• 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!

Why do those who oppose abortion hate it

celticwar17 said:
This statement just shows a lack of knowledge of the debate.
the abortion debate fundamentally starts at whether you consider a fetus worthy of rights themself.

the debate has nothing to do with woman's freedom or right's, that part of the discussion is beyond the impasse. In order to get to that part of the argument you already have to assume a premise in which you both do not agree on, so naturally the argument is pointless.
Click to expand...

Hey! Don't bring facts into a propaganda war!
 
JayDubya said:
Why do we hate lying, defamatory nonsense?

Cuz it's dishonest, bad faith, stupid horse**** you should be ashamed of spewing.
Click to expand...

Lies? Dishonest? bad faith?
you mean like:
Zef is a bigoted term worse than the N-word
Abortion = homicide
Planned parenthood is worse than Isis
your(just you not pro-life in general) views are based on equality and human rights

retarded lies that you post like that?:2rofll::laughat:

well "I" certainly don't hate them I love them they are hilarious and some of the most retarded and dishonesty things I could read during the day that make us laugh. Your posted lies and hypocrisy fails again.
 
Last edited:
celticwar17 said:
This statement just shows a lack of knowledge of the debate.
the abortion debate fundamentally starts at whether you consider a fetus worthy of rights themself.

the debate has nothing to do with woman's freedom or right's, that part of the discussion is beyond the impasse. In order to get to that part of the argument you already have to assume a premise in which you both do not agree on, so naturally the argument is pointless.
Click to expand...

It isn't a lack of knowledge. He knows what he's doing. The people with colorful account names know what he's doing.

Everyone here who constantly blathers about a "woman's body" or "a medical decision" or whatever else aren't even trying to take part in an honest discussion about the issue.


The only relevant thing they need to do is construct an argument justifying aggressive violence against human beings who are helpless and incapable of harming others. Since that is difficult to say the least, we don't even see attempts. We see the same intellectually lazy lies.

Over and over.
 
JayDubya said:
It isn't a lack of knowledge. He knows what he's doing. The people with colorful account names know what he's doing.

Everyone here who constantly blathers about a "woman's body" or "a medical decision" or whatever else aren't even trying to take part in an honest discussion about the issue.


The only relevant thing they need to do is construct an argument justifying aggressive violence against human beings who are helpless and incapable of harming others. Since that is difficult to say the least, we don't even see attempts. We see the same intellectually lazy lies.

Over and over.
Click to expand...

more hypocritical postings and you justify violating a woman's legal and human rights including her right to life, FACT. Your posts are so easy to destroy. Weird MANY of us can have honest and civil conversations, i have had many here and privately with honest and normal/avg pro lifers. Your views/posts simply don't fit that description and even pro-lifers point that fact out. Over and over :)
 
JayDubya said:
As it is merely a legal / political construct, person has no intrinsic meaning. I don't think any living human being should be excluded from personhood.

Souls are religious concepts with no scientific backing and no basis for claims about the real world or law.

A human being's lifespan still begins at fertilization, though, and that is a scientific fact.



Again, this is a profoundly ignorant comparison.

Sperm cells are part of a man's body. They get cast off, much like your skin cells do. They aren't even complete diploid cells, only haploid, and unlike your skin cells, if and only if they come in contact with another haploid gamete cell from a woman do they perform a special task that creates a new organism.

Comparing raw materials, the gametes, mere parts of your body, to the finished product, a new and distinct Homo sapiens with his or her own body, is absurd.
Click to expand...

Is a partially finished car without a motor or wheels or seats installed considered "a car"? Is a partially built hotel without any siding or window or doors or beds considered "a hotel"? Is a bag of spinach and a pound of uncooked beef and uncooked noodles considered "a lasagna"?

I contend that the part that gives human "personhood" and makes one worthy of agency is the capacity to think and feel. This capacity requires a brain in some kind of working order.

Dead people don't have working brains. Brain dead coma patients don't have working brains. Early stage fetuses don't have working brains.
 
sangha said:
There is a difference between advocating and lying, but it is a difference too subtle for those whose depraved immorality motivates them to deprive others of their freedom
Click to expand...

Why do you want to deprive majorities in states of their freedom to make laws regulating abortion as they see fit?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Is a partially finished car without a motor or wheels or seats installed considered "a car"? Is a partially built hotel without any siding or window or doors or beds considered "a hotel"? Is a bag of spinach and a pound of uncooked beef and uncooked noodles considered "a lasagna"?

I contend that the part that gives human "personhood" and makes one worthy of agency is the capacity to think and feel. This capacity requires a brain in some kind of working order.

Dead people don't have working brains. Brain dead coma patients don't have working brains. Early stage fetuses don't have working brains.
Click to expand...

Already definitively countered this line of "reasoning."

Brain death is permanent, abnormal state. Being too young to have made a brain yet is not; it is a normal and healthy state at that age.

Equating the two is nonsensical.
 
JayDubya said:
Already definitively countered this line of "reasoning."

Brain death is permanent, abnormal state. Being too young to have made a brain yet is not; it is a normal and healthy state at that age.

Equating the two is nonsensical.
Click to expand...

But before such action takes place, it is only potential. Raw materials also express potential.

Do you know, off the top of your head, approximately what percentage of pregnancies end in miscarraige?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
But before such action takes place, it is only potential. Raw materials also express potential.

Do you know, off the top of your head, approximately what percentage of pregnancies end in miscarraige?
Click to expand...

It's the same potential you have to live and change tomorrow if you don't die today. :shrug:

I don't know off the top of my head, but I do know that it doesn't matter. The possibility of a natural death has no bearing on the discussion of the legality of deliberate killing.
 
JayDubya said:
It's the same potential you have to live and change tomorrow if you don't die today. :shrug:

I don't know off the top of my head, but I do know that it doesn't matter. The possibility of a natural death has no bearing on the discussion of the legality of deliberate killing.
Click to expand...

Unless that deliberate killing and force is against a pregnant woman then your views are completely fine with it. Facts :shrug:
 
JayDubya said:
It's the same potential you have to live and change tomorrow if you don't die today. :shrug:

I don't know off the top of my head, but I do know that it doesn't matter. The possibility of a natural death has no bearing on the discussion of the legality of deliberate killing.
Click to expand...

About 20% of known pregnancies end in miscarraige, while it is estimated that up to 50% of all pregnancies self-terminate. Before a first missed period, these are technically "chemical pregnancies". Most miscarriages result from a problem with the fetus, and some as a result of the host body's (mother's) health and ability to maintain a pregnancy. For those cases where something was wrong with the developing person-to-be, it could be a cellular malfunction, a coding error, a chromosomal anomoly... a bunch of things.

If that mass of cells never split correctly from the first division, was it ever really human? If not, how then could it be considered a person and deserving of rights?

For the cases where a mother's body couldn't maintain the pregnancy, does the woman have a duty to protect a fetus? If she smokes a cigarette, which lowers her chances of keeping a child to term, should she be fined or thrown in jail? And where would we draw that line? What if she doesn't eat perfectly healthy every day? What if she sits in traffic too much?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
I am pro-choice, but this argument has always rung hollow with me. Using the same logic, we should justify bank robbery, because people are still going to try it and people can get hurt during bank robberies.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are comparable. Robbing a bank harms other non consenting people. Aborting doesn't.

BTW, similar arguments are used to justify wanting prostitution to be legal - it's going to happen anyway, so it should be legal and regulated. I've seen it used in justifying legal gun ownership - if we make it illegal, then only criminals will have guns.
 
Scrabaholic said:
I don't think they are comparable. Robbing a bank harms other non consenting people. Aborting doesn't.

BTW, similar arguments are used to justify wanting prostitution to be legal - it's going to happen anyway, so it should be legal and regulated. I've seen it used in justifying legal gun ownership - if we make it illegal, then only criminals will have guns.
Click to expand...

Absolutely despicable.

Only because you pro-aborts define the unborn as non-people so you can pretend harming them is morally acceptable.

An elective abortion is always the initiation of lethal levels of force against an innocent human being.

Abortion is a premeditated and aggressive homicide. As such it is far worse than robbery or assault or rape or kidnapping or virtually anything else that isn't multiple instances of premeditated aggressive homicides.
 
Last edited:
Scrabaholic said:
I don't think they are comparable. Robbing a bank harms other non consenting people. Aborting doesn't.

BTW, similar arguments are used to justify wanting prostitution to be legal - it's going to happen anyway, so it should be legal and regulated. I've seen it used in justifying legal gun ownership - if we make it illegal, then only criminals will have guns.
Click to expand...

Only criminals will have guns, meaning non-criminals are at a disadvantage. That does, in fact, lead to increased harm.

Prostitution is an interesting point. A case could be made for harm, much like the legal drug argument, but I don't want to make that argument here.

I think the problem with the point in general is that reluctance of people to follow a law is not a good reason for not having the law in the first place. Sure, a "victimless crime" standpoint has some merit, but Roe v Wade established a state's interest in pregnancy and regulating certain medical procedures. So, it's not a cut-and-dried fact that no one loses in an abortion, not according to case law anyway.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Only criminals will have guns, meaning non-criminals are at a disadvantage. That does, in fact, lead to increased harm.

Prostitution is an interesting point. A case could be made for harm, much like the legal drug argument, but I don't want to make that argument here.

I think the problem with the point in general is that reluctance of people to follow a law is not a good reason for not having the law in the first place. Sure, a "victimless crime" standpoint has some merit, but Roe v Wade established a state's interest in pregnancy and regulating certain medical procedures. So, it's not a cut-and-dried fact that no one loses in an abortion, not according to case law anyway.
Click to expand...

I am not in the USA, so RvW is inconsequential to me. In my country, the unborn have no rights and abortion is legal at any stage of gestation. (you'd be hard pressed to find a doctor who will do one after viability, though)
 
Victimless actions are where economic freedom of choice applies.

Killing human kids is not a victimless matter.
 
Scrabaholic said:
I am not in the USA, so RvW is inconsequential to me. In my country, the unborn have no rights and abortion is legal at any stage of gestation. (you'd be hard pressed to find a doctor who will do one after viability, though)
Click to expand...

Either way, victim or not, the basis for the "people will still do it" argument falls flat for a number of reasons.

People still murder, even though it is illegal. But people probably murder less, since it is such a serious crime. Making a thing illegal is a good way to have less of it, even if the individual danger and per unit price of the thing goes up, creating a black market and secondary violence in its wake.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Either way, victim or not, the basis for the "people will still do it" argument falls flat for a number of reasons.

People still murder, even though it is illegal. But people probably murder less, since it is such a serious crime. Making a thing illegal is a good way to have less of it, even if the individual danger and per unit price of the thing goes up, creating a black market and secondary violence in its wake.
Click to expand...

Murder harms a non consenting person. Abortion does not. Laws against killing others are necessary for a smooth running society. We can't exactly have people running around killing others. Legal abortion does not interfere with a smooth running society. There are 3x as many live births as abortions, so the species is in no danger of dying out.

And finally, it is for doctors to practice medicine, not the govt.
 
JayDubya said:
Victimless actions are where economic freedom of choice applies.

Killing human kids is not a victimless matter.
Click to expand...

killing women is not a victimless crime but your views factually don't mind that, they just make excuses to why its ok :shrug:
 
JayDubya said:
Abortion is a premeditated and aggressive homicide. [/i]
Click to expand...
100% factually proven to be false
Links, facts, definitions > than your retarded lie

If anybody can prove otherwise post those facts now, thanks
 
Scrabaholic said:
Murder harms a non consenting person. Abortion does not. Laws against killing others are necessary for a smooth running society. We can't exactly have people running around killing others. Legal abortion does not interfere with a smooth running society. There are 3x as many live births as abortions, so the species is in no danger of dying out.

And finally, it is for doctors to practice medicine, not the govt.
Click to expand...

Those are all different arguments than "people will still do it".

Again, for the record, I'm pro-choice. It's just that one argument that doesn't really work.
 
matchlight said:
Why do you want to deprive majorities in states of their freedom to make laws regulating abortion as they see fit?
Click to expand...

States don't deserve the power to roughshod over women's reproductive roles. Nor should the Federal government. Anti-abortion laws are denying the right of individual women to decide how many children that they choose to have "or not have".

The yet to be born aren't privy to the Rights of born individuals - for a multitude of reasons - most of which are positive.

Our Constitution is about the rights of born individuals.

States can't enact any laws that they want because of the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause. States that enact anti-abortion laws are violating women's rights found in several US Constitution Amendments, not just the 14th Amendment

Making abortion illegal could be a stand alone piece of a state's legislature. But not without the SC's blessing. But for the SC to do that, women's current rights, in a variety of ways, would have to be diminished or dismantle.

There are dozens of unintended consequences that would impact not only women, men, but our society's social services infrastructure as well...if the yet to be born were given equal rights of those who are born.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Do you consider living a life a freedom? Do you consider it one of, if not the highest, higher freedoms of those living? Do you consider it a higher freedom to take that freedom from another?
Click to expand...

No, no, and your question makes no sense
 
celticwar17 said:
This statement just shows a lack of knowledge of the debate.
the abortion debate fundamentally starts at whether you consider a fetus worthy of rights themself.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The constitution is clear about that. The unborn have no rights. This is not an issue
the debate has nothing to do with woman's freedom or right's
Click to expand...

I am sure the anti freedom and anti rights crowd will agree with you on that one but, in reality, the debate is all about freedom and rights

Just read Roe v Wade
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom