• 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!

Explain why you are pro-life without using emotional language

Patriotic Voter

Christian Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
25,252
Reaction score
6,865
Location
Flaw-i-duh
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Murderer, baby killer, evil, irresponsible, ungodly, guilty, and immoral (among other misogynistic words) certainly do not have to be used for anyone to explain why he or she is "pro-life" (aka anti-choice). Neither does telling extremely obvious lies about what is inside her body: a zygote, then a blastula, then an embryo, and if wanted, eventually a fetus. Show me why you oppose abortion only using the medically and legally correct terminology. I welcome all opinions that are not based on stupid lies about what the unborn are and America's federal laws.
 
Last edited:

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
50,299
Reaction score
26,479
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What makes someone a person is always birth. That cannot be disputed. I never said it has anything to do with size.

It's my opinion. That's what you asked for.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,200
Reaction score
46,633
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I clearly asked for fact-based opinions. You posted one that totally ignores the legal, medical, social, literal, and historical definition of a person.
It's dumb to pretend there's a singular, objective definition of a person.
 

Patriotic Voter

Christian Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
25,252
Reaction score
6,865
Location
Flaw-i-duh
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It's dumb to pretend there's a singular, objective definition of a person.

You have to be an idiot to think "person" is not a completely objective word that only mean one thing: under constitutional law: a born homo sapiens.
 

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
14,490
Reaction score
3,019
Location
Beirut
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Disagree or disapprove all you want. But you're wrong. An unborn is not a person until birth. That's simple constitutional and legal fact.
You have absolutely no proof of that.
 

Patriotic Voter

Christian Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
25,252
Reaction score
6,865
Location
Flaw-i-duh
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
You have absolutely no proof of that.

You obviously never took American history or government classes in high school. In both classes, students are required to memorize this part of the 14th Amendment: "All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States . . ."

Show me exactly how that is not a completely objective and strictly defined use of the word "persons" to exclude the unborn under the rule of law.
 

Spunkylama

Requested Profile Delete. Bye
Banned
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2022
Messages
2,381
Reaction score
2,028
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I clearly asked for fact-based opinions. You posted one that totally ignores the legal, medical, social, literal, and historical definition of a person.
That and the fact that very "small" person would be a very dead if born too early. So size and development do matter.
 

Fishking

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
40,246
Reaction score
15,045
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What makes someone a person is always birth. That cannot be disputed. I never said it has anything to do with size.
It can and is disputed, as your statement is not a scientific one but a philosophical one. It is better to err on the side of humanizing than dehumanizing. We have enough examples throughout history and around the world of the effects of dehumanization.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,200
Reaction score
46,633
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You have to be an idiot to think "person" is not a completely objective word that only mean one thing: under constitutional law: a born homo sapiens.
The constitution does not use the phrase "born" anywhere, so why is this completely objective?
 

Patriotic Voter

Christian Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
25,252
Reaction score
6,865
Location
Flaw-i-duh
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
That and the fact that very "small" person would be a very dead if born too early. So size and development do matter.

Size alone does not determine personhood. If it did, you could say a full-term baby is not a person based on weight. Development is more important. Does the fetus have a fully functional heart, pair of lungs, etc.? Is it more than just 5-10 pounds of living tissues and organs?
 

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
14,490
Reaction score
3,019
Location
Beirut
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
You obviously never took American history or government classes in high school. In both classes, students are required to memorize this part of the 14th Amendment: "All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States . . ."
oh, so british aren't persons? Mexicans aren't persons? Africans aren't persons? You know, just as the constitution intended...
Show me exactly how that is not a completely objective and strictly defined use of the word "persons" to exclude the unborn under the rule of law.
Because talking about life isn't the same as talking about someone's citizenship, and other civic matters the constitution covers. Russians aren't "persons born or naturalized in the US", and as such, we have every right to subject them to propaganda and other tactics from the intel community as a means of fighting their government. Things we're not allowed to do to our own citizens. BUT, that doesn't mean you have the right to just start butchering random russians with a scalpel. That's just not how that works.
 

Spunkylama

Requested Profile Delete. Bye
Banned
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2022
Messages
2,381
Reaction score
2,028
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Size alone does not determine personhood. If it did, you could say a full-term baby is not a person based on weight. Development is more important. Does the fetus have a fully functional heart, pair of lungs, etc.? Is it more than just 5-10 pounds of living tissues and organs?
That's why I said size and development.
 

Spunkylama

Requested Profile Delete. Bye
Banned
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2022
Messages
2,381
Reaction score
2,028
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oh, so british aren't persons? Mexicans aren't persons? Africans aren't persons? You know, just as the constitution intended...

Because talking about life isn't the same as talking about someone's citizenship, and other civic matters the constitution covers. Russians aren't "persons born or naturalized in the US", and as such, we have every right to subject them to propaganda and other tactics from the intel community as a means of fighting their government. BUT, that doesn't mean you have the right to just start butchering random russians with a scalpel. That's just not how that works.
Not recognized as Americans under U.S. Law.
 

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
14,490
Reaction score
3,019
Location
Beirut
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
The 14th amendment
the 14the amendment doesn't ban enslaving "persons" who are not citizens of the US. Does that means it's fine to enslave chinese people? Like if an american did that, that's his right because chinese aren't considered "persons" under the 14th amendment?
 

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
14,490
Reaction score
3,019
Location
Beirut
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Not recognized as Americans under U.S. Law.
you're right, they're not americans. That doesn't mean it's okay to murder them. You go tour in another country, and you murder someone who's not a US citizen, the US can and will prosecute you(if the home country doesnt do so first).
 

Spunkylama

Requested Profile Delete. Bye
Banned
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2022
Messages
2,381
Reaction score
2,028
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The implication being someone born in Canada isn't a person?
The Constitution is the framework for American government. It is for people born in America. It does not recognize Mexicans / Brits as it's the framework for our country.
 

Patriotic Voter

Christian Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
25,252
Reaction score
6,865
Location
Flaw-i-duh
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Oh, so British aren't persons? Mexicans aren't persons? Africans aren't persons? You know, just as the constitution intended.

The word "naturalized" that follows obviously implies to be a citizen, you must be born, no matter where you came from. Naturalization happens five years after a person moved to the United States - much longer than the nine months he/she spent becoming one woman's child.
 
Top Bottom