• 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!

Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservatives’ Sway

Mayor Snorkum said:
No.

"Murder" is a legal term only in a courtroom. It existed in language before law. Since the Mayor has moved to a new residence, his thirty pound Dictionary of Words That Internet Dictionaries Won't Look Up is packed in a box somewhere. However, the word "murder" has more definitions than just the legal, including, off the top of the Mayor's head, a "murder" of crows. Murder means the killing of a human with deliberate intent. As you might see, this is somewhat different than the legal meaning of the word "oops".
Click to expand...

Yes.

Murder is a legal term, first. Abortion is not murder, as abortion is legal. I'm sure that when Mayor Snorkum unpacks his dictionary, he will find that the first definition of murder concerns the legal terminology. Using the term in the abortion debate appeals to emotion only. Killing is more accurate.
 
cAPSLOCK said:
The pro-choice voices in this thread correctly responding to the OP's useof the "terrorist card" renews my hope for humanity. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Pointing out blatantly moronic statements for what they are isn't really exceeding expectations imho.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That's parsing definitions. Definition #1 is the definition most commonly used and applicable... which is why using the term is an appeal to emotion. And I reject God's Law as applying, legally, in this situation. That is a moral argument.
Click to expand...

No.

Since other definitions exist, one cannot arbitrarily presume to apply one's preferred meaning on another's statement. To do so automatically forces the vision of a murder of crows leading to an investigation and prosecution for animal cruelty.
 
Henrin said:
Do nothing. Sorry, you wanted more? Well my lean should tell you I wouldn't do what you wanted.
Click to expand...

Yes, your lean told me PRECISELY how you would answer. DO NOTHING. Which is exactly why I commented on the overly simplistic view of a complex problem.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Yes.

Murder is a legal term, first. Abortion is not murder, as abortion is legal. I'm sure that when Mayor Snorkum unpacks his dictionary, he will find that the first definition of murder concerns the legal terminology. Using the term in the abortion debate appeals to emotion only. Killing is more accurate.
Click to expand...

Mayor Snorkum is perfectly aware that this reference dates him severely, but your needle stuck. Go get your turntable serviced, your argument has already been defenestrated by multiple posters.

Edit:

But....killing what? Why, killing a human child.

Now you can go round and round with that, I'm going to move on to some other topic that is less threadbare and shopworn. One must close one's mind before one can murder a child.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Under the legal terms of THAT country, yes. Now, remember, we are talking legal here. That does not mean that I would not think that the acts were not morally reprehensible.
Click to expand...
Ok, so someone who opposes the DP and works to have it abolished are also attempting to "legislate" their own morality, right? I ask that, because I saw someone here saying that pro-lifers are wanting to legislate morality like it's a bad thing.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
No.

Since other definitions exist, one cannot arbitrarily presume to apply one's preferred meaning on another's statement. To do so automatically forces the vision of a murder of crows leading to an investigation and prosecution for animal cruelty.
Click to expand...

Yes.

We are not discussing crows. You are parsing definitions. CaptainCourtesy enjoys exposing folks who do that. Murder is a legal term in this case. It does not apply to abortion, and using it appeals to emotion. Killing is accurate.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Point out where I said that abortion is not about convienience and then get back to me.




Wrong. That is the irresponsible course. Setting something in motion without a plan of how to deal with it is like building a house without a foundation. This is classic from some pro-lifers. You want to end abortion, but you have no plan... nor desire to deal with what that means. With no plan, there is no reason to consider ending abortion from how I see it.



Irrelevant. Abortion is legal, currently. Therefore, it is not murder as defined, legally.
Click to expand...

What do you mean pro-life people have no plan? The plan is to end abortion, your attempt at finding flaws is mediocre at best. The "plan" would involve making abortion completely illegal forcing all clinics and funding to close.

Just because abortion is legal does not mean it doesn't contradict another law. Pro-life people simply point out this contradiction; i don't think you want murder to become legal instead of both being illegal. All you are doing is making distracting arguments from the actual origin of the disagreement at hand.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Pointing out blatantly moronic statements for what they are isn't really exceeding expectations imho.
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't happen to often around here when folks do that to other folks on their OWN side... no matter how silly the argument is.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Mayor Snorkum is perfectly aware that this reference dates him severely, but your needle stuck. Go get your turntable serviced, your argument has already been defenestrated by multiple posters.

Edit:

But....killing what? Why, killing a human child.

Now you can go round and round with that, I'm going to move on to some other topic that is less threadbare and shopworn. One must close one's mind before one can murder a child.
Click to expand...

Mayor Snorkum is in denial. My argument is rock solid and has been penetrated by no one. Not even close.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Yes, your lean told me PRECISELY how you would answer. DO NOTHING. Which is exactly why I commented on the overly simplistic view of a complex problem.
Click to expand...

It just so happens that if people die on the side of the road I'm not really all that affected, but if I'm forced to keep that person alive I am. Go figure. Your argument is almost moot. People die all the time because they fail in life and sometimes that takes people with them. Am I supposed to be scared of it? Think OMG its so unacceptable!? Really? Why would I think that? Humanity? The liberals idea of helping people? Look I'm all interested in avoiding people from dieing on the side of the road, but its not like its the end of the world or that will cause some kind of horrible disaster if it did. Your post is over reacting to a problem and unwillingness to accept private means of help. Which is fine, but you can't honestly say I have no plan.

You are trying to say the result of my action would cause strain on society, but since these people are hardly involved in society that can't afford life, it is almost not an issue unless someone was paying for them like the government.

Still, what their situation is going to be does not warrant the action taken by the mother, sorry.
 
Last edited:
cAPSLOCK said:
The pro-choice voices in this thread correctly responding to the OP's useof the "terrorist card" renews my hope for humanity. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was cool. I just would also have liked to see someone take issue with the part about conservatives wanting to bring America to it's knees.
 
Chappy said:
The most radical social conservative elements, really terrorists amongst us, have tried to bring America to its knees. They failed but they were far too close to succeeding.
Click to expand...

An attempt to stop federal funding of abortion is terrorism now? This would bring America to it's knees how?
 
celticwar17 said:
What do you mean pro-life people have no plan? The plan is to end abortion, your attempt at finding flaws is mediocre at best. The "plan" would involve making abortion completely illegal forcing all clinics and funding to close.
Click to expand...

This is no plan. Not at all, Too may pro-lifers ignore that societal ramifications of doing this. I've already outlined them. Not addressing them demonstrates you all have no plan, nor are you interested in coming up with one. You tell me how society should manage all of the unwanted children that will then be around, and I will happily listen and discuss your plan. Until then, your reasoning for ending abortion is completely short-sighted and has no impact on altering my views. Or many others, too. Currently, abortion is legal. You all want it to be illegal. Convince us by telling us what will happen next... not some lame answer of "whatever". I have been looking for a reason to switch my position for a long time, but as of yet, no one has been able to come up with any suitable answer to "what happens next".

Just because abortion is legal does not mean it doesn't contradict another law. Pro-life people simply point out this contradiction; i don't think you want murder to become legal instead of both being illegal. All you are doing is making distracting arguments from the actual origin of the disagreement at hand.
Click to expand...

Abortion being legal does not contradict any other law. Not currently. And I attack the use of the word because it is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy... and I will continue to do so. The word "killing" is accurate.
 
Henrin said:
It just so happens that if people die on the side of the road I'm not really all that affected, but if I'm forced to keep that person alive I am. Go figure. Natural selection...it happens.
Click to expand...

I have big problem with social darwinism. We do not live in a vacuum. The affects of individuals have impacts on the entirety of society. When it comes right down to it, that is the biggest problem with your "lean".
 
X Factor said:
Ok, so someone who opposes the DP and works to have it abolished are also attempting to "legislate" their own morality, right? I ask that, because I saw someone here saying that pro-lifers are wanting to legislate morality like it's a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm not sure what your point is.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Abortion being legal does not contradict any other law. Not currently. And I attack the use of the word because it is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy... and I will continue to do so. The word "killing" is accurate.
Click to expand...
I'm curious, are you as similarly hard on pro-choicers when they use appeals to emotion?
 
Did the OP drop a stink bomb and run?

What happened to the days when you stuck around to talk about and defend your original post?
 
X Factor said:
I'm curious, are you as similarly hard on pro-choicers when they use appeals to emotion?
Click to expand...

I'm curious. Why is it you always ask me a form of this particular question? How did I deal with the OP in this thread?

Edit: If I am in an abortion thread, and a pro-choicer calls a fetus a parasite, I go after them too. Please stop questioning this, X.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
I have big problem with social darwinism. We do not live in a vacuum. The affects of individuals have impacts on the entirety of society. When it comes right down to it, that is the biggest problem with your "lean".
Click to expand...

My lean doesn't imply we do.
 
*sigh* Even though I don't enjoy discussing the topic I feel I need to post a response.

A few things to point out on both sides. First off, the obligatory denouncement of the statement that those trying to cut PP funding are terrorists. It's just ridiculous to the extreme.

Secondly, the argument that funding PP means funding abortion doesn't hold water. You can argue that our tax dollars are going to an organization that provides abortions. That's a valid argument. However, our tax dollars do not "fund abortions." That's a massive oversimplification.

As is the "abortion is murder" argument. It holds just as much weight as arguments saying that soldiers are murderers. It's an appeal to emotion and not a valid argument.

As to the topic at hand, I feel that people need to stop implying that cutting funding to Planned Parenthood would reduce abortion numbers. Speaking as someone who is quite familiar with their operations, shutting them down would be no guarantee of reducing abortions. It might, it might not, we simply don't know.

Something that is clear, however, is that shutting down PP would increase unwanted pregnancies. And while abortion is still legal, an increase in unwanted pregnancies has a direct and obvious tie to an increase in abortions.

As a note, I personally do not support abortion. I feel there are much better ways of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, adoption for example.

However, I believe there are two major issues with trying to de-fund Planned Parenthood which mesh with my disagreement with abortions.

1. If the attempt is to outright outlaw abortion, then attempt to outlaw abortion. Stop with the pathetic attempts at working around the legal system.

2. More importantly, abortion has been going on since ancient times. We're talking before Rome. It happens. The only way to truly stop it from happening is contraception. Planned Parenthood, more than any other organization in the U.S., provides not only contraception to those who are most unable to acquire it, but also works with local communities in properly teaching the correct use of said contraception. Cutting off funding from Planned Parenthood would set your cause back in many, many ways. It's short sighted and foolish. It relies on assumptions about the world which simply aren't true.

People are always going to ****. Period. Planned Parenthood helps make doing so safer.
 
Henrin said:
My lean doesn't imply we do.
Click to expand...

How many of your lean respond to situations such as we are discussing does. Look at how you have responded to the issue, here. Very "vacuum-like". You even said that your lean sort dictates that you do nothing. Problem is lack of action is action. No getting around it, Henrin. Do something or not do something. Others are affected. Ending abortion will impact others... and you. Like it or not. Probably a good idea to be proactive and have a plan to deal with those repurcussions.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm curious. Why is it you always ask me a form of this particular question? How did I deal with the OP in this thread?

Edit: If I am in an abortion thread, and a pro-choicer calls a fetus a parasite, I go after them too. Please stop questioning this, X.
Click to expand...
Ok, CC, I will. My apologies.
 
Since there is focus on definitions in this thread, let's start there.

ter·ror·ist/ˈterərist/
Noun: A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
Click to expand...

ter·ror·ism/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Click to expand...

The OP doesn't say that all people opposed to abortion are terrorists. It doesn't say that all people opposed to federal funding for abortions are terrorists. Read it!

Chappy said:
The most radical social conservative elements, really terrorists amongst us, have tried to bring America to its knees. They failed but they were far too close to succeeding.
Click to expand...

The people who intimidate and murder doctors, who intimidate patients, who intimidate landlords and neighbors and whole communities, who blow up clinics are terrorists.

This is terrorism.

image556484.jpg
*clicky*

And this is terrorism.

2i8j8s8.jpg

Radical social conservative political leaders almost shutdown the government over funds paid to Planned Parenthood for womens health services rendered, funds which by law cannot be used for abortion. Like all radicals, their cause is more important than anything else even the nation itself.

Appeals to emotion? Perhaps. For sure, this is my honest interpretation of events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom