• 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!

Bad arguments your side makes

minnie616 said:
It also has the potential to miscarry naturally.

In fact at 3 to 4 gestational weeks healthy women miscarry between 22 percent and 75 percent.

Between 5 to 8 weeks gestation another 10 percent of health women miscarry about 10 percent.

And in the last trimester there is still a 1 percent change a healthy woman will lose the pregnancy and the unborn will die within the womb.

https://www.easybabylife.com/miscarriage-statistics-by-week.html
Click to expand...

Life is fragile...
 
jghiretire said:
Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. End of story.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered when pro-choicers say this --- why should it be rare?
 
Elvira said:
Of course not but it has the potential as it grows and develops...an animal is still an animal, no matter how long it lives or how much it develops...
Click to expand...
ARE YOU SAYING POTENTIAL SHOULD BE TREATED LIKE ACTUAL? Because that is both a horrible error and a common error that abortion opponents make. If we wait long enough, see, even if it takes centuries, you are a potential corpse. Therefore, if potential should be treated like actual, you should be embalmed and buried as soon as possible, right? If you buy a lottery ticket for a major prize, you are a potential winner --so does that mean you should be taxed right now like an actual major winner? If you encounter a deep gorge where a potential bridge could be built, should you right-now try to drive across that potential bridge? Only in the Overall Abortion Debate does anyone express the insanity of declaring that the potential should be treated like the actual!

AN UNBORN HUMAN IS WHAT IT IS. It is not right-now what it has the potential to become, not to mention that the achievement of that potential is **never** guaranteed (about 1/6 of all confirmed pregnancies Naturally miscarry!). Therefore it can be treated right-now based upon what it is right-now.
 
Bodhisattva said:
No. I am being the absolute dispassionate one here, actually.

I support pro-choice and I can admit that the developing human being is a human being that is being killed.

The ones refusing to accept that are the ones with emotional or logical issues...

The problem comes from those that want to disassociate themselves from supporting abortion but not condoning the killing of a human being. Just own it. I do.
Click to expand...

The phrase "human being" is a social construct, and my country does not bestow that status until live birth. I have no issue with calling it a human, but it is not a human being here. I can't speak for New Zealand, though.
 
Josie said:
I've always wondered when pro-choicers say this --- why should it be rare?
Click to expand...
ABORTION IS MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE THAN CONTRACEPTION. The more effective and easy to use and reliable the contraception, the rarer that abortion will be. MOSTLY, abortion only needs to be a backup-plan for when contraception fails. Other uses for abortion, like terminating defective bodies before they grow minds that will suffer for a lifetime, are comparably rare already.
 
Scrabaholic said:
The phrase "human being" is a social construct, and my country does not bestow that status until live birth. I have no issue with calling it a human, but it is not a human being here. I can't speak for New Zealand, though.
Click to expand...

Every word is a creation of people. If you don't think entire stages of human life are human beings then you're simply wrong.
 
Scrabaholic said:
The phrase "human being" is a social construct, and my country does not bestow that status until live birth. I have no issue with calling it a human, but it is not a human being here. I can't speak for New Zealand, though.
Click to expand...

I was speaking biologically...

Biologically it is as much of a being 1 hour before birth as it is 1 hour after birth...
 
Josie said:
I've always wondered when pro-choicers say this --- why should it be rare?
Click to expand...

Because we should support family planning efforts that make the difficult decision happen less frequently. We ended a pregnancy when told that the child was deformed and would die in the womb. We intended to become parents and this was a horrible time for us, irrespective of the necessity of the decision.

When pro-choicers say this it is in the context of support for groups like planned parenthood, whose work likely diminishes the number of couples that have to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy. Better sex education, availability of contraceptives, even support for Medicaid will likely diminish the number of abortions, which can be the legitimate goal of people of good will on both sides of the debate.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I was speaking biologically...

Biologically it is as much of a being 1 hour before birth as it is 1 hour after birth...
Click to expand...

The phrase human being isn't a biological construct, it's a social one. Like I said, it's a human, though. That does not and should not mean the woman can't have it removed from her body if she so chooses. I'd feel the same even if my country gave it human being status.
 
Henrin said:
If you don't think entire stages of human life are human beings then you're simply wrong.
Click to expand...
PROVE IT. I wrote this specifically to point out the idiocy that is typically blathered in association with the words "human life". But even without referencing that somewhat lengthy document, I can point out that if you call a zygote "a human being" then you are causing trouble for yourself. That's because a zygote can become a morula, which you would also call "a human being". And then a morula can become a blastocyst, which you would also call "a human being". But next, sometimes a blastocyst Naturally becomes a normal embryo, and sometimes it Naturally becomes a hydatidiform mole --and not even the most vehement of abortion opponents will call a hydatidiform mole "a human being". THEREFORE, just because it didn't grow like you assumed it might, when you call the zygote "a human being", you are now forced to say that a human being, through perfectly Natural growth, can become a human non-being! It is much more rational to say that a zygote is a human non-being, and that the developing human remains a non-being until it actually, legitimately, qualifies for the label of "a being" (still of the "human" type).
 
FutureIncoming said:
PROVE IT. I wrote this specifically to point out the idiocy that is typically blathered in association with the words "human life". But even without referencing that somewhat lengthy document, I can point out that if you call a zygote "a human being" then you are causing trouble for yourself. That's because a zygote can become a morula, which you would also call "a human being". And then a morula can become a blastocyst, which you would also call "a human being". But next, sometimes a blastocyst Naturally becomes a normal embryo, and sometimes it Naturally becomes a hydatidiform mole --and not even the most vehement of abortion opponents will call a hydatidiform mole "a human being". THEREFORE, just because it didn't grow like you assumed it might, when you call the zygote "a human being", you are now forced to say that a human being, through perfectly Natural growth, can become a human non-being! It is much more rational to say that a zygote is a human non-being, and that the developing human remains a non-being until it actually, legitimately, qualifies for the label of "a being" (still of the "human" type).
Click to expand...

You realize I never read your links, right? I did that one time and all it ended up being was your own blog.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I was speaking biologically... Biologically it is as much of a being 1 hour before birth as it is 1 hour after birth...
Click to expand...
THAT WOULD BE ZERO MAGNITUDE OF "A BEING". At least when talking about beings such as intelligent extraterrestrials. Note that while the word "being" can simply refer to existence. plenty of things exist, like rocks and squirrels and so on, that we do not call "rock beings" or "squirrel beings" and so on. It should be extremely obvious that our restriction of the word "being" to the phrase "human being" means something much more special than mere existence. BIOLOGICALLY, however, an unborn human (and even a newborn human) merely exists; it has no characteristics that can distinguish "a being", a person, from an ordinary animal.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
You realize I never read your links, right? I did that one time and all it ended up being was your own blog.
Click to expand...
ONE REASON FOR THE BLOG IS, it is a place to put information that simply won't FIT in the limited space here (and it also lets me avoid constantly repeating whole lengthy posts here). Just as I frequently include links to things other than my blog in my posts here (which means you can't assume an average link will take you to the blog), I often include links to other data in those blog-postings. It means I'm not making up my background data!

REGARDLESS, your post I quoted here is in no sense any sort of proof regarding your claim that an unborn human qualifies as a "being".
 
Josie said:
I've always wondered when pro-choicers say this --- why should it be rare?
Click to expand...

The fewer unwanted pregnancies, the rarer elective abortions there will be.

Women do not electively abort wanted pregnancies.
 
Elvira said:
I did state my source...16 weeks is not 20 weeks either...
Click to expand...

When the fetus heart is first developed it resembles that of a tube and resembles the heart of a fish.

Even after the lungs are delveloped during the last trimester blood is not pumped through the lungs since it gets its oxygen in the blood from the bio mom via the umbilical cord and placenta. After birth the heart pumps blood through the lungs to get oxygen from the air the infant breathes.
 
Scrabaholic said:
The phrase human being isn't a biological construct, it's a social one. Like I said, it's a human, though. That does not and should not mean the woman can't have it removed from her body if she so chooses. I'd feel the same even if my country gave it human being status.
Click to expand...

My argument ONLY deals with the fact that a human being that is born is the same as a human being an hour prior to birth... BIOLOGICALLY.
 
FutureIncoming said:
THAT WOULD BE ZERO MAGNITUDE OF "A BEING". At least when talking about beings such as intelligent extraterrestrials. Note that while the word "being" can simply refer to existence. plenty of things exist, like rocks and squirrels and so on, that we do not call "rock beings" or "squirrel beings" and so on. It should be extremely obvious that our restriction of the word "being" to the phrase "human being" means something much more special than mere existence. BIOLOGICALLY, however, an unborn human (and even a newborn human) merely exists; it has no characteristics that can distinguish "a being", a person, from an ordinary animal.
Click to expand...

Yes. A human baby 1 hour from birth is like a human baby 1 minute old and they are beings like intelligent space traveling extra terrestrials and dolphins...

My god... how does your brain function in order to come up with these logical pretzels... ??
 
Bodhisattva said:
Yes. A human baby 1 hour from birth is like a human baby 1 minute old
Click to expand...
BIOLOGICALLY FALSE. The placenta makes a HUGE difference!

Bodhisattva said:
and they are beings like intelligent space traveling extra terrestrials and dolphins.
Click to expand...
ABSOLUTELY AND MEASURABLY FALSE. Humans that young are pure animals and nothing more than pure animals. They have animal-level minds, and rather poor-quality animal-level minds at that, when you consider that pigs are significantly smarter. The **only** reason for calling them "beings" is Arbitrary Law, which existed long before the actual Facts were discovered.

Bodhisattva said:
My god... how does your brain function in order to come up with these logical pretzels... ??
Click to expand...
FACTS ARE FACTS. And there is no accounting for talent, such as the talent for finding oddball connections between Facts.
 
Josie said:
I've always wondered when pro-choicers say this --- why should it be rare?
Click to expand...

If all the energy spent on butting heads abortion knowing there'll be nothing achieved, both sides need to focus on how to get government and pharmaceutical companies to pull out all of their stops on long-term birth control created and easily accessible to all women and "men". Get education institutions to make sex ed a high priority curriculum. And then hopefully forums like this will be vacant.
 
FutureIncoming said:
BIOLOGICALLY FALSE. The placenta makes a HUGE difference!


ABSOLUTELY AND MEASURABLY FALSE. Humans that young are pure animals and nothing more than pure animals. They have animal-level minds, and rather poor-quality animal-level minds at that, when you consider that pigs are significantly smarter. The **only** reason for calling them "beings" is Arbitrary Law, which existed long before the actual Facts were discovered.


FACTS ARE FACTS. And there is no accounting for talent, such as the talent for finding oddball connections between Facts.
Click to expand...

Cool. Sounds great. Good for you.
 
Bodhisattva said:
My argument ONLY deals with the fact that a human being that is born is the same as a human being an hour prior to birth... BIOLOGICALLY.
Click to expand...

Oh, I get what you are saying now. I thought you were saying that it's a human being before birth. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
 
Josie said:
I've always wondered when pro-choicers say this --- why should it be rare?
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't it be rare??? I doubt it is something most women aspire to. It's a horrible choice to have to make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom