• 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!

"The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

Vote:


  • Total voters
    29
It's like when you outlaw rape, and therefore the rapist ends up killing the woman to avoid prosecution. We should legalize rape, just like abortion for this reason.

Sure, rape is unfortunate, but it's more important to be practical than to be ethical.

Incidentally, you're missing the point.

Outlawing rape doesn't stop rape. All it does is provide us a standard method for dealing with rapists after the fact.

What reduces rape is changing our culture in such a way that people don't feel compelled to rape, and survivors are more likely to hold them accountable if they do.

And hey, guess what reduces abortion? Changing our culture in such a way that people feel both informed and compelled to either dictate when they won't have sex, or use birth control correctly when they do.

But rather unlike rape, abortion preserves rights rather than taking them away.
 
Incidentally, you're missing the point.

Outlawing rape doesn't stop rape. All it does is provide us a standard method for dealing with rapists after the fact.

Thanks, I see you got my point. Outlawing stuff doesn't make it go away, so arguing "We can't make abortion illegal because that won't stop it!" is silly.

What reduces rape is changing our culture in such a way that people don't feel compelled to rape, and survivors are more likely to hold them accountable if they do.

And the people who don't survive?

And hey, guess what reduces abortion? Changing our culture in such a way that people feel both informed and compelled to either dictate when they won't have sex, or use birth control correctly when they do.

That's good.

But rather unlike rape, abortion preserves rights rather than taking them away.

That right to murder.

Okay. What about the right to rape? Hey, if the victim is dead afterwords, they ain't complaining anymore than that ZEF (or alien parasite) would. They don't need justice anymore than they would. Come on, dead people don't have rights, remember?

What I don't get is how pro-choice people can be disgusted by this doctor's actions. The only difference between his actions and all abortions is his unsanitary conditions (which I can see why you'd be upset about) and the fact that he killed them after they were already out. So, a few seconds after they come out of the womb, they're suddenly worth protecting.

Well, he had those jars of feet too, but at least they weren't human feet. Just cells.
 
Thanks, I see you got my point. Outlawing stuff doesn't make it go away, so arguing "We can't make abortion illegal because that won't stop it!" is silly.

No, but one can certainly argue that it's stupid, futile, and harmful to women.

And the people who don't survive?

See the former part of changing culture. Ultimately, the burden falls on would-be rapists to not rape. And cultural change has been shown to effectively reduce that.

That right to murder.

Okay. What about the right to rape? Hey, if the victim is dead afterwords, they ain't complaining anymore than that ZEF (or alien parasite) would. They don't need justice anymore than they would. Come on, dead people don't have rights, remember?

What I don't get is how pro-choice people can be disgusted by this doctor's actions. The only difference between his actions and all abortions is his unsanitary conditions (which I can see why you'd be upset about) and the fact that he killed them after they were already out. So, a few seconds after they come out of the womb, they're suddenly worth protecting.

Well, he had those jars of feet too, but at least they weren't human feet. Just cells.

When someone is raped, another person is coming at them to claim their right to personal sovereignty and bodily integrity.

Abortion is a completely different scenario. In fact, it's very nearly a complete reversal. There's two ways to look at it, and either way, I am ultimately lead to the same conclusion.

1. A ZEF is not a person. In this case, aborting it is no different from removing a tumor. In this case, there is no ethical dilemma at all.

2. A ZEF is a person. In this case, it is a "person" who has is sucking sustenance out of the woman's body at the risk of her health and life, and without her consent. In this case, there is a profound ethical dilemma, but that dilemma only concerns the woman. There is no moral justification for prohibiting her from removing it.
 
No, but one can certainly argue that it's stupid, futile, and harmful to women.

And so, the solution to the known outcome of an action these women choose to engage in is to kill an innocent bystander instead. Brilliant!
See the former part of changing culture. Ultimately, the burden falls on would-be rapists to not rape. And cultural change has been shown to effectively reduce that.

And it falls on women to take responsibility for the sexual acts they choose to engage in. In the meantime, we need to protect those who are defenseless.


When someone is raped, another person is coming at them to claim their right to personal sovereignty and bodily integrity.

True.

Abortion is a completely different scenario. In fact, it's very nearly a complete reversal. There's two ways to look at it, and either way, I am ultimately lead to the same conclusion.

Jeez, what about the baby? Nah, it has no right to bodily integrity at all. Flush the little turd outta there.

I don't understand why nobody on the pro-choice side even bothers considering the child.

1. A ZEF is not a person. In this case, aborting it is no different from removing a tumor. In this case, there is no ethical dilemma at all.

Then why is this doctors act so wrong? He was just waiting a few extra minutes before he killed them, those things, and playing with the sacks of random flesh a bit. It's not different playing with a scab. Hell, we should give him a medal for his enlightened ethical views.

Also, comparing a baby to a tumor? You're so enlightened yourself. We have all these tumors walking around that we, for some reason, feel the need to protect.

2. A ZEF is a person. In this case, it is a "person" who has is sucking sustenance out of the woman's body at the risk of her health and life, and without her consent. There is no moral justification for prohibiting her from removing it.

The women consented when she engaged in an act in which that was a known outcome. Having to pay on your debts is not non-consensual when you agree to the terms. The risk of sex is pregnancy. To act as though a woman entered the act without that knowledge is absurd.
 
Thanks Gina, don't know where I got the idea I can see your location listed. But it doesn't negate my other comments. Tiller did indeed do partial birth abortion. He used the foreceps through the crown method.

You are welcome.

Whichever procedure he performed, it was legal and that's the difference between him and Gosnell, cb.

Legal or not, the result is the same—a dead child.
 
Yeah, that was a little snarky, I admit it. See edit.

For the record dude, if you're skeptical about something, you can just politely ask for citations rather than being passive aggressively rude about it.

From the abortion subforum today:

A person to you is a being that is neurologically active and has a mind? Sounds reasonable

You support abortion for the first 5 months at least before they become neurologically active and have a mind?

That is around the time where I would give the unborn some minimum consideration

Like I said. At least two. There was a prominent paper by some European ethicists widely talked about in this forum as well, I believe more than just those two agreed with their findings, but I'd have to find the thread.

Again, I'm not even making a value judgment here, just noting that these folks exist, which rendered the statement I was replying to false. Which is what I said...
 
For the record dude, if you're skeptical about something, you can just politely ask for citations rather than being passive aggressively rude about it.

From the abortion subforum today:



Like I said. At least two. There was a prominent paper by some European ethicists widely talked about in this forum as well, I believe more than just those two agreed with their findings, but I'd have to find the thread.

Again, I'm not even making a value judgment here, just noting that these folks exist, which rendered the statement I was replying to false. Which is what I said...

You do realize though that if someone is pro in-choice-of-abortion-rights that "pro abortion" can't apply, since that position would automatically demand that someone would be in favor of abortion over any other choice?

Tell me you can see that.
 
You do realize though that if someone is pro in-choice-of-abortion-rights that "pro abortion" can't apply, since that position would automatically demand that someone would be in favor of abortion over any other choice?

Tell me you can see that.

If you support the legality of abortion, the proper term for your position is pro-abortion; almost everyone likes choice, and most of those people who like choice generally want laws against aggressive violence. Some don't and some do want laws against this specific act of aggressive violence: abortion.

Tell me you can see that?
 
If you support the legality of abortion, the proper term for your position is pro-abortion; everyone likes choice, and most people who like choice want laws against aggressive violence. Tell me you can see that?

I can't be "pro abortion" if I support a woman's right to have a child. At most it only describes half a position and therefore implies that the other half (the right not to have a child) doesn't exist. By adding the word "rights" it makes it clear that both options exist. This is simply logical.

Why are you against adding a word that makes it clear both options exist for the person holding that position?

Edit: I could agree adding on "legal" instead of "rights" if you prefer. As in, "pro legal abortion." I'm not sure I see a significant difference.
 
Last edited:
I can't be "pro abortion" if I support a woman's right to have a child. At most it only describes half a position and therefore implies that the other half (the right not to have a child) doesn't exist. By adding the word "rights" it makes it clear that both options exist. This is simply logical.

Why are you against adding a word that makes it clear both options exist for the person holding that position?

Edit: I could agree adding on "legal" instead of "rights" if you prefer. I'm not sure I see a significant difference.

I think "legal" goes without saying though. I mean, that's what we're talking about here, after all - the law.

I *do* recognize that there are people who want abortion to be legal who aren't the zealots who want to shrink the population, who think adoption is evil, who think every child should be wanted so all the others must die... I would still characterize these people as pro-abortion. They want the practice to be legal.
 
I think "legal" goes without saying though. I mean, that's what we're talking about here, after all - the law.

Actually it doesn't go without saying. But you're not answering my question: why are you against adding the word "legal" or "rights" to "pro abortion?"
 
Actually it doesn't go without saying. But you're not answering my question: why are you against adding the word "legal" or "rights" to "pro abortion?"

In the case of legal, I already told you: because I think it does go without saying.

In the case of rights, I already told you: I would never imply that abortion is a "right."
 
In the case of legal, I already told you: because I think it does go without saying.

In the case of rights, I already told you: I would never imply that abortion is a "right."

What you're left with though is a logically inaccurate term because it only describes half a position. So you need an alternative. And so what if "legal" is added on? We say and write full, complex sentences hundreds of times a day. Is "legal" overwhelming you?
 
And so, the solution to the known outcome of an action these women choose to engage in is to kill an innocent bystander instead. Brilliant!

I don't live in a fantasy land where people never have sex unless they want to be parents. Is that where you live?

I also don't feel some sort of need to punish women for having the audacity to enjoy their sex lives.

And it falls on women to take responsibility for the sexual acts they choose to engage in. In the meantime, we need to protect those who are defenseless.

Defenseless indeed. Taking over several organ systems of an adult human hardly seems defenseless.

I'm sorry, I just can't find it in me to hate women enough for that.

Jeez, what about the baby? Nah, it has no right to bodily integrity at all. Flush the little turd outta there.

A baby, as a self-sufficient, detached organism, has every right.

A ZEF feeding off someone else's livelihood? No.

I don't understand why nobody on the pro-choice side even bothers considering the child.

Because it is clear the woman's rights are so drastically more important.

Then why is this doctors act so wrong? He was just waiting a few extra minutes before he killed them, those things, and playing with the sacks of random flesh a bit. It's not different playing with a scab. Hell, we should give him a medal for his enlightened ethical views.

Also, comparing a baby to a tumor? You're so enlightened yourself. We have all these tumors walking around that we, for some reason, feel the need to protect.

Because some people are crazy. Crazy people do all kinds of crazy things.

You're comparing a ZEF to a baby, so I reckon it's only fair.

The women consented when she engaged in an act in which that was a known outcome. Having to pay on your debts is not non-consensual when you agree to the terms. The risk of sex is pregnancy. To act as though a woman entered the act without that knowledge is absurd.
 
Now YOU are putting words in MY mouth. I didn't imply anything. It was a QUESTION. Obviously you'd rather divert the conversation instead of talking/thinking about the topic.

This is why I tend to avoid abortion threads. Not only did you try and suggest a reason for my statements that was not in my words anywhere, you then get pissy that I did not answer your questions the exact way I wanted you to. If you do not want an honest discussion, just say so up front.
 
In the case of legal, I already told you: because I think it does go without saying.

In the case of rights, I already told you: I would never imply that abortion is a "right."

Oh, by the way, the right to abortion is my position, so I'll call it pro-abortion-rights if I want to. You can't change the name of my position just because you disagree with the position. If you want to change its name you have to explain why it's inherently illogical.
 
Well that should be intuitively obvious, it's a poor name because there is no such right and never could be.
 
Well that should be intuitively obvious, it's a poor name because there is no such right and never could be.

As the right exists, you're demonstrably wrong. And you still don't get to change its name just because you disagree with that position. That would be like me calling you a democrat because I disagree with the positions of republicans.
 
1. When you get an abortion, you're literally hiring someone to kill your unborn child.
2. If that child was a few months older, you'd call it murder.

3. If that child was a few years older, you'd call the mother a psychopath, evil killer and want the book thrown at her. The fact that the child has just begun to grow doesn't mean he/she is any less a human.

4. Just because you made a "mistake" doesn't give you the right to take an unborn child's life.

5. that very thing is legal here in the U.S. Chilling.

1. Ok?

2. Yeah but it has nothing to do with the child being a human but a being who is part of the social fabric. You are capable of interacting and develop a relationship with this being because it can respond back to you which the unborn can not big difference

3. I would call it murder but it has nothing to do with the child being more human less human sort of thing but a being capable of projecting it's own existence into the future. A being capable of deciding what it could do days from now weeks from now etc should not be killed because this being is experimenting with a life of some sort. Placing direct value on it's own existence will make a obligation to perserve it's life in my book. Rather or not it's human is irrelevent

4. It's ok in my book as the unborn are easily replaceable which is the cold truth

5. It's legal in Russia, Canada, United Kingdom, China, USA etc it isn't just one nation
 
Wanting people to use words correctly is a prerequisite for communication. You're not a demon if you can't use words correctly, you're just demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the thing you apparently want to talk about, and that doesn't help you make an argument very well.

The irony in this post is staggering. DO you have any clue how entertaining to us it is that you make posts like these when you FACTUALLY do not use words correctly? LMAO

many posters, many times, with many science, biology, medical and dictionary links have factually proven that you use words incorrectly almost daily (at least on the days you post)

Maybe you should make less hypocritical and intellectually void posts that do not show how severely uneducated you are on this topic.
 
Do you think there are more Kermit Gosnells in this country? (If you don't know the story, you need to know...)

Abortion Doctor Trial: Coverage of Kermit Gosnell Case Sparks Debate

If so, what should be done about this?

I view this as it needs to be viewed

its a DOCTOR who is, or seems to be VIOLATING and BREAKING LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS and PROTOCOLS.

If true he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest of the law.

as far as what to do about it? not sure. Not sure what all the actual failures are.

Doctor violations
Employee violations
oversight org violations or lack or enforcement, letting things slide etc etc
 
Back
Top Bottom