• 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!

Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

tessaesque said:
Somebody in a persistent vegetative state or a coma is functionally equal to a fetus. The only significant difference between the two is the coma patient has a significant likelihood of feeling pain if painful stimulus is presented.

Both the fetus and the PVS/coma patient require life support to maintain "life".
Both the fetus and the PVS/coma patient are unable to sustain life without constant access to life support systems.
Both the fetus and the PVS/coma patient are completely and totally lacking consciousness.
Both the fetus and the PVS/coma patient are often kept alive or allowed to die by the decisions of family members, with absolutely no input from themselves.

So if you would not mandate that PVS/coma patients be kept alive, your absolutely idiotic demands for the cessation of abortion are ragingly hypocritical. If you would mandate that PVS/coma patients be kept alive, your point is still idiotic (not to mention painfully illogical).

Perhaps it would serve you well to actually consider the true facts of the situation before utilizing arbitrary, fleeting, and wholly subjective morality to create a false reality in which abortion is somehow more than it is.
Click to expand...

I agree with your broader point, but I don't think the analogy is quite perfect since coma patients are usually let to die when there is little to no hope for recovery, while the fetus will "recover" into a person in less than 9 months.
 
Objective-J said:
translation: you have no logic or facts to go against my claim while i do :shrug:
Click to expand...

Your claim was outside of the scope of my intentions, so I don't care about it.

yep, you told me his views and they provided evidence for exactly what i said lol
Click to expand...

If they do or not is hardly my concern.

Lets make this clear. I came to defending him on want his thoughts were on the topic. Anything outside of that like your thoughts on them is immaterial. Since you admit those are his stances this is done and my job is completed. Your illogical nonsense and your complete ignorance on rights not withstanding.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
1.)Your claim was outside of the scope of my intentions, so I don't care about it.



If they do or not is hardly my concern.

2.)Lets make this clear. I came to defending him on want his thoughts were on the topic. Anything outside of that like your thoughts on them is immaterial. Since you admit those are his stances this is done and my job is completed.

3.)Your illogical nonsense
4.)and your complete ignorance on rights not withstanding.
Click to expand...

1.) nice deflection, but your intentions as you stated where to help me understand where he was coming from, therefore you need logic to do that, you provided none :shrug:

2.) its not "my thought" its the facts based on what he posts, if you have FACTS that suggest otherwise by all means provide them or simply answer my question i asked you that he is scared to answer. Seems you are too.

3 and 4.) again instead of just making these opinionated falsecalims by all means please provide proof LMAO :laughat:
 
Objective-J said:
1.) nice deflection, but your intentions as you stated where to help me understand where he was coming from, therefore you need logic to do that, you provided none :shrug:
Click to expand...

This isn't a hard concept, is it? I had a goal, you agreed to the point I needed and then tried to expand past that point. I'm unwilling to go there with you. Understand?

If my goal was to make you understand it fully I would be here the rest of my damn life and never get the job done.
 
Henrin said:
This isn't a hard concept, is it? I had a goal, you agreed to the point I needed and then tried to expand past that point. I'm unwilling to go there with you. Understand?
Click to expand...

your goal failed because it changed nothing :shrug:

i see you still wont answer the question
 
Objective-J said:
your goal failed because it changed nothing :shrug:
Click to expand...

You agreed with what each of his stances are and that is all I wanted. If you understand them is not my problem.

i see you still wont answer the question
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't care what your question was. In fact, I didn't even bother to read it when you posted it.
 
Henrin said:
1.)You agreed with what each of his stances are and that is all I wanted. If you understand them is not my problem.



Sorry, I don't care what your question was. In fact, I didn't even bother to read it when you posted it.
Click to expand...

1.) again I fully understand them and the all point to he thinks the woman is less and the ZEF is more :shrug: you denying that is meaningless unless of course you have any bit of logic or fact to show otherwise, many me and others have showed its true with logic and facts

2.) translation: you are scared to answer it LOL
 
A quick caveat. I had a longer response drafted but the browser crashed.

Ultimately, that's fine. The original post was more polite, and as I was parsing and responding, I realized just how trashy and uncivil what I was responding to was.

Brevity seems more appropriate anyway in light of that.

tessaesque said:
Somebody in a persistent vegetative state or a coma is functionally equal to a fetus.
Click to expand...

You don't appear to know the difference between brain death and a coma. Since this nuance is lost on you, I will proceed as though we were talking about brain death.

The brain dead are not alive. So no, the dead are not really comparable to the living. That is a significant difference, also.


So if you would not mandate that PVS/coma patients be kept alive, your absolutely idiotic demands for the cessation of abortion are ragingly hypocritical. If you would mandate that PVS/coma patients be kept alive, your point is still idiotic (not to mention painfully illogical).
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should work on your own poor rhetorical support for the human rights abuse for abortion before you criticize others? Here, let me help you with that by tearing this nonsense apart.

First of all, I don't believe in mandating healthcare services, and especially not for the brain dead. If you want a service, you pay for it. If the patient's wishes were for all possible measures, and this was put into writing or told to a medical power of attorney, by all means, follow those wishes until there are no financial resources left... at which point no one is obliged to provide them for free and someone sometime before then probably advised against going so far. But no one is obliged to request healthcare services and no one should be obliged to give them.

Bluntly, whatever possible relevance you are trying to draw between letting the dead be dead and violently killing someone who is alive... is quite obscure. Hell, just isolate your false equivalency between killing and letting die and you've aready got a logic problem regardless of the specifics of the conversation's context.

There's no hypocrisy in letting someone die who wants to die or for not artificially sustaining the tissues of the brain dead... while also wanting laws to punish inflicting a violent death upon the living. These are almost entirely unrelated concepts and you have done a terrible job trying to link them, which to be fair, was kind of guaranteed when you tried in the first place. Hopefully you won't make such a ridiculous error of logic in the future, but you may also wish to beware Murphy's Law and its various corrolaries... when you go off on a long rant calling others idiots and illogical, you're probably more likely to say something stupid.
 
JayDubya said:
A quick caveat. I had a longer response drafted but the browser crashed.

Ultimately, that's fine. The original post was more polite, and as I was parsing and responding, I realized just how trashy and uncivil what I was responding to was.

Brevity seems more appropriate anyway in light of that.



You don't appear to know the difference between brain death and a coma. Since this nuance is lost on you, I will proceed as though we were talking about brain death.

The brain dead are not alive. So no, the dead are not really comparable to the living. That is a significant difference, also.




Perhaps you should work on your own poor rhetorical support for the human rights abuse for abortion before you criticize others? Here, let me help you with that by tearing this nonsense apart.

First of all, I don't believe in mandating healthcare services, and especially not for the brain dead. If you want a service, you pay for it. If the patient's wishes were for all possible measures, and this was put into writing or told to a medical power of attorney, by all means, follow those wishes until there are no financial resources left... at which point no one is obliged to provide them for free and someone sometime before then probably advised against going so far. But no one is obliged to request healthcare services and no one should be obliged to give them.

Bluntly, whatever possible relevance you are trying to draw between letting the dead be dead and violently killing someone who is alive... is quite obscure. Hell, just isolate your false equivalency between killing and letting die and you've aready got a logic problem regardless of the specifics of the conversation's context.

There's no hypocrisy in letting someone die who wants to die or for not artificially sustaining the tissues of the brain dead... while also wanting laws to punish inflicting a violent death upon the living. These are almost entirely unrelated concepts and you have done a terrible job trying to link them, which to be fair, was kind of guaranteed when you tried in the first place. Hopefully you won't make such a ridiculous error of logic in the future, but you may also wish to beware Murphy's Law and its various corrolaries... when you go off on a long rant calling others idiots and illogical, you're probably more likely to say something stupid.
Click to expand...

Wow, the irony in this post is absolutely astounding.
 
Objective-J said:
1.) again I fully understand them and the all point to he thinks the woman is less and the ZEF is more :shrug: you denying that is meaningless unless of course you have any bit of logic or fact to show otherwise, many me and others have showed its true with logic and facts
Click to expand...

He doesn't "view" them as less. Trying to say they "would be" less is just trying to move past that point. If you would like to direct your question at me directly and not in relation to his views, do so. I may or may not decide to answer it then.
 
Henrin said:
He is doesn't "view" them as less. Remember? Trying to say they "would be" less is just trying to move past that point.
Click to expand...

like i said, his posts disagree with you so do logic and facts.

if you have any logic and facts to suggest differently by all means bring them to the table.
 
tessaesque said:
Wow, the irony in this post is absolutely astounding.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you can't re-reflect criticism into an infinite loop. Your post calling others idiotic was idiotic.

Now you're trying to say that calling your post that called others idiotic "idiotic" is idiotic.

Oh, and also, thank you for your substantive response.
 
JayDubya said:
I'm sorry but you can't re-reflect criticism into an infinite loop. Your post calling others idiotic was idiotic.

Now you're trying to say that calling your post that called others idiotic "idiotic" is idiotic.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're saying, because neither your first sentence nor your second sentence have any basis in reality. And your third sentence is just a cluster****.
 
JayDubya said:
A quick caveat. I had a longer response drafted but the browser crashed.

Ultimately, that's fine. The original post was more polite, and as I was parsing and responding, I realized just how trashy and uncivil what I was responding to was.

Brevity seems more appropriate anyway in light of that.



You don't appear to know the difference between brain death and a coma. Since this nuance is lost on you, I will proceed as though we were talking about brain death.

The brain dead are not alive. So no, the dead are not really comparable to the living. That is a significant difference, also.




Perhaps you should work on your own poor rhetorical support for the human rights abuse for abortion before you criticize others? Here, let me help you with that by tearing this nonsense apart.

First of all, I don't believe in mandating healthcare services, and especially not for the brain dead. If you want a service, you pay for it. If the patient's wishes were for all possible measures, and this was put into writing or told to a medical power of attorney, by all means, follow those wishes until there are no financial resources left... at which point no one is obliged to provide them for free and someone sometime before then probably advised against going so far. But no one is obliged to request healthcare services and no one should be obliged to give them.

Bluntly, whatever possible relevance you are trying to draw between letting the dead be dead and violently killing someone who is alive... is quite obscure. Hell, just isolate your false equivalency between killing and letting die and you've aready got a logic problem regardless of the specifics of the conversation's context.

There's no hypocrisy in letting someone die who wants to die or for not artificially sustaining the tissues of the brain dead... while also wanting laws to punish inflicting a violent death upon the living. These are almost entirely unrelated concepts and you have done a terrible job trying to link them, which to be fair, was kind of guaranteed when you tried in the first place. Hopefully you won't make such a ridiculous error of logic in the future, but you may also wish to beware Murphy's Law and its various corrolaries... when you go off on a long rant calling others idiots and illogical, you're probably more likely to say something stupid.
Click to expand...

Late to the party, but joining the fray.

If this is your idea of brevity, I would hate to see your version of Tolstoy's War & Peace!

PS - Look up redundant in the dictionary and it will say see Jay Dubya.
 
JayDubya said:
I'm sorry but you can't re-reflect criticism into an infinite loop. Your post calling others idiotic was idiotic.

Now you're trying to say that calling your post that called others idiotic "idiotic" is idiotic.

Oh, and also, thank you for your substantive response.
Click to expand...

Amazing! I have never seen a human redundant infinite loop before.
 
The short version on the abortion debate is:

Are American women first and foremost incubators for the use of American men, or do they have rights of their own?
 
SMTA said:
Amazing! I have never seen a human redundant infinite loop before.
Click to expand...

stick around, the magic show he tries to pull off has no bounds, the only problem is everybody educated over a 6th grade level sees the cards he keeps pulling from his sleeves and nobody is fooled.
 
Pinkie said:
The short version on the abortion debate is:

Are American women first and foremost incubators for the use of American men, or do they have rights of their own?
Click to expand...


some people here seem to believe once pregnant american women are just meat sacs and many of their rights freedoms and liberties are null and void the moment they conceive. There only purpose for the next 9 months is to serve the ZEF at all cost no matter the mental or physical damage and even if it means their life.

they are second, lesser, beneath, not as worthy as the ZEF.

Luckily the law disagrees with such nonsense and it understand theres TWO lives to consider and it doesnt just simply ignore one. The mix could be better but at least the mix exists instead of the nonsensical evil alternative.
 
Objective-J said:
some people here seem to believe once pregnant american women are just meat sacs and many of their rights freedoms and liberties are null and void the moment they conceive. There only purpose for the next 9 months is to serve the ZEF at all cost no matter the mental or physical damage and even if it means their life.

they are second, lesser, beneath, not as worthy as the ZEF.

Luckily the law disagrees with such nonsense and it understand theres TWO lives to consider and it doesnt just simply ignore one. The mix could be better but at least the mix exists instead of the nonsensical evil alternative.
Click to expand...

Yes - I felt that way a lot . . . I had a hard time (still do) imagining the women who claim they didn't mind or even liked being pregnant.

Nothing made me feel more ****ty about myself. . . how odd, I think, that something so natural can be the source of so many problems and so much struggle. Nothing made me feel more low, worthless or used than being pregnant (of course - my pregnancies were in the extreme-issues-department) Somehow humans went a little off along the way in our path to being self aware beings and we ****ed it all up when we transcended that line.
 
Pinkie said:
The short version on the abortion debate is:

Are American women first and foremost incubators for the use of American men, or do they have rights of their own?
Click to expand...

Oh for ****'s sake, Pinkie. :doh
 
Objective-J said:
some people here seem to believe once pregnant american women are just meat sacs and many of their rights freedoms and liberties are null and void the moment they conceive. There only purpose for the next 9 months is to serve the ZEF at all cost no matter the mental or physical damage and even if it means their life.
Click to expand...

Anyone here want to tell me where rights begin and end? What did I say earlier on this very same point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom