• 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!

Leftist Ivy League university Princeton says that life begins at fertilization.

Atreus21 said:
Personhood means different things to different people. I want to know how you define it.
Click to expand...
What makes you a Person, the ability to think, meaning you have a brain, guess when that is developed, yeup, same time even most conservative State cut off abortion on demand, right around 20 to 22 weeks, and after most abortions take place. No Brain, No Person. Clear it up for ya, or you still confused?
 
Atreus21 said:
It doesn't matter whether government would do it or not. If they did, would Jews no longer have a right to life?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think such a decision by a nation (to destroy a segment of its own population) would stand. It took a long time, but when the Nazis overstepped the bounds of decency, the World eventually coalesced long enough to put an end to the Axis powers.

To answer your question, No - I don't think any nation has a right to war upon its own people.
 
Comparing a fetus to a Jewish person is anti-Semitic.
 
Lursa said:
Jews are clearly persons protected under the Const. It would require a new amendment changing their status as people. And then the courts would have to work within the 'balancing rights' guidelines.

So...what do you think the courts would use to justify that amendment? Actually, Congress would create & pass the amendment but SCOTUS would need to adjudicate its Constitutionality. So...what justification would you propose they'd use?
Click to expand...

Again, how they does it doesn't matter. Think of any possible scenario. We're invaded and conquered and the new government says Jews can be wantonly killed in the street. Would that mean Jews don't have a right to life? Just yes or no.
 
Atreus21 said:
Again, how they does it doesn't matter. Think of any possible scenario. We're invaded and conquered and the new government says Jews can be wantonly killed in the street. Would that mean Jews don't have a right to life? Just yes or no.
Click to expand...
No. Jews would have a right to life
 
Scrabaholic said:
The govt would have to amend the constitution.
Click to expand...

Okay, constitution is amended to say that Jews aren't human beings. Would that mean they have no right to life?
 
Atreus21 said:
Again, how they does it doesn't matter. Think of any possible scenario. We're invaded and conquered and the new government says Jews can be wantonly killed in the street. Would that mean Jews don't have a right to life? Just yes or no.
Click to expand...

They are people, so the answer is no.
 
southwest88 said:
No, I don't think such a decision by a nation (to destroy a segment of its own population) would stand. It took a long time, but when the Nazis overstepped the bounds of decency, the World eventually coalesced long enough to put an end to the Axis powers.

To answer your question, No - I don't think any nation has a right to war upon its own people.
Click to expand...

That's not the question I asked. I asked if a right to life stops to exist on the government's say so.
 
vegas giants said:
Yes. And it does not exist for a fetus
Click to expand...

I don't understand why not. The fetus is clearly and scientifically a fellow human being. If born human beings have a right to life, I don't see why unborn ones don't.
 
Atreus21 said:
Thank you. That's what I wanted to determine. The right to life exists independent of government.
Click to expand...
No it doesnt. The govt is what created the laws determining the Jews are persons. Based on a legal document that enumerates our rights.

In Germany, their "govt" changed the laws so that they could kill them. That govt erased their right to life.

There is no 'natural' right to life...no other animals have that, why would humans? Rights are a man-made concept.
 
Atreus21 said:
I don't understand why not. The fetus is clearly and scientifically a fellow human being. If born human beings have a right to life, I don't see why unborn ones don't.
Click to expand...
Because the people on this planet overwhelmingly put the life of the mother first.

That's how morals are developed. Slavery was moral at one time when everyone was doing it.

But the vast majority of the world supports abortion
 
Atreus21 said:
I don't understand why not. The fetus is clearly and scientifically a fellow human being. If born human beings have a right to life, I don't see why unborn ones don't.
Click to expand...
Science applies no value to anything. Humans have no more right to life than other animals. Science doesnt recognize any rights for anything. Science doesnt value humans any more than any other animals.

What authority that Americans are obligated to follow says that the unborn have a right to life? You've been shown which one protects the rights of born people.
 
Lursa said:
No it doesnt. The govt is what created the laws determining the Jews are persons. Based on a legal document that enumerates our rights.

In Germany, their "govt" changed the laws so that they could kill them. That govt erased their right to life.

There is no 'natural' right to life...no other animals have that, why would humans? Rights are a man-made concept.
Click to expand...

So killing innocents doesn't disturb you as long as the government sanctions it?
 
vegas giants said:
Because the people on this planet overwhelmingly put the life of the mother first.

That's how morals are developed. Slavery was moral at one time when everyone was doing it.

But the vast majority of the world supports abortion
Click to expand...

Correction: Some people on this planet prioritize sparing the mother 9 months of pregnancy at the expense of the child's life. Pregnancy rarely calls upon a woman to sacrifice her life for her child's, and if it did, nearly everyone is supportive of abortion in that rare case.

Regarding support for abortion, from what I can tell a majority supports early abortion, and a majority supports limits on late abortion.
 
Atreus21 said:
Correction: Some people on this planet prioritize sparing the mother 9 months of pregnancy at the expense of the child's life. Pregnancy rarely calls upon a woman to sacrifice her life for her child's, and if it did, nearly everyone is supportive of abortion in that rare case.

Regarding support for abortion, from what I can tell a majority supports early abortion, and a majority supports limits on late abortion.
Click to expand...
Name a country that outlaws all abortions.

They exist but are hard to find.

If you want to break down which abortions we can but support for abortion is overwhelming
 
Lursa said:
Science applies no value to anything. Humans have no more right to life than other animals. Science doesnt recognize any rights for anything. Science doesnt value humans any more than any other animals.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. The claim that human beings are precious and unique is an entirely dogmatic one. It's the one religious point I'll ever make. It's no surprise the founders grounded their notion of inalienable rights in divine providence.

What authority that Americans are obligated to follow says that the unborn have a right to life? You've been shown which one protects the rights of born people.
Click to expand...

I am honestly confused by this. If tomorrow the SCOTUS overturned Roe, the issue would be returned to the states. It seems to me that, by your logic, you would then say that fetuses have a right to life in red states but not in blue states. Is that correct?
 
Atreus21 said:
So killing innocents doesn't disturb you as long as the government sanctions it?
Click to expand...
I didnt say what Germany did was moral. I was responding to your description of rights/govt.

And why does the innocence of the unborn matter? At that point, they cannot act or even form intent. THey are not 'innocent,' they are empty vessels, a vacuum. They have the same 'innocence' as a couch or a flower....nothingness.

Why do you place value on that kind of emptiness? Esp. why do you place more on that emptiness than women's rights?

Please answer my questions before asking more of your own.
 
Atreus21 said:
Completely agree. The claim that human beings are precious and unique is an entirely dogmatic one. It's the one religious point I'll ever make. It's no surprise the founders grounded their notion of inalienable rights in divine providence.



I am honestly confused by this. If tomorrow the SCOTUS overturned Roe, the issue would be returned to the states. It seems to me that, by your logic, you would then say that fetuses have a right to life in red states but not in blue states. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
It would depend on the decision. Separate but equal was NOT returned to the states for example
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom