• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How is abortion not murder?

Stace said:
Well, you know, NOT making generalizations doesn't seem to get anything through to y'all, nor does it seem to keep you from doing it to the pro choice side, so I figured a taste of your own medicine might be good, especially since from what I've seen here, every single pro life person on this forum holds nearly identical views.
Well...there's something to be said for consistancy! Really, though...there are varying viewpoints in the pro-life camp, but there are not as wide chasms between points of view as there are on the pro-choice side.
 
Stace said:
Peterson was charged with double homicide because he took away Laci's right to choose what happened to her own body and the fetus she was carrying.
.
Does that position really make sense to you? Would you explain how it is homocide of a human being (Laci) and homocide of her "choice?" I don't get that.
 
easyt65, you are correct! You had a very good point with the ruling in the Scott Peterson case. The Scott Peterson case established that the fetus IS A PERSON!

You pro-abortionists are not making any sense... Are you saying that it is OK for the mother to kill the child, but it is not OK for someone else to do it? Are you justifying the killing of the baby based on whether the pregnancy is "wanted"?
 
Felicity said:
Does that position really make sense to you? Would you explain how it is homocide of a human being (Laci) and homocide of her "choice?" I don't get that.

It's a bogus way of trying to explain away something you don't want to hear or something you don't want to exist. Case in point, when Peterson was 1st charged with the 2 counts of murder, women's rights Groups and Pro Abortion groups, who are supposed to defend the rights of women and fight for their welfare, actually helped raise money for Scott's Defense. Their primary objective was to prevent what happened - Scott being charged with and being found guilty of 2 - TWO - counts of murder, 1 being his wife and the 2nd being his UNBORN son!

A 'right' or 'choice' can not be 'murdered, and you can not be charged with murdering a 'choice'! Scott was found guilty of killing a human being - for taking a life, the life of his unborn child! That scares the cr@p out of those orgnizations because it does open the door to INTERPRETATION and the questions of when life begins and the rights of a fetus/unborn child!
 
Last edited:
conserv.pat15 said:
easyt65, you are correct! You had a very good point with the ruling in the Scott Peterson case. The Scott Peterson case established that the fetus IS A PERSON!

You pro-abortionists are not making any sense... Are you saying that it is OK for the mother to kill the child, but it is not OK for someone else to do it? Are you justifying the killing of the baby based on whether the pregnancy is "wanted"?
I think Stace has in fact made that distinction--that being "wanted" makes a material difference.

It's a bogus way of trying to explain away something you don't want to hear or exist.
I think it sounds bogus too--but I want to see how Stace rationalizes it.
 
Felicity said:
I think Stace has in fact made that distinction--that being "wanted" makes a material difference.

I think it sounds bogus too--but I want to see how Stace rationalizes it.

I'm sure you would, but quite frankly, your guys' tactics are boring me, your arguments are getting old, and I'm too lazy to just keep going in circles with you.

So, when someone has something new to say, I'll gladly respond. Until then....I'll let Steen or one of the others handle it.
 
easyt65 said:
If you go out, have unprotected sex, then are faced with being pregnant - it is NOT a punishment! It IS a consequence of the act of having un[protected sex.
False.
YOU are NOT the vicitm! you were stupid, let your hormones get ahead of your brain cells, and got pregnant! Being stupid does not give you the RIGHT to an abortion, used as post sex contraception!
False.
In such a case, the morning after pill works fine, so no abortion is required.

You have STILL not proved why you need to shove a steele rod through a VIABLE baby's head, scramble its brains, dismember it inside the mother, then remove it limb by limb from the mother, as is done in late term abortions UNLESS it is for the safety of the mother or some other dire medical emergency.
What do you mean with "late term"?

What do you mean with "viable"?

What do you mean with "baby"?

It seems like your post is full of nonsense claptrap.

This practice should be outlawed EXCEPT for those medical emergencies. Again, you fail to address that even many countries we consider '3rd world' have outlawed this barbaric practice, yet you and your pro-death crowd rabidly seek to protect its ractice with no limitations or restrictions!
Ah, you must be from the hate mongering, misogynistic, theocratic, oppressive pro-slavery crowd, then?

As I said, Peterson was not convicted of taking a mother's right to kill/abort her own baby - he was charged with the murder of an unborn child
false. Please tell us what the law actually says, please.
 
conserv.pat15 said:
easyt65, you are correct! You had a very good point with the ruling in the Scott Peterson case. The Scott Peterson case established that the fetus IS A PERSON!
you are lying.

You pro-abortionists are not making any sense...
Who are they? You are not trying to lie here, are you?

Are you saying that it is OK for the mother to kill the child, but it is not OK for someone else to do it? Are you justifying the killing of the baby based on whether the pregnancy is "wanted"?
Funny how we have not talked about babies or children, so your irrelevant ramblings seems a sign of ignorance.
 
Stace said:
So, when someone has something new to say, I'll gladly respond. Until then....I'll let Steen or one of the others handle it.
Sorry, can't do it. I have felicity, doughgirl and ptsdkid on ignore for simply lying to much for it to be worth it for me to interact with them.

There is nothing gained by debating those who willfully lie to you and about you.
 
steen said:
Sorry, can't do it. I have felicity, doughgirl and ptsdkid on ignore for simply lying to much for it to be worth it for me to interact with them.

There is nothing gained by debating those who willfully lie to you and about you.

Very true, my friend.....on principle, I don't put anyone on ignore, and I TRY to answer their posts, but it gets so old, going 'round in circles.....especially when you take out the emotional appeals and falsehoods, because then you're left with hardly anything to actually debate....
 
Stace said:
Very true, my friend.....on principle, I don't put anyone on ignore, and I TRY to answer their posts, but it gets so old, going 'round in circles.....especially when you take out the emotional appeals and falsehoods, because then you're left with hardly anything to actually debate....
I have asked you point blank a couple of questions on a couple of occasions and you have ignored them and failed to answer them. The questions were: Is the distinction you make that the fetus is "wanted." And then the question for an explanation as to how one can be convicted of a homocide of a "choice."

It is clear that you are aware that your answer would be indefensible.

That is fine, Stace...as long as you are aware of it yourself. Don't bother responding to this post unless you want to attempt to answer those questions--your refusal and dodge above are answer enough.
 
Steen sounds like Bill Clinton after becoming the 'victim' in the Lewinski affair:

False.
False.
False.
Define Late term.
Define Baby.
Define IS.

You offer no explanation to YOUR ruling of 'false' other than simply because YOU say so.

You say if a woman goes out, has unprotected sex, then gets pregnant that the pregnancy is not a consequence/result of her OWN actions, that it is indeed a 'punishment'. That is the most moronic argument for the 'It's Not My fault, I'm the Victim/Blame everyone Else But Ourselves' generation that infects us today! And if it is a punishment, I guess it is God punishing you for having sex before marriage, which means god must be a male to treat women so unjustly...which means that, in your logic in the end, that Abortions are eventually all God's fault!? :rofl

And stace makes the Case that our logic regarding the Peterson case is flawed? She makes the case that you can kill a 'choice' and be charged with MURDER for killing a 'choice'. :spin:
If THAT was the case, Stace, you, your Pro-Abortion buddies, and the Federal Goverment would be on trial for MURDERING my CHOICE as a parent, for stripping away my rights/choice as a parent by saying YOU have the right to secretly whisk my underaged daughters away during school to have an abortion without parental notification. By your definition of the Peterson case decision, you and your Pro-abortion rights groups who are still doing this today are MURDERERS!

That, however, is insane and the argument/defense of a desperate person who does not want to hear reality!

The truth is that you can NOT be charged with murder for taking away a 'choice', and Scott Peterson was charged with the murder of 2 human beings - his wife and his unborn child. Of course, the second defense of one who has no argument is to put them on their 'ignore' list so they don't have to hear the argument of reality for which they have no real answer...besides; Uh-uh, false, Uh-uh, what is 'IS', what is 'baby'....? THAT is pathetic and definitely worthy of an 'IGNORE'!

In the end, though - as I first said, the Peterson decision has opened the door for interpretation that will eventually be heard, IMO, in the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
easyt65 said:
Until i sign away my rights as a parent over MY children, you have NO RIGHT to force your values, beliefs, and practices into my family and on my kids.

Please write that down and stick it on your bathroom mirror.......
 
ngdawg said:
Please write that down and stick it on your bathroom mirror.......

On my bathroom mirror? Not only is that a stupid response, it absolutely makes no sense, much like Stace's and Felicity's Peterson Trial argument/defense.
 
easyt65 said:
much like Stace's and Felicity's Peterson Trial argument/defense.
I'm confused...did you think I wasn't agreeing with you on the Peterson thing? Not everyone is against you....
 
...nevermind...I looked again and I think I see you mean that the challenge to the argument and the ZERO response mirrors the "bathroom mirror response given you....I gottcha... ;)
 
Felicity said:
I have asked you point blank a couple of questions on a couple of occasions and you have ignored them and failed to answer them. The questions were: Is the distinction you make that the fetus is "wanted." And then the question for an explanation as to how one can be convicted of a homocide of a "choice."

It is clear that you are aware that your answer would be indefensible.

That is fine, Stace...as long as you are aware of it yourself. Don't bother responding to this post unless you want to attempt to answer those questions--your refusal and dodge above are answer enough.

Try asking me again without your assumptions, and maybe we can have a real conversation.
 
Stace said:
Try asking me again without your assumptions, and maybe we can have a real conversation.
Asked and not answered twice...how many times does one have to ask before they are graced with your response? I'm not your trick pony. Clear up the confusion if there is some--if not, your evasion stands and the obvious conclusions remain.
 
You pro-abortionists are not making any sense... Are you saying that it is OK for the mother to kill the child, but it is not OK for someone else to do it? Are you justifying the killing of the baby based on whether the pregnancy is "wanted"?[/QUOTE]

First of all, I find it extremely ignorant to call people who are pro-choice 'pro-abortionists'!! Its not like we are happy about abortions. I myself would not have the heart to have an abortion. But, we are concerned with the rights of a mother who does not want to carry a child for 9 months, whatever the reason may be! And I think if men were able to carry children like women, they would be a little more caring and compassionate as to what the woman goes through!
There is a huge difference between a woman terminating a pregnancy and someone else terminating it! It is the woman's choice, and no one else's. Although, the father of the fetus should have some say in it, but a lot of times, the father is not in the picture. But, ultimately, it comes down to what the woman wants!!
 
Felicity said:
Asked and not answered twice...how many times does one have to ask before they are graced with your response? I'm not your trick pony. Clear up the confusion if there is some--if not, your evasion stands and the obvious conclusions remain.

How much clearer can I make it, Felicity? The assumptions you make are getting old. Stop throwing assumptions into your posts, and perhaps I'd be a little more willing to respond in kind. You can keep asking until you're blue in the face, but until you can drop the assumptions, I have no reason to respond to you anymore.
 
Stace said:
I have no reason to respond to you anymore.
Do you consider that a "response?" I don't. You are "non-responsive" in this matter of those two questions.
 
Stace said:
How much clearer can I make it, Felicity? The assumptions you make are getting old. Stop throwing assumptions into your posts, and perhaps I'd be a little more willing to respond in kind. You can keep asking until you're blue in the face, but until you can drop the assumptions, I have no reason to respond to you anymore.


Stall, stall, evade, dodge, bob, weave, distract, smoke screen and finally :spin: ......






(Sorry for the 'mis-fire', Felicity.)
 
Felicity said:
Do you consider that a "response?" I don't. You are "non-responsive" in this matter of those two questions.

:yawn: It's not that hard, Felicity. Take out your assumptions when you post, and I'd be much more responsive. But when you assume that you already know my answer, why should I bother? Even though thus far, you've always been wrong in your assumptions, you just turn around and respond with more assumptions, and it's quite old. My time can be better spent elsewhere on this forum where people actually respond to the debate at hand, not make assumptions about those they are debating with.
 
easyt65 said:
Stall, stall, evade, dodge, bob, weave, distract, smoke screen and finally :spin: ......






(Sorry for the 'mis-fire', Felicity.)

Oh yes, ye of 56 whole posts, you who want to assume you know everything about my posts.

Well, at least it's easy to determine early on that you're not worth my time after this.
 
Stace said:
:yawn: It's not that hard, Felicity. Take out your assumptions when you post, and I'd be much more responsive. But when you assume that you already know my answer, why should I bother? Even though thus far, you've always been wrong in your assumptions, you just turn around and respond with more assumptions, and it's quite old. My time can be better spent elsewhere on this forum where people actually respond to the debate at hand, not make assumptions about those they are debating with.

For my personal edification, Stace...WHERE in these posts am I making an assumption about you based on the questions I ask?


http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=210643&postcount=52

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=205576&postcount=865
 
Back
Top Bottom