• 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 or Pro Lying?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You really fail to see the difference there? Leaving a baby to die is not even remotely similar to vacuuming out an embryo.

Oh really. That's right I remember, to you an embryo does not look human, so it's OK to kill it.
 
In our western society, yes, yes it does make a difference. It more primitive societies, where there are lack of resources, and no access to abortion, there are many more children 'exposed' to the elements. Look at the Greek play Oedipus. Leaving a baby on the mountain to have it die of exposure was not unheard of . There are a number of Greek sources that mention it.

But, our culture has changed since then.

No matter how you eyewash it, a newborn can not live left alone. Period.
 
It makes a difference because before birth (or viability), our govt would have to grossly infringe on a woman's rights to protect the unborn.

Once born, the baby can be cared for by anyone and thus the govt not have to grossly infringe on a woman's rights to care for it.

But it is still a verifiable fact that after birth, the born can act on society (immediately) and society can act on it.

Before birth, this is not the case.

So it is a valuable, pertinent distinction.

This is what I posted and you responded too.

"The point is, it cannot survive left alone. Period. I could care less if it's the bio or a person off the street."

Now tell me again how your response refutes my post. And tell me how a new born can act on society? It can't even feed itself let alone live without care. You people think a new born can live and do things (immediately) as you suggest the moment it takes it's first breath. But the moment before it takes it first breath you want to stick an icepick in its brain because you don't like it.
 
This is what I posted and you responded too.

"The point is, it cannot survive left alone. Period. I could care less if it's the bio or a person off the street."

Now tell me again how your response refutes my post. And tell me how a new born can act on society? It can't even feed itself let alone live without care. You people think a new born can live and do things (immediately) as you suggest the moment it takes it's first breath. But the moment before it takes it first breath you want to stick an icepick in its brain because you don't like it.

The newborn acts on society immediately, crying and demanding food, changing, attention. After birth, anyone (society) can provide this, not just the mother.

My post was regarding the point at which society can act on behalf of the born/unborn without infringing on the rights of the woman. That is possible after birth, it is not before birth without her consent.

I've never seen anyone express an urge or happiness to stick an icepick in the brain of the unborn the moment before it takes breath. It's not really rational since at that point...it is less dangerous and painful to give birth than to kill the fetus. Do you have some information to substantiate this happening?
 
This is what I posted and you responded too.

"The point is, it cannot survive left alone. Period. I could care less if it's the bio or a person off the street."

Now tell me again how your response refutes my post. And tell me how a new born can act on society? It can't even feed itself let alone live without care. You people think a new born can live and do things (immediately) as you suggest the moment it takes it's first breath. But the moment before it takes it first breath you want to stick an icepick in its brain because you don't like it.

The highlighted is beyond false. That is not the position any pro-choice advocates have. Only crazy people, but more in particular a genuinely mentally ill woman who is in a late term pregnancy and flips out might be subject to do something like that.

If you are from the US...

The record speaks for itself. Over 90% of women have abortions 12 weeks and under and 60% of those are 10 weeks and under.

So your comment is way off base. But I'm guessing it was meant to be.
 
No matter how you eyewash it, a newborn can not live left alone. Period.

That doesnt matter in the way that I support pro-choice.

The point here would be that before birth, the govt/society cannot act on behalf of the unborn without grossly infringing on the rights of the woman if they do not have her consent.

After birth...and after due process (such as committing a crime like child abuse)...then the govt/society CAN act on behalf of the unborn...either with the mother's consent or thru her conviction of a crime (like child abuse).
 
I don't see my claim to be humors at all. Pro-life is notorious for wanting to control women's reproductive rights - for all sorts of reasons. But then they make their entire arguments that range for ignorant to barbaric. Why do I see them making such arguments that are outrageously nonsensical?

If there was a way to prevent abortion, which there isn't, then pro-life says...."By the way. Not only are we going to control your uteruses. But we are also going to take away all social services that children would be beneficiaries of because we are appalled that we have to pay for other people's bad choices and problems.

In other words, "We are going to use children as punishment to the people who just can't control their sexual behaviors the way that WE tell them to."

Meanwhile, it's the children who then becomes the victims of the battle over people's frustrations over how much tax they pay. NEWS FLASH...call Washington and tell them the airstrikes in Syria are too damn costly. We taxpayers don't want to spend money on other people's problems.

Exactly what taxes are you paying that aren't related to other people's choices and problems?

Your argument is enabling failure for not taking responsibility. How about a person taking responsibility for their actions? What sympathizers have done over the years from WWII is make responsibility for your actions a non starter. Example, the poor kid was not raised right, no wonder he murdered 5 kids in school, he should not go to jail his parents should. But wait his parents were not raised right either so they are let free. No one has to take responsibility for anything they do, he would never have done that IFFFFFFFFFFFFF. She would never have had that baby IF she was not drunk, so now who has to pay up for her being stupid and drunk? Let me answer that, the TAX PAYER. So now that the tax payer has to pay up she goes and has five more kids on the tax payer dime.
 
No matter how you eyewash it, a newborn can not live left alone. Period.

But a newborn can given up for adoption so the bio mom does not need to care for it...not so for a pre viable fetus ...if a pre viable fetus is removed from the bio mom it will not survive.

If a newborn is removed from the bio mom it has a good chance of survival if the caregiver takes good care of newborn.
 
Your argument is enabling failure for not taking responsibility. How about a person taking responsibility for their actions? What sympathizers have done over the years from WWII is make responsibility for your actions a non starter. Example, the poor kid was not raised right, no wonder he murdered 5 kids in school, he should not go to jail his parents should. But wait his parents were not raised right either so they are let free. No one has to take responsibility for anything they do, he would never have done that IFFFFFFFFFFFFF. She would never have had that baby IF she was not drunk, so now who has to pay up for her being stupid and drunk? Let me answer that, the TAX PAYER. So now that the tax payer has to pay up she goes and has five more kids on the tax payer dime.

Really? Wow, who would ever guess that I would support or suggest that being failure as you've describe it is the way for everybody to live. So I'm a sympathizer?

Holy moley - women are raging drunks so they get pregnant? Kids are running amuck mass murdering people? And it's because people don't take responsibility? And the taxpayers are soaked for all of this irresponsibility?

Well, the world's in a hell of a mess according to you.

Pray tell how this horrible mess can be corrected?

Wait, I know. Find the guy who ejaculated into the drunk woman and make him take custody of the kid he co-conceived and he can make damn sure the kid walks the line and doesn't kill people. And save taxpayers from having an emotional breakdown from the stress of it all. How's that?
 
Oh really. That's right I remember, to you an embryo does not look human, so it's OK to kill it.

Why would you give a **** about a stranger's embryo? What even gives you that right?
 
No matter how you eyewash it, a newborn can not live left alone. Period.

Yes, but it is no longer physically tied to the mother. That is the big difference. Location, location, location.
 
Moderator's Warning:
closed for review.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom