• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Hypocrites!

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Anyone else think it's just a bit hypocritical of these liberals that are for animal rights, ("Oh, oh, you can't hurt the defenseless little animals") to be for abortion of Human Babies?!?!
This has been stuck in my mind since I heard someone bad-mouthing Bill O'Reilly (who's ok in my book, don't love him, don't hate him), for being OK with the Pit Bull ban in several states. I said "Bill O'Reilly's ok, I don't agree with him on this issue, but I do on many others."
They replied with "any man who thinks it's OK to take away my "right" to choose (referring to abortion) will never be on my good list....Yet, she was there to voice her opinion against the "murder" of puppies.....So it's OK to kill unborn Human Babies, but not unborn puppies? I cannot follow this logic, someone please enlighten me!
 
H

HTColeman

I am not up to date on this puppy incident, could you fill me in?
 

Zebulon

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ILikeDubyah said:
Anyone else think it's just a bit hypocritical of these liberals that are for animal rights, ("Oh, oh, you can't hurt the defenseless little animals") to be for abortion of Human Babies?!?!
This has been stuck in my mind since I heard someone bad-mouthing Bill O'Reilly (who's ok in my book, don't love him, don't hate him), for being OK with the Pit Bull ban in several states. I said "Bill O'Reilly's ok, I don't agree with him on this issue, but I do on many others."
They replied with "any man who thinks it's OK to take away my "right" to choose (referring to abortion) will never be on my good list....Yet, she was there to voice her opinion against the "murder" of puppies.....So it's OK to kill unborn Human Babies, but not unborn puppies? I cannot follow this logic, someone please enlighten me!
Hmmm...

Yeah, I suppose I find that odd.

People should be allowed to abort ANY life form, regardless of whether or not it's human. Otherwise, you're right, it's hypocritical.
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
ILikeDubyah said:
Anyone else think it's just a bit hypocritical of these liberals that are for animal rights, ("Oh, oh, you can't hurt the defenseless little animals") to be for abortion of Human Babies?!?!
This has been stuck in my mind since I heard someone bad-mouthing Bill O'Reilly (who's ok in my book, don't love him, don't hate him), for being OK with the Pit Bull ban in several states. I said "Bill O'Reilly's ok, I don't agree with him on this issue, but I do on many others."
They replied with "any man who thinks it's OK to take away my "right" to choose (referring to abortion) will never be on my good list....Yet, she was there to voice her opinion against the "murder" of puppies.....So it's OK to kill unborn Human Babies, but not unborn puppies? I cannot follow this logic, someone please enlighten me!
A woman gives her consent to abort a fetus in her own body. Killing or hurting an animal does not involve consent of that animal.
 
H

HTColeman

Killing a baby does not involve consent of the baby. BTW, would you really try to get the consent of an animal?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ILikeDubyah said:
Anyone else think it's just a bit hypocritical of these liberals that are for animal rights,
With regards to animal lives and human lives, hypocrisy doesn't know any liberal/conservative boundaries.

Shamgar's thread about those who are pro-life voting for Bush points out the hypocrisy in the fact that Bush is for abortion in the case of rape. Bush is also for the death penalty. Bush is then by and large against stem-cell research.

In those cases, it seems that life is a conditional thing that fits based on context not a flat life/non-life issue.

The problem comes in when one does one of two things. One, makes a blanket that ALL life is sacred and then supports things that would end a life (whatever that may or may not mean). Or, as in the case of the OP, creates a strawman and confuses two issues into one.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
HTColeman said:
Killing a baby does not involve consent of the baby. BTW, would you really try to get the consent of an animal?
No, I haven't. But Neal Horsley apparently got consent from a mule.

lol @ tmi
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
HTColeman said:
Killing a baby does not involve consent of the baby.
That fetus is not life itself, it is not born. It completely depends on the aid of the woman to survive, therefore, it is her choice.

HTColeman said:
BTW, would you really try to get the consent of an animal?
Exactly my point. An animal cannot consent to harming it and it is life to itself. Therefore, hurting an animal is wrong. Just as hurting a living baby is wrong.
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
In regards to the puppies, HT Coleman, Denver & a few other cities have made it illegal to own pitt bulls, the ones that are surrendered to the authorities by the owners are put to sleep. California and a few oher states have similar legislation in the works. (SR 869 I think, introduced by democrats, of course.). Anyhow, they're basically trying to do away with the breed, due to attacks & illegal dog fights. (Personally, don't think it's right, considering that statistics show that labs & spaniels are the most dangerous dogs when it comes to attacks.) so, they're knocking them off left & right, people have put their pitt bulls on "underground railroads", of sorts, to get them out of these cities. Also....Your hand is not alive, it depends on your body to survive, so why don't you cut that off too. Perhaps if people made better life decisions, there wouldn't even be an abortion debate. Quit sleeping with every guy you meet, quit dressing provocatively, quit making sex th focal point of society, and perhaps there'll finally be a decline in "unwanted" babies.
 
H

HTColeman

alex said:
That fetus is not life itself, it is not born. It completely depends on the aid of the woman to survive, therefore, it is her choice.



Exactly my point. An animal cannot consent to harming it and it is life to itself. Therefore, hurting an animal is wrong. Just as hurting a living baby is wrong.
A fetus is future life, therefore it is still important and valuable. If it wasn't why are women so devastated when they have miscarriages, they already have love for their unborn baby.

Also, is a fetus not alive?
 

IValueFreedom

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
ILikeDubyah said:
Also....Your hand is not alive, it depends on your body to survive, so why don't you cut that off too.
I just felt like pointing out how bad this analogy is for your defense against this quote (I am not taking sides on this issue, at least not right now):

alex said:
That fetus is not life itself, it is not born. It completely depends on the aid of the woman to survive, therefore, it is her choice.
Now your defense.

Your hand is not alive
it depends on your body to survive.
(Continuing the logic you started)
IF you had the feeling of cutting it off, you wouldn't go to the hand to ask for consent.

I just thought it was funny that you helped him reinforce his point.
 

IndiConservative

New member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
<Quote>That fetus is not life itself, it is not born. It completely depends on the aid of the woman to survive, therefore, it is her choice.<Quote>

Science defines single cell organism's as life. a ferlized egg cell is life.
you also completely depend on plants and animals to survive and yet you havent asked there permission either.
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Point taken, Freedom. What I meant to say was that Yes, If you're a woman & you have an egg inside of you, yes, that is a part of you. Now, if that egg becomes fertilized, it is no longer just a part of you, but a part of someone else, and is now it's own being. Life is life, no matter how you look at it, if you were to cut off your hand, you'd be killing all of the LIVING individual cells that were once a part of you. If you abort a pregnancy, you are killing LIVING cells. (Not only living cells, but a completely seperate organism.) When you get the flu, your body plays HOST to the virus that got inside of you, and the virus stays until it can no longer survive inside of you. That being said, it may be your body, but once the egg is fertilized , it is no longer a part of you, your body is once again playing HOST. Better life decisions by the moronic masses would make it so that there wouldn't even be a debate here.
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
IndiConservative said:
Science defines single cell organism's as life. a ferlized egg cell is life.
Those single celled organisms that science calls life are life to themselves. They do not depend on a host to survive. A fetus requires a host and if that host decides to terminate what is inside of her, that is her choice.

IndiConservative said:
you also completely depend on plants and animals to survive and yet you havent asked there permission either.
This does not make consistent sense. A woman does not require the aid of the fetus to survive.
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
ILikeDubyah said:
Point taken, Freedom. What I meant to say was that Yes, If you're a woman & you have an egg inside of you, yes, that is a part of you. Now, if that egg becomes fertilized, it is no longer just a part of you, but a part of someone else, and is now it's own being. Life is life, no matter how you look at it, if you were to cut off your hand, you'd be killing all of the LIVING individual cells that were once a part of you. If you abort a pregnancy, you are killing LIVING cells. (Not only living cells, but a completely seperate organism.) When you get the flu, your body plays HOST to the virus that got inside of you, and the virus stays until it can no longer survive inside of you. That being said, it may be your body, but once the egg is fertilized , it is no longer a part of you, your body is once again playing HOST. Better life decisions by the moronic masses would make it so that there wouldn't even be a debate here.
If someone chooses to cut off their hand it is their business, not yours, just as pregnancy is no one else's business but the woman's. If a pregnant woman ceases to exist so does the fetus, so that fetus is not its own being. It is dependant on the woman and cannot survive without that woman's aid. The flu analogy is silly. If I am host to the flu then I have the choice to try to get rid of it. If a woman is pregnant she also has that choice.
 
H

HTColeman

alex said:
If someone chooses to cut off their hand it is their business, not yours, just as pregnancy is no one else's business but the woman's. If a pregnant woman ceases to exist so does the fetus, so that fetus is not its own being.
This is incomplete logic, the fetus dies because the woman is the host. This does not mean that it is not its own being, it just depends on the woman to survive.

It is dependant on the woman and cannot survive without that woman's aid. The flu analogy is silly. If I am host to the flu then I have the choice to try to get rid of it. If a woman is pregnant she also has that choice.
The flu analogy was meant to point out that the fetus is not like a hand, it is a being that the woman hosts in her body. If she chooses to have an abortion, she is killing the baby. If she chose to get rid of the flu, she would have to kill the virus. It just so happens that babies are a lot more valuable than viruses.
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
HTColeman said:
This is incomplete logic, the fetus dies because the woman is the host. This does not mean that it is not its own being, it just depends on the woman to survive.
I was defending my position that a fetus is not a being to itself. If it was, then it could survive without a host. With this logic, it can be said that a liver is a being to itself and it is not. It is a part of a whole person who is a being. A fetus cannot survive in any other environment except a woman's womb. It is not a completely separate organism until it can survive without the host.

HTColeman said:
The flu analogy was meant to point out that the fetus is not like a hand, it is a being that the woman hosts in her body. If she chooses to have an abortion, she is killing the baby. If she chose to get rid of the flu, she would have to kill the virus. It just so happens that babies are a lot more valuable than viruses.
The right of a woman to choose is valuable. Take it away and that takes away basic rights of liberty.
 
H

HTColeman

alex said:
I was defending my position that a fetus is not a being to itself. If it was, then it could survive without a host. With this logic, it can be said that a liver is a being to itself and it is not. It is a part of a whole person who is a being. A fetus cannot survive in any other environment except a woman's womb. It is not a completely separate organism until it can survive without the host.
Parasites cannot survive without hosts, at least not for long.

The right of a woman to choose is valuable. Take it away and that takes away basic rights of liberty.
Basic rights like life?
 

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
alex said:
Those single celled organisms that science calls life are life to themselves. They do not depend on a host to survive. A fetus requires a host and if that host decides to terminate what is inside of her, that is her choice.



This does not make consistent sense. A woman does not require the aid of the fetus to survive.
So you believe that it is ok to abort a fetus because it is dependent on the mother and so you think that it is ok to kill it because of that, well... isn't the baby, after it is born, still dependant on the mother. Trust me, a one day old infant can not take care of itself. So then, according to you, it would be ok to kill it?
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
HTColeman said:
Parasites cannot survive without hosts, at least not for long.
And we do everything that we can to kill them. When there is one inside of us, we can choose to kill it.

HTColeman said:
Basic rights like life?
What will become of all these unwanted children? Who will care for the 1.37 million children who are born instead of aborted? It would undoubtably require more taxes to care for them and frankly, I pay too much taxes already. I am not alright with the idea of taking care of unwanted children. They are not my responsibility. Abortion must remain legal or unwanted children will be abundant.
 

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm sorry, but I feel a child's life is a hell of a lot more important than more taxes!
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
satanloveslibs said:
So you believe that it is ok to abort a fetus because it is dependent on the mother and so you think that it is ok to kill it because of that, well... isn't the baby, after it is born, still dependant on the mother. Trust me, a one day old infant can not take care of itself. So then, according to you, it would be ok to kill it?
A one day old baby is not completely dependant on the mother. The mother does not have to care for it at all times. She does not have to provide nurishment from her own body for it to live. Are one year old babies who are taken from their mothers required to have the mother to survive? No, they can be taken care of by someone else. When the fetus is inside of her, it is COMPLETELY dependant on her. It cannot survive without her. One day old babies can survive without their mother. They are born so therefore they are now a separate entity from her. They are their own person.
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
satanloveslibs said:
I'm sorry, but I feel a child's life is a hell of a lot more important than more taxes!
Your right, it is. But a fetus is not a child.
 

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
alex said:
A one day old baby is not completely dependant on the mother. The mother does not have to care for it at all times. She does not have to provide nurishment from her own body for it to live. Are one year old babies who are taken from their mothers required to have the mother to survive? No, they can be taken care of by someone else. When the fetus is inside of her, it is COMPLETELY dependant on her. It cannot survive without her. One day old babies can survive without their mother. They are born so therefore they are now a separate entity from her. They are their own person.
Then, since it is its own person, it could get a bottle all by themselves. No, they are dependant on the one who cares for them to survive. Just as dependant as when they were inside their mom.
 

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
alex said:
Your right, it is. But a fetus is not a child.
But that is not what you said. You said that you would hate to pay more taxes for unwanted babies and children, did you not?
 
Top Bottom