• 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!

Life of Mother, Rape

Casper said:
Prior to 20 weeks there is only a brain stem, no front lobe, hence no Person. The same goes for those that lose their frontal lobe due and accident, the courts allow for people such as that to be allowed to die since the person that occupied that body is no longer present and cannot come back. Pretty simple and cut and dry.
Click to expand...

So not scientific then like you previously said. You mean in legality only based on a non-scientific qualification of brain function. Based on science person and human are the same because science doesn't really define person, but person can have the definition of "a human" outside of legality. That's why I was confused about your inaccurate statement. I guess you didn't mean to use the term science but meant to use the word legally. Thank you for clearing that up.
 
LaylaWindu said:
So not scientific then like you previously said. You mean in legality only based on a non-scientific qualification of brain function. Based on science person and human are the same because science doesn't really define person, but person can have the definition of "a human" outside of legality. That's why I was confused about your inaccurate statement. I guess you didn't mean to use the term science but meant to use the word legally. Thank you for clearing that up.
Click to expand...
No it is scientific based on scientifically described development of a human. You are talking legalities by denying a woman's right to chose if she carries a fetus to full development so you do not get to and science is on the side of pro-choice at least for early abortions when the vast majority of abortions take place. It is why pro-lifers will never win the right to deny others of their right to chose, because it simply is not what you claim, human DNA does not equate to being a Person. Agree or Don't, I really do not care, the law will never be on your side.
 
LaylaWindu said:
Nope I'm simply pro-life.
Click to expand...

Allowing an exception for rape pretty much makes you lose credibility for the pro life position. Makes you inconsistent.

If you truly are pro life, you would only allow it in medical triage not for rape or incest.
 
Casper said:
No it is scientific based on scientifically described development of a human.
Click to expand...
Sorry but that is not accurate at all. There is no science that say without a frontal lobe there is no human.
Casper said:
You are talking legalities by denying a woman's right to chose if she carries a fetus to full development so you do not get to and science is on the side of pro-choice at least for early abortions when the vast majority of abortions take place. It is why pro-lifers will never win the right to deny others of their right to chose, because it simply is not what you claim, human DNA does not equate to being a Person. Agree or Don't, I really do not care, the law will never be on your side.
Click to expand...
What? Actually I never made any comment to that at all? I simply pointed out my confusion over a statement you made that was and is still inaccurate. Please try to control any strawmen or personal outrage over other posters and random outbursts. I am trying to have a honest conversation.

Your original inaccurate statement that confused me was "science says no brain no person." I asked you to explain cause that is not right at all.

Your response wa this:
Prior to 20 weeks there is only a brain stem, no front lobe, hence no Person. The same goes for those that lose their frontal lobe due and accident, the courts allow for people such as that to be allowed to die since the person that occupied that body is no longer present and cannot come back. Pretty simple and cut and dry.
Click to expand...

That is a LEGAL criteria, NOT science and I accepted your correction. But now you are claiming that it is science? Based on what, and why did you mention the courts then?

If you like we can continuing the discussion I was actually having we can. At 19 weeks based on science, a fetus is 100% a human, denying that fact is nonsensical. You are still free to be pro-choice or pro-life or whatever you wish but nobody that understands the facts of science says a 19 week old fetus is not human. Heck you are the first person here that I have ever read say that, pro-life or pro-choice. Hey maybe it's me, maybe I'm naive and lot's of people believe that but I haven't come across it. Lets ask everybody.


Who here thinks that a 19 week old fetus is not a human?
If your don't think it is, when do you think it becomes a human, weeks wise?
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Allowing an exception for rape pretty much makes you lose credibility for the pro life position. Makes you inconsistent.

If you truly are pro life, you would only allow it in medical triage not for rape or incest.
Click to expand...

Not really. Rape is non-consensual, and hence the pregnancy is as well. Although and argument can be made that consensual sex resulting in unwanted pregnancy is actually non-consensual, I see it as a consenting to accepting the risk. Rape is not on that page.
 
calamity said:
Not really.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. It go's against the general philosophy of the pro life position.

There are some people here who are consistent with there pro life position; JayDubya being one of them despite everyone here not liking that.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Yes it does. It go's against the general philosophy of the pro life position.

There are some people here who are consistent with there pro life position; JayDubya being one of them despite everyone here not liking that.
Click to expand...

I must have edited after you replied.

Here's the rest.

calamity said:
Not really. Rape is non-consensual, and hence the pregnancy is as well. Although and argument can be made that consensual sex resulting in unwanted pregnancy is actually non-consensual, I see it as a consenting to accepting the risk. Rape is not on that page.
Click to expand...

Jay may be consistent, but he is inventing his own definitions. Fetuses are not legal human beings. End of discussion.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Allowing an exception for rape pretty much makes you lose credibility for the pro life position. Makes you inconsistent.
Click to expand...
I'll let the pro-life groups I belong too know "you" feel that way and since they all basically feel the same, like at least a 100 people I'll let them now you say they have no credibility. I'm sure the years they have spent actually in the fight will become meaningless and they will just pack up and go home. HAHAHA
GEIxBattleRifle said:
If you truly are pro life, you would only allow it in medical triage not for rape or incest.
Click to expand...
What about those that say there's no exceptions and say anybody but them are pro-life? are they wrong and only your version right? Let me guess that's different, or those people are rare so they don't count right? :D

You are free to have any feelings you like on the subject but that's all they are, feelings. Tomorrow I'll still be pro-life and belong to two orgs and actually be doing things to advance the fight. Thanks for your opinion!
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Yes it does. It go's against the general philosophy of the pro life position.
Click to expand...
According to who? Can you link this general philosophy? Can you prove it's concrete and factual and explain why not one pro-life group I have ever been in required that belief. . not one. ;)
GEIxBattleRifle said:
There are some people here who are consistent with there pro life position; JayDubya being one of them despite everyone here not liking that.
Click to expand...

You think "that's" what people don't like? That's even more silly than your claim about pro-life that you also can't prove.:lol:
 
Last edited:
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Yes it does. It go's against the general philosophy of the pro life position.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean the very idea that human beings have a right to life?

Yeah, it explicitly goes against that to then throw your hands up and say it's okay to kill someone because their father did something wrong.
 
LaylaWindu said:
According to who? Can you link this general philosophy? Can you prove it's concrete and factual and explain why not one pro-life group I have ever been in required that belief. . not one. ;)


You think "that's" what people don't like? That's even more silly than your claim about pro-life that you also can't prove.:lol:
Click to expand...

Perhaps every "every pro-life group you've ever been in" means you only joined ones that shared your beliefs on abortion. I would say your beliefs on "pro-life", but I think many anti-abortion groups "pro-life" position falls apart about 10 seconds after birth. If every human life is sacred, then they all are. That means you should oppose childhood hunger, war and the death penalty. If not, aren't you then deciding where to draw a line regarding which, "deliberate termination of life", can be called "killing or murder", and which cannot, as where you see it should be?
 
JayDubya said:
Oh, you mean the very idea that human beings have a right to life?

Yeah, it explicitly goes against that to then throw your hands up and say it's okay to kill someone because their father did something wrong.
Click to expand...
Pretty much the simple basic point I'm getting across is in order for someone to be consistent with the pro life position, they can't support abortion in cases of rape or incest.

That's just a fact that no amount of sophistry or deflection with this "different version" rhetoric going on can't change.

You and a handful of otherwise are consistent with the pro life position some like LaylaWindu are not.
 
trblmkr said:
Perhaps every "every pro-life group you've ever been in" means you only joined ones that shared your beliefs on abortion.
Click to expand...
And that assumption would be wrong because I never looked at it that way. I only joined because they were pro-life. In ALL of them there are people that don't agree of course and there were some of them that did what I considered to be wasteful things but other than that no. I actually only "quite" one. Others were when I was younger or in a different location or fall apart themselves. But NONE of them said if you don;t fight agaisnt a legal acceptance for rape than you are not pro-life. Not one.

trblmkr said:
I would say your beliefs on "pro-life", but I think many anti-abortion groups "pro-life" position falls apart about 10 seconds after birth. If every human life is sacred, then they all are. That means you should oppose childhood hunger, war and the death penalty. If not, aren't you then deciding where to draw a line regarding which, "deliberate termination of life", can be called "killing or murder", and which cannot, as where you see it should be?
Click to expand...
This is simply conflating the issue. If one wants to make arguments that in other areas of life some people don't line up. Well that is true and the case for the majority of people on the planet. What you are stating above is just like what GEIxBattleRifle is falsely stating. You are making a statement off of what YOU believe should be true and what YOU feel should be the case. That's a fault of many people with many issues. You simply don't get to decided how another person feels one one issue and claim they must feel another way on some other issue. I'm not saying your feelings no validity, they very well might. But the truth is, it's only your opinion. Just like it's only an opinion that some people have that there should be zero exceptions and anything else is not pro-life or those that believe it should be unlimited and anything else is a restriction of freedom and anti-choice. Those are feelings people can have but their feelings just aren't the authority on true or false, they are just feelings.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Pretty much the simple basic point I'm getting across is in order for someone to be consistent with the pro life position, they can't support abortion in cases of rape or incest.

