• 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!

Choices [W:1315]

FutureIncoming said:
BUT NOTHING. The difference between rape and abortion is that rape targets a person, and abortion targets a **provably** mere-anmal entity. Therefore your worthless blather is entirely dependent on the Stupid Lie that a mere-animal entity is equal to a person. NOPE!
Click to expand...

The difference is that rape is aggressive violence which causes temporary harm to a human being - harm which can be overcome given time and effort - whereas abortion is aggressive homicide, violence which causes the most permanent and severe harm you can inflict on a living thing, death.

Abortion is objectively so much worse.
 
SilverFox said:
What gives me the right to protest the gunning down or the knifing of a total stranger in a public place? I'm not actively involved in the drama. I don't personally know anyone who is involved in the episode. - - However, the taking of a human life who has done nothing to merit the snuffing out of his or her life is brutally unconscionable.

I claim no POWER of high-minded judgement - - other than that of pointing out the fact that the deliberate taking of human life is murder.

If a sexually active woman KNOWS that she is not prepared to become a mother, then she is morally COMPELLED to follow strict contraceptive measures for pregnancy prevention. If she should unexpectedly succumb to the advances of an impassioned Romeo in a moment of impassioned weakness, then it behooves her to IMMEDIATELY take action to medically insure that no pregnancy will ensue from her "love tryst". Waiting weeks and months to decide to abort the living, growing, functioning child within her womb is barbaric and indefensible. There is no rational or mitigating excuse for such cavalier irresponsibility.
Click to expand...

Your opinions are noted. What is he basis for your profound sense of obligation and devotion for the yet to be born - from the moment of conception?
 
Removable Mind said:
Your opinions are noted. What is he basis for your profound sense of obligation and devotion for the yet to be born - from the moment of conception?
Click to expand...

The same "obligation" he has for not wanting the random adult being gunned down; they are human beings and they have done nothing to justify this grievous violation of their right to life.

This has been explained to you hundreds upon hundreds of times already. Why should he waste his time?
 
JayDubya said:
The difference is that rape is aggressive violence which causes temporary harm to a human being - harm which can be overcome given time and effort -
Click to expand...
RAPE IS ALMOST ALWAYS UNDESERVED.

JayDubya said:
whereas abortion is aggressive homicide,
Click to expand...
ABORTION CAN BE DESERVED AS VALID SELF-DEFENSE. Why are you Denying Facts, that unborn humans commit assault at least 4 different ways, and the ONLY way to make one stop right now is to kill it?

JayDubya said:
Abortion is objectively so much worse.
Click to expand...
STUPIDLY FALSE, DUE TO DENYING FACTS.
 
LadyMoonlight said:
And if a woman is going to spread her legs around, she should get fixed too.
Click to expand...

No we need women to keep " spreading their legs around" to keep the human population going. That's the main way we reproduce.
 
FutureIncoming said:
RAPE IS ALMOST ALWAYS UNDESERVED.


ABORTION CAN BE DESERVED AS VALID SELF-DEFENSE. Why are you Denying Facts, that unborn humans commit assault at least 4 different ways, and the ONLY way to make one stop right now is to kill it?


STUPIDLY FALSE, DUE TO DENYING FACTS.
Click to expand...

There really isn't anything one could ever say which would be more stupid or more delusional than this claim that killing a helpless and innocent human being is "self-defense."

It's absolutely deranged. I appreciate it only in the sense that those who utter it have self-selected their future speech to be considered completely irrelevant. Saves time.

Pro-tip: any harm in pregnancy (and that usually warranted quotation marks around harm) is inflicted upon oneself by oneself (and their sexual partner). Casualty - it's still a thing. Welcome to reality.


PS oh please do humor us all by telling us when rape would be "deserved." :lol:
 
Last edited:
SilverFox said:
Much has been said about "a woman's right to choose". I fully agree that a woman should be fully entitled to decide whether or not to submit to the procedure of childbirth. Where I DISAGREE with untold millions of women is that I believe that it is absolutely IMPERATIVE that a woman exercise that right of choice BEFORE - - not AFTER - - deciding to climb onto a bed and engage in the specific type of activity which she VERY WELL KNOWS might produce the gestation of a new, miniaturized human being. To nonchalantly and cavalierly place an order for the prospective bundle of joy only to cancel the order in barbaric fashion at some future date is heinously and hideously abominable.

The living, moving, growing child within the womb has no voice with which to plead for his or her chance at life; - - but WHY does that precious, tiny life form have no right to existence?
Click to expand...

My position is based on when I consider someone a "person". I am talking about the moral definition, not the legal definition. What is it about you, SilverFox, that makes me value your life? What is it about YOU that makes me care what happens to you or that your rights are protected?

Is it that you have a beating heart? No. Is it that your DNA is similar to mine? No. Is that you are carbon-based or that your body contains blood? No and no.

What makes you a person to me is that you have a mind. You are an aware, sentient being. THAT is what makes you a person to me. Without a mind you are no more a person to me than a rock, or a flower, or a bacteria, or an embryo.

The overwhelming majority of abortions happen before the fetus has a sufficiently developed enough brain for a mind to emerge. So I have zero problems with aborting at that stage, whether the embryo is in a woman OR in a test tube.

Things change for me in the third trimester. At some point in the third trimester it seems apparent to me that the fetus' brain develops to the point of a mind emerging. IMO the fetus is a person, morally speaking, at that point and is deserving of protections. When abortion DOES legally happen in the third trimester there is typically a medical reason for it and in that case it is a matter of triage.
 
Grand Mal said:
So, have you done anything positive to help prevent abortion, or have you just preached about what others should and shouldn't do? For example, have you helped chase down delinquent fathers? Have you helped a single mother pay for day care so she can get off welfare? Have you advocated for access to birth control by teen-age girls? Have you adopted a child? Or are you satisfied by just expressing moral indignation and expecting others to make all the effort and sacrifices your conscience demands of them?
Click to expand...

The obvious answer to your question is culpability. If I'm the dude who broke into my neighbors house, stole his flat screen TV and his wife's gold jewelry and ate the left over grilled tenderloin steak, then I would naturally expect to be the one to face the music in a court prosecution. I would not expect others to serve my jail time and pay my outstanding fines. If I did it, - - I should pay for it.

No pregnancy is going to occur without the participation of a female. Yes, it takes two - a female AND a male - to achieve parenthood; but the process CANNOT occur without the female participation element. Unwed fathers should be forced to render co-payment for their progeny, but the process starts with the consensual participation of a female. The onus is on HER to refuse to participate in a sexual activity which she knows very well can produce a pregnancy. To discount and disregard that possibility is a heinously casual preoccupation with a woman's personal desires with no thought given to possible catastrophic consequences which may result in the violent termination of the life of a precious, tiny human creature.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
My position is based on when I consider someone a "person". I am talking about the moral definition, not the legal definition. What is it about you, SilverFox, that makes me value your life? What is it about YOU that makes me care what happens to you or that your rights are protected?

Is it that you have a beating heart? No. Is it that your DNA is similar to mine? No. Is that you are carbon-based or that your body contains blood? No and no.

What makes you a person to me is that you have a mind. You are an aware, sentient being. THAT is what makes you a person to me. Without a mind you are no more a person to me than a rock, or a flower, or a bacteria, or an embryo.

The overwhelming majority of abortions happen before the fetus has a sufficiently developed enough brain for a mind to emerge. So I have zero problems with aborting at that stage, whether the embryo is in a woman OR in a test tube.

Things change for me in the third trimester. At some point in the third trimester it seems apparent to me that the fetus' brain develops to the point of a mind emerging. IMO the fetus is a person, morally speaking, at that point and is deserving of protections. When abortion DOES legally happen in the third trimester there is typically a medical reason for it and in that case it is a matter of triage.
Click to expand...

Your positional statement here mirrors the attitude of many like-minded others. I understand the LEGAL connotations of your argument - but not the humanitarian ones. When a viable human creature is defined as "an unwanted bill of goods" and is thus stamped "return to sender", savagely dismebered and consigned to the bio waste bin, something is grossly and incredulously wrong in the philosophical faculties of a large segment of society members' purportedly sensitive, compassionate humanity evaluations.
 
Last edited:
SilverFox said:
Your positional statement here mirrors the attitude of many like-minded others. I understand the LEGAL connotations of your argument - but not the humanitarian ones. When a viable human creature is defined as "an unwanted bill of goods" and is this stamped "return to sender", savagely disemebered and consigned to the bio waste bin, something is grossly and incredulously wrong in the thought processes of purportedly sensitive, compassionate humanity evaluations.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about legal status. I'm talking about what makes a person a person, morally speaking. If there is no mind then there is nothing/nobody to be compassionate for. If there is no mind then there is nobody to empathize with. It is just biomass. Without our minds we are all just biomass.
 
My response to that train of thought is always the same; a newborn does not possess the higher order sapience or sentience that these people supposedly ascribe value to.

Point in fact presuming most of them don't push obligate moral vegetarianism (because most of them well, don't), the newborn Homo sapiens has less sapience and sentience than adult animals we slaughter and eat for dinner.

And yet, they recognize the newborn as a human being and consider it appropriate for them to be legal persons.

In short, they realize that a temporary state is no reason to be exclusionary, at least conceptually, they just fail to consistently apply that principle.
 
Removable Mind said:
Your opinions are noted. What is he basis for your profound sense of obligation and devotion for the yet to be born - from the moment of conception?
Click to expand...

The moral and religious premise that human life is divinely gifted and should be deemed protectively sacred and inviolate. Those who have no power to initiate the spark of life (and that includes EVERYONE) should not be empowered to terminate the spark of life.
 
SilverFox said:
The moral and religious premise that human life is divinely gifted and should be deemed protectively sacred and inviolate. Those who have no power to initiate the spark of life (and that includes EVERYONE) should not be empowered to terminate the spark of life.
Click to expand...

Am I required, by law, to adhere to the tenets/principles of your religion's teachings? Is any other person required to?
 
It seems we always ask the most simple questions and the right questions later. Intercourse is a functional tool for humans, shallowly as the purpose of nature seems to be, it is so they can repopulate. Commonly any tool can also be used for other purposes, so any banning of sexual contact would be too strict, not to mention, ridiculous. With that in mind it I feel it would be more appropriate to ask how can we precisely control the process of baby making exclusively, for whatever reasons it may be. I believe we can turn to science for this, perhaps a device can be installed into everyone that stops any risk of creating a baby and can be toggled depending on circumstances?

As for the question of abortion exclusively, any baby is an it (not human) until a certain point, we shouldn't have problems with abortion if done correctly. For the argument imposed commonly to question this logic, what stops "abortion" after the baby is born is the fact that someone can just give it away. I'm interested in specifics in the time period of late pregnancy.
 
NO ONE can definitively evaluate and codify the mental condition of a babe in the womb. NO ONE. It has been proven that babes being aborted feel - and respond to - intense pain during the abortion process.

I find incredulously inscrutable the prevailing reasoning that the voluntary, forcible termination of the life of a child who has been birthed is deemed to be murder; however, if the termination of that same life form is perpetrated four hours earlier, while the impersonal "blob of protoplasm" is still invisibly nestled within the mother's belly, - - - - - then that's PERFECTLY JUSTIFIABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
SilverFox said:
The moral and religious premise that human life is divinely gifted and should be deemed protectively sacred and inviolate. Those who have no power to initiate the spark of life (and that includes EVERYONE) should not be empowered to terminate the spark of life.
Click to expand...

I would like to point out the statistical probability of God with a capital G is unlikely, meaning any "contribution" relating back mostly only to God would be most likely not useful. However I would like to point out a god with a lowercase G can be anything big I suppose, but mostly likely no answer based on that will really help us in this conversation as well.

Region isn't a philosophy. It's a feeling that might have some philosophies. An answer based on feeling isn't applicable to a conversation that is largely not a "just preference" type deal.
 
Inalisist said:
I would like to point out the statistical probability of God with a capital G is unlikely, meaning any "contribution" relating back mostly only to God would be most likely not useful. However I would like to point out a god with a lowercase G can be anything big I suppose, but mostly likely no answer based on that will really help us in this conversation as well.

Region isn't a philosophy. It's a feeling that might have some philosophies. An answer based on feeling isn't applicable to a conversation that is largely not a "just preference" type deal.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion. You are NOT entitled to state your opinion as irrefutable fact. I strongly disagree with your characterization of GOD. You apparently do not believe in GOD; such is your prerogative. A sobering consideration, however, might be whether or not GOD believes in you. I believe that you possess the requisite intellect to answer that question for yourself. GOD bless.
 
SilverFox said:
NO ONE can definitively evaluate and codify the mental condition of a babe in the womb. NO ONE. It has been proven that babes being aborted feel - and respond to - intense pain during the abortion process.
Click to expand...

You type with great emotion. Lets calm down, its a discussion.

You are concerned about when babies are able to "feel", however the "feeling" described can be just a cause and effect type function. Is there any other function you are concerned about compounded as feeling? Please elaborate.
 
SilverFox said:
You are NOT entitled to state your opinion as irrefutable fact.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything stated as such. If you are referring to me asking that religion should be left out it was an observation that we are concerning ourselves with something highly unlikely.
 
JayDubya said:
There really isn't anything one could ever say which would be more stupid or more delusional than this claim
Click to expand...
OF YOURS, THAT AN UNBORN HUMAN IS "INNOCENT" WHEN ALL THE FACTS ARE AGAINST YOU. Why do you keep spouting that Stupid Lie?

JayDubya said:
that killing a helpless
Click to expand...
ANOTHER STUPID LIE, mostly because one of the assaults committed by an unborn human consists of infusing oxytocin into the body of its hostess, which has the purpose of altering her mental state, to become the defender of that unborn human. Oxytocin is why you don't get between a mama bear and her cubs!

JayDubya said:
and innocent
Click to expand...
REPEATING YOUR STUPID LIE DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS STUPID.

JayDubya said:
human
Click to expand...
TRUE.

JayDubya said:
being
Click to expand...
FALSE. I'm still waiting for you to provide the slightest bit of Objectively Verifiable evidence than an unborn human qualifies as a "being", equivalent to the way an extraterrestrial alien could qualify as a "being".

JayDubya said:
is "self-defense."
Click to expand...
ALMOST BY DEFINITION, STOPPING AN ASSAILANT QUALIFIES AS SELF-DEFENSE. Your Stupid Lie, to the effect that unborn humans don't actually commit the assaults which have been Objectively Measured and Verified, gets you nowhere.

JayDubya said:
It's absolutely deranged.
Click to expand...
TALKING ABOUT YOUR OWN NONSENSICAL BLATHER AGAIN, I SEE.

JayDubya said:
Pro-tip: any harm in pregnancy (and that usually warranted quotation marks around harm) is inflicted upon oneself
Click to expand...
ANOTHER STUPID LIE. Who gets the blame when a wanted pregnancy does not happen??? Not the sex-participants, that's for sure! It is other independently-acting entities that get the blame, ranging from insufficient numbers of sperm to genetically defective DNA. Therefore it is not just a Stupid Lie, it is Stupid Hypocrisy to place all the blame on the sex-participants when an unwanted pregnancy happens. Those independently-acting entities were still involved!

JayDubya said:
PS oh please do humor us all by telling us when rape would be "deserved." :lol:
Click to expand...
I ACCEPT THE FACT THAT FOLKS HAVE A HUGE RANGE OF PSYCHOLOGIES. Therefore it is possible that some woman might like to be raped (related to masochism). One should try to avoid making too-generic statements, because then the exception will trip you up.
 
...

Lol. K.


PS By definition no one can WANT to be RAPED, because rape means you don't have consent and if you WANT to have the sex you consent to sex, but that's not even the most ****ed up, retarded thing you just said so I'll let it be.

In the meantime, the organism you condemn as subhuman because of a lack of mentation you then contort yourself to condemn as an invader / attacker.

It's cartoonishly stupid; "logically inconsistent" is not descriptive enough of those mental gymnastics.
 
SilverFox said:
NO ONE can definitively evaluate and codify the mental condition of a babe in the womb. NO ONE. It has been proven that babes being aborted feel - and respond to - intense pain during the abortion process.

I find incredulously inscrutable the prevailing reasoning that the voluntary, forcible termination of the life of a child who has been birthed is deemed to be murder; however, if the termination of that same life form is perpetrated four hours earlier, while the impersonal "blob of protoplasm" is still invisibly nestled within the mother's belly, - - - - - then that's PERFECTLY JUSTIFIABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Your claims are wrong. You are full of misinformation.

Partial births are illegal. Women would find it difficult to have an abortion at 20 weeks unless the fetus has serious problems or the longer term health or the life of a woman is in jeopardy.

The pain theory has been scientifically refuted numerous times.

There is no child aborted. Human life, yes, child, no.

Over 90% of abortions are performed at 12 weeks and under. 60% of those are 10 weeks and under. None of these stages have the neural network or brain development to feel anything, much less pain.

Feel free to provide source links to support your claims. It would help the credibility of your claims.
 
SilverFox said:
NO ONE can definitively evaluate and codify the mental condition of a babe in the womb. NO ONE. It has been proven that babes being aborted feel - and respond to - intense pain during the abortion process.
Click to expand...

No, it hasn't.

While the presence of thalamocortical fibers is necessary for pain perception, their mere presence is insufficient—this pathway must also be functional. It has been proposed that transient, functional thalamocortical circuits may form via subplate neurons around midgestation, but no human study has demonstrated this early functionality. Instead, constant SEPs appear at 29 weeks’ PCA, and EEG patterns denoting wakefulness appear around 30 weeks’ PCA. Both of these tests of cortical function suggest that conscious perception of pain does not begin before the third trimester.

Fetal Pain | JAMA | The JAMA Network
Click to expand...



I find incredulously inscrutable the prevailing reasoning that the voluntary, forcible termination of the life of a child who has been birthed is deemed to be murder; however, if the termination of that same life form is perpetrated four hours earlier, while the impersonal "blob of protoplasm" is still invisibly nestled within the mother's belly, - - - - - then that's PERFECTLY JUSTIFIABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

As Minnie has shown, only about 100 abortions per year take place in the USA after 24 weeks and they are not 'elective'.

BTW, if there is a zef in a woman's belly, she needs to get it out ASAP as it is an ectopic pregnancy and a threat to her life.
 
Scrabaholic said:
No, it hasn't.







As Minnie has shown, only about 100 abortions per year take place in the USA after 24 weeks and they are not 'elective'.

BTW, if there is a zef in a woman's belly, she needs to get it out ASAP as it is an ectopic pregnancy and a threat to her life.
Click to expand...

But what about if there's a jabberwocky or other non-existent creature in there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom