• 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 KILLS An Innocent Human Being [W: 459]

Actually my argument is correct and legally sound. Here is my basic argument...

1. Unborns are human beings.

2. Human beings are being killed without legal consequence.

3. Human beings are being killed for no better reason than convenience.

4. Human beings (in the US anyway) have a right to live.

Now, I defy you to prove ANY of these points wrong.

#4 is fiction, not law.

There is no law which says all human beings have a right to life. The law says the unborn have no rights
 
Actually my argument is correct and legally sound. Here is my basic argument...

1. Unborns are human beings.

2. Human beings are being killed without legal consequence.

3. Human beings are being killed for no better reason than convenience.

4. Human beings (in the US anyway) have a right to live.

Now, I defy you to prove ANY of these points wrong.

I do not have to, the law is not on your side of this debate. Change the laws, have it pass by the Constitution, then we will have something to talk about.

Until then your victory lap of your "argument is correct and legally sound" is false. For now, Abortion is legal (within limits.)
 
Unable to contribute to the conversation and rationally defend your position?

If not, perhaps you should just watch the discussion from the sidelines.

Read up, I already have. And I also already rendered your "logic" as legally false.
 
I meant to say that a fetus is not a fully independent human being yet.

STILL Wrong. Human beings are not human beings because they are "viable" or "independent" or "autonomous." We all know people who lack these attributes to some extent or other. We all lack them to some extent or the other. Viability may be necessary in order to stay alive, but it is very simply uninformative about what it is that is staying alive, whatever it may be.

As I said, I encourage you to provide some credible science to support your claim. I had no problem finding credible science that states explicitly that we are, indeed, living human beings from the time we are conceived. Your word simply isn't going to suffice here.
 
So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?

If you believe pregnancy and badly timed parenthood is nothing but an "inconvenience," then there is no help for you in understanding this issue, as you obviously don't care in the slightest about the well-being of women.

Beyond that, any reason or no reason is a good enough reason for a person to defend their body from non-consensual harm and use.

And finally, do you seriously think you're the first person to sputter this particular line at people?
 
No, you didn't. You have said what you did in many threads now and have been corrected on the matter more than once.

Such is the nature of the pro-choice argument isnt it? They must continue to say things that they KNOW to be false because that is the only way that you can defend an indefensible position.

Heck look at this thread. I started it asking a very simple and BASIC question and so far EVERY SINGLE pro-choicer has avoided answering the question ENTIRELY.
 
STILL Wrong. Human beings are not human beings because they are "viable" or "independent" or "autonomous."

Correct

Under the law, they are "human beings" because they were born to human beings
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

Such is the nature of the pro-choice argument isnt it? They must continue to say things that they KNOW to be false because that is the only way that you can defend an indefensible position.

Heck look at this thread. I started it asking a very simple and BASIC question and so far EVERY SINGLE pro-choicer has avoided answering the question ENTIRELY.

Ironic given the way you have completely avoided the fact that, under the law, the unborn are not human beings and have no rights at all
 
I'm glad you can actually read my mind now and tell me what my positions are, buddy. [emoji12]

He does not need to read your mind. All he needs to do is read your posts.

You said one thing, then once you was proven wrong, you switched your answer and guess what? You was STILL WRONG.

But that is what happens whenever you try defending an indefensible position.
 
I was not caught "lying".

I've already clarified my positions about this before. If you don't want to believe that then fine, I really don't care.

I place more importance on the mother than the unborn child, because the unborn is entirely dependant on the mother to survive, and as a result I view the fetus as a secondary consideration compared to the mother. And also because the unborn have no rights anyways.

Claim whatever you wish at this point. Over the past week you have said that drivel repeatedly and every time you have done it someone has come along and corrected you. When you are proven wrong in every single instance you pretend as if you meant something else to avoid the fact that you were just proven wrong. At this point it's pretty obvious that you're saying something wrong on purpose in the hopes to misrepresent the topic.
 
Such is the nature of the pro-choice argument isnt it? They must continue to say things that they KNOW to be false because that is the only way that you can defend an indefensible position.

Heck look at this thread. I started it asking a very simple and BASIC question and so far EVERY SINGLE pro-choicer has avoided answering the question ENTIRELY.

Because your question has little legal reality.

Your argument... a total failure.
 
Believe what you wish at this point. Over the past week you have said the drivel repeatedly and everytime you have done it someone has come along and corrected you. At this point in every single instance you pretend as if you meant something else to avoid the fact that you were just proven wrong. At this point it's pretty obvious that you're saying something wrong on purpose in the hopes to misrepresent the topic.

How did I misrepresent the topic?

And why would I care that people like you have tried to "correct me"?

I have stated before that I don't consider fetus' fully independent human beings because they are still entirely dependent on the mother to survive. That's my position.
 
How did I misrepresent the topic?

And why would I care that people like you have tried to "correct me"?

I have stated before that I don't consider fetus' fully independent human beings because they are still entirely dependent on the mother to survive. That's my position.

You're lying is really ridiculous and I have no further patience for you.
 
You're lying is really ridiculous and I have no further patience for you.
I really don't care if you believe that I'm lying.

Nor do I care if you believe that I'm just a 'liberal moron'.
 
Last edited:
NONE. Now I have answered your question. Can you answer MY question?

Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?

So far not a SINGLE pro-choicer has been able to answer this very BASIC and SIMPLE question.

In the context of abortion human life begins at birth. Now you will no doubt disagree with that as is your right to do. If you do not believe in abortion don't get pregnant and don't have an abortion. I support your right to do that. That's why we call it pro-choice.

Let me also save you some additional time and anguish. I've heard all the pro-life arguments and read all the pro-life reasoning, this ain't my first day. Don't waste your time or mine telling me when human life begins, I'll very likely disagree. And again, I've heard all the arguments. We all have, haven't we? You have nothing new to impart. Redundant arguments are boring as hell.

Here's an idea. Why don't you go back and read the thousands of DP posts arguing for and against abortion. If after slogging through that repetitive dreck you find that your position and argument is so feckin unique that it has never been stated get back to us. Otherwise why say what has already been said thousands of times?
 
I am arguing US Law. An unborn human being is INNOCENT. Do you agree or disagree?

Oh yeah, and you STILL have not yet answered my question...

Again, does your right to whatever outweigh another human beings actual right to live?

The law doesn't recognize a fetus as a "person" because it can't be counted in the US census.

The fetus doesn't have rights until after it is born.

Our country was founded on property rights and every man and woman has Property in their own Person.
 
Last edited:
I really don't care if you believe that I'm lying.

Nor do I care if you believe that I'm just a 'liberal moron'.

I never called you a liberal moron. Please do not accuse me of things I never said or I might just have more reason to consider you a liar.
 
I never called you a liberal moron. Please do not accuse me of things I never said or I might just have more reason to consider you a liar.
I'm definitely sure that you believe that I am just a liberal moron. You don't have the outwardly state that for me to see that.
 
Such is the nature of the pro-choice argument isnt it? They must continue to say things that they KNOW to be false because that is the only way that you can defend an indefensible position.

Heck look at this thread. I started it asking a very simple and BASIC question and so far EVERY SINGLE pro-choicer has avoided answering the question ENTIRELY.

Let's look at that question again:

So. Does one human being's "right" to not be inconvenienced really outweigh another human being's actual right to live?

As always, this question revolves around the issue of when a group of developing cells stop being just that and turn into what we believe to be a Human Being.

You, and other Pro-Life advocates often argue it is at conception, and this argument always devolves into one based on emotional appeals. Attributing a mystical value to a certain type of cell because it has the potential to develop into a "whole human being," ignoring that fact that a "whole human being" is actually a mass of such cells, specifically differentiated, which creates a thinking, feeling creature.

That to actively stop the process is equivalent to murder, while the frequency of un-assisted miscarriages is shrugged off as equivalent to "natural death."

The concern among Pro-Choice advocates, on the other hand, is to rightly identify at what point a developing fetus is not only viable, but also has enough attributes to warrant protection as a human being.

Most of us recognize that at some point both of these characteristics emerge, it's just a matter of pinpointing it. From that point on, legal protections are granted; prior to that point, a woman's right to choose is absolute.
 
Last edited:
OK. Explain a scenario BESIDES self-defense that would make it OK to kill your neighbor?

Good luck.

In the context of your neighbor, it's difficult to justify kiling them, so it's fortunate for me that this thread isn't about aborting your neighbors.

If I were a woman, I wouldn't feel any regret for killing an embryo to avoid raising a kid I didn't want in an impoverished, unbearable slum because I couldn't afford to go to college and raise an infant. I would have a moral dilemma once the fetus was developed enough to actually feel pain and other sensations on its own, and that's an issue I really hope I never have to deal with. But if it's only a few weeks old? I'm not letting biology get in my carrier's way.
 
In the context of your neighbor, it's difficult to justify kiling them, so it's fortunate for me that this thread isn't about aborting your neighbors.

Exactly. Aborting a fetus is not even comparable to killing your neighbor at all.

Those two scenarios are entirely different.
 
Back
Top Bottom