• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

If abortion were illegal, to what extent would you protect the fetus?

Lursa said:
Not at all. Not all people would agree, as many people choose to give up life for principle, conscience, religion, liberty, their country, their children, etc.

So that would be *your* choice but cannot be applied to everyone.
Click to expand...

When these people give up their lives for these things, they don't have any of them anymore. And that's fine, if that's what they want to do. I am not belittling their choice. I am saying that they're making these decisions for *themselves*. They're not killing other innocent people for them. At least, not legally.

-AJF
 
Jerry said:
That means you don't support equality.
Click to expand...


I do not support equality for the unborn verses the woman who is carrying it. It isn't until birth that someone earns 'equality' under the law. As for that, minors are not allowed to drink, to smoke, to join the military, etc etc etc.. and that is not 'equal' either.

Such is life.
 
Lursa said:
The govt cannot prevent the unborn from dying in utero. And it cannot prevent a woman from dying during childbirth or pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Those are proofs that the "right to life" doesn't exist.
 
Lursa said:
Just looked at it. Didnt see that stated or even implied.
It's more just about when the state *could* take interest in the unborn's life and balancing it against a woman's right to life. Not that the right to life is pre-eminent above others. It's just that the only thing R v W is discussing there is 'life.'
Click to expand...
I have a pre-written post that highlights it. I'll do the 'oll copy/paste when I get home.
 
Lursa said:
Of course not. It also doesnt demand that she get into the car and take that risk
Click to expand...
No, and it wouldn't demand that she have sex, either. Please note that I didn't say that the government can't stop a woman from dying in a car *accident*.

-AJF
 
RAMOSS said:
I do not support equality for the unborn verses the woman who is carrying it.
Click to expand...
That means you don't support equality. I don't either.

RAMOSS said:
It isn't until birth that someone earns 'equality' under the law.
Click to expand...
Not until their 21st birthday, you mean; and that's assuming they haven't comitted any serious crimes.

RAMOSS said:
As for that, minors are not allowed to drink, to smoke, to join the military, etc etc etc.. and that is not 'equal' either.
Click to expand...
Exactly, people don't become equal at birth.
 
Lursa said:
Sorry, I dont understand the context here. What I'm reading here seems uselessly obvious. If this is not actually relevant to **reality**, please desist.
Click to expand...

It was asked of me whether a child's rights ever supersede an adult's rights. This is an example of that. A child has the right to be cared for by his parent/guardian. An adult has the right to dispose of his/her property, but his/her child's right supersedes that.

-AJF
 
Jerry said:
Mine? No. That wasn't my argument, it was mini's:
Once again, RM, you and I agree on this issue. Born people are not equal. Age imposes restrictions, as you said, which means born people aren't equal. I had also mentioned criminal conviction.
Click to expand...

You're making points that a smart 6th grader should grasp about DEVELOPMENTAL DIFFERENCES. That has nothing to do with the way you've represented "equality" in earlier parts of your argument.

You're trying to spin this issue because equality in a legal since has nothing to do with the developmental levels of a 3 yr old and an 21 year old.

The nuances between a new born and an adult aren't at all subtle. But these blatant differences are developmental...not associated with equality as you purport them to be.
 
applejuicefool said:
Interestingly enough, they don't have the right to kill them, usually.

-AJF
Click to expand...

Who kills their children? You know very well that we're talking about born kids. You choosing to call the unborn "children"...is your gig, not mine.

BTW...

What can a zygote do that a 39 week, 6 day, 11 hrs, 59 minute old fetus can do?
 
Removable Mind said:
The nuances between a new born and an adult aren't at all subtle. But these blatant differences are developmental...not associated with equality as you purport them to be.
Click to expand...

Then in what sense *are* a newborn and an adult "equal", RM? The certainly don't have equal rights, that's for sure...so what do you mean by it?

-AJF
 
Removable Mind said:
You're making points that a smart 6th grader should grasp about DEVELOPMENTAL DIFFERENCES. That has nothing to do with the way you've represented "equality" in earlier parts of your argument.

You're trying to spin this issue because equality in a legal since has nothing to do with the developmental levels of a 3 yr old and an 21 year old.

The nuances between a new born and an adult aren't at all subtle. But these blatant differences are developmental...not associated with equality as you purport them to be.
Click to expand...
Divelopmental differences are a perfect example of inequality.

...ecept for the one and only right which actually exists, the right to persue happiness....divelopment doesn't threaten that, because nothing can.
 
Removable Mind said:
Who kills their children? You know very well that we're talking about born kids. You choosing to call the unborn "children"...is your gig, not mine.

BTW...

What can a zygote do that a 39 week, 6 day, 11 hrs, 59 minute old fetus can do?
Click to expand...
Ability doesn't deifn what a member of the species is. Being an organism and being human is all.
 
Removable Mind said:
Who kills their children? You know very well that we're talking about born kids. You choosing to call the unborn "children"...is your gig, not mine.
Click to expand...
I would say murderers kill their children.

BTW...

What can a zygote do that a 39 week, 6 day, 11 hrs, 59 minute old fetus can do?
Click to expand...
What *can* it do? Develop.

-AJF
 
Jerry said:
Divelopmental differences are a perfect example of inequality.

...ecept for the one and only right which actually exists, the right to persue happiness....divelopment doesn't threaten that, because nothing can.
Click to expand...


Spin, spin spin, spin....

And dishonestly...

The truth aint in ya, Jerry...

Oh, not conceding...just tired of a circle jerk argument which you've decided to recreate a new argument when you get caught in your web of deception.
 
Removable Mind said:
Spin, spin spin, spin....

And dishonestly...

The truth aint in ya, Jerry...

Oh, not conceding...just tired of a circle jerk argument which you've decided to recreate a new argument when you get caught in your web of deception.
Click to expand...
Thank you for conceding the argument, enjoy your afternoon [emoji3]
 
Jerry said:
Which is why you should stop making them [emoji6]
Click to expand...
Stupid remarks that you think are witty do not lent more credibility to your earlier failed ones. I did not make any assertions. You did and it was an ignorant one.
 
applejuicefool said:
This is the most intelligent thing I've ever seen you post. You should stop *making* ignorant assertions and reassertions. The ones you make are not, as you seem to believe, factual.
Click to expand...
Wow, you managed to copy jerry's attempt to be witty. It happens a lot to those who lack intelligent arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom