• 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!

pro-life[W:1119]

Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
I told you. Just because the innocent no longer suffers does not excuse the crime.
Click to expand...

I didnt write that. I didnt mention suffering. I asked why you arent happy for the unborn?

And there is no crime. Not under US law.
 
Re: pro-life

FutureIncoming said:
NICE TRY, BUT NO CIGAR. That's because the author of that linked text specifically chooses one translation over another. Why should we assume that is the correct translation? Furthermore, the Jews themselves do not always oppose abortion, and the stuff in Exodus is specifically directed to the Hebrews/Jews. You would think that after thousands of years, they would know what their own rules are, regarding abortion!

ALSO, the link you provided does not seriously address the arbitrariness of the penalty --which is the main thing I pointed out (and different from what other pro-choicers often point out). The penalty is whatever the husband wants, so long as judges agree. It is possible that one judge might be more-against abortion than another, but then one judge might be more pro-choice than another. Politics, not a hard-and-fast rule!!! If the husband is already supporting 10 kids and doesn't want more (remember modern contraceptives didn't exist back then, but the sex drive most certainly did), might the judges be willing to accept a zero or negative penalty, for the early termination of a pregnancy?
Click to expand...

After thousands of years, they still don't know Jesus was their Messiah. I think they may be prone to error
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
In this day and age, we could use more people who refuse to accept the Devil's version of reality.
Click to expand...

Again...there goes any credibility.

We have acknowledged that you are welcome to personal beliefs but for there to be any actual change in the status of abortion in the US, that requires change in *law*. And religious beliefs will not be a foundation for changes in a woman's right under the Constitution to an abortion.

Do you realize this? If so, what legal basis can you offer that SCOTUS would use to reconsider their decision on abortion?
 
Re: pro-life

Lursa said:
I see you avoided addressing the rest

Altho since you didnt respond, I'll take that to believe you do accept demanding a woman to suffer the horror and trauma of a rape/incest pregnancy.

And it's a strong indicator of your beliefs on the bold, if you would please address it?

Do you value the unborn more than women?
Click to expand...

I value all human life equally, including the potential for such life. As such, I believe that all life deserves a chance to live. Suppose you were the product of such a case. Wouldn't you still want a chance to live, despite the horrible circumstances of your conception?

Where there is life, there is potential. Where there is none, there is none.
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
Again. Only Future was considerate enough to back up his claims with proof. No one else has done so. Please explain how you are instantly able to avoid my question by simply saying I am wrong
Click to expand...

We know that humans are beings of reason and higher thought...you have not explained why this matters on the issue of abortion.

As such, since I dont see that it is, it's not on topic and I see no need to waste my time.

Perhaps if you answer other questions we ask, that are on topic, then maybe.
 
Re: pro-life

Lursa said:
I didnt write that. I didnt mention suffering. I asked why you arent happy for the unborn?

And there is no crime. Not under US law.
Click to expand...

There was no crime under 1940s German law against the final solution. And by suffering, I meant the action of the abortion itself, which is terrifying and painful for the baby. I am happy that a martyr of the kingdom goes to be with Jesus, but that doesn't mean I rejoice in their horrific death. When my own father eventually dies, I'll be saddened, but I will be at peace knowing that he is with God. I can be glad that the soul is safe and be saddened by death at the same time.
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
I value all human life equally, including the potential for such life. As such, I believe that all life deserves a chance to live. Suppose you were the product of such a case. Wouldn't you still want a chance to live, despite the horrible circumstances of your conception?

Where there is life, there is potential. Where there is none, there is none.
Click to expand...

That's not possible in practice for a society. Not legally. And not morally.

An individual can...as they have no ability to force their belief on another. But a society of law cannot do so, under our Constitution it is tasked with protecting the rights of women. The unborn have no rights. To recognize rights for the unborn would make women 2nd class citizens again, as those rights would supersede those of women. So one or the other would be unequal.

On a societal level, you seem to have not thought it thru properly. Women have potential too.

And if you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.
 
Re: pro-life

Lursa said:
Again...there goes any credibility.

We have acknowledged that you are welcome to personal beliefs but for there to be any actual change in the status of abortion in the US, that requires change in *law*. And religious beliefs will not be a foundation for changes in a woman's right under the Constitution to an abortion.

Do you realize this? If so, what legal basis can you offer that SCOTUS would use to reconsider their decision on abortion?
Click to expand...

Roe v. Wade won't be overturned. The world is too far gone for that to happen. The only thing people like me can do is try to appeal to morality, because the law has failed us.
 
Re: pro-life

Lursa said:
We know that humans are beings of reason and higher thought...you have not explained why this matters on the issue of abortion.

As such, since I dont see that it is, it's not on topic and I see no need to waste my time.

Perhaps if you answer other questions we ask, that are on topic, then maybe.
Click to expand...

A fetus is an unborn human being. One equates to the other.
 
Re: pro-life

Lursa said:
That's not possible in practice for a society. Not legally. And not morally.

An individual can...as they have no ability to force their belief on another. But a society of law cannot do so, under our Constitution it is tasked with protecting the rights of women. The unborn have no rights. To recognize rights for the unborn would make women 2nd class citizens again, as those rights would supersede those of women. So one or the other would be unequal.

On a societal level, you seem to have not thought it thru properly. Women have potential too.

And if you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.
Click to expand...

The unborns' rights, similar to African Americans' until the Civil Rights Movement, have been stripped of them by the government, by "science" over morality.
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
There was no crime under 1940s German law against the final solution. And by suffering, I meant the action of the abortion itself, which is terrifying and painful for the baby. I am happy that a martyr of the kingdom goes to be with Jesus, but that doesn't mean I rejoice in their horrific death. When my own father eventually dies, I'll be saddened, but I will be at peace knowing that he is with God. I can be glad that the soul is safe and be saddened by death at the same time.
Click to expand...

There is no horrific death in abortion, you seem to be very uninformed. There is no suffering or even awareness....the emotional rhetoric is useless manipulation or you are posting in ignorance.

97.5% of all abortions take place when the pea-sized unborn is flushed painlessly from the womb.

The rest are based on medical necessity (which most Americans support) and the unborn is given a lethal injection and so again...knows and feels nothing.

So while you may "imagine" something horrific, it's a painless medical procedure (for the unborn).
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
The unborns' rights, similar to African Americans' until the Civil Rights Movement, have been stripped of them by the government, by "science" over morality.
Click to expand...

What is moral about making women 2nd class citizens (again)?

SCOTUS specifically examined blacks and women regarding their Constitutional and civil rights...and recognized rights for both.

It did the same for the unborn and did not recognize them as equal, nor any rights.

So why should the unborn have rights that supersede women?
 
Last edited:
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
A fetus is an unborn human being. One equates to the other.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is Homo sapiens. That is a scientific classification. However science applies no value...society does.

And that's what it uses the law for. Our society values born people more.

Can you explain wny it should value legally or morally, the unborn more than women?
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
Roe v. Wade won't be overturned. The world is too far gone for that to happen. The only thing people like me can do is try to appeal to morality, because the law has failed us.
Click to expand...

What moral basis do you have to insist that society value the unborn more than women?

And if you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.

Do you think the woman's will should be overcome to give birth? It's a very direct question.
 
Re: pro-life

Lursa said:
There is no horrific death in abortion, you seem to be very uninformed. There is no suffering or even awareness....the emotional rhetoric is useless manipulation or you are posting in ignorance.

97.5% of all abortions take place when the pea-sized unborn is flushed painlessly from the womb.

The rest are based on medical necessity (which most Americans support) and the unborn is given a lethal injection and so again...knows and feels nothing.

So while you may "imagine" something horrific, it's a painless medical procedure (for the unborn).
Click to expand...

92% of abortions occur during the first trimester, when the baby's nerves have begun to form. Do the babies then not feel processes such as manual vacuum aspiration? MVA makes up around 96% of abortions in the second trimester, when the babies are even more developed. In 2014, 76% of abortions overall were via MVA.

Being ripped limb from limb by vacuum suction does not sound like a painless procedure to me.
 
Re: pro-life

Lursa said:
What is moral about making women 2nd class citizens (again)?

SCOTUS specifically examined blacks and women regarding their Constitutional and civil rights...and recognized rights for both.

It did the same for the unborn and did not recognize them as equal, nor any rights.

So why should the unborn have rights that supersede women?
Click to expand...

The problem is that you are viewing the sides as unbalanced. Because of the government labeling fetuses as "not human," people never equate them to the life of the mother. It is the only way that abortion can be justified rationally, even though it itself is built on irrationality.
 
Re: pro-life

Lursa said:
Yes, it is Homo sapiens. That is a scientific classification. However science applies no value...society does.

And that's what it uses the law for. Our society values born people more.

Can you explain wny it should value legally or morally, the unborn more than women?
Click to expand...

It should value them equally. I don't get to kill my wife because she is an inconvenience to me and I want to sleep with someone else, but I get to do it to my unborn child because I'm not ready for a child yet? How is that fair?
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
92% of abortions occur during the first trimester, when the baby's nerves have begun to form. Do the babies then not feel processes such as manual vacuum aspiration? MVA makes up around 96% of abortions in the second trimester, when the babies are even more developed. In 2014, 76% of abortions overall were via MVA.

Being ripped limb from limb by vacuum suction does not sound like a painless procedure to me.
Click to expand...

No, they do not. Please read up on the medical science.

It's all been addressed ad infinitum with the ridiculous attempts to limit abortions after 20 weeks when the unborn STILL do not feel pain (and response to stimuli is not the same thing. Again, there is medical research that has examined all this)

And if there is a reason for dismembering a larger late term fetus...please read more clearly...lethal injection is used. Again, no pain.
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
It should value them equally. I don't get to kill my wife because she is an inconvenience to me and I want to sleep with someone else, but I get to do it to my unborn child because I'm not ready for a child yet? How is that fair?
Click to expand...

Born people can be treated equally, as the law can act individually on each person. That is not possible with the unborn...so again: which should society value more? Do you believe that the unborn should have rights that supersede those of women? Direct question.

For abortion each individual woman can value as they choose.

That is how "pro-choice" works.
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
After thousands of years, they still don't know Jesus was their Messiah. I think they may be prone to error
Click to expand...
WHICH PROVES NOTHING ABOUT ABORTION. Remember that for centuries the Christian churches claimed that ensoulment happened during an event known as "quickening" --prior to that point in a pregnancy, the unborn human was not considered to be alive. NOW remember that the Church claimed to be "infallible"! --Yet it was proved wrong in the 1800s, and that is when it decided to start claiming ensoulment happened at conception. But what if everything known today about unborn humans was known back then? That DNA, not God , forms bodies in the womb. That unborn humans act worse than parasites. That "kicking" is partially Nature's answer to a problem posed by NASA --how do you fight bone loss in a reduce-gravity environment? (exercise!) "Free will" is not-at-all involved --because we know that plenty of other mammals "kick" in the womb, too.
 
Re: pro-life

Lursa said:
What moral basis do you have to insist that society value the unborn more than women?

And if you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.

Do you think the woman's will should be overcome to give birth? It's a very direct question.
Click to expand...

Human will should be overcome to preserve life rather than taking it. If this includes unwanted pregnancy, then yes. Especially because medical emergencies and rape/incest cases only make up 1-2% of the overall abortion rate (being generous) versus the other 98% of cases that are made up of not being ready, accidental pregnancy due to unsafe sex, or other social reasons.
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
The problem is that you are viewing the sides as unbalanced. Because of the government labeling fetuses as "not human," people never equate them to the life of the mother. It is the only way that abortion can be justified rationally, even though it itself is built on irrationality.
Click to expand...

The govt has not labelled the unborn as non-human. Do you have any sources indicating that?

And again, it's a subjective valuation. You have not answered: Do you think the woman's will should be overcome to give birth? It's a very direct question.

No one said it's a happy balance, but life is full of hard decisions. That doesnt make those decisions wrong.

Abortion is in society's best interests as well as women's.

Can you give me any negative effects that abortion has on society?
 
Re: pro-life

Lursa said:
No, they do not. Please read up on the medical science.

It's all been addressed ad infinitum with the ridiculous attempts to limit abortions after 20 weeks when the unborn STILL do not feel pain (and response to stimuli is not the same thing. Again, there is medical research that has examined all this)

And if there is a reason for dismembering a larger late term fetus...please read more clearly...lethal injection is used. Again, no pain.
Click to expand...

Back up your facts. Provide a source that proves your statements, like I will right now. This way, you can't say I'm not providing my own support.

abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
 
Re: pro-life

Lursa said:
Born people can be treated equally, as the law can act individually on each person. That is not possible with the unborn...so again: which should society value more? Do you believe that the unborn should have rights that supersede those of women? Direct question.

For abortion each individual woman can value as they choose.

That is how "pro-choice" works.
Click to expand...

Who speaks for those that can't speak for themselves? How does the mother's right to choose supersede the baby's right to live?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom