• 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!

Responsibility [W:411]

Objective-J said:
actually its factuall

and being mostly against abortion is not respect for human right to life
Click to expand...

Try to remember which account you're logged in on when posting next time.
 
JayDubya said:
Try to remember which account you're logged in on when posting next time.
Click to expand...

translation: once again you have no facts to support your false claim. Let me know when this changes.

Its funny seeing how far you go in your dishonest posts
 
JayDubya said:
Can't respond to this sentence - doesn't even make sense.
Click to expand...

It's quite a simple matter to respect the natural human right to life for all humans
Click to expand...

We do not have the right to life at the expense of another, I cannot jeopardize your life to continue mine
 
sweet said:
We do not have the right to life at the expense of another, I cannot jeopardize your life to continue mine
Click to expand...

Not getting any warmer. Possible relevance?
 
sweet said:
We do not have the right to life at the expense of another, I cannot jeopardize your life to continue mine
Click to expand...

again 100% right based on circumstances
 
Objective-J said:
translation: you have zero facts to support your opinion :shrug:

thats what i though
Click to expand...

I don't need to support my case that a woman is obligated to not harm her child. It is not only self-evident by the reality itself, but by any sort of scientific understanding.
 
sweet said:
But it is now
Click to expand...

No, it never was and it isn't today. The only reason they accepted it at all is because they don't find value in the life for whatever that is worth, but when they do find value you will find they no longer allow it.
 
sweet said:
Not at the expence of another
Click to expand...

Of course, if you understood the "natural" right to life it would be apparent to you that what you just said is wrong in this case.
 
Henrin said:
I don't need to support my case that a woman is obligated to not harm her child. It is not only self-evident by the reality itself, but by any sort of scientific understanding.
Click to expand...

its because you cant and we already know that, if you could you simply would

sorry FACTS still disagree with you and your statement below, its still clearly and obviously nothing more than your opinion.
Henrin said:
Of course that is wrong. The unborn child clearly creates an obligation on the woman to give birth. That much is obvious.
Click to expand...
 
Bonzai said:
Parent.............
Click to expand...

Thank you for answering. Well, parents should put their children before themselves, so yes, if it is necessary one party do without something the parent should be that party.
 
Henrin said:
Of course, if you understood the "natural" right to life it would be apparent to you that what you just said is wrong in this case.
Click to expand...

How so?
 
Objective-J said:
its because you cant and we already know that, if you could you simply would

sorry FACTS still disagree with you and your statement below, its still clearly and obviously nothing more than your opinion.
Click to expand...

No, there is no understanding scientific or otherwise that disagrees with me. All reason, and all knowledge points to the conclusion that it is her obligation to carry that child.
 
Henrin said:
I don't need to support my case that a woman is obligated to not harm her child. It is not only self-evident by the reality itself, but by any sort of scientific understanding.
Click to expand...

OBLIGATED ?.............by whom ?....................
 
sweet said:
How so?
Click to expand...

The life of the child naturally takes place in that environment so therefore it has a right to attach itself to its mother in such a way.
 
Henrin said:
No, there is no understanding scientific or otherwise that disagrees with me. All reason, and all knowledge points to the conclusion that it is her obligation to carry that child.
Click to expand...



LMAO facts disagree with you because she is not obligated :shrug:
reality and fact already prove you wrong

again, you disagree factually prove it
 
QUOTE=Henrin;1061481287]Thank you for answering. Well, parents should put their children before themselves, so yes, if it is necessary one party do without something the parent should be that party.[/QUOTE]

That's so 3rd world................[
 
Bonzai said:
That's so 3rd world................
Click to expand...

I won't say its desirable, but its what a loving parent does for their child in such a situation.
 
Objective-J said:
LMAO facts disagree with you because she is not obligated :shrug:
reality and fact already prove you wrong

again, you disagree factually prove it
Click to expand...

Prove what exactly? That nature dictates the obligation exists? No need. It's self evident for the reasons I have put out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom