• 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.

Liberals are sick!

26 X World Champs said:
Originally Posted by sebastiansdreams
Therefore, anytime before a person can walk they are not a child and subject to termination.
I'll bite...if you think that's true then when will this practice begin? Will it cost the same as a regular abortion? Will it be covered by Medicare? Do you still get to name it?

Seriously though, isn't it foolish to post what you wrote? It's that type of nonsense that only creates discourse and tension....you know?
The argument makes as much sense as killing a child while its still in the womb.

Why should either be killed? What has either done that warrants its death?
 
ShamMol said:
after six months in the womb, a fetus begins to conciously think
What is the significance of six months? Why not eight? Or four? Or seven? Or three? Or some other number?

Is this your personal opinion?

Or, is there some competent authority you can cite or to which you can refer us for a factual statement?

If it is merely your uninformed opinion, how much weight should we assign to it?
 
26 X World Champs said:
A 10 week old fetus is not alive in the sense that it can live for even 10 minutes without being connected to its mother.
While this is true, what is the justification for "pulling the plug", so to speak?
 
ShamMol said:
Their thinking ability doesn't matter, the fact that they conciously think is what is important to make a human a human.
This is the basic argument for euthanizing those who cannot enjoy a superior quality of life.

It is also the argument used by those who oppose using heroic measure support systems to sustain the lives of seriously injured persons.
 
satinloveslibs said:
Liberals just say feotus just to cover up how sick they really are. What if you were an aborted baby? Would you say to your mom-" Mom it's ok that you didn't want to take care of me. You were right. Killing me was the best thing that you have ever done." KILL KILL KILL!
Yeah, because you know, fetuses can talk... :roll:

Ooooh I said the F word...
 
A Dawg86 said:
That is a biased bullshit website aimed at Christianizing the debate. Nice try.
Certainly you are sufficiently sophisticated to look beyond the leanings of the host of the website and focus on the biological aspect of the material being presented, aren't you?

Or, are you so lacking in sophistication that all you can see is the leanings of the host of the website and are unable to focus on the biological aspect of the material being presented?

I would prefer to think the former; however you give me cause to suspect the latter. Which is it?

Perhaps you'd prefer to try a different web page. One which is decidedly secular in point of view. Here are several.

http://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment/index

This one is particularly interesting. It permits you to check the progress, week by week. Be sure to try it.

http://www.verybestbaby.com/default.asp?changedStage=5&showMore=False

This one is quite exciting. Be sure to check out the photos.

http://www.wprc.org/fetal.phtml

If you decide to visit these, let me know what you think. But please, spare us the vulgarity.
 
Oh that's right! Ugh what am I thinking? To think that the woman is in no way involved! To force her to carry the pregnancy to full term even if she dosen't want to! Ugh! Shame on me for thinking that women have rights. :roll:

Sorry, I don't care what the god damned fetus looks like, the woman has more rights and therefor with that in mind, can terminate the pregancy if she so chooses.
 
satinloveslibs said:
It's illegal to murder dogs and cats, but not a baby?

Wrong. It is not illegal to kill dogs and cats, only to torture them. Dogs, cats and other animals are routinely killed in this country.

satinloveslibs said:
Thanks for the "retard" comments about me. Do you think that everyone with a different viewpoint than you is stupid?

People who make vast generalizations are, in fact, demonstrating stupid behavior.

It's okay though. Us libs love Satan, too.
 
Fantasea said:
Certainly you are sufficiently sophisticated to look beyond the leanings of the host of the website and focus on the biological aspect of the material being presented, aren't you?

Certainly you are sophisticated to look beyond your own party lines and realize that a site called "Christian Answers" is unlikely to give answers that a non-Christian person would give credit to. The mindset of people who link to that site as "proof" of anything is why abortion will not become illegal. As long as you keep framing it, subconsciously or not, as a religious debate, you will lose.

Fantasea said:
Or, are you so lacking in sophistication that all you can see is the leanings of the host of the website and are unable to focus on the biological aspect of the material being presented?

Are you only capable of focusing on "OMG THEY AGREE WITH ME, THEY CAN'T BE FAULTED!"? If it such respectable material, certainly there is a non-religious site that offers the same text.

Of course, with me, you'd be hardpressed to impress me with photos of a fetus cooking up my other eggs. I don't want to be pregnant, I don't want to have kids, I'm not interested in any of it. So it doesn't matter if you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fetus is a person the second the sperms permeates the egg. Unless it's your egg, it's none of your business.
 
Fantasea said:
While this is true, what is the justification for "pulling the plug", so to speak?

Because the body that is the power source for that plug does not want to support it. And no one else in this country is forced to support another person with their bodily resources.
 
A Dawg86 said:
Oh that's right! Ugh what am I thinking? To think that the woman is in no way involved! To force her to carry the pregnancy to full term even if she dosen't want to! Ugh! Shame on me for thinking that women have rights. :roll:

Sorry, I don't care what the god damned fetus looks like, the woman has more rights and therefor with that in mind, can terminate the pregancy if she so chooses.
Thank you for confirming the level of your sophistication. However, you don't seem to have gotten the message regarding vulgarity, did you?
 
Scorpio said:
Because the body that is the power source for that plug does not want to support it. And no one else in this country is forced to support another person with their bodily resources.
It is refreshing to know that, at least, you understand it is another person who is the victim of an abortion.

I wonder just how coincidental it can be that your AOL Horoscope for today reads:

You Scorpions can do your best processing while under immense pressure, and today has great potential for forcing you to transform. Some of the resistance you are experiencing depends on how you've reacted to recent changes. If you took the opportunity, today may be easy as cake. But if you are in a self-protective mode, this can be a bit tougher. Let go of what you think you have. If it is really yours, you'll still have it.

Perhaps you should take a look at those unborn kids. The ones on the web sites that A Dawg86 was complaining about.
 
Scorpio said:
Certainly you are sophisticated to look beyond your own party lines and realize that a site called "Christian Answers" is unlikely to give answers that a non-Christian person would give credit to. The mindset of people who link to that site as "proof" of anything is why abortion will not become illegal. As long as you keep framing it, subconsciously or not, as a religious debate, you will lose.
Being new to this forum you could not know that I never argue the question of abortion on the basis of religion. It is purely a sectarian matter. The only reason I cited the web site is because it does a great job of explaining the biological growth of the occupant of a womb.
Are you only capable of focusing on "OMG THEY AGREE WITH ME, THEY CAN'T BE FAULTED!"? If it such respectable material, certainly there is a non-religious site that offers the same text.
You are correct. This material is available elsewhere and, as you may have noted, in a subsequent post, I cited an additional three, all of which have no religious affiliation.
Of course, with me, you'd be hardpressed to impress me with photos of a fetus cooking up my other eggs. I don't want to be pregnant, I don't want to have kids, I'm not interested in any of it. So it doesn't matter if you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fetus is a person the second the sperms permeates the egg. Unless it's your egg, it's none of your business.
The death of a child while still in the womb is the same as the death of a child after it emerges from the womb. To the extent that the life of the one is worthy of defense and protection, so is the other.
 
ShamMol said:
I don't agree with this at all. The difference between a Zygote or fetus and a child is the ability to conciously think. But, hey, nobody in this forum agrees that personhood begins at conception, so why did I bother posting this...

Given time, approximately 9 months, this CHILD would meet your definition of "living."

Avg age of human beings 75 years old.

75 x 12 = 900 months.

900/9 = 100

9 months is a 1/100 of a person's life. I simply think one should tough it out until it meets there definition of living.
 
Fant, have you ever accepted the fact that fetuses are undeniably biological parasites, and, therefore, all rights automatically go to the host, or in this case, the mother.
 
Have you ever accepted the fact that these "biological parasites" are undeniably potential human beings?

I believe both have rights.
 
anomaly said:
Fant, have you ever accepted the fact that fetuses are undeniably biological parasites, and, therefore, all rights automatically go to the host, or in this case, the mother.
I don't accept fallacies.
 
Fantasea said:
I don't accept fallacies.
Well, atleast Gandhi atempted to respond. But, to both of you, my point is that we cannot sacrifice the rights of a woman in favor of a parasite, her fetus. Do you not agree? Sure, I'm not 'pro-abortion' guy, I'm just pro-choice. But to deny women any right to have this procedure would be to do exactly what I do not wish to happen, as it would give more rights to the fetus than to the woman.
 
anomaly said:
Well, atleast Gandhi atempted to respond. But, to both of you, my point is that we cannot sacrifice the rights of a woman in favor of a parasite, her fetus. Do you not agree? Sure, I'm not 'pro-abortion' guy, I'm just pro-choice. But to deny women any right to have this procedure would be to do exactly what I do not wish to happen, as it would give more rights to the fetus than to the woman.
What is the 'choice' in Pro-Choice? The choice is whether the child lives or the child dies. Initially the movement was referred to as Pro-Abortion. When the name drew criticism because of its obvious intent, the cowards looked for a euphemism with a 'softer' sound; hence Pro-Choice.

The correct descriptors are Pro Life and Pro Death. Anyone who is not Pro Life must be Pro Death.

How can there be a middle ground? Is there a procedure which will render a child only partially dead?
 
Fantasea said:
What is the 'choice' in Pro-Choice? The choice is whether the child lives or the child dies. Initially the movement was referred to as Pro-Abortion. When the name drew criticism because of its obvious intent, the cowards looked for a euphemism with a 'softer' sound; hence Pro-Choice.

The correct descriptors are Pro Life and Pro Death. Anyone who is not Pro Life must be Pro Death.

How can there be a middle ground? Is there a procedure which will render a child only partially dead?
Have you lost all ability to reason so quickly? I do not particularly like abortion, but I dislike even more the prospect of the state telling a woman what she may or may not do with something growing inside her. Everything is so black and white to you, and you know, that really explains a lot.
 
anomaly said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
What is the 'choice' in Pro-Choice? The choice is whether the child lives or the child dies. Initially the movement was referred to as Pro-Abortion. When the name drew criticism because of its obvious intent, the cowards looked for a euphemism with a 'softer' sound; hence Pro-Choice.

The correct descriptors are Pro Life and Pro Death. Anyone who is not Pro Life must be Pro Death.

How can there be a middle ground? Is there a procedure which will render a child only partially dead?
Have you lost all ability to reason so quickly? I do not particularly like abortion, but I dislike even more the prospect of the state telling a woman what she may or may not do with something growing inside her. Everything is so black and white to you, and you know, that really explains a lot.
Black and white. Live or die. Where is a middle ground? There is none. The choice is one of two absolutes.

One is either Pro Life which means the the child must live; or Pro Death which means that one does not care that a child will die.
 
Fantasea said:
Black and white. Live or die. Where is a middle ground? There is none. The choice is one of two absolutes.

One is either Pro Life which means the the child must live; or Pro Death which means that one does not care that a child will die.
You are a freedom loving conservative, yet you wish government to have absolute authority over every pregnant female in the country? No, abortion will always be a choice, and you, despite your best efforts, can do nothing about this. You do not control the minds of women, I'm sorry.
 
anomaly said:
Have you lost all ability to reason so quickly? I do not particularly like abortion, but I dislike even more the prospect of the state telling a woman what she may or may not do with something growing inside her. Everything is so black and white to you, and you know, that really explains a lot.
Do you believe that racism is ever okay? Do you think adultery is ever okay? Do you think tax evasion is ever okay? Do you think suicide is ever okay? These are all things that most people agree are black and white. And yet, there are some who believe there is no black or white, only different shades of grey.
Who is right? Is it wrong to see the world from black and white? Far too many people on this forum believe they speak for the world when they say that "grey" is the only real color of actions... but there are many many people who do not feel this way. It is interesting that for so long many intellectuals were persecuted by the church for attempting to think differently than the rest. And now that it is common to accept that the world exists on a grey scale, and now it is some of the religious who are persecuted for believing something other than what the masses would have them believe. Interesting.
I simply do not believe that the lesser of the two evils in the debate is preserving a woman's right to choose what she does with what is inside her body. If the question is the life of a child, then would it not be more sensible to err on the side of potential life than potential discomfort?
A woman always has the right to make choices with her body. If she chooses not to have sex, then she will not be pregnant. If she chooses to have sex, there is a possibility of pregnancy. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, that is her choice. If a woman chooses to use her body to murder her child when it is five, that is her choice. The question is not about freedom of choice. No one is attempting to control the minds of women. I only offer that if they decide to make the choice of having an abortion, they should be also be tried for murder one. Life is all about choices, and no one can or ever will take those choices away from you. But everyone must weigh their consequences before they make their choice, and I simply think that that should be a consequence.
 
Back
Top Bottom