That's just a fact that no amount of sophistry or deflection with this "different version" rhetoric going on can't change.

You and a handful of otherwise are consistent with the pro life position some like LaylaWindu are not.
Click to expand...

And yet that is only your opinion and nothing more, lying about that and calling it fact will never make it so. Otherwise you could prove that fact and you can't.

That's just a fact that no amount of sophistry or deflection with this "claim of general philosophy" rhetoric going on can't change.:lol:
 
LaylaWindu said:
Sorry but that is not accurate at all. There is no science that say without a frontal lobe there is no human.

What? Actually I never made any comment to that at all? I simply pointed out my confusion over a statement you made that was and is still inaccurate. Please try to control any strawmen or personal outrage over other posters and random outbursts. I am trying to have a honest conversation.

Your original inaccurate statement that confused me was "science says no brain no person." I asked you to explain cause that is not right at all.

Your response wa this:


That is a LEGAL criteria, NOT science and I accepted your correction. But now you are claiming that it is science? Based on what, and why did you mention the courts then?

If you like we can continuing the discussion I was actually having we can. At 19 weeks based on science, a fetus is 100% a human, denying that fact is nonsensical. You are still free to be pro-choice or pro-life or whatever you wish but nobody that understands the facts of science says a 19 week old fetus is not human. Heck you are the first person here that I have ever read say that, pro-life or pro-choice. Hey maybe it's me, maybe I'm naive and lot's of people believe that but I haven't come across it. Lets ask everybody.


Who here thinks that a 19 week old fetus is not a human?
If your don't think it is, when do you think it becomes a human, weeks wise?
Click to expand...

When you do not have a leg scientifically or legally you revert to same old ploy your side always runs back to, claiming that human means person, and I is still incorrect no matter how many times you attempt to use it. You will not win this fight, not in the minds of Americans or in the Courts. Enjoy
 
LaylaWindu said:
And that assumption would be wrong because I never looked at it that way. I only joined because they were pro-life. In ALL of them there are people that don't agree of course and there were some of them that did what I considered to be wasteful things but other than that no. I actually only "quite" one. Others were when I was younger or in a different location or fall apart themselves. But NONE of them said if you don;t fight agaisnt a legal acceptance for rape than you are not pro-life. Not one.


This is simply conflating the issue. If one wants to make arguments that in other areas of life some people don't line up. Well that is true and the case for the majority of people on the planet. What you are stating above is just like what GEIxBattleRifle is falsely stating. You are making a statement off of what YOU believe should be true and what YOU feel should be the case. That's a fault of many people with many issues. You simply don't get to decided how another person feels one one issue and claim they must feel another way on some other issue. I'm not saying your feelings no validity, they very well might. But the truth is, it's only your opinion. Just like it's only an opinion that some people have that there should be zero exceptions and anything else is not pro-life or those that believe it should be unlimited and anything else is a restriction of freedom and anti-choice. Those are feelings people can have but their feelings just aren't the authority on true or false, they are just feelings.
Click to expand...

"Arguments in other areas of life where people don't line up". This is my point. Those other areas are still "life". If you are pro-life , how can you just exclude other areas of human life? You get to to decide what lives are valuable or not? I think you should just call yourself "anti-abortion" and leave the "pro-life" position to people who truly are.
 
calamity said:
Jay may be consistent, but he is inventing his own definitions. Fetuses are not legal human beings. End of discussion.
Click to expand...

Species membership is determined by science not the philosophical opinion of the people you decide to put into power positions.

You're free to engage in the semantics of the word ''being'' attached onto the word ''human.'' I'm not interested in that discussion though.

As for Jay inventing his own definitions? The only definition he invented himself is his definition of the word person everything else definition wise, he is spot on about.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Species membership is determined by science not the philosophical opinion of the people you decide to put into power positions.

You're free to engage in the semantics of the word ''being'' attached onto the word ''human.'' I'm not interested in that discussion though.

As for Jay inventing his own definitions? The only definition he invented himself is his definition of the word person everything else definition wise, he is spot on about.
Click to expand...

But that is the discussion.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Species membership is determined by science not the philosophical opinion of the people you decide to put into power positions.

You're free to engage in the semantics of the word ''being'' attached onto the word ''human.'' I'm not interested in that discussion though.

As for Jay inventing his own definitions? The only definition he invented himself is his definition of the word person everything else definition wise, he is spot on about.
Click to expand...

I haven't even invented a definition of person, it means what the law says it does. In this case, THAT'S WHY WE'RE ARGUING THE ABORTION ISSUE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The law currently excluding personhood from human beings so they can be killed on a whim. That's what needs to be fixed.
 
JayDubya said:
The only way a "rape exception" makes sense, the only way, is as a compromise position, perhaps as a last minute addition to a bill to get it passed so you can protect the other 9X.X% of cases.

Just because your father is a scumbag doesn't mean you don't have a right to your life. :shrug:


Life saving medical triage justifies taking action to save the patient you can save...

It is worth noting how exceptionally rare either of these events are.... a rape pregnancy or a situation where a pregnancy must be ended prior to the gestational age of viability outside the womb as a life-saving emergency for the mother.

Can they happen, sure. Do they happen very often? No, not at all. Do they get brought up ALL THE ****ING TIME in this debate, and needlessly? Oh, hell yes, they do.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. they are brought up in the debate. With such a contentious issue, I think it's important to find common ground.

In one of the Presidential debates, Hillary Clinton mentioned that she didn't vote for the ban of "Third Trimester Abortions", because it didn't take into account the life of the mother. Perhaps, if they had all gotten together beforehand, they may have found common ground.
 
Last edited:
Media_Truth said:
Let me first say that I don't believe in abortion as a form of birth control. Surely, partners in sex can get more creative with their birth control choices. That said, if a doctor told me that my wife would probably die while giving birth, I would encourage her to abort the child. Likewise, if my daughter was raped and impregnated, I would respect her decision to bear the child or abort.
Click to expand...

Most people allow it for rape including pro-lifers. Usually its just the extremists that do not. Luckily since we live in a first world country and not a 3rd world country banning abortion especially even in case of rap will never come to pass long term on any national level Thats third world lunacy that applies to places that dont have rights and freedoms or even respect human rights.
 
AGENT J said:
Most people allow it for rape including pro-lifers. Usually its just the extremists that do not. Luckily since we live in a first world country and not a 3rd world country banning abortion especially even in case of rap will never come to pass long term on any national level Thats third world lunacy that applies to places that dont have rights and freedoms or even respect human rights.
Click to expand...

It takes a real cold heart to insist a mother carry the product of rape to term.
 
JayDubya said:
The only way a "rape exception" makes sense, the only way, is as a compromise position, perhaps as a last minute addition to a bill to get it passed so you can protect the other 9X.X% of cases.

Just because your father is a scumbag doesn't mean you don't have a right to your life. :shrug:


Life saving medical triage justifies taking action to save the patient you can save...

It is worth noting how exceptionally rare either of these events are.... a rape pregnancy or a situation where a pregnancy must be ended prior to the gestational age of viability outside the womb as a life-saving emergency for the mother.

Can they happen, sure. Do they happen very often? No, not at all. Do they get brought up ALL THE ****ING TIME in this debate, and needlessly? Oh, hell yes, they do.
Click to expand...

every time you say right to laugh I laugh because your views dont care about the woman right to life. It's your choice not to care about womens right to life under the conditions you make up but when you claim its based on human rights or rights to life it just makes your position look hypocritical and retarded.
 
Casper said:
You keep mixing Human and person, they are not the same thing and I suspect you know it, and science says no brain no person.
Click to expand...

Uhm science doesn't say that.

Human (adj) and person are not the same thats for sure but science doesn't say no brain no person.
 
Casper said:
Prior to 20 weeks there is only a brain stem, no front lobe, hence no Person. The same goes for those that lose their frontal lobe due and accident, the courts allow for people such as that to be allowed to die since the person that occupied that body is no longer present and cannot come back. Pretty simple and cut and dry.
Click to expand...

LaylaWindu said:
So not scientific then like you previously said. You mean in legality only based on a non-scientific qualification of brain function. Based on science person and human are the same because science doesn't really define person, but person can have the definition of "a human" outside of legality. That's why I was confused about your inaccurate statement. I guess you didn't mean to use the term science but meant to use the word legally. Thank you for clearing that up.
Click to expand...

Casper said:
No it is scientific based on scientifically described development of a human. You are talking legalities by denying a woman's right to chose if she carries a fetus to full development so you do not get to and science is on the side of pro-choice at least for early abortions when the vast majority of abortions take place. It is why pro-lifers will never win the right to deny others of their right to chose, because it simply is not what you claim, human DNA does not equate to being a Person. Agree or Don't, I really do not care, the law will never be on your side.
Click to expand...

Casper you don't seem to be making any sense. I am with layla and others. Your first statment about science say no brain no person is factually wrong BUT maybe you are just having trouble explaining yourself.
Are you trying to make a legal argument?
Are you trying to make s scientific factual claim?
What are you trying to say?
Who said human DNA = person because that would be wrong I agree but I did't read anybody here say that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom