• 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!

Abortion Doctor Charged with Murder

Johnny Centrist said:
So you are saying that a fetus is considered a life when the woman wants it to live, but it is not considered a life when the woman doesn't want it to live? I had no idea life was relative, lol.
Click to expand...

No, it is all about reproductive choice, and the woman should have total control over her reproductive system.
 
Ah hell, another abortion debate – this one spawned by a news story about a sick twisted bastard murdering newborn babies…

As I understand it, before a certain arbitrarily determined point in the development of an egg/sperm combo into a fetus, said living (in terms of not inert) object is not considered viable (in terms of being capable of surviving outside the mother?), thus it can be removed without it being called murder by law.
At least I think that’s how it’s set up.

Personally, I tend towards support for no abortions being allowed unless it’s a choice of the mother or the child – and even in that case, the mother can make the decision to have the child and die if she chooses to, I suppose…

I’m thinking more along the lines of “it COULD and most likely, given proper development without issues, WOULD develop into a viable fetus, and further, into a human being – therefore, it should not be aborted.

But perhaps that’s a BS position, as I can see some few merits in eliminating a pregnancy in the very early stages, depending on situation and such…

In short…

I dunno.

:lol:
 
Your Star said:
No, it is all about reproductive choice, and the woman should have total control over her reproductive system.
Click to expand...

I see you criticizing evangelicals for their "pro-life rhetoric" and for not having a logical-legal approach or basis for their debates. However you are no different. You are simply spitting out pro-choice rhetoric and carefully choosing your words and dodging my questions about the definition of life and murder so as not to associate abortion with the termination of life and thus acknowledge the hypocrisy of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and the current legality of abortion. You'd be a great politician. You remind me of Sarah Palin. She dodges questions very slickly so as not to have to acknowledge the obvious immorality of her beliefs. Check this video out starting at 9:00. This is a great example of dodging.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ALsjhDDdaA
 
Last edited:
Johnny Centrist said:
I see you criticizing evangelicals for their "pro-life rhetoric" and for not having a logical-legal approach or basis for their debates. However you are no different. You are simply spitting out pro-choice rhetoric and carefully choosing your words and dodging my questions about the definition of life and murder so as not to associate abortion with the termination of life and thus acknowledge the hypocrisy of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and the current legality of abortion. You'd be a great politician. You remind me of Sarah Palin. She dodges questions very slickly so as not to have to acknowledge the obvious immorality of her beliefs. Check this video out starting at 8:35. This is a great example of dodging.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ALsjhDDdaA
Click to expand...

I'm not dodging anything, I just see a difference between a woman choosing to abort, and someone else making that choice for her.
 
Your Star said:
I'm not dodging anything, I just see a difference between a woman choosing to abort, and someone else making that choice for her.
Click to expand...

Yes but you cannot or will not acknowledge that either a fetus is a life, or it isn't. It doesn't depend on who terminates it. Either a fetus is not a life which means a male who punches a woman could not be charged with murder, or either it is, which means that women who have abortions done are legally killing fetuses. This isn't complex stuff honey, its basic logic. Until you can at least acknowledge that, you have an incredibly weak debate.
 
Johnny Centrist said:
Yes but you cannot or will not acknowledge that either a fetus is a life, or it isn't. It doesn't depend on who terminates it. Either a fetus is not a life which means a male who punches a woman could not be charged with murder, or either it is, which means that women who have abortions done are legally killing fetuses. This isn't complex stuff honey, its basic logic. Until you can at least acknowledge that, you have an incredibly weak debate.
Click to expand...

Legally, and that is what we are speaking about here, I think no abortions should happen after the first trimester. Now you could say that is when I think life happens but it is more complicated then that, and there is no way of defining that while the child is in the womb. Now in this sense, when someone takes control away from the mother, I think that legally it should be assumed that the baby would have been born, and that the offender should be charged with murder. It is all about reproductive control, and not about whether or not the baby is alive.
 
Your Star said:
Legally, and that is what we are speaking about here, I think no abortions should happen after the first trimester. Now you could say that is when I think life happens but it is more complicated then that, and there is no way of defining that while the child is in the womb.
Click to expand...

But if you charge someone with murder for killing a fetus, even if it is in the first trimester, you are already asserting that the fetus is a life because you can't murder something that isn't living! That's what you are not understanding. If you believe life starts after the first trimester only, then someone could not be charged with murder for terminating a fetus that is in the first trimester, no matter that he took "control of the woman's reproductive system", because murder is the act of unlawfully killing, so if the fetus wasn't "living", he could not be charged with murder.

Your Star said:
Now in this sense, when someone takes control away from the mother, I think that legally it should be assumed that the baby would have been born, and that the offender should be charged with murder.
Click to expand...

Then you would have to apply that law to mother's who abort their fetuses. Hypocritical laws have no place in America.

Your Star said:
It is all about reproductive control, and not about whether or not the baby is alive.
Click to expand...

That statement disgust me.
 
Johnny Centrist said:
So you have no opinions of your own and simply go by what the law says? Interesting.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that I don't have enough information about the legal system to make an informed opinion about it.

By the way my point isn't "whacked out" and it totally relates to the debate. There is something called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act that was established in 2004 and this brought about intense debate and disapproval from pro-choicers, because, get this...abortion and violence against fetuses are totally related! You suck at debating and you've offered nothing of value to this debate. Go to college.
Click to expand...

It doesn't relate to the debate anymore than your lame drug analogy did. You are comparing an issue where a woman has a choice over what is going on in her own body with an issue where a woman is assaulted by someone else. Try again.

As for the rest of your nonsense...
Wah! :boohoo:
 
What I want to know is why the "mothers" aren't sitting in the docket right next to him. They had to know that what they were doing was illegal and dangerous, or else they wouldn't have gone to a butcher in the first place.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
What I want to know is why the "mothers" aren't sitting in the docket right next to him. They had to know that what they were doing was illegal and dangerous, or else they wouldn't have gone to a butcher in the first place.
Click to expand...

I was actually curious about that myself.
 
Your Star said:
I am not an abortionist, I will never get an abortion, and I couldn't live with myself if I did. I don't believe it is right, and I would recommend to my friends to give the baby up for adoption instead of having it aborted. But that is my choice, and I am in no way prideful enough to think that my choice is best for everyone in every circumstance. And I know with my study of history that having abortion illegal has a worse effect on society, then having it legal. Don't assume what I am, just because I disagree with you. Not everyone who disagrees with you fits the same cookie cutter reason for disagreeing with you.
Click to expand...

The only person you are fooling is yourself assuming you actually believe that nonsense you just typed. No person who is actually pro-life utters that bull **** line that you just spewed for the simple fact pro-lifers view the child in the womb no different than one outside the womb and therefore deserve the same legal protection and the right to life as anyone outside the womb. The whole I view a woman's choice more important than a child's life or I want it to be safe and legal for a woman to kill her child is a load of garbage spewed by pro-abortionist and pro-abortionist trying to con people into thinking they are pro-life.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
What I want to know is why the "mothers" aren't sitting in the docket right next to him. They had to know that what they were doing was illegal and dangerous, or else they wouldn't have gone to a butcher in the first place.
Click to expand...

I agree. This is no different than a murder for hire and aiding in a murder case. They should get what ever the maximum punishment is for aiding in the murder and soliciting a murder for hire.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
The only person you are fooling is yourself assuming you actually believe that nonsense you just typed. No person who is actually pro-life utters that bull **** line that you just spewed for the simple fact pro-lifers view the child in the womb no different than one outside the womb and therefore deserve the same legal protection and the right to life as anyone outside the womb. The whole I view a woman's choice more important than a child's life or I want it to be safe and legal for a woman to kill her child is a load of garbage spewed by pro-abortionist and pro-abortionist trying to con people into thinking they are pro-life.
Click to expand...

Yes, how dare you use stereotypical rhetoric like that to attack pro-lifers, you "pro-abortionist". :lamo
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Yes, how dare you use stereotypical rhetoric like that to attack pro-lifers, you "pro-abortionist". :lamo
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure if someone was running around claiming to be pro-abortion but thinks abortion should be illegal and carry a death sentence you and every other abortionist would call that person a liar or phony.
 
jamesrage said:
I am pretty sure if someone was running around claiming to be pro-abortion but thinks abortion should be illegal and carry a death sentence you and every other abortionist would call that person a liar or phony.
Click to expand...

If you expect to get into an actual conversation with people on the opposite side of this issue, it may help to stop referring to them as "pro-abortion" because it's beyond ****ing ridiculous. Nobody is pro-abortion. Believing that women should have a choice over their own body isn't the same as wanting abortions to happen regularly. Even you have to realize how ****ing stupid that is.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
If you expect to get into an actual conversation with people on the opposite side of this issue, it may help to stop referring to them as "pro-abortion" because it's beyond ****ing ridiculous. Nobody is pro-abortion. Believing that women should have a choice over their own body isn't the same as wanting abortions to happen regularly. Even you have to realize how ****ing stupid that is.
Click to expand...
I wonder why choicers run from being called pro abortion. If it's not a baby or a life or anything worth protecting, why shy away from being called pro abortion? I don't mind being called anti abortion.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
I wonder why choicers run from being called pro abortion. If it's not a baby or a life or anything worth protecting, why shy away from being called pro abortion. I don't mind being called anti abortion.
Click to expand...

Because nobody is actually pro-abortion. They are pro-choice because they feel that a woman should have the choice one way or another. What part of that do you not get? Pro-choice isn't the opposite side of the coin to pro-life. Pro-choice is a middle ground view. It isn't either one or the other. You are anti-abortion because you take an absolutist standpoint. That's fine. I'm pro-choice because I believe a woman should have a choice one way or another. I in no way advocate abortion, nor do other pro-choice people. Time and time again I've seen pro-life people come up with this ridiculous argument and it does absolutely nothing to help your cause.
 
X Factor said:
I wonder why choicers run from being called pro abortion.
Click to expand...

Because, fundamentally, people who are pro-choice still consider abortion to be a bad thing and desire that there be far fewer abortions in general.

I don't cringe when people call me "pro-abortion", but even in my case it is an inaccurate and emotionally-charged term.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Because nobody is actually pro-abortion. They are pro-choice because they feel that a woman should have the choice one way or another. What part of that do you not get? Pro-choice isn't the opposite side of the coin to pro-life. Pro-choice is a middle ground view. It isn't either one or the other. You are anti-abortion because you take an absolutist standpoint. That's fine. I'm pro-choice because I believe a woman should have a choice one way or another. I in no way advocate abortion, nor do other pro-choice people. Time and time again I've seen pro-life people come up with this ridiculous argument and it does absolutely nothing to help your cause.
Click to expand...
No offense, but I don't need a choicer telling me what is and is not good for my "cause". You all believe abortion is a right, right? Rights are good things, no? So why aren't you proud to be pro abortion? If you're not, that's as good as admitting abortion is wrong and you don't believe that do you?
 
Dr_Patrick said:
If you expect to get into an actual conversation with people on the opposite side of this issue, it may help to stop referring to them as "pro-abortion" because it's beyond ****ing ridiculous. Nobody is pro-abortion. Believing that women should have a choice over their own body isn't the same as wanting abortions to happen regularly. Even you have to realize how ****ing stupid that is.
Click to expand...

Pro-legalization,pro-choice or what ever else you people want to call yourself is pro-abortion. Just because you would not do it is irrelevant. Just like someone can be pro-gay marriage but would never engage in sex with someone of the same gender. You can support 2nd amendment rights and not own a single firearm. You can be for freedom of the press even though you are not a member of the press. You can be against censorship and not fowl language or not walk around naked. You are pro-abortion, if you do not want to be pro-abortion then oppose legalized abortion.
 
Last edited:
I'm strongly pro-life. But I don't really know people who are pro-abortion, in that they want more abortions preformed. I dislike the hyped up mantra of calling people anti-choice, pro-abortion, calling the fetus a parasite, and the like.

Regardless, this "dr." Should be severely punished along with the women who consented to these horrific killings. Were the women briefed on what was going on? Did they consent to this? If so, they are equally sick and equally guilty.
 
X Factor said:
No offense, but I don't need a choicer telling me what is and is not good for my "cause". You all believe abortion is a right, right? Rights are good things, no? So why aren't you proud to be pro abortion? If you're not, that's as good as admitting abortion is wrong and you don't believe that do you?
Click to expand...

I've already explained my position on the matter. Feel free to continue your pathetic baiting attempts by calling me "pro-abortion". As I said, it does nothing for your cause. Poorly constructed stereotypes rarely do.
 
jamesrage said:
Pro-legalization,pro-choice or what ever else you people want to call yourself is pro-abortion. Just because you would not do it is irrelevant. Just like someone can be pro-gay marriage but would never engage in sex with someone of the same gender. You can support 2nd amendment rights and not own a single firearm. You can be for freedom of the press even though you are not a member of the press. You can be against censorship and not fowl language or not walk around naked. You are pro-abortion, if you do not want to be pro-abortion then oppose legalized abortion.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. I could care less for whatever twisted reasoning leads you to call pro-choice people pro-abortion. It's an absurd standpoint to take and if you can't see that, there is really nothing I can do for you.
 
digsbe said:
I'm strongly pro-life. But I don't really know people who are pro-abortion, in that they want more abortions preformed. I dislike the hyped up mantra of calling people anti-choice, pro-abortion, calling the fetus a parasite, and the like.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Referring to pro-life people as anti-choice is just as ridiculous as calling pro-choice people pro-abortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom