• 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!

Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

Dr. Chuckles said:
Pointing out the obvious here, not all opinions share the same level of validity
Click to expand...
whats obvious is, if its truly an opinion they actually do have the same level of validity. Why? because validity of an opinion would be totally subjective.

now if theres information that proves one opinion factually wrong then yes that wrong opinion loses validity.

Calling an abortion "a willful taking of a human life" is nothing more than opinion and its no better than the opinions of people who disagree.

If you disagree with this assessment you are free to try and support it.
 
AGENT J said:
whats obvious is, if its truly an opinion they actually do have the same level of validity. Why? because validity of an opinion would be totally subjective.
Click to expand...

No, someone can have an educated and informed opinion, as opposed to one derived simply from assumption and belief. This is what makes your constant harping about opinion and fact so inane.

It states nothing of substance and ignores we largely debate issues that are not facts. But various views, theories and opinions derived from facts






Calling an abortion "a willful taking of a human life" is nothing more than opinion and its no better than the opinions of people who disagree.

If you disagree with this assessment you are free to try and support it.[/QUOTE]
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
1.)No, someone can have an educated and informed opinion, as opposed to one derived simply from assumption and belief. This is what makes your constant harping about opinion and fact so inane.

2.)It states nothing of substance and ignores we largely debate issues that are not facts. But various views, theories and opinions derived from facts






Calling an abortion "a willful taking of a human life" is nothing more than opinion and its no better than the opinions of people who disagree.

If you disagree with this assessment you are free to try and support it.
Click to expand...

1.) wrong because if no facts support that opinion making it true and no facts support a different opinion making it false BOTH those opinions are technically equal in reality unless one subjectively favors one opinion over the other.

Opinions are opinions PERIOD.

if facts support or disprove an opinion then there is a measurement of REAL validity, until then there is not.

so actually its any but inane because my harping is based off of people THINKING their opinion is more meaningful than others when it isnt.

2.) see maybe you do get it, this is your OPINION and nothing more. Many here disagree because the many find great substance in pointing out when a person is presenting false information or trying to push the falsehood of more than opinion.

But like i said the only thing im discussing is what i pointed out. The statement was just an opinion based on nothing substantial or anybody that opinions that disagree.

Your move now is to try and debate otherwise or move on because your deflections and random derails always fail with me. lol
if you disagree by all means try you r best to support otherwise

one more time here is the topic

Calling an abortion "a willful taking of a human life" is nothing more than opinion and its no better than the opinions of people who disagree.

If you disagree with this assessment you are free to try and support otherwise, id LOVE to read it.
 
:roll: Abortion is objectively the deliberate taking of a human life, a killing. You may subjectively think that killing is justified, or not, but to deny the reality entirely requires someone to either be insane or lying.

You can't "disagree." Such a statement would no more be an "opinion" than 2+2=5 is an "opinion." No, that's just being ignorant and / or bad at math.

And this is where we come back to Python. An argument is about more than simple contradiction; the problem you run into when all you have is contradiction is that you run afoul of reality when someone tells you 2+2=4 and all you have is "No it isn't." Of course, when one is doing it deliberately, the tactic makes a sick sort of sense.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
1.) wrong because if no facts support that opinion making it true and no facts support a different opinion making it false BOTH those opinions are technically equal in reality unless one subjectively favors one opinion over the other.
Click to expand...

No, an opinion can be derived from fact and a) still be wrong or even b) speak to an issue with no obvious answer (hence, why we are likely debating it). In fact, as often is the case in debate, two widely deferring opinions can be derived from the same set of correct facts


Opinions are opinions PERIOD.
Click to expand...

No, we just covered that not all opinions are equal


so actually its any but inane because my harping is based off of people THINKING their opinion is more meaningful than others when it isnt.
Click to expand...

No, there is a clear qualitative issue there.
 
This women went into labor so I think that means the fetus was born maybe dead but it was born so that means it did have rights . This man poisoned this women with intent to harm a part of her body and should be locked up .
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
1.)No, an opinion can be derived from fact and a) still be wrong or even b) speak to an issue with no obvious answer (hence, why we are likely debating it). In fact, as often is the case in debate, two widely deferring opinions can be derived from the same set of correct facts

2.No, we just covered that not all opinions are equal

3.No, there is a clear qualitative issue there.
Click to expand...

1.)1.) this changes NOTHING that i said lol, nothing
did i say an opinion couldn't be derived from a fact? NOPE

please stay on topic, even when you are deflecting and tryign to derail you fail because you try to argue things that were never said LOL

2.) if they are true opinions they are equal, you done nothign to prove otherwise, NOTHING but offer more of your opinion.

3.) wrong again because that would be based of more subjective opinions

anyway your dodged is noted but i choose to stick on topic.
Calling an abortion "a willful taking of a human life" is nothing more than opinion and its no better than the opinions of people who disagree.

If you disagree with this assessment you are free to try and support otherwise, id LOVE to read it.
 
JayDubya said:
:roll: Abortion is objectively the deliberate taking of a human life, a killing. You may subjectively think that killing is justified, or not, but to deny the reality entirely requires someone to either be insane or lying.

You can't "disagree." Such a statement would no more be an "opinion" than 2+2=5 is an "opinion." No, that's just being ignorant and / or bad at math.

And this is where we come back to Python. An argument is about more than simple contradiction; the problem you run into when all you have is contradiction is that you run afoul of reality when someone tells you 2+2=4 and all you have is "No it isn't." Of course, when one is doing it deliberately, the tactic makes a sick sort of sense.
Click to expand...

as usual facts prove you wrong :shrug:
you can post this lie as much as you want but it will never be anything more than a lie

it has been proven to be a lie by many links, facts and posters, if you disagree by all means PLEASE we beg you prove the bolded statement above to be true. You wont however because its im possible. WHat will happen is you will make posts after post repeating your OPINION and becoming more and more uncivil using failed insults etc but yet still provide ZERO facts supporting your lie and the true will remain the same.

your statement is factually false and whats funny is its the exact equivalent of 2 +2 = 5

Let me know when you have any facts supporting your lie, id love to read them
 
AGENT J said:
2.) if they are true opinions they are equal, you done nothign to prove otherwise, NOTHING but offer more of your opinion. \
Click to expand...

no, two opinions derived from the same facts can still have qualitative differences. An obvious example is someone following a faulty line of logic from those facts.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
no, two opinions derived from the same facts can still have qualitative differences. An obvious example is someone following a faulty line of logic from those facts.
Click to expand...
good move backing off your first made up argument LOL

anyway if its truly faulty (factually not true) then its not a true opinion.

If its subjectively faulty based off of opinions then no in reality they are still equal, this isnt going to change no matter how much spin and opinion you try to present.

Calling an abortion "a willful taking of a human life" is nothing more than opinion and its no better than the opinions of people who disagree.

If you disagree with this assessment you are free to try and support otherwise, id LOVE to read it.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
good move backing off your first made up argument LOL
Click to expand...

I'm unsure where you got any such idea. I am addressing points as you bring them up to support your original position
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I'm unsure where you got any such idea. I am addressing points as you bring them up to support your original position
Click to expand...


facts :shrug:

see post 682, point 1
you totally backed off this made up argument in the next post

Calling an abortion "a willful taking of a human life" is nothing more than opinion and its no better than the opinions of people who disagree.

If you disagree with this assessment you are free to try and support otherwise, id LOVE to read it.
 
Un biased said:
This women went into labor so I think that means the fetus was born maybe dead but it was born so that means it did have rights . This man poisoned this women with intent to harm a part of her body and should be locked up .
Click to expand...

No, with the intent of causing the abortion of the human life growing inside her body.
 
nota bene said:
No, with the intent of causing the abortion of the human life growing inside her body.
Click to expand...

I wrote it in a way that would not upset some people ... PC terms
 
Un biased said:
I wrote it in a way that would not upset some people ... PC terms
Click to expand...

I think that's very thoughtful of you.

The reason I tried to clarify is because the statement has been made elsewhere at DP that "Abortion is not intended to kill the embryo or fetus. The intent is its removal."

What this father committed was feticide.
 
minnie616 said:
Many Fetal abnormalities cannot be tested for until about 18 to 20 weeks gestation.
Less than 1.3 of all legal abortions that take place in the USA take place after 21 weeks gestation.
I read that about 99 percent of those abortions are because of fetal admormalies.

Less than .08 of all legal abortions that take place in the USA at or after 24 weeks gestation are because of extreme cases.
These are the cases where the woman's life or irreparable damage would take place if the pregnancy continued, where the fetus would be stillborn or where it is so malformed that it would only live a few minutes or hours.

Dr. Tiller was one of five doctors who performed legal late term abortions in the United States in 2008.
Kansas was one of a small handful of states that allowed abortions after viability for these extreme cases.
They kept records of all abortions at or after the 21 week gestation mark ( keep in mind that the limit of viability is 24 weeks gestation and that has not changed in the last 12 years).

OB/GYNs from all over the country whose patients had the extreme cases I mentioned would send their patients to Dr. Tiller for their extreme problem pregnancies.

There were 321 abortions at or after 21 weeks gestation that were recorded in Kansa in 2008.
192 were because the fetus was NOT viable. It would be stillborn or would only live a few minutes or hours.
The other 132 abortions at or after 21 weeks gestation were because irreparable damage to a major bodily function would happen if the pregnancy were allowed to continue.

They were the extreme cases.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you avoided the question... I will take into account what you have answered and ask it again.

After you account for the abnormalities, and lets go with your 5 different doctors and lets say they all have their own clinics "performing abortions" on those that are not viable/will only live a couple of hours. That would be 5 times 321 which would equal 1605 abortions...that leaves us with average of approximately one million two hundred and forty eight thousand three hundred and ninety-five abortions that are not for those reasons...each and every year in the United States... so why do you delight in laws created that allow this continuing outrageous number of abortions [ disposings, butcheries, killings, murders, mass slaughters... choose your poison ] of those who have not been determined to be other than healthy and who do not the ability to defend themselves?
 
I was eleven years old when the Thalidmine babies made headlines in the USA.
A US news reporter had taken the drug Thalidomine early in her pregnancy.
News reports surfaced in Europe that a number of babies were being born without arms or legs, sometimes all the limbs were affected and that the cause was the Thalidomine drug they had taken during pregnancy.
The news reporter wanted an abortion and pleaded for a legal abortion in the USA.
She was denied and eventually went to Sweden where she had her abortion.
I thought it horrible that The United States was so backwards with their laws they would even allow abortions in these therapeutic type cases.

I cried for the women and their babies that were affected by the Thalidomine drug.
I cried for the woman in the USA who could not have a legal abortion in their country .

I was a young married woman and the mother to a planned baby
when the Surpreme Court ruled 7 to 2 in favor of legal early abortions in the United States.
I was so happy about the Roe vs Wade decision.

Finally women in the USA were allowed to be first class citizens and were granted the right to bodily soverenity.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I am sure that nuanced distinction about murder and its illegality meant a lot to the Jews being mass "legally killed" under the Nazi regime. The Nazi's legally killed 6 million Jews and they are regarded as near devils. How should we regard those who, just in the USA, have "legally" killed over 50 million? Nearly 10 times as many as the obscene Nazis... nice crowd to be hanging with...
Click to expand...

Godwining the thread?

Gee, how original!! :roll:
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Give me the quote where the Supreme Court expressly, or even obliquely, states that the government's power to protect rights does not apply to the unborn at any stage.

The rest of my post would require you to do something you simply cannot do, which is prove me wrong... on anything.

or....

it would require you to do something you seemingly cannot do, which is admit you are completely and utterly wrong. Looking back I do not think there is a SINGLE point where you have won the argument. Not even one single point.
Click to expand...

Give me the quote where the constitution expressly, or even obliquely, states that the governments power to protect rights does apply to the unborn an every stage.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
So really, Minnie, why is it you take such delight in laws such as that..?

What exactly have these children, millions, tens of millions now, of children in utero, done to you that makes them so bad...these tiny struggling innocent beings leading their best way towards a life such as the rest of us, those us of with the good fortune, the luck of the draw, who have the blessing, the fluke not to have been created by people who just do not seem to much care about what it is that they have, 99% of the time willingly, done, a life that the rest of us enjoy...? What is it about these little helpless ones that gives you so much passion to make sure that if they are twenty-three weeks and six days they can be "destroyed" [ and we both know the semantics of that term ] whereas if they hit that first minute of the twenty-fourth week, they can be allowed a reprieve? A stay of execution for having done what exactly? For only doing what they just naturally do so that the species can survive? For being as, likely more, innocent than any other living human beings?

Is our humanity only based, or only in the future to be determined solely on how technologically advanced we can become, up to the point where our science and machines can take over for what should be a naturally nurturing, loving mother? Our humanity is exclusively dependent on just that? Not based on who we are, as a people, in our hearts and minds?

Or is this just who we really are, heartless and...

?
Click to expand...

The abortion banners attempts to shame others might have more credibility if they weren't so busy trying to prove their moral superiority with so many lies
 
sangha said:
Give me the quote where the constitution expressly, or even obliquely, states that the governments power to protect rights does apply to the unborn an every stage.
Click to expand...

This Kabuki dance you keep dragging us through has gone from the really ridiculous to super absurd...

Everyone reading these discussions [no longer a debate, you apparently got “nuthin” to argue ] must be as weary as I of these constant banal, redundant and repetitive inanities you keep foisting upon us. And then foisting on us yet again, adding nothing new but a few caustic yet clumsy jibes.

You see, we can all observe as you make foolishly bizarre statements that you simply cannot back up…then, for some reason, re-advertise this inadequacy, reiterating this lack of knowledge…why? I am savvy enough to know not to make such similarly silly statements.

How many times now, 5, maybe six, that I have informed and re-informed you that the Constitution is silent on both “born persons” and “unborn persons”?

Let me ask, just so I can get an idea, just how many times will it take telling you THAT FACT until you actually think about it, reflect and actually realize that… I mean, until you get it?

Then the part of the dance where I tell you that I did not say anything about unborn persons in the Constitution where you say it does, but can never point this out [ or anything else out when you speak of the Constitution ]... then I re-inform you that the Constitution, through the 9th and 10th Amendments allows we the people to what needs be done, whether it be born or unborn, should we decide to do so. Then you will try to bring up, again, that SCOTUS is the Constitution, that the Constitution allows for the Supreme Court judicial review, which it doesn't but at the same time we do know of the tradition established with the case of Marbury v Madison...blah blah blah...

Or… maybe the better question…Will this fairly simple concept, Constitution being silent on the issue, ever sink in? Seems pretty simple to the rest of us…do you really not understand the concept? I mean, seems reasonable to assume that this has gone far beyond the point where one can utilize simple naive ignorance of the Constitution… to where one is actually just being obstinate… but why? Cannot accept reality?

Do you have anything new to add? Have anything that will prove any, ANY, of your assertions? If not, do us all a favor...
 
sangha said:
The abortion banners attempts to shame others might have more credibility if they weren't so busy trying to prove their moral superiority with so many lies
Click to expand...

I was just asking a question, but thank you for identifying those against the murder of the innocent and those who are for life as being the morally superior... another Freudian slip, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom