• 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!

Indiana bill that would attempt to define abortion as murder

JayDubya said:
Lol "he knows it's unconstitutional."
Click to expand...
Ignorance always induces laughter as a mask.

Have you ever read the document in question?
Click to expand...
Reading is not enough. Understanding is crucial and your posts clearly demonstrate a lack in that area.

:lamo Jesus.
Click to expand...
More ignorance induced laughter.
 
JayDubya said:
Lol "he knows it's unconstitutional."

Have you ever read the document in question? :lamo Jesus.

The law is fine. Your knowledge is lacking, not his.

Also, everyone knows or should already know the basic scientific fact that you as an organism are about 9 months older than going by your birthday alone would indicate. Your scaremongering nonsense is just silly.
Click to expand...

Nisly specifically admitted this is an attempt to test Roe v Wade.

So if he doesn't know it's unconstitutional, he must certainly expect it.

As for 'scaremongering', it comes down to the legal definition of a human doesn't. Calling it human life a soon as egg meets sperm would preclude the use of any contraceptive that acts by preventing implantation. IUDs and emergency oral contraceptives (ie the morning after pill) would under that definition be injurious to a human life. It would also preclude the use of IVF as most embryo's are discarded.

I mean, people don't know that they have a fertilized egg inside them for a while so the whole idea is just ****ing stupid.
 
prometeus said:
Yes, because this ignorant drivel has gotten you so far already...
Click to expand...
It is not ignorant to call the butchering of unborn children what it is. It may be uncomfrotable for you, but beyond that...
 
VanceMack said:
It is not ignorant to call the butchering of unborn children what it is. It may be uncomfrotable for you, but beyond that...
Click to expand...

There's no such things as "unborn children". Obviously.
 
joG said:
1. It is all about human rights.

2. the person was introduced as a subgroup similar to the term citizen.

3. These are terms that denote groups of humans with specific sets of rights.
Click to expand...

1. It shouldn't be about "human rights" at all. This is to mainly decide if unborn humans should fit the definition of "person."

2. It's a term that's been around for centuries. In the context on how it's used in developed nations, it's a term given to a entity to signify they have basic rights like the right to life. Citizenship has nothing to do with the abortion debate.

3. It's a term to decide if a entity should have basic rights like the right to life. The entity in question could be a human, a alien or maybe some highly sophisticated artifical intelligence that has free will (think transformers or some of the AIs in Star wars and Star Trak.)

Trying to make this a big focus on "human rights" pretty much misses the bigger picture here.
 
Nilly said:
Nisly specifically admitted this is an attempt to test Roe v Wade.

So if he doesn't know it's unconstitutional, he must certainly expect it.
Click to expand...

It does go against Roe v Wade.

It does not go against the United States Constitution whatsoever, though. Glad we cleared that up for you.

As for 'scaremongering', it comes down to the legal definition of a human doesn't. Calling it human life a soon as egg meets sperm would preclude the use of any contraceptive that acts by preventing implantation.
Click to expand...
Good, that is desirable. It is wrong to kill human beings in aggression, after all.

I mean, people don't know that they have a fertilized egg inside them for a while so the whole idea is just ****ing stupid.
Click to expand...

I mean if you had a fertilized egg inside you I would hope you would remember shoving it into your anus, vagina, or mouth and I imagine it would be noticeable and kind of uncomfortable. You would have to be stupid not to notice. I mean, assuming of course you didn't go with the mouth route and some kind of cooking or preparation.

Whatever one's tastes or hobbies in that regard, doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand. Humans are not oviparous, after all, and there is no "egg" following fertilization.
 
Last edited:
GEIxBattleRifle said:
1. It shouldn't be about "human rights" at all. This is to mainly decide if unborn humans should fit the definition of "person."

2. It's a term that's been around for centuries. In the context on how it's used in developed nations, it's a term given to a entity to signify they have basic rights like the right to life. Citizenship has nothing to do with the abortion debate.

3. It's a term to decide if a entity should have basic rights like the right to life. The entity in question could be a human, a alien or maybe some highly sophisticated artifical intelligence that has free will (think transformers or some of the AIs in Star wars and Star Trak.)

Trying to make this a big focus on "human rights" pretty much misses the bigger picture here.
Click to expand...

If you don't mind I'd like to add to your comments above: THERE IS NO RIGHT TO LIFE for any form of living thing.

There is no Constitutional clauses that declares that a human being, person, individual, or child, or any form of homo sapiens, are some special type of protected species "with the right to life" and that government is sworn to protect all stages of homo sapiens life - at all costs. Doing so would end government sending people into war zones, end law enforcement from using lethal force, and ending government executions. Then the government would have to figure out how to prevent people from dying in car accidents, dying from diseases. On and on and on.

GEZZZZZZUS. The sheer wacknuttery that goes on in the year 2017 is mind blowing.

There are dozens of NEGATIVE unintended consequences if personhood was granted for the yet to be born. Every person, men and women alike would have nightmare consequences for the yet to be born being given personhood rights. We might as well become another Middle Eastern nation who have some of the most draconian consequences for even being born as a woman.
 
Removable Mind said:
If you don't mind I'd like to add to your comments above: THERE IS NO RIGHT TO LIFE for any form of living thing.

There is no Constitutional clauses that declares that a human being, person, individual, or child, or any form of homo sapiens, are some special type of protected species "with the right to life" and that government is sworn to protect all stages of homo sapiens life - at all costs. Doing so would end government sending people into war zones, end law enforcement from using lethal force, and ending government executions. Then the government would have to figure out how to prevent people from dying in car accidents, dying from diseases. On and on and on.

GEZZZZZZUS. The sheer wacknuttery that goes on in the year 2017 is mind blowing.
Click to expand...

Considering that the above displays an absolute lack of knowledge regarding what the right to life is and means, were you just trying to demonstrate an example of "sheer wacknuttery?"
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
1. It shouldn't be about "human rights" at all. This is to mainly decide if unborn humans should fit the definition of "person."

2. It's a term that's been around for centuries. In the context on how it's used in developed nations, it's a term given to a entity to signify they have basic rights like the right to life. Citizenship has nothing to do with the abortion debate.

3. It's a term to decide if a entity should have basic rights like the right to life. The entity in question could be a human, a alien or maybe some highly sophisticated artifical intelligence that has free will (think transformers or some of the AIs in Star wars and Star Trak.)

Trying to make this a big focus on "human rights" pretty much misses the bigger picture here.
Click to expand...

And what do you think is the "bigger picture"? I'm curious.
 
JayDubya said:
It does go against Roe v Wade.

It does not go against the United States Constitution whatsoever, though. Glad we cleared that up for you.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS deemed abortion a fundamental right under the US constitution.

Glad we cleared that up for you.

JayDubya said:
Good, that is desirable. It is wrong to kill human beings in aggression, after all.

I mean if you had a fertilized egg inside you I would hope you would remember shoving it into your anus, vagina, or mouth and I imagine it would be noticeable and kind of uncomfortable. You would have to be stupid not to notice. I mean, assuming of course you didn't go with the mouth route and some kind of cooking or preparation.

Whatever one's tastes or hobbies in that regard, doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand. Humans are not oviparous, after all, and there is no "egg" following fertilization.
Click to expand...

Stop trolling. You know I mean a woman's own egg (or zygote if you wish to call it that). And no, people don't know for a considerable period of time that the been fertilized. Even the republicans know that this bill is unrealistic, hence why they've prepared more bills and specifically called this one a test, something that flies over your head.
 
Nilly said:
SCOTUS deemed abortion a fundamental right under the US constitution.
Click to expand...

And yet anyone with literacy and internet access can tell they were wrong to have made up such a steaming pantload of a lie.

The law is fine. Roe needs to be contradicted early and often until it is overturned, as it should and now will soon be.

Stop trolling. You know I mean a woman's own egg (or zygote if you wish to call it that). And no, people don't know for a considerable period of time that the been fertilized. Even the republicans know that this bill is unrealistic, hence why they've prepared more bills and specifically called this one a test, something that flies over your head.
Click to expand...

I know you want to call some human beings "Eggs," and you not liking my method of correction of your error doesn't much matter to me.
 
JayDubya said:
And yet anyone with literacy and internet access can tell they were wrong to have made up such a steaming pantload of a lie.
Click to expand...

:roll:

JayDubya said:
The law is fine. Roe needs to be contradicted early and often until it is overturned, as it should and now will soon be.

I know you want to call some human beings "Eggs," and you not liking my method of correction of your error doesn't much matter to me.
Click to expand...

Nah, you're the one calling eggs 'human beings'. Just because something is made from human cells does not make it a human.
 
Nilly said:
Nah, you're the one calling eggs 'human beings'.
Click to expand...

:doh

Jesus Haploid Christ. Please learn basic biology before you proceed. Humans are viviparous mammals.

If you have a "fertilized egg" inside you, then you took it from some other species and crammed it in a hole.
 
JayDubya said:
:doh

Jesus Haploid Christ. Please learn basic biology before you proceed. Humans are viviparous mammals.

If you have a "fertilized egg" inside you, then you took it from some other species and crammed it in a hole.
Click to expand...

Egg refers to egg cell (ovum), not a literal egg. It's a commonly used term.

Do I really have to spell out everything?
 
VanceMack said:
It is not ignorant to call the butchering of unborn children what it is.
Click to expand...
But of course it is. Emotional drivel is always a poor argument.

It may be uncomfrotable for you, but beyond that...
Click to expand...
I am very comfortable with my position, but clearly yours is based solely on ignorance and a closed mind.
 
Nilly said:
Egg refers to egg cell (ovum), not a literal egg. It's a commonly used term.

Do I really have to spell out everything?
Click to expand...

In humans there is no more "egg cell" post fertilization and we also don't have a persistent structure comparable to the yoke storing ovoid objects made by oviparous creatures.

There is no sperm cell either anymore. Fertilization happened already. Remember? :doh
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
In humans there is no more egg cell post fertilization and we don't have a structure comparable to the yoke storing ovoid objects made by oviparous creatures.

There is no sperm cell either anymore. Fertilization happened already. Remember? :doh
Click to expand...

When you knock down a house, you might call it a 'knocked down house' even though the house doesn't exist anymore.

It's pretty common usage of English. You're just being purposefully dense here. Laters :peace
 
prometeus said:
But of course it is. Emotional drivel is always a poor argument.

I am very comfortable with my position, but clearly yours is based solely on ignorance and a closed mind.
Click to expand...
Expression of fact is not emotional drivel. I can understand why you would prefer the slaughter of unborn children be thought of in more sanitary terms. Knowing you are an open advocate of the butchering of millions of unborn children every year must...well...suck. I hope you know peace.
 
BrewerBob said:
I have never heard of a scientific definition of "murder". I imagine if there were one it would only apply to things with minds. Because how can you murder something that doesn't have a mind?
Click to expand...

Me neither, but im sure theres a huge back pedal to follow
 
joG said:
It does seem to make sense, if human beings are accepted as being protected by the Constitution instead of the subgroup 'persons'. That would certainly be more consistent with the idea of human rights. That would not mean that abortion would be impossible, as the German way of doingbit shows.
Click to expand...

except for the fact the vast major human rights orgs are for choice (the ones that actually do human rights and were spawned just because of "some" pro-life claims) and there there are TWO human lives in the equation not just one, TWO. ANY decision infringes on one of them, that fact will never change. So its a matter of where people feel its ok to infringe on one or the other. Thats the only place honest discussion is and thats even supported by pro-lifers. Many here have simply admit they value the NEW life over the other in most circumstances or they protect the life that cant speak for itself. I myself want somethign in the middle. RvW is actually very close. I wouldnt mind seeing RvW change to 20/21 weeks (viability) and about as equal as you can possible get even though you cant.

So moving the chosen solution closer to giving ZEFs, babies, preborns etc MOST of the rights and violating the womans current legal and human rights doesnt make anything more consistent with human rights. It just factually violates them in a different way and gets further away from equal (which is impossible) than it currently is now.
 
JayDubya said:
Absolutely depraved statement. It should hang around your neck as a mark of shame forever.

Thank you for confirming your opposition to not only stopping the human rights abuse of abortion but also your opposition to freedom of thought and the very idea of a republic.
Click to expand...

Human rights does not support YOUR views on this subject in anyway LMAO, saying otherwise is nothign more than a retarded, dishonest and laughable claim.
Your views would just allow human rights violations YOU are ok with, that FACT will never change. ;)
 
JayDubya said:
I mean if you had a fertilized egg inside you I would hope you would remember shoving it into your anus, vagina, or mouth and I imagine it would be noticeable and kind of uncomfortable. You would have to be stupid not to notice. I mean, assuming of course you didn't go with the mouth route and some kind of cooking or preparation.

Whatever one's tastes or hobbies in that regard, doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand. Humans are not oviparous, after all, and there is no "egg" following fertilization.
Click to expand...

are you still trying this retarded strawman and lie also? claiming "fertilized egg" is improper when people posted like 50 links of medical sites and doctors using the term?
LMAO another lie of yours gets destroyed and facts win again.
 
JayDubya said:
In humans there is no more "egg cell" post fertilization and we also don't have a persistent structure comparable to the yoke storing ovoid objects made by oviparous creatures.

There is no sperm cell either anymore. Fertilization happened already. Remember? :doh
Click to expand...

Yep you are trying this dishonest and retarded lie again. Tell us, do we need to post the links again of medical sites and doctors using that terminology countless times? :doh
You lies fails and facts win again.
 
JayDubya said:
:doh

Jesus Haploid Christ. Please learn basic biology before you proceed. Humans are viviparous mammals.

If you have a "fertilized egg" inside you, then you took it from some other species and crammed it in a hole.
Click to expand...

JayDubya said:
In humans there is no more "egg cell" post fertilization and we also don't have a persistent structure comparable to the yoke storing ovoid objects made by oviparous creatures.

There is no sperm cell either anymore. Fertilization happened already. Remember? :doh
Click to expand...


Conception & Pregnancy: Ovulation, Fertilization, and More
Implantation: Moving to the Uterus

The fertilized egg stays in the fallopian tube for about 3 to 4 days. But within 24 hours of being fertilized, it starts dividing fast into many cells.
Click to expand...
https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/conception_how_it_works/
Once the egg arrives at a specific portion of the tube, called the ampullar-isthmic junction, it rests for another thirty hours. Fertilization — sperm union with the egg — occurs in this portion of the tube. The fertilized egg then begins a rapid descent to the uterus. The period of rest in the tube appears to be necessary for full development of the fertilized egg and for the uterus to prepare to receive the egg.
Click to expand...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101003205930.htm
Which fertilized eggs will become healthy human fetuses? Researchers predict with 93% accuracy

Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully. Now, in a new study, researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have shown that they can predict with 93 percent certainty which fertilized eggs will make it to a critical developmental milestone and which will stall and die.
Click to expand...

You were saying?
yeah :doh is right. You can't stop posting that lie and strawman now, or do I need to post more facts that destroy your retarded false claims?
Maybe you can write stanford, webmd and science daily and tell them YOU say they are wrong :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom