• 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!

Personhood laws

JayDubya said:
What's bad about scumbag killers suffering self-inflicted injury?

Win-win.
Click to expand...

Abortion has been widely used in America since its earliest days. In the 1950s, estimates of numbers of illegal, unsafe abortions ranged widely, from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. The methods used were often ineffective and dangerous. Desperate women were driven into the back alley, where they endured danger and abuse, sometimes sexual.
Click to expand...
Abortion will happen either way, do you prefer women to suffer? Of course you do.
 
JayDubya said:
That's not what you pro-aborts want.

You want the unborn to be regarded as property; it's the slaver's mentality.

Control over your own body has nothing to do with abortion - it's controlling other bodies than your own such that you can kill them on a whim.
Click to expand...

Not property, a deleterious medical condition, not unlike a tumor.

YOU would have a woman slavishly adhering to the whims of the thing in her belly, put there in part by another person.
 
KevinKohler said:
Not property, a deleterious medical condition, not unlike a tumor.

YOU would have a woman slavishly adhering to the whims of the thing in her belly, put there in part by another person.
Click to expand...

This is just a perfect mix of ignorance and disgusting hatred. Well done.
 
JayDubya said:
This is just a perfect mix of ignorance and disgusting hatred. Well done.
Click to expand...

Thank you, and you're welcome.


I'll take your complete lack of relevant rebuttal as acceptance of the logical superiority of my argument.
 
Removable Mind said:
Personhood for the YET TO BE BORN would be pure insanity. Sometime back I wrote Part One and Part Two on The Consequences of Personhood for the Unborn, which pointed out over 40 negative consequences.

2 and 1/50th Pro-life advocates responded. Why so few? Because they know America would turn into a living hell if zygotes, embryos, and fetuses were given "Personhood/full Constitutional Rights".

Thanks, David...always good to remind people who can't comprehend. But, sorry to say that when folks can't comprehend the consequences then the points made in your OP just won't sink in.
Click to expand...

"Personhood" laws:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
 
KevinKohler said:
Uh, so....you're argument is....prehistoric man did it, and didn't go extinct, so, why not us?

THAT'S what you're going with?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that prehistoric man did it, no. But there is documentary evidence that suggests both the Native American and the Aztecs did. It's very possible that these are long-standing cultural differences. Meaning it's possible that some will experience a greater emotional aversion than others. It's like saying the same nutritional diet is good for everyone; it's simply not true. Because of evolutionary paleo difference.
 
KevinKohler said:
Thank you, and you're welcome.


I'll take your complete lack of relevant rebuttal as acceptance of the logical superiority of my argument.
Click to expand...

Of course, calling pregnancy a pathology like cancer is just about as far from sanity as possible, so that must have been the logic you refer to.
 
betuadollar said:
"Personhood" laws:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Click to expand...

WRONG...that has nothing to do with personhood laws for the yet to be born. They don't exist. It has to do with fetal homicide and the language instituted to allow laws to be enacted based on the "Unborn Victim's Act", which clearly states that the death of an unborn can be prosecuted UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. But it is very, very, very clear that the law and any state laws cannot be created as an instrument to give rights to the YET TO BE BORN.
 
David_N said:
The women is not consenting to having the fetus killed.
Click to expand...

No but note the obvious double standard; we can be charged with a crime for harming a fetus but the pregnant female cannot. So...? How do we reconcile that?
 
betuadollar said:
No but note the obvious double standard; we can be charged with a crime for harming a fetus but the pregnant female cannot. So...? How do we reconcile that?
Click to expand...

Because the pregnant woman ultimately has the say as to what happens to the fetus.
 
JayDubya said:
Of course, calling pregnancy a pathology like cancer is just about as far from sanity as possible, so that must have been the logic you refer to.
Click to expand...

Are you unaware of the physical attributes of the two, or the characteristics, or behaviors?

The only difference is in the end result. If you had the ability to cure cancer before it culminates, would you? Of course you would. Because the result is something you, personally, disapprove of.

See, you think that my cum, once it's entered a viable embryo, is something worth more than other mundane things. Well, that's your personal belief and opinion. One that is not shared by all. I suggest you get over your personal opinions on what should be valued, and what shouldn't, and focus on individual rights, instead. It's, like...your party platform, and ****.
 
betuadollar said:
No but note the obvious double standard; we can be charged with a crime for harming a fetus but the pregnant female cannot. So...? How do we reconcile that?
Click to expand...

Don't harm a fetus...that's how you reconcile it. If you do you might be charged under the Unborn Victims Act.

The reason men are charge "in most cases" is that they killed the fetus during the commission of another crime....such as killing the woman who hosted the fetus.
 
David_N said:
Because the pregnant woman ultimately has the say as to what happens to the fetus.
Click to expand...

Yes but we are justifying that by classifying the fetus as a nonperson, without rights that qualify as state interest. And then in the next breath we are classifying it as a person for the purpose of protecting it under the state. So my mind struggles with this one; it's a definite double standard.
 
KevinKohler said:
Are you unaware of the physical attributes of the two, or the characteristics, or behaviors?

The only difference is in the end result. If you had the ability to cure cancer before it culminates, would you? Of course you would. Because the result is something you, personally, disapprove of.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. Pregnancy is a normal, healthy state.

It is in no way comparable to cancer. A kid is not a tumor. Your insinuation is not just ignorant, it is as I said, disgusting and hateful.


And I could go without hearing about your semen and your inability to understand the difference between an organism and an orgasm. That's a common trend in you pro-aborts it seems.

focus on individual rights, instead
Click to expand...

So speaking of my focus on individual human rights, I just so happen to oppose the human rights violation of abortion.
 
Removable Mind said:
Don't harm a fetus...that's how you reconcile it. If you do you might be charged under the Unborn Victims Act.

The reason men are charge "in most cases" is that they killed the fetus during the commission of another crime....such as killing the woman who hosted the fetus.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense at all. That's a definite double standard. For the purpose of abortion the fetus is a nonperson, but in any other case, it's a person.

And then Congress turns around, recently, and denies all effort to further protect the fetus.

You know, my daughter was born at 26 weeks. She now has more education than 99% of the people in the free world. But I have personally seen infants born at 22 weeks that survived. So I am in favor of dialing back viability. And such double standards are infuriating. Because I think at some point we have to yield to rationality.
 
Last edited:
betuadollar said:
That doesn't make any sense at all. That's a definite double standard. For the purpose of abortion the fetus is a nonperson, but in any other case, it's a person.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a person in cases where a third party kills a fetus. They don't need to be specified as "person" or "human being", "child", or "individual"...only "Members of Homo Sapiens Species".
 
Removable Mind said:
No, it's not a person in cases where a third party kills a fetus. They don't need to be specified as "person" or "human being", "child", or "individual"...only "Members of Homo Sapiens Species".
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous; they're prosecuting for a nonliving entity? Again, this is a double standard. I could make sense of it prior to such laws but I definitely can't wrap my mind around it now. We've politicized this thing without basis.
 
betuadollar said:
That's ridiculous; they're prosecuting for a nonliving entity? Again, this is a double standard. I could make sense of it prior to such laws but I definitely can't wrap my mind around it now. We've politicized this thing without basis.
Click to expand...

So how many prisons you want built for women who have abortions?
 
David_N said:
Unless pro lifers pushing for this crap aren't actually serious or consistent.
Click to expand...


Limits to a woman's right to use aspirin, which is known to increase the risk of miscarriage or lack of implantation in at-risk women. Got a headache? Too bad—you might be pregnant.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the aspirin was not supposed to be taken internally.....but to be gripped and held firmly between her knees? :lol:
 
Removable Mind said:
So how many prisons you want built for women who have abortions?
Click to expand...

We already have plenty of prisons with plenty of room; get rid of victimless crimes and pardon those in prison for them and we have plenty of room for violent offenders like abortionists and their clients.
 
tosca1 said:
Perhaps the aspirin was not supposed to be taken internally.....but to be gripped and held firmly between her knees? :lol:
Click to expand...

Perhaps women need to be publicly shamed, forced to wear the Scarlet Letter "A" on all of their clothing. And some posters want women who have abortions - executed.

Sad that so many people have such extremist, dogmatic, puritan ideas and beliefs about human sexual behaviors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom