• 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!

No unborn human needs or wants legal rights (1 Viewer)

bomberfox said:
So it is not an individual unless it is separate, its part of the mother.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. From birth to several years of age a child is wholly dependent on adults for its survival as well.
 
Dayton3 said:
Irrelevant. From birth to several years of age a child is wholly dependent on adults for its survival as well.
Click to expand...

Dependency and being separate are two different things. The born child is no longer part of the mother.
 
bomberfox said:
So it is not an individual unless it is separate, its part of the mother.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS seemed to see it a bit differently, thus considered viability (the potential to survive outside the mother?) as an important factor.
 
Blue Donkey said:
When pro-lifers say all "unborn babies" (which are really zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses) have the right to life, they completely ignore all of the proven biological facts about in-utero human development. Their mistakes not only include using the wrong temrinology to describe what these human lives and abortion are, but also why only born people need or should have any legal rights. I assume nobody on DP is an expert on obstetrics or human embryololgy. I hope this will help pro-lifers to learn all about that aspect of abortion vs. motherhood instead of just the fact that all pregnant girls and women need the legal right to choose that is already given to them.
Click to expand...

When pro-deathers say all "children" (which are really infants, toddlers, and adolescents) have the right to life, they completely ignore all the proven biological facts about post-utero human development.

Seriously, you think using specific terms to describe a precise moment in development makes any point at all? You think that makes you look smart to say those things? It doesn't. I see this stupid ****ing point from pro-deathers all the time. The propensity to use "zygote", "fetuses", ect, instead of baby or human is just a weak attempt to prop up a failed point using semantics. It's comical to watch people purposefully try to hide the football by using zef, but it's stupid.

Dude...biology is not on your side, ethics is not on your side, morality is not on your side, philosophy is not on your side, and intelligence is not on your side.
 
Dayton3 said:
or I find using minimal responses reduces the chances of what I post being repeated out of context.
Click to expand...

Using minimal responses actually increases the chances your replies will be taken out of context. To have any context, you need to be very specific.
 
Fishking said:
When pro-deathers say all "children" (which are really infants, toddlers, and adolescents) have the right to life, they completely ignore all the proven biological facts about post-utero human development.

Seriously, you think using specific terms to describe a precise moment in development makes any point at all? You think that makes you look smart to say those things? It doesn't. I see this stupid point from pro-deathers all the time. The propensity to use zygote, fetus, etc. instead of baby or human is just a weak attempt to prop up a failed point using semantics. It's comical to watch people purposefully try to hide the football by using zef, but it's stupid.

Dude...biology is not on your side, ethics is not on your side, morality is not on your side, philosophy is not on your side, and intelligence is not on your side.
Click to expand...

All you are doing here is attacking the facts with fiction. Let me know when you learn the meanings of all those human development stage words, who uses them, and why they exist. Then report back to me what all the medical dictionaries say.
 
Aberration said:
Legal fiction. It’s still a real human being with the right to life.
Click to expand...

Prior to 1973 neither a fertilized egg nor a fetus were legally, Biblically, traditionally, historically, intellectually, philosophically, morally or biologically persons and conservative Christian sects wrote approvingly that Roe v Wade limited government interference in private lives. Then suddenly in the early 1980s eggs and fetuses became persons and every conservative Christian turned their attention away from resisting desegregation to fighting against abortion. Christian foot soldiers never wondered what caused the sudden change. They just did as they were told to do and began preaching that eggs and fetuses were people, abortion was murder, women had no right to kill babies and Congress should overturn Roe.

Forty years later still mindlessly claiming personhood for the fetus and condemning women the anti-abortion movement's members still have not asked who made the change, why they did it and what it will accomplish.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his self image depends on his not understanding it." Apologies to H. L, Mencken
 
Last edited:
Aberration said:
Legal fiction. It’s still a real human being with the right to life.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to think any unborn human has the right to life, period.
 
Last edited:
Death cultists will stretch and tear at the fabric of reality itself to justify their bloodlust for the unborn...

Sick.
 
Elvira said:
Wrong...it is a feeling/belief/thought...not everyone agrees with you...
Click to expand...

The only people who say I( am wrong are the those who think women should have no rights.

Think about it. Have you seen a single person who cares about every woman having bodily autonomy and privacy rights say unborn humans have any rights? Have you ever seen people saying the only reason women have legal rights is just their feelings that they should have rights?

Every single person who says women should be forced to carry their unwanted offspring to term uses phrases that can only mean "I don't want women to have any rights."
 
Last edited:
Blue Donkey said:
The only people who say I( am wrong are the those who think women should have no rights.
Click to expand...

Wrong again...I am a woman who believes women should have rights, as well as the unborn...sometimes, being a mature woman means putting another's needs above your own...
 
Elvira said:
Wrong again. I am a woman who believes women should have rights, as well as the unborn. Sometimes, being a mature woman means putting another's needs above your own.
Click to expand...

It is obviously impossible for anyone to think forcing a pregnant woman to carry her unwanted offspring to term is not taking her rights away. So no, you are not in favor of women's rights, if you are opposed to letting them do what they want with their lives which is obviously 100 percent legal to the knowledge of everyone with a high school diploma.

There is no reason to think the unborn should have any rights.
 
Blue Donkey said:
It is obviously impossible for anyone to think forcing a pregnant woman to carry her unwanted offspring to term is not taking her rights away. So no, you are not in favor of women's rights, if you are opposed to letting them do what they want with their lives which is obviously 100 percent legal to the knowledge of everyone with a high school diploma.

There is no reason to think the unborn should have any rights.
Click to expand...

If a woman cannot sacrifice 9 months of her life, to give another life, then she's not a mature woman but a selfish child...that I know...
 
Dayton3 said:
Irrelevant. From birth to several years of age a child is wholly dependent on adults for its survival as well.
Click to expand...
It can depend on any adult though, any other person, not just a specific one it literally shares a blood supply with. That is a huge difference.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
It can depend on any adult though, any other person, not just a specific one it literally shares a blood supply with. That is a huge difference.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well, that should form an even closer bond...but not always...some women have no maternal instincts...
 
Elvira said:
Wrong again...I am a woman who believes women should have rights, as well as the unborn...sometimes, being a mature woman means putting another's needs above your own...
Click to expand...
They may very well be putting the health and wellbeing of born children ahead of their own. They may be ensuring that their born children have a mother who is working and not facing potential death or health problems because of an unwanted pregnancy.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Elvira said:
If a woman cannot sacrifice 9 months of her life, to give another life, then she's not a mature woman but a selfish child...that I know...
Click to expand...
That is your opinion. You dont know her situation. You assume.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Elvira said:
Well, that should form an even closer bond...but not always...some women have no maternal instincts...
Click to expand...
That's right. So they probably shouldn't be having children they do not want to raise, who may be stuck in foster care their entire lives.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom