• 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 (1 Viewer)

Patriotic Voter

Patriotic Voter

Smarter than trolls
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
30,488
Reaction score
8,841
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:
Patriotic Voter said:
What makes someone a person is always birth. That cannot be disputed. I never said it has anything to do with size.
Click to expand...

It's my opinion. That's what you asked for.
 
Patriotic Voter said:
I clearly asked for fact-based opinions. You posted one that totally ignores the legal, medical, social, literal, and historical definition of a person.
Click to expand...
It's dumb to pretend there's a singular, objective definition of a person.
 
Deuce said:
It's dumb to pretend there's a singular, objective definition of a person.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gordy327 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You have absolutely no proof of that.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
You have absolutely no proof of that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Patriotic Voter said:
I clearly asked for fact-based opinions. You posted one that totally ignores the legal, medical, social, literal, and historical definition of a person.
Click to expand...
That and the fact that very "small" person would be a very dead if born too early. So size and development do matter.
 
Patriotic Voter said:
What makes someone a person is always birth. That cannot be disputed. I never said it has anything to do with size.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Patriotic Voter said:
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.
Click to expand...
The constitution does not use the phrase "born" anywhere, so why is this completely objective?
 
Spunkylama said:
That and the fact that very "small" person would be a very dead if born too early. So size and development do matter.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Patriotic Voter said:
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 . . ."
Click to expand...
oh, so british aren't persons? Mexicans aren't persons? Africans aren't persons? You know, just as the constitution intended...
Patriotic Voter said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Patriotic Voter said:
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?
Click to expand...
That's why I said size and development.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not recognized as Americans under U.S. Law.
 
Spunkylama said:
The 14th amendment
Click to expand...
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?
 
Spunkylama said:
Not recognized as Americans under U.S. Law.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Deuce said:
The implication being someone born in Canada isn't a person?
Click to expand...
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.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Oh, so British aren't persons? Mexicans aren't persons? Africans aren't persons? You know, just as the constitution intended.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom