• 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!

Brain-dead woman must carry fetus to birth because of abortion ban, family says

No need to support it because she can leave it at a fire station, she can put it up for adoption. So no violation of her body, consent, or other rights.4
I 100% a woman giving birth and then giving the baby up for adoption
 
I 100% a woman giving birth and then giving the baby up for adoption

And she can do that with any born baby she has, with the father's permission.

but not a fetus inside her. Are you catching on now? ;)
 
I didnt write that you did. OTOH, I did point out that you thought men should be entitled to sex without consequences...remember? I quoted you ;)
I did not, that's not truthful and you cannot show me the post where I did

No, I've never said that - I might have used a what-if scenario/question to prove you wrong but you'd know that. Anything else is dishonest and not the truth and you know it

if I'm wrong, what post was it? I can apologize and admit I'm wrong - can you ?
 
my argument is rock solid - pro-abortion people cannot chip it. The ONLY people that can argue to allow killing unborn life are those who don't care if born life is killed either. Consistency.
Only in your mind!
why? why protect it at 1 day after birth and not 1 day before ?
The day before, it is not a legal person and therefore has no rights or protections.
partial birth has been done yes, later abortions done yes .... the point is, its the SAME unborn baby and you know it is, I know it is, almost everyone does that why such horrific abortions are not allowed anymore
Partial birth or late term abortions are generally done for medical reasons and not electively.
ok this is a very good point - if I'm reading this right, you'd stop all abortions 3rd trimester, right ?
I have yet to hear a rational or legal reason why they should be.
its been said on here multiple times (not you I don't think) and I'm using this to build the pillars of my argument
The "pillar" of your argument seems to be "value," which you cannot seem to explain or quantify. It looks like you do not have much argument at all. But plenty of feelings.
if you can prove the woman killed the unborn yes its homicide
The woman is allowed to have an abortion without due process. So it's not homicide.
other than that, its a natural death - happens all the time
So does abortion.
exactly what I'm saying and its NOT for either to walk way/escape the responsibilities, not the man, not the woman
They don't. Either the woman has an abortion or they support a born child. Both are responsibilities.
if you want the Govt to control everything yes the above would work
You seem to want the government to control whether a woman is allowed to abort or not, is that correct?
 
A woman is pregnant with a ZEF.
or call it a puppy or a kitten - its irrelevant the words used. What IS relevant is that its a living human life

It is not considered another person until after it is born. It is the potential for another person but there is no guarantee at all, even in the best of situations it will become one 🤷‍♀️
again 100% wrong. I gave you links to people being found guilty of killing unborn. Do you not read ?

While a ZEF is in the womb, it is 100% reliant upon the umbilical cord and placenta attached to the mother’s body to grow. It is not an independent life. There’s no way to say with a 100% certainty that it would EVER become a living person.
this is true - but it IS a separate living human life - its own DNA, blood, heartbeat, brain , body etc

It is not a person until a live birth occurs. Meaning the fetus converts from being an organism reliant upon the mother’s body - to being an organism that can support independent life.
again 100% wrong. I gave you links to people being found guilty of killing unborn

There are actual physiological characteristics and requirements for a ZEF to be able to be an organism that can support its own physical life - even with our most advanced medical technology. And even 40 week fetuses who are presumed to be perfectly healthy in utero don’t survive childbirth and become a living baby.
how old was Chance when he was born ?

Thats just reality.

Many - in fact the majority of ZEFs - never become independent living organisms that we call humans. Their development arrests - and they die. Then, are expelled from the woman’s body. (In the past, many women died because a ZEF would arrest and NOT be expelled and it would then kill her 🤷‍♀️
and they die ......... meaning they were alive, thank you
Just because some people have an emotional attachment to ZEFs doesn’t make them anymore a living human than it makes a rock a living human.

if a woman had a rock in her womb is she pregnant ?
 
I did not, that's not truthful and you cannot show me the post where I did

No, I've never said that - I might have used a what-if scenario/question to prove you wrong but you'd know that. Anything else is dishonest and not the truth and you know it

if the man doesn't want the kid be fair and equal and allow him to walk away without any consequence of the actions he took

if I'm wrong, what post was it? I can apologize and admit I'm wrong - can you ?

Great, I'll be here.
 
I'm out of town a few days - FYI - will respond when I get back

The day before, it is not a legal person and therefore has no rights or protections.

you don't believe that are fetal protection laws in the USA ???

a simple yes or no - and when you admit no, then we can move on
 
I'm out of town a few days - FYI - will respond when I get back



you don't believe that are fetal protection laws in the USA ???

a simple yes or no - and when you admit no, then we can move on

He's already acknowledged that...and they dont mean anything like you keep claiming they do. They dont recognize any legal status for the unborn. It's just a criminal charge tacked on to recognize the mother's/family's loss and the DP was ONLY for Lacey's murder charge. And we've all been thru this before :rolleyes: so this is just you posting more lies. Again...you have zero credibility in any discussion that concerns morality.
 
I appreciate that but if a woman wanted to kill a day old baby because she realized she didn't have enough money ..... you wouldn't support that would you?

No, because that's homicide.

so you are saying any reason the woman wants is good enough - ok, we've established that, that's good.

I don't know anyone else's life. I don't know if they'd be a horrible, abusive parent to a brown-haired baby per your hypberole. So yes. Any reason the woman wants to determine what happens to her body and her entire future is good enough.

but you support the Govt protecting human life after a baby is born - we allow Govt to do that don't we ? (USA Govt)

Of course. Once a baby is born, it's just cruel to not at least try to help.

And as the government encroaches more and more on women's bodily rights in various states, it's forcing women to carry to term unless they meet exact criteria -- for example, the GA heartbeat law that requires the woman to not only know she's pregnant before the fifth or sixth week of pregnancy (three to four weeks after her egg was fertilized, and and one to two weeks after she misses her period, assuming she's regular which not all women are). Because the government is forcing women to give birth, of course it's on the government to pick up the slack.

Unless the goal is to punish women and children by forcing women to carry pregnancies to term, then not giving them any help so that they are more likely than not in a horrific circumstance of working one or two jobs, never seeing their kid and living in a dangerous area where their kid is at risk?

Is punishment the point? Because it sure sounds like it is.

do you want the Govt to control that?

I don't want the government to control what choices women have with their bodies.

As long as it does, as long as it places any restrictions, it is liable to pick up the slack.

I've never said I don't care in fact I think I care more than any liberal lefties do. Human life matters

Then why do you want single mothers and their children to sink or swim no matter how few resources they have in your ideal world?

good, we've established that you believe a woman can have her unborn killed for any reason.

I believe a woman can end a pregnancy for any reason.

But if you're going the hyperbole route, which you seem to appreciate, say the woman ends her pregnancy because, I don't know, she likes to do lines and she's a prostitute and the kid will get in the way of her being able to go out and score johns. Is this the type of person you believe should be forced to parent a child?

Or say she ends her pregnancy because she literally can not concieve (har har) of loving a child with blonde hair. She'd just hate the ugly thing! Once again, I ask, is this the type of person you believe should be forced to parent a child?

Not to mention, God knows what she's doing to her body to either consciously or subconsciously punish the ugly blonde thing that's going to get in the way of her scoring johns. Drink? Take risks? Eat shit food? Refuse to take prenatal vites?

do you believe in partial birth abortion ? support it or don't care etc ?

No. I think it's illegal in the U.S., actually.

Luckily, greater than 92% of abortions take place before the second trimester anyway.

this is good, we're establishing more things.

the responsiblity is on the State/Fed Govt to provide for kids now ---- the very Fed Govt and State you previously said you shouldn't think should be controlling things, right ?

Right. If they control "things" (do you mean -- a woman's body, mental health and entire future? Those kinds of "things"?), then by God they're going to support the birth they forced on the woman.
 
I'm out of town a few days - FYI - will respond when I get back



you don't believe that are fetal protection laws in the USA ???

a simple yes or no - and when you admit no, then we can move on
There are anti abortion laws, which are rather completely arbitrary too. But they do not provide the "protection" you seem to think they do. Women can still have abortions without due process. That's hardly "protection."
 
I 100% a woman giving birth and then giving the baby up for adoption

Have you gone through any pregnancies?

Childbirth?

I'm guessing "no."

And they're not without their risks. I had preeclampsia with my first son. I was on bed rest for four weeks because I could as easily as not have a blowout due to preeclampsia blood pressure. That kills.

And I've already described one of my three childbirth experiences.

During the pregnancy the woman is experiencing a number of effects, to varying degrees; hyperemisis (puking until you think you're going to bring up your stomach with the next heave), exhaustion, tenderness, overextended ligaments (DSP) that cause pain each time one walks, shortness of breath as the fetus gets bigger and so on.

But a woman should...just go ahead and take all those risks, and then give the baby up for adoption where it may or may not be adopted out during its "cute" period, after which its "value" (that word you seem to enjoy) depreciates significantly because it's not a tiny newborn anymore?
 
Last edited:
Have you gone through any pregnancies?

Childbirth?

I'm guessing "no."

And they're not without their risks. I had preeclampsia with my first son. I was on bed rest for four weeks because I could as easily as not have a blowout due to preeclampsia blood pressure. That kills.

And I've already described one of my three childbirth experiences.

During the pregnancy the woman is experiencing a number of effects, to varying degrees; hypermisis (puking until you think you're going to bring up your stomach with the next heave), exhaustion, tenderness, overextended ligaments (DSP) that cause pain each time one walks, shortness of breath as the fetus gets bigger and so on.

But a woman should...just go ahead and take all those risks, and then give the baby up for adoption where it may or may not be adopted out during its "cute" period, after which its "value" (that word you seem to enjoy) depreciates significantly because it's not a tiny newborn anymore?
My wife and I tried for several years to have a child, we were told it wouldn't happen. But surprise, it did. My wife was put on bed rest at 7 monthes. Our daughter was born healthy but the physicians said she should never have another because of the risks. All these male posters who claim they care about the unborn are just talking out of their ass (forgive the language.)
 
All these male posters who claim they care about the unborn are just talking out of their ass (forgive the language.)
Indeed. They ignore the plight of the pregnant woman or just dont care because they're fixated on a total strangers fetus, which is kind of creepy.
 
My wife and I tried for several years to have a child, we were told it wouldn't happen. But surprise, it did. My wife was put on bed rest at 7 monthes. Our daughter was born healthy but the physicians said she should never have another because of the risks. All these male posters who claim they care about the unborn are just talking out of their ass (forgive the language.)

I'm very happy that you had the best of outcomes.

A married female poster here told her story that after birthing her child, her doctor told he having another would likely kill her. And she had a terrible difficult pregnancy.

When asked, one of the forum anti-abortites, very definite that abortion should be illegal unless the mothers' life is in immediate danger, said that he would not support her having an abortion if she got pregnant again. This is the kind of IMO immoral control over other people's lives that, in this case, the religious extremists would demand. Just inhumane and cruel...and not very Christian.
 
Indeed. They ignore the plight of the pregnant woman or just dont care because they're fixated on a total strangers fetus, which is kind of creepy.

They believe there is some higher power that doesnt care about any of that. It's quantity over quality of life. (IMO it means more hands to put more $$ in the collection plates.)

Their base goal is "as long as both survive the birth with a heartbeat." No matter the suffering, the prognosis, the damage, a short life in great pain, a lifetime on a ventilator for either or both, etc. It dehumanizes both.
 
Last edited:
if there is a normal pregnancy there HAS TO BE

Well then you are saying that a fertilized egg is a living human.

if you want to take it BEFORE that go for it ...
See above. Isn’t that your argument that a fertilized egg in a Petri dish is a living human. ?
Please explain
fantastic then it dang sure is during a
Sure you do. You brought up life during pregnancy and value of life but then aren’t able to coherently articulate how those concepts work.
What is the worth of a fertilized egg.?
an extreme example but a normal healthy baby (which most abortions are) you'd not allow them
Sure. A normal health child outside the womb is not inside a mother and potentially causing her to die, be sterile, become paralyzed etc.
all I have to do is prove the day before that baby is born its the same baby and that same value extends to it - that's logical and reasonable isn't it?
Well first you have to explain how you measure this value . You toss out “ value of life” but gave no objective measure of it”.

Second you have to then explain why the value of the life of the baby inside the womb is more valuable than the value of the woman’s life that the baby effects
show me the post where I said that - I'll wait
Well, when you say that a woman shouldn’t have the choice to abort , it means that you value the life of the unborn more than the life etc of the mother.
You don't get to kill someone because they're an inconvenience to you and I don't get to
Sure they do. If a person is trying to kill you or cause grave bodily harm you certainly have a right to kill them.
In addition if a loved one is suffering on lifesupport you also have the right to kill them.

why? whatever value that person has? its the same for 1 day before they're born too because literally
So a fertilized egg has the same value as a 10 year old?
Interesting. So should a women who uses chemical birth control like the Pill or uses an iud be prosecuted for multiple murders for killing those 1day old fertilized eggs ( 1 day old babies) just like if she killed 12 10 year olds a year?
except before birth - because Sanger and her Nazi buddies wanted to eliminate black people and minorities.
Yes. And they wanted good german girls to conceive good aryan babies for them.
So women were forced to conceive and have babies for the reich.
Since the state was the ultimate decider of value.
They championed that - Democrats applauded.
So?
what I'm saying is that an unborn baby's value shouldn't change on a woman's whim,
Well you have to explain this “ babies value” thing.
I do not think a women should be convicted of murder because she uses an iud or a chemical birth control that kills a fertilized egg by preventing it from implanting.
I don’t see that a fertilized egg is the same as a 10 year old.

So you explain why they are exactly the same.
ok then let women choose to kill them up until 3 years old
That’s interesting. Why do you believe that?
I certainly didn’t suggest it.
why not ? if the family is poor? kill the child and things will easier. Gets in the way of college? kill the child. Partying? kill the child. Maybe a divorce? kill the child
Who is suggesting that? Not me.
why not? remember legal/law doesn't change moral/ethics ..... and you and I wouldn't accept the above for a woman's children would we?
Well because once the child is borne , they become an autonomous individual capable of being tgeir own individual.
I extend that to before birth, because its literally the same human life

If so , then when do we start arresting g women who use birth control for murder.
If not why not since killing a fertilized egg is the same as killing a 10 year
and yes, I want the Govt and our society to protect human life - don't you ?
No . I do not want it to protect human life.
That would mean that I could not remove my mother from lifesupport when she is suffering g. It would mean that I could not defend myself from a person trying to kill me. Etc.
 
See above. Isn’t that your argument that a fertilized egg in a Petri dish is a living human. ?
Please explain

Sure you do. You brought up life during pregnancy and value of life but then aren’t able to coherently articulate how those concepts work.
What is the worth of a fertilized egg.?

Sure. A normal health child outside the womb is not inside a mother and potentially causing her to die, be sterile, become paralyzed etc.

Well first you have to explain how you measure this value . You toss out “ value of life” but gave no objective measure of it”.

Second you have to then explain why the value of the life of the baby inside the womb is more valuable than the value of the woman’s life that the baby effects

Well, when you say that a woman shouldn’t have the choice to abort , it means that you value the life of the unborn more than the life etc of the mother.

Sure they do. If a person is trying to kill you or cause grave bodily harm you certainly have a right to kill them.
In addition if a loved one is suffering on lifesupport you also have the right to kill them.


So a fertilized egg has the same value as a 10 year old?
Interesting. So should a women who uses chemical birth control like the Pill or uses an iud be prosecuted for multiple murders for killing those 1day old fertilized eggs ( 1 day old babies) just like if she killed 12 10 year olds a year?

Yes. And they wanted good german girls to conceive good aryan babies for them.
So women were forced to conceive and have babies for the reich.
Since the state was the ultimate decider of value.

So?

Well you have to explain this “ babies value” thing.
I do not think a women should be convicted of murder because she uses an iud or a chemical birth control that kills a fertilized egg by preventing it from implanting.
I don’t see that a fertilized egg is the same as a 10 year old.

So you explain why they are exactly the same.

That’s interesting. Why do you believe that?
I certainly didn’t suggest it.

Who is suggesting that? Not me.

Well because once the child is borne , they become an autonomous individual capable of being tgeir own individual.


If so , then when do we start arresting g women who use birth control for murder.
If not why not since killing a fertilized egg is the same as killing a 10 year

No . I do not want it to protect human life.
That would mean that I could not remove my mother from lifesupport when she is suffering g. It would mean that I could not defend myself from a person trying to kill me. Etc.

The semantics is just a diversion so he can pretend there's an objective right and wrong here. Meanwhile he cannot provide an argument himself on 'the value' of human life.

He knows all that. He's just yanking your chain and retreading all his crap. He's been provided with the examples and links that prove the "legal" status. If you try biology, he'll try something else. Try morality...he doesnt have a leg to stand on there...he cant even explain the value of the unborn.
 
The semantics is just a diversion so he can pretend there's an objective right and wrong here. Meanwhile he cannot provide an argument himself on 'the value' of human life.
He can't even objectively explain why abortion is wrong.
 
They believe there is some higher power that doesnt care about any of that.

And yet, they won't go near the question of why God kills 40% of embryos and fetuses; mllions, every year. And why on earth He would do that if every human life is valuable.

It's quantity over quality of life. (IMO it means more hands to put more $$ in the collection plates.)

Their base goal is "as long as both survive the birth with a heartbeat." No matter the suffering, the prognosis, the damage, a short life in great pain, a lifetime on a ventilator for either or both, etc. It dehumanizes both.
 
And yet, they won't go near the question of why God kills 40% of embryos and fetuses; mllions, every year. And why on earth He would do that if every human life is valuable.

You dont question God. God is perfect.

They have him right up there with TACO.
 
He can't even objectively explain why abortion is wrong.

He can and the majority of anti-choicers can, but they don't want to because then they'd have to admit it's their religious belief they're basing this on and not some sort of empirical truth.

Look how they run from my question of why God wholesale slaughters 2/5 of fetuses, millions, every year if He thinks every human life is valuable.

And after they run from that, they run from my question of: even putting God aside, why then does nature and biology eject millions of fetuses per year if every life is *inherently* valuable?

It's about religious belief and that's that. The problem being, of course, that there is more than one religion out there.
 
He's already acknowledged that...and they dont mean anything like you keep claiming they do. They dont recognize any legal status for the unborn.
we've already established laws doesn't matter - if the laws changed right now that unborn babies were considered the same, pro-abortion wouldn't accept that. Right?

It's just a criminal charge tacked on to recognize the mother's/family's loss and the DP was ONLY for Lacey's murder charge. And we've all been thru this before :rolleyes: so this is just you posting more lies. Again...you have zero credibility in any discussion that concerns morality.

what criminal charge is tacked on ?

the death of the unborn baby

you can't tap dance around that nor can Gordy
 
And she can do that with any born baby she has, with the father's permission.

but not a fetus inside her. Are you catching on now? ;)
You seem bound and determined that a human life be terminated. If the baby is born more or less healthy and viable, I am sure that at some point, it will appreciate having not been aborted.
 
No, because that's homicide.
it is homicide - but again laws are not what make a pro-abortion person pro-abortion or not, is it?

I don't know anyone else's life. I don't know if they'd be a horrible, abusive parent to a brown-haired baby per your hypberole. So yes. Any reason the woman wants to determine what happens to her body and her entire future is good enough.
but not after birth, right? that's be wrong wouldn't it?


Of course. Once a baby is born, it's just cruel to not at least try to help.
why? its literally the same baby 1 day before


And as the government encroaches more and more on women's bodily rights in various states, it's forcing women to carry to term unless they meet exact criteria -- for example, the GA heartbeat law that requires the woman to not only know she's pregnant before the fifth or sixth week of pregnancy (three to four weeks after her egg was fertilized, and and one to two weeks after she misses her period, assuming she's regular which not all women are). Because the government is forcing women to give birth, of course it's on the government to pick up the slack.

Unless the goal is to punish women and children by forcing women to carry pregnancies to term, then not giving them any help so that they are more likely than not in a horrific circumstance of working one or two jobs, never seeing their kid and living in a dangerous area where their kid is at risk?

Is punishment the point? Because it sure sounds like it is.
but you say over and over you want Govt to take care of the mother and unborn - you actually WANT Govt involved right ?

I don't want the government to control what choices women have with their bodies.
As long as it does, as long as it places any restrictions, it is liable to pick up the slack.
You want the Govt involved then ?

Then why do you want single mothers and their children to sink or swim no matter how few resources they have in your ideal world?
I've never said that - and the USA has social care systems for single mothers. you make it sound like we don't which isn't the truth

I believe a woman can end a pregnancy for any reason.
we've established that

But if you're going the hyperbole route, which you seem to appreciate, say the woman ends her pregnancy because, I don't know, she likes to do lines and she's a prostitute and the kid will get in the way of her being able to go out and score johns. Is this the type of person you believe should be forced to parent a child?
after the baby is born the woman can do all the above - is that the type of person you believe should be forced to parent a child ?

Or say she ends her pregnancy because she literally can not concieve (har har) of loving a child with blonde hair. She'd just hate the ugly thing! Once again, I ask, is this the type of person you believe should be forced to parent a child?
Not to mention, God knows what she's doing to her body to either consciously or subconsciously punish the ugly blonde thing that's going to get in the way of her scoring johns. Drink? Take risks? Eat shit food? Refuse to take prenatal vites?

ok so now we're establishing that the life of a child hinges on what kind of mother there is - right ? poor kids should be killed in the womb kinda thing or blacks have a harder time in life so we need to kill them in the womb to "save" them from a bad life

right ?

No. I think it's illegal in the U.S., actually.
Luckily, greater than 92% of abortions take place before the second trimester anyway.
no no

be consistent - you said about a woman can end pregnancy at her whims - that would include partial birth.

unless such a procedure is so horrid to you that you'd agree to ban it, right ?


Right. If they control "things" (do you mean -- a woman's body, mental health and entire future? Those kinds of "things"?), then by God they're going to support the birth they forced on the woman.

so you only want a social system funded by those who are pro-life ?
 
Back
Top Bottom