• 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!

The Baby In The Womb [W:211]

Exactly. A 40 year old man left brain dead from an automobile accident wouldn't qualify as a "rational moral agent." Does that mean we are free to abuse his body? Execute him? Conduct experiments on him? And just how does a newborn qualify as a "rational moral agent?" I guess we are free to wipe out children all the way up to the age of 9 or 10 then.

It is the position of the left wrong here that lacks both rationality and morality.

Fixed it for you. Contrary to popular misconception, the opposite of “right” where political ideology is concerned is not “left”; the opposite of “right” is “wrong”. Surely the issue that is the subject of this thread, more than most, demonstrates this point. This is truly an issue of good/right against evil/wrong—a side that values and seeks to defend the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings against the side which seeks to kill them.
 
I see. So any human that doesn't fit your definition of a "rational moral agent" can be exterminated. Perhaps it is you who doesn't fit the definition.

Anything that doesn't fit it is not a candidate for rights and just because something doesn't fit it, does not mean the entity in question needs to be exterminated
 
Anything that doesn't fit it is not a candidate for rights and just because something doesn't fit it, does not mean the entity in question needs to be exterminated
Then you must have some other criteria than the "rational moral agent" argument you have put forward. What is it?
 
1. A 40 year old man left brain dead from an automobile accident wouldn't qualify as a "rational moral agent."

2. Does that mean we are free to abuse his body? Execute him? Conduct experiments on him?

3. And just how does a newborn qualify as a "rational moral agent?"

4. I guess we are free to wipe out children all the way up to the age of 9 or 10 then.

5. It is the position of the left here that lacks both rationality and morality.

1. A decent developed mind is what makes something a person. Once brain dead there is no longer a person there since the mind is completely gone

2. He is already legally dead since he is brain dead. Now what we could do with his body is what he would had wanted us to do if this happened to him. Since most leave behind wishes for what they would have wanted done with their body. They should be respected

3. A infants doesn't fit it but that doesn't mean now we should just kill them off

4. Nope humans have all the rational attributes associated with personhood around a couple of years after birth

You are assuming that just because something doesn't fit my criteria for personhood that the entity in question should be killed.

5. No need to get political
 
1. A decent developed mind is what makes something a person. Once brain dead there is no longer a person there since the mind is completely gone

2. He is already legally dead since he is brain dead. Now what we could do with his body is what he would had wanted us to do if this happened to him. Since most leave behind wishes for what they would have wanted done with their body. They should be respected

3. A infants doesn't fit it but that doesn't mean now we should just kill them off

4. Nope humans have all the rational attributes associated with personhood around a couple of years after birth

You are assuming that just because something doesn't fit my criteria for personhood that the entity in question should be killed.

5. No need to get political
A human who is brain dead does not cease being human and therefore does not forfeit his rights. But if you now want to make brain activity the source of rights, then you will have to oppose abortion once brain activity is detected.
 
A human who is brain dead does not cease being human and therefore does not forfeit his rights. But if you now want to make brain activity the source of rights, then you will have to oppose abortion once brain activity is detected.

A brain dead human is not a person in my opinion. The mind is gone no more person. What we should do with his body now is up to what his wishes were before he became brain dead

Brain activity has nothing to do with my take on personhood. Rational attributes like self-consciousness, autonomy, intelligence, abstract thinking, able to comprehend a future life for yourself etc. or "sentience" (the ability to feel pain or pleasure) The unborn don't have the mental capabilities (they actually don't have mental capabilities until 20 weeks into pregnancy) to support any of these rational attributes thus not a person

^^^^^^^^^^
Scientifically we know that neither full "rational attributes", nor full "sentience" are present until a few years after birth. BUT I have no problem with personhood being placed at birth since infants don't interfere with a women's right to abort
 
Last edited:
By that statement alone shows you truly don't comprehend the pain that some women go through to make their choices. Persecuted? The overblown emotion isn't serving you well.
:roll:

Well who's showing the "overblown" emotion here? Misplaced overblown emotion, may I add.

We all go through some pain when we have to make life-changing choices.
Abortion is a life-changing choice for two individuals. The wrong choice would mean the baby will be killed.

Why does that simple question about the fate of the baby be translated to show anything else but simply the statement of a fact - this time, from the baby's viewpoint?
Whatever the decision of the mother would be, it would be the baby who'll be impacted the most. It's a matter of life or death.

You're forgetting that there are two human beings involved in your scenario. Who speaks for the baby?

Something is terribly wrong with this picture. Explain to me....

Why does carrying the baby for 9 months be so dreadful than killing a helpless child?

As a counsellor, you've got the access to the distraught mother....you have the window of opportunity to intervene for the child....to save an innocent life. And you do nothing?
 
Last edited:
So the woman who is being abused by her husband

If you know someone is being abused by her husband, then your job is to talk her into getting out of that situation! That should be your priority!



or SO, not means to support herself, should go through 9 months of additional abuse,

Do your job! Your imperative objective should be to get her out of the abusive situation!

Your concern for her plight rings hollow.
If the woman is being coerce against her will to kill her child - don't think it wouldn't have any psychological impact on her in the future.

You're letting your pro-choice ideology rule over common sense!


to not necessarily be able to give the child up for adoption, which requires the consent of BOTH parents. What then

And after she killed her child - what then?

Do you see the additional pain in her life? Do you comprehend? I don't think so....
 
Last edited:
A brain dead human is not a person in my opinion.

Some call idiots "brain dead." Some call comatose patients brain dead. Drug addicts are also brain dead.

And.....

A nonsense-spouting poster in forums is definitely "brain dead." :lol:
 
Last edited:
It is the position of the left here that lacks both rationality and morality.

Their position is usually based on ignorance. They don't seem to be able to see the big picture.
They can't see beyond the tip of their noses.
 
Anything that doesn't fit it is not a candidate for rights and just because something doesn't fit it, does not mean the entity in question needs to be exterminated

So who gets to decide who gets exterminated? You guys?
 
What part of CANNOT wasn't clear?

Then lobby to make changes so that you can. So what exactly do you do, other than listen?

Christian organizations - some with counsellors - help mothers.
 
And after she killed her child - what then?

Do you see the additional pain in her life? Do you comprehend? I don't think so....

Having an abortion is not killing a child.

It is ending a pregnancy.

An unborn is not a baby/child/person.

According to the Turnaway study 97 percent of the women in this study who had an abortion did NOT regret it.
Most of the women in the study secured the abortion they sought (and 97 percent did not regret it)

The turnaway study: What happens to women who are denied abortions?
 
Of course decent people have been raised by single mothers. Some not so decent ones also.

So what does that mean? Shouldn't we opt to kill the not-so-decent ones instead, like a weed that gets pulled off by the root?


Many do find that strength, and fight their way through it. Some don't. But who are you, in your judgmental manner to say who can or can't? Who are you to say Carry it for nine months and give it up for adoption! when you know nothing of their situation, their health physical and mental? No sympathy, no empathy, just judgment.....

I'm someone who's trying to speak out for a voiceless human being.


And you are so easily willing to sacrifice those who can't..... the life of the unborn is more precious than those of the already born?

Gimme a break....9 months....and you make it sound like it's the end of the world. What's so dreadful about the 9 months?

We go full circle here at this point - back to purely selfish self-interest? And you said it's not about narcissim. :roll:


While I can appreciate that someone did what they did to make it through, that is one in hundreds of thousands who may not.

Because it's liberal mindsets like this that weakens humans!

Look at our children as an example: a car crash killing some schoolmates (that most hardly even knew)...and they all need grief counselling!

We all have our natural defense mechanisms ....and liberals are bypassing that.
 
Having an abortion is not killing a child.

It is ending a pregnancy.

An unborn is not a baby/child/person.
What is it then? You refer to it as an "unborn." An 'unborn' what?
 
I actually know something about this movie. This video is actually a product of some clever video tricks; changing the video speed while manipulating the ZEF with the instruments to give the impression of movement, with what little we're able to discern on a shoddy ultrasound shot.

But even if that weren't the case, even if this video were 100% legit, I wouldn't be any less pro-choice. I do not care what a ZEF is.
 
I actually know something about this movie. This video is actually a product of some clever video tricks; changing the video speed while manipulating the ZEF with the instruments to give the impression of movement, with what little we're able to discern on a shoddy ultrasound shot.

But even if that weren't the case, even if this video were 100% legit, I wouldn't be any less pro-choice. I do not care what a ZEF is.
Wow. I don't think I could have highlighted the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the pro choice argument better than you just did.
 
Having an abortion is not killing a child.

It is ending a pregnancy.

An unborn is not a baby/child/person.

We've already rebutted that. Saying that like a mantra is more to your benefit....to keep convincing yourself that it's okay to murder an innocent baby.

According to the Turnaway study 97 percent of the women in this study who had an abortion did NOT regret it.

The turnaway study: What happens to women who are denied abortions?

Who's talking about regrets alone?


REQUIREMENT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT:

A study of the medical records of 56,741 California medicaid patients revealed that women who had abortions were 160 percent more likely than delivering women to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment in the first 90 days following abortion or delivery. Rates of psychiatric treatment remained significantly higher for at least four years.1,3

Rate of hospitalization after abortion compared to childbirth=1.0

In a study of post-abortion patients only 8 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor. (2) A 5 year retrospective study in two Canadian provinces found significantly greater use of medical and psychiatric services among women with a history of abortion. Most significant was the finding that 25% of women who had abortions made visits to psychiatrists as compared to 3% of the control group. (3) Women who have had abortions are significantly more likely than others to subsequently require admission to a psychiatric hospital. At especially high risk are teenagers, separated or divorced women, and women with a history of more than one abortion. (4)

Since many post-abortive women use repression as a coping mechanism, there may be a long period of denial before a woman seeks psychiatric care. These repressed feelings may cause psychosomatic illnesses and psychiatric or behavioral in other areas of her life. As a result, some counselors report that unacknowledged post-abortion distress is the causative factor in many of their female patients, even though their patients have come to them seeking therapy for seemingly unrelated problems. (5)
Abortion Risks: A list of major psychological complications related to abortion « After Abortion

I wonder how many have committed suicide?

We see a rash of suicides or murder-suicides committed by moms this days....it's almost a daily news item.
I wonder if there's a connection with post-abortion syndrome.
 
Last edited:
Wow. I don't think I could have highlighted the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the pro choice argument better than you just did.

I don't see how it's morally or intellectually bankrupt to be more concerned with the person who is being used and damaged, than with the entity that is using and damaging them.
 
I actually know something about this movie. This video is actually a product of some clever video tricks; changing the video speed while manipulating the ZEF with the instruments to give the impression of movement, with what little we're able to discern on a shoddy ultrasound shot.

We can't take your word for it since you've proved that you tend to take things out of context. Cite your reference.


But even if that weren't the case, even if this video were 100% legit, I wouldn't be any less pro-choice. I do not care what a ZEF is.

What can I say? Some - like you - simply don't care.

Cliff Olson didn't care about the children he killed either. Remorse, empathy, compassion were alien to him.
 
We can't take your word for it since you've proved that you tend to take things out of context. Cite your reference.

You just posted a debunked propoganda piece as evidence, and I "tend to take things out of context?" Ok then.

Since the original piece has apparently been locked behind a pay wall sometime in the last couple years, this is a link to a re-post of it.
Is this real?

What can I say? Some - like you - simply don't care.

Cliff Olson didn't care about the children he killed either. Remorse, empathy, compassion were alien to him.

It isn't that I don't care. It's that I care about the person who is being damaged, not the thing damaging them. But it really shows the strength of your arguments, to jump straight to Hiltler-ian ad hom's as soon as someone who already knows your trick calls you out.
 
You just posted a debunked propoganda piece as evidence, and I "tend to take things out of context?" Ok then.

Since the original piece has apparently been locked behind a pay wall sometime in the last couple years, this is a link to a re-post of it.
Is this real?

No one can be certain at exactly what stages they start feeling pain! That's the point!

Nevertheless, unlike other scientific claims put forward by the anti-abortion movement—about the putative connection between abortion and breast cancer, for example—there is a genuine empirical debate about these issues. After all, according to Mark Mercurio, a professor of pediatrics at the Yale School of Medicine, neonatologists broadly accept that extremely premature babies feel pain. Mercurio has cared for babies born as early as 23 weeks and says, “Based on the data I have seen and based on what I see clinically, I treat every baby in my intensive care unit as if they were capable of experiencing pain.”

The most well-known proponent of the fetal-pain hypothesis is Kanwaljeet J.S. Anand, a professor of pediatrics, anesthesiology, and neurobiology at the University of Tennessee. His argument is essentially that the cerebral cortex, the seat of consciousness that doesn’t fully develop until late in pregnancy, is not necessary to experience pain. Other mechanisms that develop earlier, he says, are sufficient. Thus, testifying before Congress in 2005, he said, “We cannot dismiss the high likelihood of fetal pain perception before the third trimester of human gestation.”

It’s possible that Anand is right, and his research is certainly worthwhile. As Mercurio, who holds him in high regard, says, “I don’t think we should slow scientific inquiry because we’re concerned about what legislators might do with it.” Nevertheless, it’s a minority view.
The Uncertain Science Of Fetal Pain - The Daily Beast




It isn't that I don't care. It's that I care about the person who is being damaged, not the thing damaging them.
But it really shows the strength of your arguments, to jump straight to Hiltler-ian ad hom's as soon as someone who already knows your trick calls you out.

No tricks to you guys being compared to Hitler. Your own statement above is evidence - referring to the baby as a thing. You're dehumanizing the baby - exactly the same way Hitler dehumanized the Jews, and the slavers dehumanized black people.

It makes it easier to commit unspeakably atrocious things to anyone we don't regard as human.
 
What is it then? You refer to it as an "unborn." An 'unborn' what?

Depending on the gestation of the unborn it could be a zygote, a blystocyst, an embroyo or a fetus.
 
No one can be certain at exactly what stages they start feeling pain! That's the point!

No one -- not even the dude in your carefully-pruned link -- thinks a 12-week-old fetus can feel pain.

No tricks to you guys being compared to Hitler. Your own statement above is evidence - referring to the baby as a thing. You're dehumanizing the baby - exactly the same way Hitler dehumanized the Jews, and the slavers dehumanized black people.

It makes it easier to commit unspeakably atrocious things to anyone we don't regard as human.

Babies are self-sufficient organisms. Would you like to try removing a 12-week fetus from the womb, and seeing what happens?

Like I said, I don't care what a ZEF is. I just find your biological ignorance funny.
 
Back
Top Bottom