the womb.
 
choiceone said:
Well, pro-choice people just don't share the way you think. I'm pro-choice and that is the way I think, and to me, the locations of fetus and born infant categorically separate them in an absolute way.
Click to expand...

That makes as much sense to me as believing someone is of no value due to skin color. Tbh, I cannot fathom the mind set that views unborn babies as "disease", "cancer", "parasite", etc as if the baby itself that's the villian, and then to say that you can switch gears and suddenly believe that very same infant is no longer a villian? It makes no logical sense.
 
Un biased said:
Oddly enough a few weeks ago I found myself starting to understand part of the pro life's argument when I was debating and a pro choice person ( not naming names ) had the audacity to say that a un wanted pregnancy would be like the baby raping the mother . Their are several reasons to be pro choice but having no respect for a fetus and accusing a being which is un aware and had no choice to be born of rape was appalling I found myself arguing for the life of the fetuses even agreeing with the argument's of people I never thought I would . Pro choice never use the fetuses raping mother argument it can easily be countered with the fact that since the fetuses has no choice it would be the other way around the mother would be forcing the baby to have intercourse with her .
Click to expand...

You have always been pro-life on the forum and could have responded on that thread rather than starting an identical thread from scratch. There is nothing new in your OP, other than your giving it some bizarre false twist. It is common for abortion threads to just be be reruns of last month's or even last week's thread.
 
X Factor said:
That makes as much sense to me as believing someone is of no value due to skin color. Tbh, I cannot fathom the mind set that views unborn babies as "disease", "cancer", "parasite", etc as if the baby itself that's the villian, and then to say that you can switch gears and suddenly believe that very same infant is no longer a villian? It makes no logical sense.
Click to expand...

Location, location, location.
 
nota bene said:
Location, location, location.
Click to expand...

Size, Size, Size

The unborn need to be over 6 inches before it counts as a legal person

Na just joking :mrgreen:

But yeah there is more of a difference then location and that is the human is no longer acting like a tick or tapeworm that sucks blood out of you and can be assigned the ''right to life'' since now it is not interfering with a women's right to abort.
 
Last edited:
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Size, Size, Size

The unborn need to be over 6 inches before it counts as a legal person

Na just joking :mrgreen:

But yeah there is more of a difference then location and that is the human is no longer acting like a tick or tapeworm that sucks blood out of you and can be assigned the ''right to life'' since now it is not interfering with a women's right to abort.
Click to expand...

My friends baby nurses from her breast and still takes her energy in caring for him, so I guess he still it a parasite and it would still be ok to "abort" his life. Be consistent.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Seeing as Iam adopted, yea my mother did see it as an obligation to have me. Then pass me on to a wonderful family that was better equipped to raise me.
Funny though, you dont see it as sick to kill a child as long as it has not taken its first breath outside the womb.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. If she sees it as an obligation, that is her choice. If the government laws see it as an obligation, that is not her choice. The point is that, if the government laws make it obligatory, a woman's own idea of what is obligatory and what is not is negated, and the government law, not the woman, did you the favor by victimizing the woman and taking away her dignity as a person, but if the woman chooses and says she feels obligated, it is her sincere adherence to her own values that did you the favor, victimizing no person and depriving no person of dignity.

I do not think an embryo or fetus is a child - I think it is an incomplete, partially constructed body which, when completed, will be inseparable from a new person.
 
X Factor said:
That makes as much sense to me as believing someone is of no value due to skin color. Tbh, I cannot fathom the mind set that views unborn babies as "disease", "cancer", "parasite", etc as if the baby itself that's the villian, and then to say that you can switch gears and suddenly believe that very same infant is no longer a villian? It makes no logical sense.
Click to expand...

But I don't view the unborn as disease, cancer, or parasite. I view the unborn as incompletely constructed human organisms which live only as part of the woman's body until they're completely constructed by the woman's body and then get born. I believe that, when they are no longer under construction, they are finished products and are genuine persons. Many millions, even billions of people believe this, by the way, and it makes logical sense to them.
 
X Factor said:
My friends baby nurses from her breast and still takes her energy in caring for him, so I guess he still it a parasite and it would still be ok to "abort" his life. Be consistent.
Click to expand...

Breastfeeding involves social dependency, not particularistic biological dependency, because if a mother does not have breastmilk or good quality breastmilk, some other woman with breastmilk can feed the baby instead, and if no one had breastmilk, we could feed it cow's milk, coconut milk, or soymilk, and it would still live. You can't transfer an implanted embryo or fetus from one person to another like that - the implantation initiates a particularistic biological dependency, not a mere social dependency.
 
choiceone said:
But I don't view the unborn as disease, cancer, or parasite. I view the unborn as incompletely constructed human organisms which live only as part of the woman's body until they're completely constructed by the woman's body and then get born. I believe that, when they are no longer under construction, they are finished products and are genuine persons. Many millions, even billions of people believe this, by the way, and it makes logical sense to them.
Click to expand...

What about preemies? They still require some "construction". At what stage of development do they become "persons"?
 
choiceone said:
Breastfeeding involves social dependency, not particularistic biological dependency, because if a mother does not have breastmilk or good quality breastmilk, some other woman with breastmilk can feed the baby instead, and if no one had breastmilk, we could feed it cow's milk, coconut milk, or soymilk, and it would still live. You can't transfer an implanted embryo or fetus from one person to another like that - the implantation initiates a particularistic biological dependency, not a mere social dependency.
Click to expand...

Dependency is dependency. He still relies on others for his existence. Are you saying you believe he has value now while 3 months ago he didn't (he's about 2 months old). It would bother you now if his life was "aborted"?
 
X Factor said:
My friends baby nurses from her breast and still takes her energy in caring for him, so I guess he still it a parasite and it would still be ok to "abort" his life. Be consistent.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah babies don't dump toxic waste into your body or suck blood out of you like a tick or flea does.

Be consistent
 
X Factor said:
What about preemies? They still require some "construction". At what stage of development do they become "persons"?
Click to expand...

That's easy once when they have capabilities (especially mental) higher then that of a ordinary animal which isn't until some years after birth.
 
Last edited:
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Oh yeah babies don't dump toxic waste into your body or suck blood out of you like a tick or flea does.

Be consistent
Click to expand...

I get it. You have no use for babies in the womb, the little bloodsuckers.
 
X Factor said:
Dependency is dependency. He still relies on others for his existence. Are you saying you believe he has value now while 3 months ago he didn't (he's about 2 months old). It would bother you now if his life was "aborted"?
Click to expand...

Mosquitos and ticks relay on others to survive also. Yet when they latch onto your body and start doing the same actions as the unborn do, must you now allow this mindless biology to run it's natural course? Of course not you kill them because of what they're doing to your body like we do with the unborn
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
That's easy once when they have capabilities (especially mental) higher then that of a ordinary animal which isn't until some years after birth.
Click to expand...

You get a like from me, not because I agree with you (I strenously don't) but because I view your position as more honest.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Mosquitos and ticks relay on others to survive also. Yet when they latch onto your body and start doing the same actions as the unborn do, must you now allow this mindless biology to run it's natural course? Of course not you kill them because of what they're doing to your body like we do with the unborn
Click to expand...

I don't see the unborn as being the exact same thing as mosquitos, fleas and ticks. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that.
 
X Factor said:
You get a like from me, not because I agree with you (I strenously don't) but because I view your position as more honest.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the like

And yes I guess you can say my position is more honest then most because I agree with pro lifers on what the unborn actually are. We only disagree on when they should count as a person which the definition of that word is not universally agreed upon. My position in my opinion is unique because my take on personhood has nothing to do with membership to one particular species.
 
X Factor said:
I don't see the unborn as being the exact same thing as mosquitos, fleas and ticks. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that.
Click to expand...

I only compare the actions and question why we can kill these set of organisms because of the actions they do with our own body like I just mentioned and not kill the other one when it's doing the samething as the other organisms we're welling to kill. The only difference really is genetic material
 
X Factor said:
What about preemies? They still require some "construction". At what stage of development do they become "persons"?
Click to expand...

No one constructs them further. When they go through the birth process, their bodily systems go through the transformations from pure biological dependency to capacity to live in the external world, and though it's sad that they did not get a chance for more development by their mothers' bodies, they have managed to survive that process and can survive in the world with the same sort of help, from the same sources, as is available to all born persons. It is surviving that process of birth and breathing oxygen and taking nutrients by a means other than through transfer from a particular person's blood that they are persons in my book.

There are people who will object that a 6 month old premie is less developed than a 7 month old fetus, but I won't budge for that argument. Get born, leave the woman's body, and manage to survive the process, and you're a person. That's my view.
 
X Factor said:
Dependency is dependency. He still relies on others for his existence. Are you saying you believe he has value now while 3 months ago he didn't (he's about 2 months old). It would bother you now if his life was "aborted"?
Click to expand...

No, there is an utter difference between social dependency and biological dependency. The unborn are biologically dependent on the biological organism of the women in whom they live. This is not just getting oxygen and nutrients from the environment - it is living within the life of an organism that belongs to the woman as a person.

Before viability, the fetus can only live as part of her body and will die if she does. After implantation, it can't be moved to someone else's body or a special machine. It still lives as part of her body after viability, but the point is that it would have a chance of surviving birth after viability, so it's potential for being a person after birth is quite significant. Particularistic biological dependency means it depends exclusively on the biological life of that one woman for life, and her body works 24/7 to support it without any break for a rest.

In social dependency, an infant needs others, yes, but not particular ones. The mother does not have to be the one to care for the infant, anyone can take her place, so she doesn't take care of it 24/7, in fact. Moreover, it does not depend on biological connection to or even bodily contact with any person, though we usually give it plenty of skin/skin contact. So when biological dependency ends, it means the fetus has "outgrown" biological dependency and is now in the world, where we all need some social dependency to survive, but we have all outgrown our mother's lives and now have our own.

He is a person now. If you "aborted" his life it would be murder and I would make the police pursue the murderer and the prosecutor prosecute that murderer to the fullest extent of the law.
 
Last edited:
choiceone said:
No one constructs them further. When they go through the birth process, their bodily systems go through the transformations from pure biological dependency to capacity to live in the external world, and though it's sad that they did not get a chance for more development by their mothers' bodies, they have managed to survive that process and can survive in the world with the same sort of help, from the same sources, as is available to all born persons. It is surviving that process of birth and breathing oxygen and taking nutrients by a means other than through transfer from a particular person's blood that they are persons in my book.

There are people who will object that a 6 month old premie is less developed than a 7 month old fetus, but I won't budge for that argument. Get born, leave the woman's body, and manage to survive the process, and you're a person. That's my view.
Click to expand...

That's all just rationalization. I think it's possible to be pro choice without making preposterous claims that the baby in the womb somehow becomes a completely different entity when it's born.
 
choiceone said:
No, there is an utter difference between social dependency and biological dependency. The unborn are biologically dependent on the biological organism of the women in whom they live. This is not just getting oxygen and nutrients from the environment - it is living within the life of an organism that belongs to the woman as a person. Before viability, the fetus can only live as part of her body and will die if she does. After implantation, it can't be moved to someone else's body or a special machine. That is what particularistic biological dependency means - it depends exclusively on the biological life of that one woman for life, and her body works 24/7 to support it without any break for a rest.

In social dependency, an infant needs others, yes, but not particular ones. The mother does not have to be the one to care for the infant, anyone can take her place, so she doesn't take care of it 24/7, in fact. Moreover, it does not depend on biological connection to or even bodily contact with any person, though we usually give it plenty of skin/skin contact. He is a person now. If you "aborted" his life it would be murder and I would make the police pursue the murderer and the prosecutor prosecute that murderer to the fullest extent of the law.
Click to expand...

Lol, yeah right. Sorry but I see no logical basis to believe that.
 
X Factor said:
Lol, yeah right. Sorry but I see no logical basis to believe that.
Click to expand...

No one is asking you to believe it. All any pro-choice person is asking is that you refrain from using the laws of your society to force women who do believe it to live in accord with your beliefs rather than their own because it is an issue concerning their private bodies as persons. Few pro-choice people will ask you to change the laws to allow them to have abortions after viability for any reason other than a serious threat to the woman's life or health, either. We are not concerned with changing anyone's mind on belief, only with maintaining the right of a woman to abortion within the parameters the SC set in Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey.
 
choiceone said:
No one is asking you to believe it. All any pro-choice person is asking is that you refrain from using the laws of your society to force women who do believe it to live in accord with your beliefs rather than their own because it is an issue concerning their private bodies as persons. Few pro-choice people will ask you to change the laws to allow them to have abortions after viability for any reason other than a serious threat to the woman's life or health, either. We are not concerned with changing anyone's mind on belief, only with maintaining the right of a woman to abortion within the parameters the SC set in Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey.
Click to expand...

I believe in all sorts of laws "forcing" people to refrain from destroying innocent human life, even if some think it's wrong or unfair for those laws to apply to them. If the argument is that it's "her body, her choice", it seems to me that would be the case regardless of "viability". If you really believe what you claim to, you'd support the right of a woman to abort her pregnancy even if she's in labor. You said it yourself, it's not a person or of any value until it breathes air.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom