• 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.

Is the Government allowed to allow abortion?

steen said:
So one life is less than the other? One has less right to life than the other?
In the first case, you personally decided to let him die.
Click to expand...
1. When someone becomes pregnant with said kidney patient and through due coarse of the natural process of that pregnancy the the "host" is required to give a kidney to said kidney patent, then per Roe-v-Wade sec. 9a. that kidney patient has the right to that kidney and the host must surrender it.

2. A fetus does not take organs. At best you can only make a comparison to forced dialysis.

3. Said neighbor does have the right to life, but since no one is pregnant with him/her, this neighbor has no legal or moral foundation upon which to make a claim for anyone else's kidney.

4. One can not be pregnant with one's neighbor, so your comparison is a totally irrelevant piece of masterwork sophistry, as it has nothing to do with pregnancy or abortion. Please stay on topic.
 
steen said:
So one life is less than the other? One has less right to life than the other?

In the first case, you personally decided to let him die.
Click to expand...

In the case of a neighbor needing a kidney I am not responsible. Unless I directly caused the illness that made a new kidney a requirement I am not responsible for whether that person lives or dies. Furthermore unless I call in a dr. to euthanize the guy who needs a kidney I am not directly responsible for his death.

When I order a dr. to kill that which is developing in my womb I am directly responsible for the death that follows.
 

Well, fortunately, it's usually just killing cells.
 
talloulou said:
In the case of a neighbor needing a kidney I am not responsible.
Click to expand...
The raped woman also is not responsible. And that is irrelevant, isn't it? If there is a right to life, even fro fetuses conceived by rape, then the issue of fault is irrelevant. YOU are saying that there is no right to life, that it is not the life itself that causes the "right" but rather the action of the woman, it being her FAULT.

You are now denying that there is a right to life.

Unless I directly caused the illness that made a new kidney a requirement I am not responsible for whether that person lives or dies.
Click to expand...
That sure doesn't match with the pro-life claim that a fetus conceived through rape has a right to life, does it now.

Furthermore unless I call in a dr. to euthanize the guy who needs a kidney I am not directly responsible for his death.
Click to expand...
So what? Either he has a right to life or he doesn't.

Oh, WAIT!!!!! I get it. It is not about life, only about "responsibility"! It is about not wanting others to get away with actions that you don't like; it is about pushing your morality on others. So when you claim you are pro-life, then you are lying, right?

When I order a dr. to kill that which is developing in my womb I am directly responsible for the death that follows.
Click to expand...
Does it have a right to life? Why?
 
Jerry said:
3. Said neighbor does have the right to life, but since no one is pregnant with him/her, this neighbor has no legal or moral foundation upon which to make a claim for anyone else's kidney.
Click to expand...
So there is no right to life that allows the use of others bodily resources. Thanks for that admission. You are about fault and oppression rather than life.

Thus the misogynistic oppression of the pro-life movement is exposed, despite your evasions and sophistry.
 
afr0byte said:
Well, fortunately, it's usually just killing cells.
Click to expand...
star2589 said:
only if your talking about a pre-embryonic human.
Click to expand...
steen said:
Or ANY embryo.
Click to expand...

well, I suppose you could say that we are all the sum of the cells that make up our bodies.

however, afr0byte seems to be saying that an embryo is just cells, while the guy in need of a kidney is not. either that, or he's talking about a pre-embryonic human.
 

An embryo may just be a cell, or clump of cells, but it is still the first stage of any humans development. A human that will continue to develop inside and later outside the womb unless it dies naturally, is spontaneously aborted by the womens body, or is ripped from the womb.
 

We are more than just the sum of our cells actually.
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

alright, its possible for an embryo to be nothing more than a clump of cells, however I think its necessary to be more specific. The abortion debate coveres everything from a zygote to a full term fetus, and part of the reason people dont get anywhere is that they are debating about different things.
 
afr0byte said:
We are more than just the sum of our cells actually.
Click to expand...

what more are we?

and for how early in our development is that statement true?
 
Because pro-lifers insist on using vague, all-encompassing terms of emotional hyperbole rather than fact.

I am pleased that you have joined the ranks of those who object to such dishonesty of pro-life revisionist linguistics. Nice to know that I haven't exposed this for years all in vain.
 
Misrepresent my words as you will, fact remains that in that very post I said
According to Roe-v-Wade, should the fetus's "personhood" be legally established, the unborn "person" will have the right to use his/her mother's bodily resources against her will.
So says the pro choice Supreme Court majority of 1973.
 
Jerry said:
Misrepresent my words as you will, fact remains that in that very post I said
Click to expand...
And I pointed out where you are in error.

According to Roe-v-Wade, should the fetus's "personhood" be legally established, the unborn "person" will have the right to use his/her mother's bodily resources against her will.
So says the pro choice Supreme Court majority of 1973.
Click to expand...
And that is a blatant falsehood. It would merely mean that the arguments made against the Texas law would be non-legitimate.

It doesn't mean that a person has the right to use another person's body.

MUST you always spew such falsehoods?
 
You like that word steen..."spew"? Haha...I just haven't heard it used so much...It is effective word usage though.
 
BodiSatva said:
You like that word steen..."spew"? Haha...I just haven't heard it used so much...It is effective word usage though.
Click to expand...


Do you think it is really clever?
 
jimmyjack - "Do you think it is really clever?"

Why would you ask that question?
He uses it appropriately in the context of his sentences.
So, "It is effective word usage".

Are you using that question to imply that I am not clever?
 
BodiSatva said:
Why would you ask that question?
Click to expand...

To better understand the psychology of the pro-abortionist.

BodiSatva said:
He uses it appropriately in the context of his sentences.
So, "It is effective word usage".

Are you using that question to imply that I am not clever?
Click to expand...

No, I used it to better understand the psychology of the pro-abortionist.
 
You did not answer my question...and that helps me understand the mind of a religious zealot.

By the way, I am not pro-abortion...
I am not sure how many more times I need to say this to help you understand, but I guess this helps me further understand the mind of a religious zealot.

It is interesting that my description is accurate while yours was not even actually totoally false. Does God help you understand the way you do?
 

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
 
BodiSatva said:
Are you using that question to imply that I am not clever?
Click to expand...

This has gone beyond a question of intelligence; we are now in the realm of psychological analysis.
 
That was a wonderfully irrelevant message.

It appears that I shall be obtaining mercy then…For granting mercy upon you? Haha…

Blessed be us all for we have the wisdom of understanding.
Blessings upon you for your quest for the power and the glory of obtaining relevancy

"This has gone beyond a question of intelligence; we are now in the realm of psychological analysis." Haha...good luck analyzing me...Let me know when you are done, I will let you know if you have analized correctly...

My analysis of you was finished and sealed a bit ago...I wish I could reveal the findings, but I am afraid that you would not see things the way that they are. Haha, this is so fun...I can't beleive that you pulled the really old "psychological analysis" bit... :lol:

Oh where are you steen and ngdawg!!!
 
Last edited:
BodiSatva said:
It appears that I shall be obtaining mercy then…For granting mercy upon you? Haha…
Click to expand...

It is not me that requires your mercy; it is Gods creations, “the unborn” who needs it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…