• 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.

Judge Revokes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban (1 Viewer)

Do me a favor and try to organize it with new paragraphs. It's hard for me to stay focused :p.

Fant, YOU can't decide that they are children. That topic is still up in the air. There is no need to justify abortions because you can't justify if the fetus is living or not.
 
Nice to have you aboard Mect. Your position was well presented, with logical progression... but, I believe, not always "fair and balanced"

You stated - "there are also large discrepencies in the logic of many liberals ie killing a serial killer is bad but abortion is okay. I don't care what level you put a fetus at, it has to be worth more than a serial killer".

Please go back to my earlier rant, where the exact opposite of your position was posted. We all hear it... life is sacred, all life is precious etc., so how can you say one type of human life is of more value than another. If that were true, might we be killing old people in the street after Social Security no longer supports them, and we have to take care of their non-contributing worthless selves?? If all life is sacred, who are we as mere mortals to make that distinction?

Right to lifers stand upon the sanctity of a life which in some cases is no more that a clump of amorphous cells, with no potential for autonomous viability (at early stages). Not to devalue the fetus, but it is not yet a "person". Someones existing sibling, mother,father - good or bad, with a life already underway. YET right to lifers, are willing to march a fully viable, walking, talking, son, daughter, sister, brother, mother, father, breathing "soul" into the death chamber EVEN WHEN guilt has not been established "BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT" and kill them without a lick of remorse at the loss of that life. This happens with extreme prejudice in the convoluted religious puzzle palace know as Texas, with great regularity. So, let's not be hypocritical here. As I pointed out to Fantasea, in a recent poll on the death penalty in CT - it was shown that very few (about 20% - I forget the exact number... forgive me Fantasea) Catholics in CT were pro-choice YET over 70% were PRO-DEATH PENALTY. In my mind this is the height of hypocracy.

And while I am on the "fair and balanced" bully pulpit>>> you stated - "I think that fathers who don't support their "partner" and do their best to carry as much of the load as possible should be hung from the nearest tree".

While I agree with you that anyone who fails to support the children they bring into this world, is the lowest form of pond life. Are you proposing a "retroactive abortion" on the deadbeat Dad?? What about the drunken, drugged out, loser bar slut who screws anything that walks and dumps kids into the social service system like christmas packages at UPS? Do you think that a negeligent "Mom" should suffer the same fate as the deadbeat Dad? Is it ok for her to be stoned during gestation only to have the poor child taken away after she neglects it, to have it raised by an overwhelmed child welfare system? Or do we save a spot for her on the old retro abortion tree?

Which "abortion" would be better? The undifferentiated cells who if left to gestate could very well be condemned to a life of abuse and neglect AND quite possibly institutionalizes as a ward of the state - OR- the losers who combined cells to create it with no intention of caring for it? The ultimate irony of it all, is the poor child who grows up this way is VERY LIKELY to repeat the same pattern of ignorance, abuse, negelect, drug and alcohol abuse and trouble with the law as their low life parents..... but it is not for us to judge how other people live their lives... is it?

It is a very difficult and heart wrenching situation, but the blade cuts both ways and the hypocrits are both liberal and conservative.... Which "abortion" is better??
 
Contrarian said:
Right to lifers stand upon the sanctity of a life which in some cases is no more that a clump of amorphous cells, with no potential for autonomous viability (at early stages). Not to devalue the fetus, but it is not yet a "person". Someones existing sibling, mother,father - good or bad, with a life already underway. YET right to lifers, are willing to march a fully viable, walking, talking, son, daughter, sister, brother, mother, father, breathing "soul" into the death chamber EVEN WHEN guilt has not been established "BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT" and kill them without a lick of remorse at the loss of that life. This happens with extreme prejudice in the convoluted religious puzzle palace know as Texas, with great regularity. So, let's not be hypocritical here. As I pointed out to Fantasea, in a recent poll on the death penalty in CT - it was shown that very few (about 20% - I forget the exact number... forgive me Fantasea) Catholics in CT were pro-choice YET over 70% were PRO-DEATH PENALTY. In my mind this is the height of hypocracy.

Excellent rebutal!

It would seem that your conclusion does not address the Jury. The jury of one's peers is what requests the death penalty. This is by law. If the person was sentenced to death and they were not guilty - the blood is on the hands of the Jury. Not mine. However, if a Jury were needed to murder a fetus, then abortion would be ok in my book.

Just not sure how we could get 6 unborn feti(?) to proclaim guilt on another unborn.
 
HOOEY I SAY!!

The PEOPLE of the State, put the "convicted" party to death. WHen the sentence is read this week in CT (and every other week in Texas) to the condemned man.... it will be by order of the PEOPLE OF THE STATE that he is put to death.

Sentences are also the providence of the State laws. The people as a whole can challange the validity of the law as was done on the federal level with Roe v Wade. Like it or not, it is still the law of the land. Just like killing people with inferior Public Defenders is OK in the Lone Star State

The blood is on all the hands, of the people of the state.
 
mect said:
Well, that is really the key of the issue. I believe that like all moral issues that are affected by law, it should be voted on, and the voice of the american people should decide. So at this point many people are probably thinking, this is where freedom of choice comes into the arguement. The mother should be allowed to make that decision, not have it made for her.
I am in agreement with much of what you write. However, I do not believe that the question of abortion truly involves a moral issue.

It is true that during the runup to Roe v. Wade, those in opposition to abortion based their stand to a very large extent on religious beliefs which, of course, are a matter of morals. If one considers the limited understanding of much of what was going on in the womb, and the question of when life begins, it is easy to see that there was not much for abortion opponents to argue except the religious or moral aspect.

That was tragic because the question of abortion itself became sidetracked as the argument switched to discussions of religious freedom and forcing one's religious beliefs upon others.

If one reviews the language emloyed by Justice Blackmun in Section IX-B of the Roe v. Wade decision, one can see the dilemma. On the one hand, the State of Texas is arguing that life begins at conception and Justice Blackmun, with the assent of the concurring justices lamented that since the medical, scientific, and religious communities were not in agreement on the question of whether life begins at conception, they would not 'speculate' on the answer but would leave it to a future court to decide.

In the intervening years, advances in science, obstetrics, and genetics have removed all doubt as to what is going on with a life in the womb and when
that life actually began. Renowned researchers, a Nobel laureate among them have been able to work backward to prove that human life actually begins at the moment of conception, and from that point continues through a number of stages that unless interrupted by unnatural intervention will terminate naturally in the stage called 'old age'.

This knowledge takes the choice, vote, or legislation out of the picture. Human life in any and every stage is to be protected.

Had today's knowledge been available in 1973, There would have been no Roe v. Wade that made abortion on demand legal.
 
Hold on my esteemed opponent. Please provide the scientific references that state that "life begins at conception"... I must have missed that one in my scientific and medical journals. Geez... that is headline material, yet it seemed to escape everyone.

The definition of life goes far beyond a complete set of chromosomes and potentiality for morphogenisis. Sorry my friend, you'll have to do better than that.

I happen to agree with your revue of the Roe v Wade genesis, but I must challange one statement. The inference that possessing moral values is exclusively the providence of those with religious belief, or anti-abortion positions is quite disappointing. Common definitions are:

Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous:
a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

Morality is a matter of societal influences including, but not exclusive to religion. As societies evolved, the various codes of conduct also developed defining what people deem as right or wrong. One persons right, is very often someones wrong. There are those who are Atheist pro-choice that are very moral people, as well as those who claim the mantle of God and anti-abortion who are completely devoid of moral compass.
 
heyjoeo said:
Fant, YOU can't decide that they are children. That topic is still up in the air. There is no need to justify abortions because you can't justify if the fetus is living or not.

The decision is made by scientists, obstetricians, and geneticists whose research on the subject proves the point.

I've provided references in other threads but you have chosen, thus far to ignore them.
 
Contrarian said:
Hold on my esteemed opponent. Please provide the scientific references that state that "life begins at conception"... I must have missed that one in my scientific and medical journals. Geez... that is headline material, yet it seemed to escape everyone.

