• 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

theplaydrive said:
Actually, my criteria is consciousness. I mentioned pain and you focused on that.
Click to expand...

I 'focused' on consciousness as well though I may not have added what a silly excuse that was. We don't not end the life of someone because they are 'unconscious'. There has to be be more to it than that, and I mentioned examples and the reasons.

Your opinion on the word "lawful" has no affect on its meaning. Abortion is lawful and is therefore not murder. People who get and perform abortions are 99.9% not doing it out of malice. You want to frame them that way, but it's just not the case.
Click to expand...

Because you seem to have missed the point doesn't make it any less real. It is lawful now, in some areas of the world, and illegal in others. It was illegal in the United States at one time and now it is legal, and there are many abortion advocates who want to fight against the issue returning to the Supreme Court because it might be proved illegal once again. And of course the Supreme Court should never have ruled in the case anyway.


I said the "taking life" part was arguable at best. You're arguing it and I disagree with you. It still doesn't meet the requirements of murder. Your use of the term doesn't make any sense. You're just using it for emotional pull.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem to effect you emotionally so what does it matter? If you kill someone who is 'unconscious', who has every chance of gaining consciousness, it is still murder. You just prefer not to think of it like that in order to continue your rationalization.

1. People who are unconscious were conscious before and will be after their temporary lack of conscious (barring irreversibly comatose people). A fetus, like an embryo, never had consciousness - they only have the potential for conscious.
Click to expand...

As mentioned earlier they do have senses. And of course they are alive. We have the decision to let there be life and let that life continue or put to death. You choose death and I chose life. The issue seems clear.

2. What is a human being? is a difficult question to answer. I believe that a fetus is human just as I believe a person in an irreversible coma is human - so it's not really a relevant question.
Click to expand...

Certainly it's a relevant question, it's what separates us from animals, and it is not a difficult question to answer. You just don't want to enter areas in which your strongly held belief makes you feel uncomfortable. But most moral questions are like that..
Most women think about it before it happens and most women aren't happy to get it.
Click to expand...

So then there is premeditation.
Counseling usually means emotional manipulation.
Click to expand...

Counseling means just what it says. Your concern seems to be that they might not choose abortion.
Women can think for themselves.
Click to expand...

Obviously many of them cannot or they wouldn't be in that situation.
Most human beings don't kill their young, which is why liberals don't have children and then kill them. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact many Liberals are killing their children and most Conservatives are not. That is why the future tends to be Conservative.

Really? Because most anti-war arguments are based on nothing being worth the life of a human beingi
Click to expand...

If only! Instead they are based on political ends, nothing more. Why do you suppose the Left always supported Communism? Because they valued human life?
And most anti-death penalty arguments are based on having problems with 1) The killing of innocent people. 2) Taking other people's life in general. Try harder.
Click to expand...

I understand the Left will stand up for criminals, just as they have for the Communists, Islamic fanatics, and a variety of dictators everywhere, while safely turning on their own government. Meanwhile the fetus is not even a living thing, much less a human being.
Click to expand...
 
Demon of Light said:
Except here the point is that you were comparing a likely permanent condition to a temporary one. A fetus or embryo only has a temporary lack of consciousness that will quickly cease to be an issue. Comparing it to a situation where there will never be consciousness again is illogical. The issue with a temporary loss of consciousness is not that the person was conscious at some time, but that person is likely to be conscious again. It is the potential for consciousness in the future that changes attitudes.
Click to expand...

No. The comment that I was responding to was this:
apdst said:
Where did I question the, "alive-ness", of a fetus at any given stage of development? Show me where I said that and I will post a vid of a fetus, "consciously", dodging the fork that an abortion doctor was trying to stick into it's brain.
Click to expand...

1. My comment explained that a response to stimuli does not denote consciousness. The comment had nothing to do with equating a "permanent condition to a temporary one".
2. Re: your comment about "the potential for consciousness in the future" - I responded to that in the post that you just quoted. #224
 
theplaydrive said:
I don't think "killing children" is on the democratic platform.

Raise taxes, provide universal healthcare, kill children. Yep that sounds about right.
Click to expand...

Of course not. They give the procedure a clinical name like abortion. Then they support the pretense the child isn't human by calling it a fetus and they do all of this under the guise of "Women's rights". In reality, they are children that are being killed and in most cases for no other reason than they just aren't convenient. That is the side the democrats have chosen.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Of course not. They give the procedure a clinical name like abortion. Then they support the pretense the child isn't human by calling it a fetus and they do all of this under the guise of "Women's rights". In reality, they are children that are being killed and in most cases for no other reason than they just aren't convenient. That is the side the democrats have chosen.
Click to expand...
The a gross simplification of the issue based on many subjective and unscientific assumptions. If were as simple as you put it, there wouldn't even be a debate.
 
theplaydrive said:
The a gross simplification of the issue based on many subjective and unscientific assumptions. If were as simple as you put it, there wouldn't even be a debate.
Click to expand...

It is as simple as I put it. From the moment the sperm penetrates the egg, it is a human. Any other reclassification can only be explained as a response to the cognitive dissonance created as a result of killing an innocent child.
 
ksu_aviator said:
It is as simple as I put it. From the moment the sperm penetrates the egg, it is a human. Any other reclassification can only be explained as a response to the cognitive dissonance created as a result of killing an innocent child.
Click to expand...
It's really not that simple at all. The fact that you think it is means that you view the world in very simplistic terms - it has no basis on the actual complexity of the issue at hand.
 
theplaydrive said:
It's really not that simple at all. The fact that you think it is means that you view the world in very simplistic terms - it has no basis on the actual complexity of the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

Some things really are simple. This is one of them. You have to admit that the majority of abortions are for one reason and one reason only...the child just isn't convenient. Just look at the 1998 International Family Planning survey:

37.7% of abortions went to women that are either "too young" or not ready
10.8% didn't want the kid to interfere with work or school
21.3% said they couldn't afford the kid
8% said they just didn't want kids at all
14.1% were in a bad relationship

That's 92.9% of abortions for something other than a real life threatening risk.

That's the reality. 92.9% of the children that are abort are for selfish reasons. I can't support the killing of a child just because the parent(s) are selfish.

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm#Why Abortions Are Performed
 
mertex said:
Unfortunately, Reps/cons have decided to take away funding for Planned Parenthood, one of the strongest organizations providing information and help to prevent unwanted pregnancies. They are against abortions, so they try to close down an organization that is helping to reduce them, go figure.
Click to expand...

Could it just be something as cynical as a need for cannon fodder, or abjectly poor people desperate for even peasant level wages?

Because I sure see a lot of activity in support of sex leading to offspring, while also witnessing a complete liquidation of all support systems for those children after birth.

Is the human race just incapable of seeing multiple sides of an issue, or is it just a result of the constant barrage of persuasion techniques?

I mean seriously, this thread is filled with "liberals don't care about people" statements from people who claim liberals are unrealistic about society caring about people.

Personally, I believe ther are far too many people on the planet as it is, and therefore bringing more people into it is madness. I advocate incentives to sterilization and even voluntary, incentivized eugenics. (Genetic disorders, etc.)

So while I don't advocate for abortion as birth control, I do believe that accidental/unwanted pregnancies should be abortable for both the survival of the species as well as the quality of life of the fetus in question.

And for reference, I believe in reincarnation and a multitude of lives, a philosophy precisely as valid as any other, so my cosmology does not necessarily make abortion a sin.

This is just another of those places where people are never going to agree.
 
theplaydrive said:
The a gross simplification of the issue based on many subjective and unscientific assumptions. If were as simple as you put it, there wouldn't even be a debate.
Click to expand...

Any scientific method would tell you that what is being removed is a living thing, a human being with the potential to be a child and an adult. And to deny that the Democrats have not embraced abortion in order to satisy the Leftist base doesn't gibe with the facts.

The Pro-Abortion Party - WSJ.com
 
ksu_aviator said:
Some things really are simple. This is one of them. You have to admit that the majority of abortions are for one reason and one reason only...the child just isn't convenient. Just look at the 1998 International Family Planning survey:

37.7% of abortions went to women that are either "too young" or not ready
10.8% didn't want the kid to interfere with work or school
21.3% said they couldn't afford the kid
8% said they just didn't want kids at all
14.1% were in a bad relationship

That's 92.9% of abortions for something other than a real life threatening risk.

That's the reality. 92.9% of the children that are abort are for selfish reasons. I can't support the killing of a child just because the parent(s) are selfish.

Abortion Statistics by U.S. State, Race, Age and Worldwide Statistics Abortions Are Performed
Click to expand...

Those are all pretty rational reasons...
 
theplaydrive said:
It's really not that simple at all. The fact that you think it is means that you view the world in very simplistic terms - it has no basis on the actual complexity of the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

It is not complex at all. Either there is life or there isn't life. It is deceitful to dismiss the issue as 'complex' or 'simplistic' when the facts are easily available.

If it is not a living thing inside the mother we call the child 'stillborn'.
 
Grant said:
Any scientific method would tell you that what is being removed is a living thing, a human being with the potential to be a child and an adult.
Click to expand...
A person in an irreversible coma is some version of "alive" as well. Irrelevant. Show me consciousness.

And to deny that the Democrats have not embraced abortion in order to satisy the Leftist base doesn't gibe with the facts.

The Pro-Abortion Party - WSJ.com
Click to expand...
When did I deny that?
 
Grant said:
Either there is life or there isn't life.
Click to expand...

No, unfortunately, that's not how it works. A person in a irreversible coma is some version of "alive" as well. The fact that a fetus is wholly dependent on the mother for life is another reason why your statement is simplistic. Let's also throw in the fact that having a heartbeat does not denote having the mental functions that most us associate with "life". Etc.
 
theplaydrive said:
No, unfortunately, that's not how it works.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works? Really? Of course that's how it works! And what does a person in an irreversible coma have to do with anything? Babies in the womb are not in an "irreversible coma".
The fact that a fetus is wholly dependent on the mother for life is another reason why your statement is simplistic.
Click to expand...

Isn't this the direct opposite of the same Leftist argument that says "the rich" should pay for the "wholly dependent" poor? If we want to start getting rid of the wholly dependents, as has been argued by Leftists in the past, then there are many places you can start. How about Veteran's Hospitals? Old folks homes? Will you be waiting for welfare recipients to show up for their food stamps before you apply some retroactive abortion
on them?
Let's also throw in the fact that having a heartbeat does not denote having the mental functions that most us associate with "life". Etc
Click to expand...

Yes, I've heard Michael Moore, Danny Glover and many other leftists speak.
 
theplaydrive said:
Those are all pretty rational reasons...
Click to expand...

Rational does not preculde selfish.

On second thought...how can you say it is rational to kill a child because it might intefere with school? By that reasoning, I should be able to kill the driver in front of me because I'll be late for work? It isn't rational to kill someone out of convenience.
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
Rational does not preculde selfish.
Click to expand...

Never said it did...:shrug:

Edit (in response to your edit):
ksu_aviator said:
On second thought...how can you say it is rational to kill a child because it might intefere with school? By that reasoning, I should be able to kill the driver in front of me because I'll be late for work? It isn't rational to kill someone out of convenience.
Click to expand...

Easy - I don't see abortion as "killing a child".
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
I have seen the left rationalize every inhumanity known to man.

That's just who they are.
Click to expand...

Really? Every inhumanity known to man? Please provide examples and statistics showing that the collective "left" supports them.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
That's not how it works? Really? Of course that's how it works! And what does a person in an irreversible coma have to do with anything? Babies in the womb are not in an "irreversible coma".
Click to expand...
The point is that your use of the term "living thing" is irrelevant. A person in an irreversible coma is a "living thing" and we pull the plug on them all the time.

Isn't this the direct opposite of the same Leftist argument that says "the rich" should pay for the "wholly dependent" poor? If we want to start getting rid of the wholly dependents, as has been argued by Leftists in the past, then there are many places you can start. How about Veteran's Hospitals? Old folks homes? Will you be waiting for welfare recipients to show up for their food stamps before you apply some retroactive abortion on them?
Click to expand...
Umm...poor people are not connected to the rich by an umbilical cord. Also, I support a "workfare" plan instead of welfare. Anyway, back to the topic.

Yes, I've heard Michael Moore, Danny Glover and many other leftists speak.
Click to expand...
In conclusion, you are unable to adequately defend your naive assertion that either "there is or isn't life" so you resort talking about Danny Glover and poor people.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
Really? Every humanity known to man? Please provide examples and statistics showing that the collective "left" supports them.
Click to expand...

Okay, how about Communism. Can we agree that the Left supported Communism?

Are you aware of the horrors of Communism?

It was actively supported by the Left and, oddly enough, despite all the information available, many Leftists still support it. But that's who they are. It's all political and human life means little.
 
Grant said:
Okay, how about Communism. Can we agree that the Left supported Communism?

Are you aware of the horrors of Communism?

It was actively supported by the Left and, oddly enough, despite all the information available, many Leftists still support it. But that's who they are. It's all political and human life means little.
Click to expand...

Remember that time a non-communist country pretty much wiped out an entire race, the enslaved another race and then put yet another race of people in internment camps. What a bitch that place was...oh wait. How about the rest of the inhumanities of the world?
 
theplaydrive said:
The point is that your use of the term "living thing" is irrelevant. A person in an irreversible coma is a "living thing" and we pull the plug on them all the time.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Your point is that a living thing is irrelevant. My point is that all life is relevant. And important. It's all any of us have. There is the difference.
Umm...poor people are not connected to the rich by an umbilical cord. Also, I support a "workfare" plan instead of welfare. Anyway, back to the topic.
Click to expand...

You were talking about ""wholly dependent" and I mentioned a few of those who were wholly dependent. Umbilical cords were not mentioned. And whether or not you support "workfare" or not does not mean we have any fewer wholly dependent people. They will always be with us.

Nor does your singular opinion effect the greater good among any social community. It's what a group of people stand for that's important and how they view justice and human rights. Among those would be the rights of those not yet born but still in a mother's womb. If we don't respect those rights, why respect the rights of anyone?

We, as human beings, can rationalize slavery, the killing of Gays, killing those of a different tribe or culture, the stoning of women, and the killing of babies in the womb. Or a fetus if you prefer. We've done it all.

You've already made it clear you do not support the weakest among us now, now it is just trying to discover where it might all end.

In conclusion, you are unable to adequately defend your naive assertion that either "there is or isn't life" so you resort talking about Danny Glover and poor people.
Click to expand...

I mentioned Danny Glover but did not talk about him. And it was you who first mentioned the "wholly dependent" as though they were a pox on humanity.
 
Grant said:
Exactly! Your point is that a living thing is irrelevant. My point is that all life is relevant. And important. It's all any of us have. There is the difference.
Click to expand...
No. My point is that your use of the term living thing is irrelevant. All living things are relevant in some way... Unfortunately, not all types of "life" is equal which is why "living things" like irreversibly comatose patients get the plug pulled on them.

You were talking about ""wholly dependent" and I mentioned a few of those who were wholly dependent. Umbilical cords were not mentioned. And whether or not you support "workfare" or not does not mean we have any fewer wholly dependent people. They will always be with us.
Click to expand...
Poor people and old people in diapers are not "wholly dependent" on anyone. A fetus is wholly dependent on its mother - it is a part of the mother (hence the umbilical cord).

Nor does your singular opinion effect the greater good among any social community. It's what a group of people stand for that's important and how they view justice and human rights. Among those would be the rights of those not yet born but still in a mother's womb. If we don't respect those rights, why respect the rights of anyone?
Click to expand...
I agree. I'm standing for the rights of women to be free from unscientific religious judgment.

We, as human beings, can rationalize slavery, the killing of Gays, killing those of a different tribe or culture, the stoning of women, and the killing of babies in the womb. Or a fetus if you prefer. We've done it all.
Click to expand...
Rational =/= rationalization.


You've already made it clear you do not support the weakest among us now, now it is just trying to discover where it might all end.

I mentioned Danny Glover but did not talk about him. And it was you who first mentioned the "wholly dependent" as though they were a pox on humanity.
Click to expand...

Umm...I mentioned "wholly dependent" in order to explain to you why saying "either it's life or it isn't" is nonsensical - it had nothing to do , as you know, with describing fetuses as a "pox on humanity". You get lost too easily in conversations...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom