• 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!

Supreme Court allows 14-year-old gang rape victim to terminate pregnancy

Anomalism

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
2,159
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Given where we are talking about, I am shockingly impressed this girl is being allowed to abort.
 
God damn, I am glad to hear this case get resolved in a positive manner.
 

Immoral bastards.

MrT said:
God damn, I am glad to hear this case get resolved in a positive manner.
Click to expand...

I was unaware they changed their minds.
 
Paleocon said:
Immoral bastards.

I was unaware they changed their minds.
Click to expand...

A lower court had already ruled that she could not terminate the pregnancy. The Supreme Court overruled that decision (and similarly broke from their own previous rulings).
 
MrT said:
A lower court had already ruled that she could not terminate the pregnancy. The Supreme Court overruled that decision (and similarly broke from their own previous rulings).
Click to expand...

So they resolved in a bad way, not a good one.
 
Paleocon said:
So they resolved in a bad way, not a good one.
Click to expand...

By allowing a young girl to decide what happened to her body after she was raped and impregnated?

No, they made the right decision.
 
MrT said:
By allowing a young girl to decide what happened to her body after she was raped and impregnated?

No, they made the right decision.
Click to expand...

By allowing a young girl to murder her child.
 
Paleocon said:
By allowing a young girl to murder her child.
Click to expand...

A human being needs to be in existence and killed before murder can take place.
 
MrT said:
A human being needs to be in existence and killed before murder can take place.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly. Which is why this is murder.
 
MrT said:
A fetus, even at 24 weeks, is not a human being.
Click to expand...

It's a being. It exists.

If it's not a human being then what is it? A fish?
 
Paleocon said:
It's a being. It exists.

If it's not a human being then what is it? A fish?
Click to expand...

A fetus or an unborn human being. Neither are classified as human beings.
 
MrT said:
A fetus or an unborn human being. Neither are classified as human beings.
Click to expand...

An unborn human being isn't a human being? Lrn2Engl
 
Paleocon said:
An unborn human being isn't a human being? Lrn2Engl
Click to expand...

Learn to recognize the difference between making an argument based on semantics and one made on legal and medical fact.
 
MrT said:
Learn to recognize the difference between making an argument based on semantics and one made on legal and medical fact.
Click to expand...

It's not semantics. It's basic logic. An X (e.g. human being) that is Y (e.g. unborn) is a subset of X.
 

There is hope for some parts of the world after all.

Good for India, and especially good for that poor little girl.
 
Paleocon said:
It's not semantics. It's basic logic. An X (e.g. human being) that is Y (e.g. unborn) is a subset of X.
Click to expand...

And yet the qualifier or adjective in many instances is enough to disqualify the noun from being legally classified as such.

For example, a non-existent ball is a ball that does not exist. You have X (e.g. the ball) that is Y (e.g. non-existent) and, as such, the non-existent ball is not a subset of "balls."

The same exists here. An un-born human being is not a human being in the legal or medical sense of the term.
 

Sure it's a subset. Note that it's not comparable anyway, as it would be literally impossible to kill a non-existent human being, whereas it is entirely possible to kill an unborn human being.

And if the law is contrary to logic, then the law is the problem, not logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…