• 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!

my beef with the Liberal position.

Well unless you intend to personally pay all the bills, or can absolutely guarantee someone will adopt each child and take proper care of them until they reach adulthood, your point has very little merit. :)

I see more in people than their cost. Any life is better than no life at all.
 
Your reasoning wasn't sufficient for me to write off what will be a human being as being "unworthy of my consideration".

It is not relevant whether you accept my "reasoning." During that first 20 weeks a zygote and a fetus are only a "potential" human being; not one in fact. It is not thinking or feeling, it cannot survive independently, therefore unless you somehow attribute a "spiritual humanity" to it my reasoning remains sound.
 
I see more in people than their cost. Any life is better than no life at all.

Now you are not offering a reasoned argument, but merely mouthing platitudes. When you have a real argument, let me know.
 
Now you are not offering a reasoned argument, but merely mouthing platitudes. When you have a real argument, let me know.

Is there something wrong with his argument? Is being able to experience life not better than not experiencing it at all?
 
It is not relevant whether you accept my "reasoning." During that first 20 weeks a zygote and a fetus are only a "potential" human being; not one in fact. It is not thinking or feeling, it cannot survive independently, therefore unless you somehow attribute a "spiritual humanity" to it my reasoning remains sound.

It was relevant when you pointed me to your reasoning as answers to my questions. Do you believe it can survive independently at any point before birth?
 
Is there something wrong with his argument? Is being able to experience life not better than not experiencing it at all?

More platitudes, and still not an argument. Something can only experience life if it is, in fact, living. You seem to forget (again) that neither a zygote nor a developing fetus is an independent living thing during that first 20 weeks.

That is unless you consider any group of cells in your own body "living things." In which case we open up another can of worms regarding ALL living things and our wreckless human activity which ends them at our whims. Example, don't shave or sunbathe because you inevitably destroy skins cells when you do. LOL
 
It was relevant when you pointed me to your reasoning as answers to my questions. Do you believe it can survive independently at any point before birth?

Yes, we've had at least one known premie which survived at 24 weeks. That seems to be the earliest know example, if I recall correctly. Hence my support of the science behind Roe v. Wade.

Why is it unreasonable to say any life is better than none?

See my response to henrin in the immediately prior post above.
 
More platitudes, and still not an argument. Something can only experience life if it is, in fact, living. You seem to forget (again) that neither a zygote nor a developing fetus is an independent living thing during that first 20 weeks.

That is unless you consider any group of cells in your own body "living things." In which case we open up another can of worms regarding ALL living things and our wreckless human activity which ends them at our whims. Example, don't shave or sunbathe because you inevitably destroy skins cells when you do. LOL
You fail to see a difference between dead cells and living cells.
 
Yes, we've had at least one known premie which survived at 24 weeks. That seems to be the earliest know example, if I recall correctly. Hence my support of the science behind Roe v. Wade.

Do you think an infant could realistically survive independently?
 
Do you think an infant could realistically survive independently?

Please WAIT as my signature requests. Had you done so you would see I have combined your questions into one response. Now I am going to hold off any further responses until you combine yours into a single post. I am dealing with many threads not just this one, and I'd llike to save some time. When I see a combined post I will respond. Thank you.
 
I mean, people are forced to give birth to children who will, hopefully, be adopted. That what you propose?

How many kids are there waiting to be adopted right now?

I'd rather be in a ****ty home or adopted (or both) than have my brains sucked out. Any life is better than no life.

This may sound strange but I'd say that before any male advocate of Pro-Life speaks to the process of requiring a woman to carry an unwanted baby to term, they set up a personal "baby burden" experiment.

Anyone remember those old Home Economics projects where students taking the class had to pretend to take care of a baby? I say using modern technology we strap a growing "baby machine" to each man's stomach and let him endure 9 months of it as it slowly gains weight, kicks, puts pressure on his back, etc. To further simulate the process, he would be required to take medication periodically to simulate the internal upsets that occur during this process that women go through. Finally, to experience birth pains, strap an expanding catheter inside his penis and add electronic muscle spasms.

If at the end of nine months of this "baby burden" experiment he still thinks a women should be forced to endure this just to give a baby an opportunity to be adopted, we can count his vote as having some small value. Otherwise, any male arguing on behalf of forcing women to endure childbirth has no merit.
And I hope the lesson the men would learn from that experiment is to have an abortion EARLY if you're going to have one. There's absolutely no reason to wait longer than 8-12 weeks for an elective abortion. 20 weeks is absolut
 
I'd rather be in a ****ty home or adopted (or both) than have my brains sucked out. Any life is better than no life.


And I hope the lesson the men would learn from that experiment is to have an abortion EARLY if you're going to have one. There's absolutely no reason to wait longer than 8-12 weeks for an elective abortion. 20 weeks is absolut

Add the caveat but not later than 20 weeks, and I believe we are in agreement. :)
 
Please WAIT as my signature requests. Had you done so you would see I have combined your questions into one response. Now I am going to hold off any further responses until you combine yours into a single post. I am dealing with many threads not just this one, and I'd llike to save some time. When I see a combined post I will respond. Thank you.

Sounds like a cop out to me. Lol But no seriously, the two questions you haven't answered are Do you think an infant can realistically survive independently? Also, how would you feel about a survey asking young adults who grew up in poor homes if they would have rather been aborted? And "please WAIT"? You need to relax.
 
Add the caveat but not later than 20 weeks, and I believe we are in agreement. :)


It is not relevant whether you accept my "reasoning." During that first 20 weeks a zygote and a fetus are only a "potential" human being; not one in fact. It is not thinking or feeling, it cannot survive independently, therefore unless you somehow attribute a "spiritual humanity" to it my reasoning remains sound.

It has a unique heartbeat and unique brain activity as early as 8 weeks. That sounds pretty human to me. What decision could possibly require 20 weeks to make? Why can that decision not be made in 12? It's pure laziness to sit there and just wait as this human being further develops and grows, just to suck its brain out.

Now you are not offering a reasoned argument, but merely mouthing platitudes. When you have a real argument, let me know.

You are acting rather lazy by not directly addressing his statement. You kind of half-did earlier and are just pulling back to that.

Any life is better than no life. For you to sit there and imply that orphans would be better off dead is extreme and rather insulting to orphans. Scrabaholic held the same reasoning. She claimed to be adopted, that's why she knows how hard it is and why she would rather have all orphans be offed instead of being given a chance.

Personally, I'm not the quitting type, I will fight till my last breath. I'd rather have my mother throw me in a dumpster than abort me. At least with the former I stand SOME chance, no matter how miniscule.

Sounds like a cop out to me. Lol But no seriously, the two questions you haven't answered are Do you think an infant can realistically survive independently? Also, how would you feel about a survey asking young adults who grew up in poor homes if they would have rather been aborted? And "please WAIT"? You need to relax.

I've run into people on DP who have said they'd rather have been aborted. Yet here they are alive and well, so it's pretty obvious that they're full of ****. If they'd rather be dead there's a solution for that.
 
Sounds like a cop out to me. Lol
But no seriously, the two questions you haven't answered are Do you think an infant can realistically survive independently? Also, how would you feel about a survey asking young adults who grew up in poor homes if they would have rather been aborted?

Okay, Question 1.: By survive "independently" I merely meant physically outside of the womb without drastic medical measures "independently." Not grow up and live and make a life etc. "independently."

Question 2: Aside from the fact you might find quite a few who'd vote for being aborted (kids can think like that), it is irrelevant to the issue. We are talking about requiring a woman who discovers she is pregnant and does not wish to have the baby, and your presumption that she should because adoption is the answer. Appealing to "young adults" who grew up in possibly loving, albeit poor, homes is no measure when it comes to the issue at hand. It is a red herring argument.
 
It has a unique heartbeat and unique brain activity as early as 8 weeks. That sounds pretty human to me. What decision could possibly require 20 weeks to make? Why can that decision not be made in 12? It's pure laziness to sit there and just wait as this human being further develops and grows, just to suck its brain out.

I don't think it has unique brain activity beyond the control of automatic functions like that heartbeat you mention. That does not indicate "thought patterns," merely rudimentary brain development.


You are acting rather lazy by not directly addressing his statement. You kind of half-did earlier and are just pulling back to that.

I don't have to respond to platitudes, they are no argument. Besides, I did not "half-respond" I clearly responded that a zygote/fetus in that early stage is no more worthy of my consideration than any cancerous group of cells...or I might add, even my funtional big toe. ;)

Any life is better than no life. For you to sit there and imply that orphans would be better off dead is extreme and rather insulting to orphans. Scrabaholic held the same reasoning. She claimed to be adopted, that's why she knows how hard it is and why she would rather have all orphans be offed instead of being given a chance.

Personally, I'm not the quitting type, I will fight till my last breath. I'd rather have my mother throw me in a dumpster than abort me. At least with the former I stand SOME chance, no matter how miniscule.

Straw man fallacies both. We are not talking about people born and living. We are not even talking about fully functional babies in the womb who deserve our protection.

We are merely talking about a group of developing cells with (sigh, once again) only the POTENTIAL of human life.
 
Okay, Question 1.: By survive "independently" I merely meant physically outside of the womb without drastic medical measures "independently." Not grow up and live and make a life etc. "independently."
So not really surviving independently? I don't know about you, but I don't consider not dying immediately surviving.

Question 2: Aside from the fact you might find quite a few who'd vote for being aborted (kids can think like that), it is irrelevant to the issue. We are talking about requiring a woman who discovers she is pregnant and does not wish to have the baby, and your presumption that she should because adoption is the answer. Appealing to "young adults" who grew up in possibly loving, albeit poor, homes is no measure when it comes to the issue at hand. It is a red herring argument.
My "presumption" is that she should because we are talking about a human being in the sense that this thing that doesn't deserve your consideration will grow up into a human being. This logic that a human fetus isn't a human because it hasn't fully developed doesn't make sense to me. The fact is you are taking life away from what will be a human being. You can cite as many differences between fetuses and further developed humans as much as you please. It does not change that where there was going to be life, a totally unique person, there isn't because in the beginning stages of his/her life there was a decision made that they were not worthy of consideration. It's decided for them that they would rather have no chance at life because it would be difficult.
 
I don't think it has unique brain activity beyond the control of automatic functions like that heartbeat you mention. That does not indicate "thought patterns," merely rudimentary brain development.

EEG measurements are influenced by a unique environment including perpetual deep sleep, inhibitory chemicals and a lack of brain stimulates initiated at birth.
 
Death panel.

Um...cryptic responses are not my thing. To be honest we've only had a few interactions since I joined and I don't know your style well enough to decipher them. Sorry. :)
 
Um...cryptic responses are not my thing. To be honest we've only had a few interactions since I joined and I don't know your style well enough to decipher them. Sorry. :)

In summary, a healthy adult brain in deep sleep, doused in "at least eight fetal, placental and uterine factors with well-demonstrated inhibitory effects" that are withdrawn at birth and without "a range of potent neuroactivators" that are introduced at birth... would appear equally brain-dead.

See the post above that one for details.
 
I don't have to respond to platitudes, they are no argument. Besides, I did not "half-respond" I clearly responded that a zygote/fetus in that early stage is no more worthy of my consideration than any cancerous group of cells...or I might add, even my funtional big toe. ;)
You think comparing cancer cells to cells at the start of human life is an argument?
 
I don't think it has unique brain activity beyond the control of automatic functions like that heartbeat you mention. That does not indicate "thought patterns," merely rudimentary brain development.




I don't have to respond to platitudes, they are no argument. Besides, I did not "half-respond" I clearly responded that a zygote/fetus in that early stage is no more worthy of my consideration than any cancerous group of cells...or I might add, even my funtional big toe. ;)



Straw man fallacies both. We are not talking about people born and living. We are not even talking about fully functional babies in the womb who deserve our protection.

We are merely talking about a group of developing cells with (sigh, once again) only the POTENTIAL of human life.

n22weeks.jpg


This is a 20 week fetus. At 19.9 weeks, this wasn't a clump of cells.

You think comparing cancer cells to cells at the start of human life is an argument?

No rational person can look at a 12-19 week fetus and call it a lump of cells.
 
Why does an unborn human who has their entire life ahead of them have to have "some spirit" associated with them to matter? Also, I think it's silly to compare cells that will soon develop into a human being to cancer cells that generally kill human beings.

"Cells." There's your answer right there. The choice is whether to let those "cells develop" or not to let them "develop" before it becomes a viable human being. Do you ever consider the woman who is a developed viable human being and has a "whole life ahead of her"? After all, it is her body that you want to impose your emotional feelings for cells upon.
 
Back
Top Bottom