• 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!

jallman said:
Oh well here we go again. I feel like I should just have a form response to your posts. Thanks for revising what I said...let me repeat again for your convenience. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of science. The science is that the fetus is not a baby...nothing fully developed about it until the latter stages of pregnancy (i.e. when the spinal cord and brain are developed enough to show awareness and sense pain). you have been given medical fact over and over again, but you have repeatedly dismissed fact and countered with opinion from pro life sources. Try looking at a medical journal sometime. Then come back with a stance you can support.
What has this to do with the humanity of the occupant of the womb? Whether it is in an early or later stage of development, it is still a living human being. Life itself remains unchanged from the moment of conception until natural death in old age. Humans are in a constant state of physical change from conception and progress through many stages until old age. Photographs, commencing with those of in the embryonic stage of human life confirm this.

To say that any one stage is less human than another is ridiculuous and no scientific data is available which makes this claim. Your argument is based solely on the selection of an arbitrary point in human development which you claim differentiates a human being worthy of living from a human being unworthy of living. Your argument related to mental development could well be used as justification for summarily ending the lives of those, young or old, who are so unfortunate as to be mentally retarded.
Hmm, I dont even know what to say to such an absurd statement. I do know this, you are flailing and pummeling the air at this point. Though it was probably the only sign of intelligence I have seen so far in bringing the comparison with homosexuality in this.
Say what you like. The comparison is valid. Both are political decisions made without the benefit of a scientific or medical basis.
Makes it easier to demonize the opposing stance, but still just smoke and mirrors. Once again, try using some fact and logic to your argument instead of depending on bias to taint the issue to your advantage.
The fact is there. The logic is there. The truth is there. The problem with the truth, as has long been observed, is that sometimes, and this is one of those times, it is unpleasant.

The undeniable fact is that every abortion stills a beating human heart.

That you and the 1973 Supreme Court have decided to discriminate against humans based upon their age, state of development, and place of residence, does not, because it can not, change biological fact.
 
steen said:
Let me get this straight. You have Pascal's Wager in your sig, as if it is meaningful?
:doh

It was a song man. You make one up now. Go!
 
Abortion should be legal!
 
Not just people.
All animals have the ability to take life. Right is not involved.
Whether or not we do is what sets us apart from most other animals.

Remember though that a fetus isn't really much more than a fleshball.
 
Fantasea said:
jallman said:
What has this to do with the humanity of the occupant of the womb? Whether it is in an early or later stage of development, it is still a living human being. Life itself remains unchanged from the moment of conception until natural death in old age. Humans are in a constant state of physical change from conception and progress through many stages until old age. Photographs, commencing with those of in the embryonic stage of human life confirm this.

I dont even see a need to go around this block with you again. I am done with this part of our discussion because you are never going to get it.

To say that any one stage is less human than another is ridiculuous and no scientific data is available which makes this claim. Your argument is based solely on the selection of an arbitrary point in human development which you claim differentiates a human being worthy of living from a human being unworthy of living.

There is nothing arbitrary about what I said. Its very specific actually, but then, we ALL know your selective use of definition and your revision of almost every fact put forth to you. The specifics of the matter are, so long as there is no conciousness or awareness, then the tissue mass in the womb is the mother's dominion and no one else's.

Your argument related to mental development could well be used as justification for summarily ending the lives of those, young or old, who are so unfortunate as to be mentally retarded.

How dramatic of you. In no way is this a valid comparison. The mentally challenged have full awareness of their surroundings and feel pain just like you or I do. No one here except you has even intimated the idea of ending the lives of mentally challenged people.

Say what you like. The comparison is valid. Both are political decisions made without the benefit of a scientific or medical basis.The fact is there. The logic is there. The truth is there. The problem with the truth, as has long been observed, is that sometimes, and this is one of those times, it is unpleasant.

The comparison is of apples and oranges. What is your scientific basis that homosexuality is a mental disorder? Please, it should be as amusing as your basis that a fetus is a fully developed human.

:waiting: this should be good...

The undeniable fact is that every abortion stills a beating human heart.

You care to revise that statement a little before I shred it? yes, this is one time I am inviting you to revise something...you're good at it...oh, thats right, you dont revise toward the truth now do you? I am not going to qualify my answer to such a ridiculous claim, but you are wrong in that assessment.

That you and the 1973 Supreme Court have decided to discriminate against humans based upon their age, state of development, and place of residence, does not, because it can not, change biological fact.

I would be apalled at myself if I were actually discriminating against humans...oh here we go with that whole argument again. This has gotten old. Where's busta...he actually puts up a fight...
 
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!


There's nothing hypocritical about that. The FETUS is not a PERSON first and foremost. It does not THINK about the fact that it is about to be sucked out of existence in a vacuum cleaner (for instance). It is merely a collection of cells until it reaches maturity. This is precisely why late-term abortions are a controversy, because many think that the baby would feel pain when it's skull is crushed. But what I find HYPOCRITICAL is that when a baby IS born and ESPECIALLY in the US, it's PENIS IS MUTILATED! Which causes much more pain than an ABORTION EVER would have!! The Jews even throw PARTIES around this sub-human infliction of PAIN for chrissakes!
And also I find it incredibly anti-christian that these same individuals who go and bomb women's clinics, or just your average bigoted 'pro-life' imbecile will be a champion of CAPITAL PUNISHMENT!?
The religious idiots in this country are raping the rest of it's citizens their own freedoms with their OWN insane SUPERSTITIONS!

How PATHETIC and ANTI-AMERICAN!

Curb your dogma!
 
The legitimate attempt to establish justice through law is one hallmark of enlightened civilization. All too often, however, the reasoning used to advance that worthy goal becomes convoluted.

According to the ACLU, for example: “The death penalty is the greatest denial of civil liberties.” Yet the ACLU also fights for the right of women to kill their babies before they are even born. Thus, those self-styled humanitarian crusaders for justice, who claim they want to protect one human life, also wish to end another unjustly.

http://www.liberalmatrix.com/courts_justice_NT_05_08_03.htm
 
sissy-boy said:

There's nothing hypocritical about that. The FETUS is not a PERSON first and foremost. It does not THINK about the fact that it is about to be sucked out of existence in a vacuum cleaner (for instance). It is merely a collection of cells until it reaches maturity. This is precisely why late-term abortions are a controversy, because many think that the baby would feel pain when it's skull is crushed. But what I find HYPOCRITICAL is that when a baby IS born and ESPECIALLY in the US, it's PENIS IS MUTILATED! Which causes much more pain than an ABORTION EVER would have!! The Jews even throw PARTIES around this sub-human infliction of PAIN for chrissakes!
And also I find it incredibly anti-christian that these same individuals who go and bomb women's clinics, or just your average bigoted 'pro-life' imbecile will be a champion of CAPITAL PUNISHMENT!?
The religious idiots in this country are raping the rest of it's citizens their own freedoms with their OWN insane SUPERSTITIONS!

How PATHETIC and ANTI-AMERICAN!

Curb your dogma!

Be carfull not to throe every Pro.Lifer into the same pot.
 
Fantasea said:
One of these antonyms is considerably more fitting: appalling, awful, disgustful, disgusting, dreadful, frightening, frightful, grim, grisly, gruesome, hideous, horrible, horrid, horrifying, lurid, macabre, nauseant, nauseating, shocking, sickening, terrible, terrifying.


Those are all emotions that YOU feel PERSONALLY. The fetus has no conception of them. It's kind of insane to try to push your own PERSONAL religious beliefs on the unsuspecting public. And one could argue that those adjectives you've used are what a person on death row or a soldier in a fake war feels most all of the time. Yet I rarely see religious people screaming about stopping war or the death penalty.

Don't you see how ridiculous your argument is?
 
LiberalMatrix said:
The legitimate attempt to establish justice through law is one hallmark of enlightened civilization. All too often, however, the reasoning used to advance that worthy goal becomes convoluted.

According to the ACLU, for example: “The death penalty is the greatest denial of civil liberties.” Yet the ACLU also fights for the right of women to kill their babies before they are even born. Thus, those self-styled humanitarian crusaders for justice, who claim they want to protect one human life, also wish to end another unjustly.

http://www.liberalmatrix.com/courts_justice_NT_05_08_03.htm

You can't 'kill' what isn't even alive yet. So your argument against abortion is simply erroneous from the very start. BTW: I DO favor capital punishment in many instances. But I NEVER favor war. Yet the Bible is quite a fan of war, murder, rape and pillage.
 
:lol: FINALLY SOMEONE ACTUALLY NAILED IT. HOW CAN ANY WOMEN BE A MURDERER IF THE THING SHES SUPPOSED TO HAVE MURDERED ISN'T EVEN ALIVE YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:2wave:
 
galenrox said:
I have to beg to differ. If you read the bible you'd see that we're not supposed to kill anyone.

Exactly. So why support abortion.

And I hope you're not taking this "thou shall not kill" thing too literally. Cause if you are you are killing things everyday and will go to hell. Like if you live in a house your house crushes and kills bugs everyday. So don't take it too literally. you should say "thou shall not murder" instead.
 
Spambiter said:
Not just people.
All animals have the ability to take life. Right is not involved.
Whether or not we do is what sets us apart from most other animals.

Remember though that a fetus isn't really much more than a fleshball.
The final sentence betrays a very limited understanding of human biology.
 
vergiss said:
How have I not met your requirements, Fantasea? I think you just wish I hadn't met them, and think that if you close your eyes and wish hard enough, they'll go away. :lol:

Supreme Court decisions are not untouchable. If the majority were anti-abortion, an anti-abortion candidate would have been elected to do something about it.
Are you trying to convince me that Justices of the US Supreme Court are elected?

Yes, you have failed to meet the requirements of the challenge. With respect to your final sentence, I'll let someone else insult your intelligence.
 
jallman said:
What is your scientific basis that homosexuality is a mental disorder? Please, it should be as amusing as your basis that a fetus is a fully developed human.
Don't take my word for it.

An excerpt from: http://www.inoohr.org/americanpsychiatricassociation.htm

four years after the APA 'switch,' the journal "Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality" revealed that it had polled 2,500 psychiatrists on their view of what "current thinking on homosexuality" was, and, by a lopsided margin of 69% to 18% (nearly four to one, with 13%undecided). the respondents answered that "Homosexuality was usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation."

The entire explanation of how the treatable psychiatric disorder "homosexuality" miraculously vanished, virtually overnight, is surprisingly interesting.

I wonder whether the millions (billions?) collected in fees during all the intervening years was ever refunded by the charlatans who charged their patients to treat a condition which, it seems, never existed?

There are other links with similar information if you have any interest in pursuing the subject.
 
jallman said:
Quote: Originally posted by Fantasea
The undeniable fact is that every abortion stills a beating human heart.
You care to revise that statement a little before I shred it? yes, this is one time I am inviting you to revise something...you're good at it...oh, thats right, you dont revise toward the truth now do you? I am not going to qualify my answer to such a ridiculous claim, but you are wrong in that assessment.
A heartbeat is detectable in a human fetus prior to the end of the first month of pregnancy which is often before a mother knows she is pregnant.

Now go ahead and crank up your shredder.
 
jallman said:
Originally posted by Fantasea
That you and the 1973 Supreme Court have decided to discriminate against humans based upon their age, state of development, and place of residence, does not, because it can not, change biological fact.
I would be apalled at myself if I were actually discriminating against humans...oh here we go with that whole argument again.
You know full well that Roe v Wade did not examine the question of "humans", but wrapped itself around the issue of privacy. When that can of worms is opened, Roe will disappear.
 
jallman said:
To say that any one stage is less human than another is ridiculuous and no scientific data is available which makes this claim. Your argument is based solely on the selection of an arbitrary point in human development which you claim differentiates a human being worthy of living from a human being unworthy of living.
There is nothing arbitrary about what I said. Its very specific actually, but then, we ALL know your selective use of definition and your revision of almost every fact put forth to you. The specifics of the matter are, so long as there is no conciousness or awareness, then the tissue mass in the womb is the mother's dominion and no one else's.
Even the point you select is not precise. It varies from child to child. This certainly renders it arbitrary and as such could never qualify as a "point".

Here's some interesting reading which sheds a bit of light on good old Justice Blackmun and his integrity.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3798/is_200407/ai_n9449971/pg_4
 
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!




If you are TRULY an environmentalist you would (like me), want an abortion clinic built next to every convenience store on the planet and put RU-486 in every Big Mac.

Humanity is destroying the planet at the rate of an entire species every 15 minutes. And THOSE are the only ones that we KNOW about. Overpopulation is the worst catastrophe that the earth has ever faced. Did you know that from space humanity looks like CANCER slowly choking the planet out of existence?? But all we need is a little CONCERN, birth control, and when that fails, MANDATORY ABORTION!
 
Fantasea said:
Don't take my word for it.

An excerpt from: http://www.inoohr.org/americanpsychiatricassociation.htm

four years after the APA 'switch,' the journal "Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality" revealed that it had polled 2,500 psychiatrists on their view of what "current thinking on homosexuality" was, and, by a lopsided margin of 69% to 18% (nearly four to one, with 13%undecided). the respondents answered that "Homosexuality was usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation."

The entire explanation of how the treatable psychiatric disorder "homosexuality" miraculously vanished, virtually overnight, is surprisingly interesting.

I wonder whether the millions (billions?) collected in fees during all the intervening years was ever refunded by the charlatans who charged their patients to treat a condition which, it seems, never existed?

There are other links with similar information if you have any interest in pursuing the subject.





hahaha!! HAHA!!! (tell me when I can stop laughing...)
 
galenrox said:
I have to beg to differ. If you read the bible you'd see that we're not supposed to kill anyone.





I've read the bible and found that it is so full of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and opposing ideology that it sounds much better in the toilet as it is being flushed down -- or burning up in flames. But I do like that they made the pages thin because they knew it would make good toilet paper.
 
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.

Let me enlighten you with some BIOLOGY; There are these called the 8 Characteristics of Life, which means that any objects that carries any of these is living, well let me tell you them:
1) It must be made of cells
2) It must be able to reproduce
3) It must be able to metabolise
4) It must have a Universal Genetic Code (DNA)
5) It must be able to perform homeostasis (A stable internal enviroment)
6) It must be able to Grow & Develope
7) It must be able to Respond to it's enviroment
8) It must be able to change over time
Now if a fetus carries one of these it is indeed living and if you don't believe me search it up on your computer!
 
Mixed View said:
Exactly. So why support abortion.

And I hope you're not taking this "thou shall not kill" thing too literally. Cause if you are you are killing things everyday and will go to hell. Like if you live in a house your house crushes and kills bugs everyday. So don't take it too literally. you should say "thou shall not murder" instead.

Where did the bible come into this? I couldn't care less about somebody else's belief. This is NOt a christian country, state and church are seperated. Therefore one can not make religion the base of laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom