• 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.

Hypocrites!

satanloveslibs said:
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.

My original reply still stands with this response. This is the same arguement presented already, so my original counter arguement is still valid.
 
satanloveslibs said:
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?

I did say that. So what is the best way to prevent more unwanted children? Answer: Abortion. If an unwanted child is born, it is not my responsibility to pay for it. What is the best way to prevent imposing responsibility of unwanted children on me? Answer: Abortion.
It could be said that abstinence is, but that is unrealistic. It could be said that prevention is, but that does not always work. Some women and men do not like birth control and they choose not to use it, so that is also unrealistic. The 1.37 million abortions that happen annually are proof of all this. Abortion is necessary to prevent unwanted children from being born. Legal abortion is necessary to prevent women from seeking sub-standard abortions and risking their own health and possibly their lives. Making it illegal is not going to stop women from seeking it. It is more important to protect a born person then it is to protect the unborn when abortion is the choice made. Keeping it legal allows this.
 
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.

my point was that you said that a fetus lives off the mother.
You also live off of other things like plants and animals.
You have not yet asked there permission to do so.

Its very realistic to ask people not to have sex if they dont want to get pregnent thats what sex is intended to do in the first place.
To say that people should just ignore that fact and abort the child is extremely irresponseable. It promotes desease because people dont have safe sex and then they go on public assistance to fight said desease.If you really felt about the health of people you would strongly discorage unsafe sex or protected sex for that matter.Protected sex is not fullproof to stoping the transmision of desease.

I find that if they actually had a child instead of aborting it these women may feel very different on this issue. This feel good so do it nation we are adopting is very destructive and this is just one of the many consequinces of it.
 
Real quick. The person is trying to say this

A fetus inside a woman can not survive on its own, with the help of others, or in any other fashion (up to a certain point). It must be within the mother, and no other human, nor the fetus itself, can keep it alive.

A baby, even a new born, is not dependent on the mother. It is possibly depent on having "Someone" but even then, it doesn't have to be the mother. Moreso, it isn't depending 24/7. It can lay there, and do nothing, and still be living. A fetus however is dependent on the mother 24/7 while in the womb. The mother couldn't just "turn her body off" (The equivlent of just leaving a new born alone for 10 minutes) and everything be fine for the fetus.

Not saying I agree or disagree, but thats the point i think they're trying to get across and in that aspect they're at least right imho
 
HTColeman said:
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?

A miscarriage is a completely different situation. I've had two, and yes, was devastated, but these pregnancies were wanted for a long time, I was married, had a house in the 'burbs, a job, and health benefits. Yet even in my grief I knew that each fetus was a fetus, not yet a child, and not able to survive on it's own outside of my body, and hence, not "alive," but part of me. The people at the doctor's office couldn't even understand why it made me sad to lose something that really wasn't anything yet, and I was advised it was God's will; He knows best.

So, let's talk about God's part in this. In God's wisdom, He gave the trust and responsibility of life to women. It is a precious gift, and an honorable gift, and I believe God trusts women to make the right decisions, even when it is unpopular or disagrees with someone else's view. We were all given free will, so we were all given the freedom of choice.

Do you believe in God, and the wisdom of God? If so, how can you put yourself above Him, limit my choices as well as your own, based on an idealogy that frankly grew out of it's own political agenda shrouded in the perceived "goodness" of religion and the church? You know... those priests who led the charge during the Crusades, the holy men who raped and tortured innocent women and children because they weren't Christians, the one's in front of the line in hunting down and burning witches, the one's who did nothing about the extermination of millions of innocent people in death camps, the one's who enjoy abusing little boys and get away with it, the one's... well, I could go on and on.

Let's look at another aspect of it. According to the Catholic church, it is a sin for a man to waste his "seed" yet nothing is done to make them feel as if they were sinners. Should we take away a man's right to masturbate? Should he have to save his fluids and donate it to fertility clinics, or what? Those poor little spermatazoa, all dressed up and nowhere to go when they could be makin' babies! On the contrary, we spend millions of dollars (probably subsidized by our tax money) to make sure "male enhancement" drugs are available, and even payed for by Medicare and private insurance.

How about another case, away from idealogy and God... way back in the "good ol' days" when the Earth was new and people were a novelty, we needed to procreate for the continuation of the species. Go forth and breed! Now, I believe the world is sufficiently populated. In fact, in some countries there were bans on the number of children you could have, and women were forced to have abortions. Were they wrong to do so? Maybe this didn't agree with moral views, but they believed it was for the good of their country and for those who were already citizens.

On the flip side... would you like to be told you had to have an abortion? No? Why not? It's immoral? Or because it's not your choice? The same people (Tom DeLay being one) who stand in Washington preaching against a woman's individual freedom to control her own reproduction are the same men who support sweat shop labor in third world countries where women are forced to have abortions and work as prostitutes. Why is it okay there, and not here? What if it was his wife or daughter? Would he change his mind then?

In a nutshell, if you can prove to me that you are somehow morally superior to me and above all to God, then I will allow you to restrict my rights.
 
IndiConservative said:
my point was that you said that a fetus lives off the mother.
You also live off of other things like plants and animals.
You have not yet asked there permission to do so.

Its very realistic to ask people not to have sex if they dont want to get pregnent thats what sex is intended to do in the first place.
To say that people should just ignore that fact and abort the child is extremely irresponseable. It promotes desease because people dont have safe sex and then they go on public assistance to fight said desease.If you really felt about the health of people you would strongly discorage unsafe sex or protected sex for that matter.Protected sex is not fullproof to stoping the transmision of desease.

I find that if they actually had a child instead of aborting it these women may feel very different on this issue. This feel good so do it nation we are adopting is very destructive and this is just one of the many consequinces of it.

Playing Devil's Advocate and proposing some thought:

According to some, plants and animals were put here by God specifically for us to use as food, shelter, etc. I guess we could ask the plants and animals, but come on...

Ask people not to have sex? That brings in choice. So, people have the choice to have sex, but not to have an abortion... and are these people who choose or do not choose to have sex fully educated about sex and protection, or are they the grads of the abstinence only kind of "education" where they learn it's not OK to have vaginal penetration, but hey, find out you can always sin anally and orally? This is our tax dollars at work, by the way.

If sex was intended only for getting pregnant, why did God allow us to take pleasure in it? God wants us to be happy, doesn't He? Maybe when you have nothing else in life, those pleasures become important. Maybe when you have nothing to give, giving yourself to another seems special. We are bombarded in the media with sex and temptation as entertainment and a sales tool -- the parking lot of Hooters near my house is always full of pickup trucks, and the gentleman's clubs downtown are always hoppin', yet we're also told sex is wrong, or only for havin' babies. Do As I Say, Not As I Do. No wonder we're so screwed up.

Nothing is foolproof as far as protection. Driving a car with an airbag does not guarantee it will save your life, so should we not promote cars with airbags, even though it increases your chances of survival? Should we make it harder for people, especially those who can't afford it, to get birth control by not funding family planning clinics because they also perform abortions even if it's the only affordable place for certain women to go? Should we carry on the tough-luck-you-were-born-into-poverty-too-bad-for-you-so-get-over-it mentality while we look the other way, and complain about paying taxes for welfare moms? Ooh... I know, since we had no problem sterilizing the poor and mentally challenged without their consent in the past, we could outlaw sex among those who can't afford birth control now.

I agree very much with your comment of this feel good nation. We used to care about and for others, but over the years we have grown into a greedy, capitalistic, all for me but NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) society. Perhaps if we went back to actually caring about everyone, not just ourselves, we could solve this dilemma. This is the basis of the Democratic Party, by the way. Progress for all; education for all; the betterment of society; progressive solutions; alternative resource research and development, agriculture research to help prevent starvation; creating new avenues for job creation and growth; challenging each other to move forward in positive ways; trying to solve issues that affect us all; looking toward the future to improve the quality of lives for everyone, not just those who can afford it because we all can't have C.E.O. in our job titles.

Having a child is definitely a life-changing event and it is forever. A child deserves all the love and attention it can get. A child also deserves to live in a society of peace, not war; progress not poverty; education not ignorance; equality not division; and love not hate. Good people are trying, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
 
clearview said:
A miscarriage is a completely different situation. I've had two, and yes, was devastated, but these pregnancies were wanted for a long time, I was married, had a house in the 'burbs, a job, and health benefits. Yet even in my grief I knew that each fetus was a fetus, not yet a child, and not able to survive on it's own outside of my body, and hence, not "alive," but part of me. The people at the doctor's office couldn't even understand why it made me sad to lose something that really wasn't anything yet, and I was advised it was God's will; He knows best.

So, let's talk about God's part in this. In God's wisdom, He gave the trust and responsibility of life to women. It is a precious gift, and an honorable gift, and I believe God trusts women to make the right decisions, even when it is unpopular or disagrees with someone else's view. We were all given free will, so we were all given the freedom of choice.

Do you believe in God, and the wisdom of God? If so, how can you put yourself above Him, limit my choices as well as your own, based on an idealogy that frankly grew out of it's own political agenda shrouded in the perceived "goodness" of religion and the church? You know... those priests who led the charge during the Crusades, the holy men who raped and tortured innocent women and children because they weren't Christians, the one's in front of the line in hunting down and burning witches, the one's who did nothing about the extermination of millions of innocent people in death camps, the one's who enjoy abusing little boys and get away with it, the one's... well, I could go on and on.

Let's look at another aspect of it. According to the Catholic church, it is a sin for a man to waste his "seed" yet nothing is done to make them feel as if they were sinners. Should we take away a man's right to masturbate? Should he have to save his fluids and donate it to fertility clinics, or what? Those poor little spermatazoa, all dressed up and nowhere to go when they could be makin' babies! On the contrary, we spend millions of dollars (probably subsidized by our tax money) to make sure "male enhancement" drugs are available, and even payed for by Medicare and private insurance.

How about another case, away from idealogy and God... way back in the "good ol' days" when the Earth was new and people were a novelty, we needed to procreate for the continuation of the species. Go forth and breed! Now, I believe the world is sufficiently populated. In fact, in some countries there were bans on the number of children you could have, and women were forced to have abortions. Were they wrong to do so? Maybe this didn't agree with moral views, but they believed it was for the good of their country and for those who were already citizens.

On the flip side... would you like to be told you had to have an abortion? No? Why not? It's immoral? Or because it's not your choice? The same people (Tom DeLay being one) who stand in Washington preaching against a woman's individual freedom to control her own reproduction are the same men who support sweat shop labor in third world countries where women are forced to have abortions and work as prostitutes. Why is it okay there, and not here? What if it was his wife or daughter? Would he change his mind then?

In a nutshell, if you can prove to me that you are somehow morally superior to me and above all to God, then I will allow you to restrict my rights.

If you would like to bring religion into it, then I will. As a preface, I realize that many in this forum may not agree with this but this is what the Bible says, I don't know about the Roman Catholics, because I have never even been to a Catholic Church. In the Bible, it says that God values all life he has created, even the unborn are important to him. I don't have my Bible with me right now so I will post the scripture tomorrow. Also, do you think that God would start to make a life by mistake. No matter the circumstance, God started the creation of that baby for a purpose, to destroy that is like saying God messed up.

Now, here is where my belief about abortion gets tricky. I believe it is wrong and it is killing a life, however, that is based on my beliefs in God. So, I don't think I can ask for a law based on my beliefs in God. Give the woman the right to choose, just as she has the right to choose her religion or lack thereof. However, if she chooses to have an abortion, she is going against the will of God.
 
Zyphlin said:
Real quick. The person is trying to say this

A fetus inside a woman can not survive on its own, with the help of others, or in any other fashion (up to a certain point). It must be within the mother, and no other human, nor the fetus itself, can keep it alive.

A baby, even a new born, is not dependent on the mother. It is possibly depent on having "Someone" but even then, it doesn't have to be the mother. Moreso, it isn't depending 24/7. It can lay there, and do nothing, and still be living. A fetus however is dependent on the mother 24/7 while in the womb. The mother couldn't just "turn her body off" (The equivlent of just leaving a new born alone for 10 minutes) and everything be fine for the fetus.

Not saying I agree or disagree, but thats the point i think they're trying to get across and in that aspect they're at least right imho

Thank you for clearing that up, Zyphlin. This thread is taking my head in circles.
 
clearview said:
Playing Devil's Advocate and proposing some thought:

According to some, plants and animals were put here by God specifically for us to use as food, shelter, etc. I guess we could ask the plants and animals, but come on...

Ask people not to have sex? That brings in choice. So, people have the choice to have sex, but not to have an abortion... and are these people who choose or do not choose to have sex fully educated about sex and protection, or are they the grads of the abstinence only kind of "education" where they learn it's not OK to have vaginal penetration, but hey, find out you can always sin anally and orally? This is our tax dollars at work, by the way.

If sex was intended only for getting pregnant, why did God allow us to take pleasure in it? God wants us to be happy, doesn't He? Maybe when you have nothing else in life, those pleasures become important. Maybe when you have nothing to give, giving yourself to another seems special. We are bombarded in the media with sex and temptation as entertainment and a sales tool -- the parking lot of Hooters near my house is always full of pickup trucks, and the gentleman's clubs downtown are always hoppin', yet we're also told sex is wrong, or only for havin' babies. Do As I Say, Not As I Do. No wonder we're so screwed up.

Nothing is foolproof as far as protection. Driving a car with an airbag does not guarantee it will save your life, so should we not promote cars with airbags, even though it increases your chances of survival? Should we make it harder for people, especially those who can't afford it, to get birth control by not funding family planning clinics because they also perform abortions even if it's the only affordable place for certain women to go? Should we carry on the tough-luck-you-were-born-into-poverty-too-bad-for-you-so-get-over-it mentality while we look the other way, and complain about paying taxes for welfare moms? Ooh... I know, since we had no problem sterilizing the poor and mentally challenged without their consent in the past, we could outlaw sex among those who can't afford birth control now.

I agree very much with your comment of this feel good nation. We used to care about and for others, but over the years we have grown into a greedy, capitalistic, all for me but NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) society. Perhaps if we went back to actually caring about everyone, not just ourselves, we could solve this dilemma. This is the basis of the Democratic Party, by the way. Progress for all; education for all; the betterment of society; progressive solutions; alternative resource research and development, agriculture research to help prevent starvation; creating new avenues for job creation and growth; challenging each other to move forward in positive ways; trying to solve issues that affect us all; looking toward the future to improve the quality of lives for everyone, not just those who can afford it because we all can't have C.E.O. in our job titles.

Having a child is definitely a life-changing event and it is forever. A child deserves all the love and attention it can get. A child also deserves to live in a society of peace, not war; progress not poverty; education not ignorance; equality not division; and love not hate. Good people are trying, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I appreciate your input but you cannot argue god to the godless.
I use science to argue my points as this is only what people will accept.
That being said all living mammals use other living species to survive on.
Sexual education in schools is fine as long as all methods of protection are clearly exposed but not having sex should always be key.

Sex was created for reproduction so what do you expect when you have sex. I had a child at an early age and i was poor as well but this child received all the love and attention two could give. Using poverty to justify abortion is not ok. If your on welfare it does not mean you cannot get off of it. There are plenty of ways to attend college supported by the government and other private institutions.

As i have seen it in this forum there are only a small handful of reasons for abortion and convenience is not one of them. The fact that people put a price on life is disgusting.

Democrats and Republicans are both corrupt to the highest echelons. I couldn't vote for them in good conscience.
 
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.
That condition of absolute dependency continues for quite some time after the birth of a child. There are probably some mothers who have second thoughts after the birth occurs. What's wrong with extending the time to abort another few months? The principle you advance is still the same.
 
Fantasea said:
That condition of absolute dependency continues for quite some time after the birth of a child. There are probably some mothers who have second thoughts after the birth occurs. What's wrong with extending the time to abort another few months? The principle you advance is still the same.

No, it isn't the same. Following birth the baby is dependent upon adult intervention - and it could be any competent adult. Prior to birth the dependency is entirely on the mother.
 
Naughty Nurse said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
That condition of absolute dependency continues for quite some time after the birth of a child. There are probably some mothers who have second thoughts after the birth occurs. What's wrong with extending the time to abort another few months? The principle you advance is still the same.
No, it isn't the same. Following birth the baby is dependent upon adult intervention - and it could be any competent adult. Prior to birth the dependency is entirely on the mother.
Well, then, are you suggesting that the child be born and the mother offer it up for adoption if she doesn't want it to be dependent upon her?
 
Fantasea said:
Well, then, are you suggesting that the child be born and the mother offer it up for adoption if she doesn't want it to be dependent upon her?

What did I say that could make you think that? :confused:
 
Why not have the right to choose??

If you're against it fine but don't interfere like Bush did!

The 'Right to choose' is not LAW it is a right of passage of a human...


Lets not turn into religious fundamentalists? haha
( Hypocrisy-this leads to the type of fundamentalism that everyone mentioned as justification to attack Afghanistan... :shock: Lets be objective at least)
 
Recently I saw a re-run of "The Practice", wherein a woman was wanting an aboriton, but her doctor delivered the baby against her will. This just illustrates that unborn babies can be dependant on people other than mothers. It's funny, her doctor took away her right to choose, but saved a baby's life. And once born, the baby enjoyed all the legal protections afforded any American.

The only thing between a lot of unborn children and legal protections is this so-called right to choose. But does anyone really have the right to choose to kill another human just because they can? I don't think so...
 
Yes, because a fictional television show has so much to do with real life.

What's even more amusing is the hypocracy of so called "Christian" pro-lifers who have no problem with the death penalty.
 
Last edited:
vergiss said:
Yes, because a fictional television show has so much to do with real life.

What's even more amusing is the hypocracy of so called "Christian" pro-lifers who have no problem with the death penalty.
You mean The Pracitce is fictional? Wow, that's news to me. Thanks, I didn't know.

Hey, um, about your comment about Christians - I'm one, and guess what? I'm against the death penalty. I guess we both learned something today...
 
Try to learn the meaning of sarcasm, and of subtlety. The reason for the inverted commas around "Christians" was to demonstrate the lack of core Christian values in some who like to pretend that they are. Yes, of course I was speaking specifically about you, and you alone...

It's just you doing the learning, babe.
 
vergiss said:
Try to learn the meaning of sarcasm, and of subtlety. The reason for the inverted commas around "Christians" was to demonstrate the lack of core Christian values in some who like to pretend that they are. Yes, of course I was speaking specifically about you, and you alone...

It's just you doing the learning, babe.
But you just learned I'm against the death penalty. So you were wrong about me, and your sense of humor needs a little work. Try to keep up...
 
Line one: "Try to learn the meaning of sarcasm, and of subtlety."

Line two: "Yes, of course I was speaking specifically about you, and you alone..."

Let me know when you figure it out.
 
vergiss said:
Line one: "Try to learn the meaning of sarcasm, and of subtlety."

Line two: "Yes, of course I was speaking specifically about you, and you alone..."

Let me know when you figure it out.
Duhhhhh, I don't know. Maybe I'll figure it out later....
 
Maybe Bush and his intellectual prowess can help.
 
Imudman said:
But you just learned I'm against the death penalty. So you were wrong about me, and your sense of humor needs a little work. Try to keep up...

Yeah, vergiss has been wrong about many people. Assumption seems to be the game, and then deny, deny, deny when called on it. Or as in your case claim it was sarcasm, or in another case claim the person is implying something that they clearly are not. What it really is, is just a severe case of foot-in-mouth syndrome.
 
blogger31 said:
Yeah, vergiss has been wrong about many people. Assumption seems to be the game, and then deny, deny, deny when called on it. Or as in your case claim it was sarcasm, or in another case claim the person is implying something that they clearly are not. What it really is, is just a severe case of foot-in-mouth syndrome.
Yeah, as far as I can tell, the only reason he responded to my post was to make fun of the idea that unborn children can be dependant on people other than their own mothers. But since he's unable to articulate a rational argument, all that happened was he entertained himself for a short while...
 
Back
Top Bottom