May I direct your attention to Dr. Jerome Lejeune, a geneticist who, among other things, is credited with having identified the genetic defect responsible for 'Down's Syndrome'?

He has ofen been referred to by colleagues as 'The Father of Genetics'.

Court testimony:
http://www.sedin.org/propeng/embryos.htm

US Senate subcommittee testimony:
http://www.californiaprolife.org/abortion/whendoes.html

There's quite a bit of reading between the two. If you have questions or need more information, let me know.
 
First off, just because something is an "individual" doesn't not make it a life. Just because the genes are "unique" does not mean it is living. His main argument is that when the 23 chromosomes align with the 23 chromosomes, it creates a unique individual with its very own 46 chromosomes required to make a human being. However, the existance of a unique strand of DNA does not mean a living breathing human being. The fetus does not have a mind, or a heart, just a strand a DNA. We carry strand of DNA around in our bodies that could be potential "life." Thousands and Thousands of DNA is wasted every time two humans attempt to create a life. What about those? Is that murder too?

I didn't have time to read it all, but I got the jist of it.
 
heyjoeo what do you define as life? biologicly there is no argument that at all stages whether you beleive it is human or not that the fetus is alive

from the moment of conception it begins to grow and develop using nutrients this is what basic life forms do, the difference being this basic multicellular lifeform will eventually develop into a complete child

it seems pretty basic to me if it has the limbs of a human the organs of a human the brainwaves of a human has a heartbeat independent thought, and movement(if it isnt alive why the does it kick in the womb?) how is it not human life to say anything else is to merely look away for the sake of convienience

heyjoeo u said u wouldnt beleive the national right to life info but does your info, or emotions come from an equally biased source?
 
i beleive that you may have just lost the arguement heyjoeo because as was stated earlier a human fetus aquires a heart and brain in 30-45 days , well before most abortions are done
 
heyjoeo said:
First off, just because something is an "individual" doesn't not make it a life. Just because the genes are "unique" does not mean it is living. His main argument is that when the 23 chromosomes align with the 23 chromosomes, it creates a unique individual with its very own 46 chromosomes required to make a human being. However, the existance of a unique strand of DNA does not mean a living breathing human being. The fetus does not have a mind, or a heart, just a strand a DNA. We carry strand of DNA around in our bodies that could be potential "life." Thousands and Thousands of DNA is wasted every time two humans attempt to create a life. What about those? Is that murder too?

I didn't have time to read it all, but I got the jist of it.
When you do have the time, I hope you'll go back and finish the reading. Perhaps you will then get the 'punch line'.

At the point you understand that natural human life is a continuum from conception through birth, adolescence, adulthood, to old age, you will then realize that what you have written is incorrect.
 
Why don't you just divulge the punchline and prove your point, rather then just saying I'm incorrect.
 
I feel that I'm a pretty pro-choice guy.I have a question now for all you noble pro-lifers. How can you be against abortion, yet feel it's perfectly OK to send an 18 y/o to his death for a cause that is yest unkown? How can you be pro-life and yet be for the death penalty when it's known that innocent people have been executed in the past, and, by all estimations, they will happen in the future? I myself am guilty of this paradoxical position as I support a woman's right to choose, and I'm against the death penalty. But my explanation is simple: First off, most of the people who truly deserve death are anxious to die because they truly don't care about life. Why not make these people suffer in prison? Make them live and think about their actions. Secondly, we must realize that our justice system isn't perfect, and that sometimes an innocent is sentenced to death.
 
if they are so willing to die why do criminals eat up federal spending on endless appeals? by the way i agree that its hypocritical im pro life and against the death penalty
 
heyjoeo said:
Why don't you just divulge the punchline and prove your point, rather then just saying I'm incorrect.
Punchline: Human life begins at conception.

A world renowned geneticist told the story and buttressed it with research findngs. Therein lies the proof. If you can produce some factual information from a scientific, obstetric, or geneticist source that disagrees with the research findings of Dr. Jerome Lejeune, please do so.

If you cannot, then may I suggest that you either accept the research findings of Dr.Lejeune or stop arguing points which you cannot support?

Denial of scientific fact is not rebuttle or refutation. Neither is it the answer.
 
anomaly said:
I feel that I'm a pretty pro-choice guy.I have a question now for all you noble pro-lifers. How can you be against abortion, yet feel it's perfectly OK to send an 18 y/o to his death for a cause that is yest unkown? How can you be pro-life and yet be for the death penalty when it's known that innocent people have been executed in the past, and, by all estimations, they will happen in the future? I myself am guilty of this paradoxical position as I support a woman's right to choose, and I'm against the death penalty. But my explanation is simple: First off, most of the people who truly deserve death are anxious to die because they truly don't care about life. Why not make these people suffer in prison? Make them live and think about their actions. Secondly, we must realize that our justice system isn't perfect, and that sometimes an innocent is sentenced to death.
Every time this argument is raised, I smell a 'red herring' being dragged across the road in order to throw the 'hounds' off the scent.

These are two separate, unrelated questions; each having no relation to the other.

Discuss them individually and sensible arguments can proceed. Mix them, a la, apples and oranges, and confusion is the best that can result.

Just as an example, how can the legal aborting of nearly fifty million infants in the womb, whose only offense is making their presence known at an inopportune time, be compared to the legal execution of fewer than ten thousand persons duly tried, convicted, and sentenced for the commission of a capital crime?
 
That isn't a punchline. And I already told you. That "doctor" outsteps the boundaries of science to assume that 52 genes automatically creates an new human being. All it does is create a unique identity. However, this does NOT prove that the "child" is in fact living, just the fact the fertilization caused two sets of genes to fuze together for the possiblity of child-rearing.

Also, I find it quite hilarious that you seem to be a realtivist when it comes to abortion/capital punishment and you push for setting moral standards. For example, it's ok for an invidividual to be killed because of a crime, but the child that was "killed" didn't have a chance to defend itself so that killing is WRONG!

Fant said:
Discuss them individually and sensible arguments can proceed. Mix them, a la, apples and oranges, and confusion is the best that can result.

The only person confused is yourself. Why do you avoid the topic? Because you don't have an answer to the question.

One argument most pro-lifers ignore is the concept of a miscarriage. A miscarriage, also known as spontaneous abortion, doesn't even involve women's choice. They didn't try to "abort" the baby, it happened with a miscarriage. Should that person be punished?
 
Thank you Jufarius. I thought about mentioning this misuse of federal money. To me that's another reason to get rid of the death penalty. If we don't sentence these criminals to death, then people's tax dollars can be used on more important things. And about the ones willing to die: I meant the crazy ones who are actually deserving of death (Tim McVeigh) are usually the ones wanting to die. There are some sane ones, though, who don't want to die and that's where the appeals come from. (omg did I just agree with Jufarius on something?)
 
heyjoeo said:
That isn't a punchline.
That's OK. I realize that for you to accept the punchline would be an admission you are unwilling to make.

And I already told you.
You already told me? What are your qualifications for 'telling' anyone anything on the subject? Other than repeatedly voice a totally unfounded opinion, what have you done?

That "doctor"
Mock if you wish. However, Dr. Jerome Lejeune, the geneticist who was honored for discovering the gene that causes Down's Syndrome and is regarded as the father of modern genetics, is not to be dismissed lighly.

outsteps the boundaries of science to assume that 52 genes automatically creates an new human being.
I don't know whether it's your reading or your math, but when 23 male chromosomes and 23 female chromosomes unite it makes a total of 46 chromosomes that unite to conceive a new human life which has characteristics of both parents.

All it does is create a unique identity. However, this does NOT prove that the "child" is in fact living, just the fact the fertilization caused two sets of genes to fuze together for the possiblity of child-rearing.

Tell me the qualifications you possess that would make one accept this statement of yours. Since you speak with such authority, perhaps you can tell us the point at which human life does begin. Bear in mind that 'preemies', weighing less than a can of Coke at birth, are now attending school.

Also, I find it quite hilarious that you seem to be a realtivist when it comes to abortion/capital punishment and you push for setting moral standards. For example, it's ok for an invidividual to be killed because of a crime, but the child that was "killed" didn't have a chance to defend itself so that killing is WRONG!
I find it sad that you are unable to remember two things I have repeated, ad nauseum, in this forum.

First, I never discuss abortion on any basis except that it kills a living human being and there is no scientific or medical reason that justifies the fifty million abortions since Roe v. Wade.

Second, I believe that life without parole is the better alternative.

You seem to have great difficulty in coming up with anything of a factual nature. I know the reason. It's simply because there are no facts that support your emotional position.

The only person confused is yourself. Why do you avoid the topic? Because you don't have an answer to the question.

One argument most pro-lifers ignore is the concept of a miscarriage. A miscarriage, also known as spontaneous abortion, doesn't even involve women's choice. They didn't try to "abort" the baby, it happened with a miscarriage. Should that person be punished?

That anyone could make this statement defies belief. Do you not understand the difference between a deliberate act which is intended to result in the death of an unborn child and the tragic and unintended natural or accidental death of an unborn child?
 
Last edited:
i really wish a liberal wouyld answer my part of the arguement though it is mainly logic based.........

if a "fetus" or child has human organs a human mind that thinks and human limbs and body why is it not living or declared a human being as it has all the qualities of humanity?
 
My version of the liberal argument goes something like this: if the fetus is still inside the mother, it is a part of her. So she should have the right to make the decision whether to have the baby or not. As evil as it may sound, the fetus is a parasite, that is, it lives off the mother, it eats what she eats etc. Liberals are NOT pro-abortion (I personally feel that abortion is only "ok" in cases of rape), they are pro-mother's rights or pro-choice. I simply feel that a woman should have the right to choose. If a woman is against abortion, good for her. Have the baby. But do not press your morals on some other woman and say she is a "murderer" for having an abortion when you have no idea of the circumstances or the thought process involved in this decision. In summary, basically liberals want to give a woman personal freedom to live her life how she feels is best.
 
anomaly said:
My version of the liberal argument goes something like this: if the fetus is still inside the mother, it is a part of her. So she should have the right to make the decision whether to have the baby or not.
The child in the womb is a seprate, distinct individual with its own DNA which is different from that of the mother, a blood type which may be different from the mother, gender which may be different from that of the mother. The child is never part of the mother.

As evil as it may sound, the fetus is a parasite, that is, it lives off the mother, it eats what she eats etc.
Since this parasitic condition continues for many years after a child is born, your argument makes a good case for permitting abortion up to at least the teen years, doesn't it?

Liberals are NOT pro-abortion (I personally feel that abortion is only "ok" in cases of rape), they are pro-mother's rights or pro-choice. I simply feel that a woman should have the right to choose. If a woman is against abortion, good for her. Have the baby. But do not press your morals on some other woman

What do morals have to do with the question? Nothing at all. Abortion is the taking of a human life simply because the timing of the pregnancy is an embarrassment or an inconvenience.

and say she is a "murderer" for having an abortion when you have no idea of the circumstances or the thought process involved in this decision. In summary, basically liberals want to give a woman personal freedom to live her life how she feels is best.
How about the same consideration for the child who is working mighty hard to live its life.
 
Abortion, the one issue where I can forgive someone for voting Republican.

If abortion is outlawed...more women will certainly die as a result.

Where's the morality in that?
 
I'd just like to clarify something. The fetus is only a parasite while it is attached to the umbilical cord, while it absolutely needs its mother in the highest sense of the word. Frankly, I agree with must of what you say, Fantasea, but again, it is not my place nor anyone else's to tell a woman how to act with her own body or something inside her body. And, if Hoot is right, you have to consider that also.

By the way, Hoot, I don't think your really serious in your first statement, that you can "forgive" someone for voting Republican if its because of abortion. I don't think you can forgive them still. I must point out that the odds of Roe v. Wade being completely overturned are about the same as George Bush being elected to a third term. This may be an exageration, but lets just say its not very likely. So, perhaps its time for these blue collar, hard-working patriots to start voting for their economic well being.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom