• 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!

Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong.

Hospital reports little Timmy is born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Cops launch an investigation, woman is arrrested. Other women hear about that and say, "I'd better not do that." Problem solved.

Or abort the baby, other mother's hear about her responsible decision and millions of kids are not born into poverty and abuse. Bigger problem solved!!

 
Legal protections specific to the unborn do not signify personhood status...if that's what you're inferring here.
Except they do.

Going back to Connor Peterson, Scott got a MUCH harsher sentence because he killed a baby (even though he probably didn't). If he just offed his old lady, he'd probably be out by now.

(Please note, I consider the conviction of Scott Peterson on no forensic, eyewitness, or documentary evidence, to be a travesty. The jury operated on pure emotion.)
 
Or abort the baby, other mother's hear about her responsible decision and millions of kids are not born into poverty and abuse. Bigger problem solved!!
Abortion hasn't made women more responsible, that's the thing.

In fact, they are less responsible now.
 
Except they do.

Going back to Connor Peterson, Scott got a MUCH harsher sentence because he killed a baby (even though he probably didn't). If he just offed his old lady, he'd probably be out by now.

(Please note, I consider the conviction of Scott Peterson on no forensic, eyewitness, or documentary evidence, to be a travesty. The jury operated on pure emotion.)
Scott was charged and convicted under California's fetal homicide law, which allows for prosecution of the death of an unborn child when a pregnant woman is killed.

This does not infer nor imply personhood.
 
Abortion hasn't made women more responsible, that's the thing.

In fact, they are less responsible now.

You prefer Child Abuse. I understand... we all understand. You would rather see a born baby, a child, a toddler and kid abused by unfit parents and subject to gangs and drugs and no real future than to be aborted when they were just a blobular amount of fetus nothingness. You must feel great about yourself.

LOL
 
Except they do.

Going back to Connor Peterson, Scott got a MUCH harsher sentence because he killed a baby (even though he probably didn't). If he just offed his old lady, he'd probably be out by now.

And you'd get a harsher sentence if you destroyed an endangered species instead of a livestock herd of cows. You are still failing to make this point.
 
Scott was charged and convicted under California's fetal homicide law, which allows for prosecution of the death of an unborn child when a pregnant woman is killed.

This does not infer nor imply personhood.

Except the Fetal Homicide law allows for murder prosecution even if the woman lives, that's the point.

It has even been applied to women who have induced their own miscarriages.

Now we just need to apply it to abortion profiteers.

You prefer Child Abuse. I understand... we all understand. You would rather see a born baby, a child, a toddler and kid abused by unfit parents and subject to gangs and drugs and no real future than to be aborted when they were just a blobular amount of fetus nothingness. You must feel great about yourself.

LOL

Wow, so we should murder a baby because it MIGHT have an unhappy life? This is your logic?

And you'd get a harsher sentence if you destroyed an endangered species instead of a livestock herd of cows. You are still failing to make this point.
Really? Refresh my memory, when was the last time someone got the death penalty for destroying an endangered species.

Scott Peterson got the DP for killing a fetus. He's still serving a life sentence, at least until the courts finally admit what a travesty his first trial was.
 
Except the Fetal Homicide law allows for murder prosecution even if the woman lives, that's the point.
The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.

Again, nothing pertaining to personhood here.
It has even been applied to women who have induced their own miscarriages.

Now we just need to apply it to abortion profiteers.
There's a correct procedure for attaining a legal abortion. Failure to follow such procedures (such as having one performed by a licensed abortion provider.) is subject to prosecution.

Once again, if the unborn were de facto persons, defined and recognized as such by the constitution, such protections, specific to the fetus, would be entirely redundant.

As you're effectively demonstrating it..... they're not.
 
Really? Refresh my memory, when was the last time someone got the death penalty for destroying an endangered species.

Scott Peterson got the DP for killing a fetus. He's still serving a life sentence, at least until the courts finally admit what a travesty his first trial was.

How does that dispute my post? If society and family value the unborn more than an endangered species, then there might be a higher penalty. Did you not understand that?

And his first degree murder charge for killing her earned him the death penalty, not the separate charge for the fetus. And as you know, the death penalty was overturned.

So...your post is still wrong.
 
Wow, so we should murder a baby because it MIGHT have an unhappy life? This is your logic?

As long as you continue to lie about the facts, your posts will be mocked. *shrug*

.
 
Take it up with God, baby killer.

Is God the Baby Killer or a person here? You did not quote them with the Reply button so it makes who you are talking to confusing.
 
Wow, so we should murder a baby because it MIGHT have an unhappy life? This is your logic?

There is no "might" to it. Foster children face and uncertain and often tragic future. There are studies outlining what happens and the % of children effected.

What these studies show about the future of foster children
20% become instantly homeless when they are 18.
Only 50% find employment by age 24.
60% of young women who age out end up in the sex industry.
70% of young women are pregnant by 21.
25% of youth who age out are dealing with PTSD
25% will be incarcerated within 2 years of aging out. (for children that have lived in 5 different foster homes that % is 90% will end up in jail withing 2 years of aging out of care)

Equally tragic results for the children born of a woman denied abortion have been recorded in studies

Studies showing what happens when a state bans or votes into law extensive restrictions to abortion
foster-care

It's deeply illogical that pro-life advocates create more child abuse, more foster care children, more families living in poverty, more unstable families, more homelessness, incarceration, more addiction and call it the responsible protection of life at the same time they are calling the women irresponsible who abort to prevent those tragic results from happening.
 
How does that dispute my post? If society and family value the unborn more than an endangered species, then there might be a higher penalty. Did you not understand that?

Scott got the death penalty. Purvi Patel and Shui Bei-Bei got prison time.

Killing an endangered species, if you even get caught, is usually a fine.

And his first degree murder charge for killing her earned him the death penalty, not the separate charge for the fetus. And as you know, the death penalty was overturned.

Nope. The jurors clearly said their outrage of the death of baby Connor was what sent them over the edge.

There is no "might" to it. Foster children face and uncertain and often tragic future. There are studies outlining what happens and the % of children effected.

Well, then maybe we should start euthanizing them.

Oh, wait, I wouldn't want to give some of you people any ideas.
 
Well, then maybe we should start euthanizing them. Oh, wait, I wouldn't want to give some of you people any ideas.
The anti-abortion advocates have already taken care of the euthanizing. They have reduced life expectancy of the people harmed by unplanned children in already struggling families and foster children.

The Homeless have a average life expectancy of 48years.

Each year in prison takes 2 years off an individual's life expectancy.
Poor Americans had 10.5 years lower life expectancy at age 18 than those with incomes at or above 400% of the poverty threshold.

An abusive childhood reduces life expectancy by 20 years among adults who experienced six or more particular types of abuse or household dysfunction as kids, while those who suffered fewer types of trauma lost fewer years of life, a large-scale epidemiological study finds.

Depending on the quantity used per day cocaine and heroin users could take between 10-50 years off of users lives.

Save the fetus, kill it off when it is a tragic adult and problem for society. That makes a hell of a pro-life banner to carry to marches and protests.
 
Last edited:
Except they do.
Don't. Animals have protections but it doesn't mean we recognize them as legal persons. And even the Unborn Victims of Violence Act explicitly states it doesn't affect abortion law or personhood status under Roe.
Going back to Connor Peterson, Scott got a MUCH harsher sentence because he killed a baby (even though he probably didn't). If he just offed his old lady, he'd probably be out by now.
The harsher sentence comes from the double homicide statute, which again doesn't inherently mean the law considers the fetus a person legally. It's called consequences.
(Please note, I consider the conviction of Scott Peterson on no forensic, eyewitness, or documentary evidence, to be a travesty. The jury operated on pure emotion.)
So you agree that people and even courts get swept up emotionally, but you use that same case as evidence of personhood. Emotional responses ≠ coherent legal or moral criteria for personhood.
 
Scott got the death penalty.

Killing an endangered species, if you even get caught, is usually a fine.

That doesnt dispute what I wrote...this is the 2nd time I had to explain that to you. It's based on the crime, and the value society places on it. You are very triggered and not really absorbing anything...very emotional.

Nope. The jurors clearly said their outrage of the death of baby Connor was what sent them over the edge.

That's BS and it doesnt matter...they cant recommend a sentence that isnt available for the charge. Death penalty was only available for 1st degree murder...and that was for Lacey. The other charge was lesser and didnt have the death penalty.

You are spinning like a top here. And still completely failing to make any point except one based on your feelings.

Well, then maybe we should start euthanizing them.

Well you are free to make that recommendation to your legislators. Seems very hypocritical but I'm not too concerned you'll get far ;) It more or less is an admission of defeat on your part.

Oh, wait, I wouldn't want to give some of you people any ideas.

That one's all yours...a desperate attempt to recover something from your poor example (and understanding of it.)
 
There is no "might" to it. Foster children face and uncertain and often tragic future. There are studies outlining what happens and the % of children effected.

What these studies show about the future of foster children
20% become instantly homeless when they are 18.
Only 50% find employment by age 24.
60% of young women who age out end up in the sex industry.
70% of young women are pregnant by 21.
25% of youth who age out are dealing with PTSD
25% will be incarcerated within 2 years of aging out. (for children that have lived in 5 different foster homes that % is 90% will end up in jail withing 2 years of aging out of care)

Equally tragic results for the children born of a woman denied abortion have been recorded in studies

Studies showing what happens when a state bans or votes into law extensive restrictions to abortion
foster-care

It's deeply illogical that pro-life advocates create more child abuse, more foster care children, more families living in poverty, more unstable families, more homelessness, incarceration, more addiction and call it the responsible protection of life at the same time they are calling the women irresponsible who abort to prevent those tragic results from happening.

This is the Slam Dunk of posts... really well done.

Sorry @JoeB131 You just got destroyed.
.
 
Back
Top Bottom