• 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!

pro-life[W:1119]

Re: pro-life

Wan said:
It is possible to talk about whether abortion is murder with no regards to legality.
Click to expand...

No, and that is the heart of the matter and exactly what everyone here has been telling you.

Murder is ONLY *correctly* used in a legal sense and it describes specific crimes.

If you object to the killing of the unborn, that is a valid moral position but it's not murder.
 
Re: pro-life

Pizmo said:
I agree with you to a point

We are talking about about 2 separate lives. Upholding the rights of one will trample on the rights of the other. Pro life takes away the right of a person to control their own body. Pro choice extinguish a person's right to life.

I've wrestled with this issue in my mind over and over again. The only conclusion I can come up with is that the mother had a choice at the point of conception. Unless she was rapped (which is already a very serious crime) she had a choice in whether or not to engage in sex. The fetus had no choice. It's existence is due to factors that were completely beyond its control. So there for I believe that morality lies in upholding the fetus right to life.

I'm sure I'm going to get grilled for my opinion, but I do not see how anyone could arrive at another conclusion
Click to expand...

So then it is your opinion that the right to life (which the unborn does not have legally) supersedes all others?

That is not the only opinion however. And it's not substantiated by our laws either.

"Where does it say that the right to life supersedes the others? You may believe that, or choose that, but not everyone does.

People choose to give up their right to life for their country, their family, their religion, their principles, all the time. Do you think the govt or strangers have the right to tell individuals which are more important to them?"
 
Last edited:
Re: pro-life

Pizmo said:
Can you give me as clear of a defination and legal right that a woman has to control her body at the expense of another human life?
Click to expand...

Roe V Wade did that.

And this covers the rest:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
Click to expand...
 
Re: pro-life

Pizmo said:
"What is the right to life? Can you define it and point to where it says so?"

I defined life, I defined what human life is, and I pointed out exactly where it says that we have a "right to life"

Did I use too many big words that you didn't understand or something?

Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Human life is scientifically classified, we are Homo sapiens.

Science is objective and applies no value. The law may use science for some foundational criteria, but the law is subjective.

The 'right to life' passages that you quoted applied clearly to born people only. Roe v Wade clarified that the unborn have no rights.
SCOTUS determined separately that blacks and women were equal to men and recognized rights for both. They also considered the unborn...and decided they were not equal and did not recognize any rights.
 
Re: pro-life

FutureIncoming said:
The world's population has been getting educated for decades, per science fiction novels and movies
Click to expand...
This is a joke right? Or is it really a testament to the abysmal decline of intelligence in the West?

The rest of what you said is irrelevent, since "human" and "person" are just meaningless constructs of kafir nations - and kafir law is irrelevent to begin with in the abortion "debate". Any kafir 'law' which is in contradiction to divine law is degenerate and needs to be abolished via social change.
 
Re: pro-life

Islam scholar said:
This is a joke right?
Click to expand...
NOT A JOKE. It is a fact that Stupid Prejudice tends to be passed from parents to offspring. But nowadays offspring have more sources of information than just their parents (and teachers). I'm sure you can find plenty of old and Stupidly Prejudiced codgers that think only humans can qualify as persons, but you will find very few children, raised in a cosmopolitan society with easy access to well-respected works such as "Star Trek" and "Star Wars", who think that only humans can qualify as persons.

Islam scholar said:
Or is it really a testament to the abysmal decline of intelligence in the West?
Click to expand...
ON THE CONTRARY. Freeing minds from idiotic Religious Propaganda allows them to think things that Religion-saturated idiots think should never be thought. Like, for example, "If God exists, then what properties does God possess that distinguishes that existence from Nothingness?" Merely claiming God exists might be sufficient for the low-intelligence folks, but smart ones want details. Why should anyone believe the claim if the claim can't be supported rationally? Or are you going to claim that God's existence is irrational?

Islam scholar said:
The rest of what you said is irrelevent, since "human" and "person" are just meaningless constructs of kafir nations
Click to expand...
STUPIDLY FALSE. The word "human" refers to something that has actual physical existence, with unique characteristics that allow human entities to be positively distinguished from non-human entities. And the word "person" has two very different definitions, only one of which is "a construct". The other refers to something generic that can be scientifically tested --which means it is a real thing, too.

Islam scholar said:
- and kafir law is irrelevent to begin with in the abortion "debate".
Click to expand...
STUPIDLY FALSE. One of our (in the USA) most fundamental Laws is the one that keeps Religion-saturated idiots from bossing other folks around, while claiming (totally unsupported by any evidence whatsoever), that they have some sort of right to boss other folks around. It is called "Separation of Church and State". And as a result of that Separation, only the laws of the USA matter (in the USA), with respect to the Overall Abortion Debate.

Islam scholar said:
Any kafir 'law' which is in contradiction to divine law
Click to expand...
TOO BAD YOU STILL DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT "divine law". All you have are worthless/unsupported claims.
 
Re: pro-life

FutureIncoming said:
NOT A JOKE. It is a fact that Stupid Prejudice tends to be passed from parents to offspring. But nowadays offspring have more sources of information than just their parents (and teachers). I'm sure you can find plenty of old and Stupidly Prejudiced codgers that think only humans can qualify as persons, but you will find very few children, raised in a cosmopolitan society with easy access to well-respected works such as "Star Trek" and "Star Wars", who think that only humans can qualify as persons.


ON THE CONTRARY. Freeing minds from idiotic Religious Propaganda allows them to think things that Religion-saturated idiots think should never be thought. Like, for example, "If God exists, then what properties does God possess that distinguishes that existence from Nothingness?" Merely claiming God exists might be sufficient for the low-intelligence folks, but smart ones want details. Why should anyone believe the claim if the claim can't be supported rationally? Or are you going to claim that God's existence is irrational?


STUPIDLY FALSE. The word "human" refers to something that has actual physical existence, with unique characteristics that allow human entities to be positively distinguished from non-human entities. And the word "person" has two very different definitions, only one of which is "a construct". The other refers to something generic that can be scientifically tested --which means it is a real thing, too.


STUPIDLY FALSE. One of our (in the USA) most fundamental Laws is the one that keeps Religion-saturated idiots from bossing other folks around, while claiming (totally unsupported by any evidence whatsoever), that they have some sort of right to boss other folks around. It is called "Separation of Church and State". And as a result of that Separation, only the laws of the USA matter (in the USA), with respect to the Overall Abortion Debate.


TOO BAD YOU STILL DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT "divine law". All you have are worthless/unsupported claims.
Click to expand...
Secular law isn't acknowledged by the divine if it contradicts the will of God - so it is the duty of God's people to change secular societies into Godly societies.

Without God, Kafir are no better than feral animals, as demonstrated by their libidinous behaviors and desire to murder their offspring - so their "rights and freedoms" are irrelevant to the will of God, as they can't govern themselves without God any better than a pig or dog can.
 
Re: pro-life

Islam scholar said:
Secular law isn't acknowledged by the divine if it contradicts the will of God
Click to expand...
TOO BAD YOU STILL DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE WILL OF GOD. All you have are worthless/unsupported claims.

Islam scholar said:
Without God, Kafir are no better than feral animals,
Click to expand...
STUPIDLY AND IGNORANTLY FALSE. Actual feral humans have existed --they are usually called "feral children", and you should study that subject sometime. It turns out they are the default for Natural Human Development, and can be a result of simple neglect, during their earliest years of life. What we call "normal" human development is actually a consequence of Nurture, not Nature. Appropriate Nurturing (and not needing the slightest mention of God) causes the brain to grow some extra processing power, for handling and manipulating abstractions. Human cultures are chock-full of abstractions, from language to writing to art to music and more --and feral children simply cannot process it the way average folks do.

ALSO, you are making a Standard Stupid Claim of Religions, that "morals" matter. NOPE! Not in the slightest! Simply because all things declared "moral" or "immoral" were Arbitrarily declared to be such. Mere say-so, that is. Meanwhile, "ethics" has a chance of being non-arbitrary, totally rational, and Universally applicable (across all intelligent species and cultures throughout the entire Universe). God is not needed for anyone to be able to take an Objective perspective of things. Like selfishness. Consider this: Is the selfishness of Person A somehow inherently superior to the selfishness of Person B? No? Then the thing called "fairness" comes from declaring that Person A and Person B are equal to each other, in terms of having selfishness. And by extension, you can include Person C, Person D, and so on, until literally every person in existence is included. So now all you need, for a system of ethics, is a set of rules that encourage fairness, and don't favor any individual person's selfishness (or any group's selfishness) over other persons (or groups).

Islam scholar said:
as demonstrated by their libidinous behaviors
Click to expand...
MORE STUPIDITY. Libidinous behavior is essential for procreation. Didn't you know that? And don't Religion-saturated idiots usually blather about the importance of procreation?

Islam scholar said:
and desire to murder their offspring
Click to expand...
MORE STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE FROM AN ABORTION OPPONENT. What fun! First, the word "murder" only applies to killing persons, not mere-animal womb-occupants. Second, human "offspring" only qualify as persons after birth, not before birth. If you would like to claim otherwise, that unborn humans qualify as persons, let us see you support that claim with some Objectively Verifiable Evidence! Because if you did, you would actually be the first abortion opponent to ever do that.
 
Re: pro-life

FutureIncoming said:
TOO BAD YOU STILL DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE WILL OF GOD. All you have are worthless/unsupported claims.


STUPIDLY AND IGNORANTLY FALSE. Actual feral humans have existed --they are usually called "feral children", and you should study that subject sometime. It turns out they are the default for Natural Human Development, and can be a result of simple neglect, during their earliest years of life. What we call "normal" human development is actually a consequence of Nurture, not Nature. Appropriate Nurturing (and not needing the slightest mention of God) causes the brain to grow some extra processing power, for handling and manipulating abstractions. Human cultures are chock-full of abstractions, from language to writing to art to music and more --and feral children simply cannot process it the way average folks do.

ALSO, you are making a Standard Stupid Claim of Religions, that "morals" matter. NOPE! Not in the slightest! Simply because all things declared "moral" or "immoral" were Arbitrarily declared to be such. Mere say-so, that is. Meanwhile, "ethics" has a chance of being non-arbitrary, totally rational, and Universally applicable (across all intelligent species and cultures throughout the entire Universe). God is not needed for anyone to be able to take an Objective perspective of things. Like selfishness. Consider this: Is the selfishness of Person A somehow inherently superior to the selfishness of Person B? No? Then the thing called "fairness" comes from declaring that Person A and Person B are equal to each other, in terms of having selfishness. And by extension, you can include Person C, Person D, and so on, until literally every person in existence is included. So now all you need, for a system of ethics, is a set of rules that encourage fairness, and don't favor any individual person's selfishness (or any group's selfishness) over other persons (or groups).
Click to expand...
The selfishness of the godly is naturally entitled to favoritism over the godless - much as man is entitled to superiority over beasts. Men who live like beasts forfeit their imagined "rights" and it is the duty of their moral superiors to govern those who can't govern themselves.

MORE STUPIDITY. Libidinous behavior is essential for procreation. Didn't you know that? And don't Religion-saturated idiots usually blather about the importance of procreation?


MORE STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE FROM AN ABORTION OPPONENT. What fun! First, the word "murder" only applies to killing persons, not mere-animal womb-occupants. Second, "offspring" only qualify as persons after birth, not before birth. If you would like to claim otherwise, that unborn humans qualify as persons, let us see you support that claim with some Objectively Verifiable Evidence! Because if you did, you would actually be the first abortion opponent to ever do that.
Click to expand...
Wordplay and definitions are irrelevant here, as it's just an example of the demonic nature of godless law.
 
Re: pro-life

Islam scholar said:
The selfishness of the godly is naturally entitled to favoritism over the godless - much as man is entitled to superiority over beasts. Men who live like beasts forfeit their imagined "rights" and it is the duty of their moral superiors to govern those who can't govern themselves.


Wordplay and definitions are irrelevant here, as it's just an example of the demonic nature of godless law.
Click to expand...

Careful.....we might just have to bomb your country into submission
 
Re: pro-life

Islam scholar said:
The selfishness of the godly is naturally entitled to favoritism over the godless
Click to expand...
MEANING ANY LIAR CAN CLAIM TO BE GODLY, FOR THE PERKS. Tsk, tsk! You are going to have to do much better than that, to make a case here. So far you haven't offered the slightest reason why anyone claiming to be "godly" is not a liar who should be ignored.

Islam scholar said:
- much as man is entitled to superiority over beasts.
Click to expand...
MAN CLAIMED IT. And also backed it up with evidence. Which is why so many beasts are now extinct, and more are going extinct all the time. We didn't do mere worthless/unsupported say-so!

Islam scholar said:
Men who live like beasts forfeit their imagined "rights"
Click to expand...
NOW YOU ARE BRAGGING ABOUT ISLAM, RIGHT? Like when they kill others just because of different beliefs. Or think women should be covered up because men are incapable of controlling themselves --even though that idiocy is Proved Totally Wrong every time a beach gets occupied during a weekend in the West --where are the men acting like rapacious beasts, eh?

Islam scholar said:
and it is the duty of their moral superiors
Click to expand...
TOO BAD YOU DON'T KNOW ANYONE WHO OBJECTIVELY QUALIFIES FOR THAT LABEL. After all, the label is Totally Arbitrary, since all things called "moral" and "immoral" are totally Arbitrary. Therefore anyone, like myself, can Arbitrarily claim to be morally superior to anyone, such as yourself. Right? And since you seem to think that mere say-so should be believed without question ....

Islam scholar said:
Wordplay and definitions are irrelevant here, as it's just an example of the demonic nature of godless law.
Click to expand...
TOO BAD YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY OFFER A VALID COUNTER ARGUMENT. Name-calling gets you nowhere! (and is the last defense of a Debate-Loser)
 
Re: pro-life

IDK what the posts in front of this one are about, but Imma try to get back on the topic of this thread. Abortion is an abomination and a stain upon our society today. If the founders of our nation were to see the ludicrous idea that human life can be purged before birth, they would have been appalled and ashamed of their descendants.

Abortion is murder of an unborn human being, no matter what the government has decided.
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
Abortion is murder of an unborn human being, no matter what the government has decided.
Click to expand...

By definition abortion =/= murder. If you disagree with that fact do your best to prove otherwise and support your false claim.
:shrug:
 
Re: pro-life

Well, what would you say is murder? What is the 'least heinous' instance in which you would call purposeful human death murder, discounting self defense or war
 
Re: pro-life

Islam scholar said:
Secular law isn't acknowledged by the divine if it contradicts the will of God - so it is the duty of God's people to change secular societies into Godly societies.

Without God, Kafir are no better than feral animals, as demonstrated by their libidinous behaviors and desire to murder their offspring - so their "rights and freedoms" are irrelevant to the will of God, as they can't govern themselves without God any better than a pig or dog can.
Click to expand...

Secular law does not automatically mean that a people refuse a walk of faith with their God.
It means that the government does not play a role in enforcing it, leaving it to the individual to determine what is best with what is viewed as a very personal and PRIVATE matter between the individual and God, as they see it.
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
IDK what the posts in front of this one are about, but Imma try to get back on the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...
THANK YOU. However, there is still a significant correlation between some of those messages, and your own message. Neither of you know what you are talking about! All you have are mere claims, unsupported by Objectively Verifiable Evidence.

Jek4141 said:
Abortion is an abomination
Click to expand...
THAT'S THE FIRST bit of worthless/unsupported mere say-so in your message. You can't provide any evidence whatsoever that there is something wrong with abortion in this day-and-age.

Jek4141 said:
and a stain upon our society today.
Click to expand...
THERE'S ANOTHER bit of worthless/unsupported mere say-so. You can't provide any evidence whatsoever that there is something wrong with abortion in this day-and-age. In fact, the evidence is against you on that one!

Jek4141 said:
If the founders of our nation were to see the ludicrous idea that human life can be purged before birth,
Click to expand...
THEY KNEW ABOUT MISCARRIAGES BACK THEN. Plain old Mother Nature purges about 2/3 of all human conceptions before birth (but the Founding Fathers only saw the 1/6 of confirmed pregnancies that Mother Nature purged before birth). Furthermore, women have been aborting pregnancies for thousands of years, and you can bet they knew about that, too.

Jek4141 said:
they would have been appalled and ashamed of their descendants.
Click to expand...
SOME OF THEM, PROBABLY. All of them? That is more worthless/unsupported mere say-so on your part. Furthermore, that day-and-age was somewhat different from this one, which is seriously overpopulated with humans. You can't provide any evidence whatsoever that there is something wrong with abortion in this day-and-age.

Jek4141 said:
Abortion is murder
Click to expand...
IGNORANTLY OR LYINGLY FALSE. Murder is the killing of a person. Period. And not even the Founding Fathers considered unborn humans to qualify as persons. The proof is in the Constitution, which Mandates a Census of all persons (except Indians not taxed) every ten years. So, See For Yourself, that the Founding Fathers didn't consider unborn humans to be worth counting as persons in the Census. And that Legal Precedent has been upheld in every Census taken since.

Jek4141 said:
of an unborn human being,
Click to expand...
HUMAN, YES; "BEING", NO. The word "being" in that phrase is synonymous with the word "person". That's why we never use a phrase like "frog being", because no frog qualifies as a person. And that's why we do sometimes use a phrase like "extraterrestrial being", because we expect that various extraterrestrial entities will qualify as persons. If you want to claim an unborn human qualifies as a person, you need more than worthless/unsupported mere say-so! You need Objectively Verifiable Evidence (like the evidence that has been accumulating for decades, indicating that dolphins might qualify as persons).

Jek4141 said:
no matter what the government has decided.
Click to expand...
YOUR MERE SAY-SO IS STILL WORTHLESS AND UNSUPPORTED. Tsk, tsk!
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
Well, what would you say is murder? What is the 'least heinous' instance in which you would call purposeful human death murder, discounting self defense or war
Click to expand...

"i" dont get to say what murder is, it has a factual definition. So are you saying you cant support your false claim? please let us know when you can, thanks
 
Re: pro-life

Checkerboard Strangler said:
Secular law does not automatically mean that a people refuse a walk of faith with their God.
It means that the government does not play a role in enforcing it, leaving it to the individual to determine what is best with what is viewed as a very personal and PRIVATE matter between the individual and God, as they see it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. In America, people are not prevented from practicing their religions.

OTOH, we do protect all our citizens, no matter what religion, from barbarous and ignorant practices like stoning and honor killings.
 
Re: pro-life

Islam scholar said:
This is a joke right? Or is it really a testament to the abysmal decline of intelligence in the West?

The rest of what you said is irrelevent, since "human" and "person" are just meaningless constructs of kafir nations - and kafir law is irrelevent to begin with in the abortion "debate". Any kafir 'law' which is in contradiction to divine law is degenerate and needs to be abolished via social change.
Click to expand...

أنت إهانة للله
'ant 'iihanat lillah
 
Re: pro-life

FutureIncoming said:
The world's population has been getting educated for decades, per science fiction novels and movies
Click to expand...

Just STOP. Science fiction novels and movies are entertainment, not education.
If you cannot tell the difference between a science fiction novel/movie and SCIENCE itself, you have a problem and you need professional help.
You're not helping.
 
Re: pro-life

Islam scholar said:
This is a joke right? Or is it really a testament to the abysmal decline of intelligence in the West?
Click to expand...

If you had any intelligence, you wouldn't be making drive-by posts and then hiding when educated intelligent people challenge you.
You're not debating, you're preaching. In fact, you're proselytizing, you're proselytizing in a smug, arrogant, hostile and disrespectful manner.
You will get tenfold of like kind in return.

You want to have a debate? Then debate. Attempting to pick off low hanging fruit and spewing pissant fundamentalist dogma isn't debate.
 
Re: pro-life

Islam scholar said:
The selfishness of the godly is naturally entitled to favoritism over the godless - much as man is entitled to superiority over beasts. Men who live like beasts forfeit their imagined "rights" and it is the duty of their moral superiors to govern those who can't govern themselves.
Click to expand...

Your ideology which posits that you have the authority to declare a class of people as beasts has done nothing for you except rain down Hell on your own abode. That should have been a signal to you long ago that you were not on a godly path.
Woe to the ignorant who blindly see themselves as having dominion over another fellow man due to an imaginary construct.
A thousand years more shall pass, and you will have exhausted all your resources, all your blood, all your treasure and you will be alone and isolated in this world and the next.
Moral superiority? You have shown neither, because you possess neither. The only thing you possess is empty hostile bluster.
No one, absolutely no one, fears you or your imaginary god.
Your biggest sin is the fact that you have not learned humility.
But you're in good company, as most of the human race hasn't either.
 
Re: pro-life

Jek4141 said:
IDK what the posts in front of this one are about, but Imma try to get back on the topic of this thread. Abortion is an abomination and a stain upon our society today. If the founders of our nation were to see the ludicrous idea that human life can be purged before birth, they would have been appalled and ashamed of their descendants.
...
Click to expand...


Several of our founding fathers ( Ben Franklin, Benjamin Rush and Thomas Jefferson , to name a few) not only were aware of elective abortions but also put no moral judgement on abortion.

From the following :
Our founding fathers actually wrote about the subject. Benjamin Franklin’s views can be inferred from an incident that occurred in 1729 when his former employer, newspaper editor Samuel Keimer of Philadelphia, published an encyclopedia whose very first volume included a detailed article on abortion, including directions for ending an unwanted pregnancy (“immoderate Evacuations, violent Motions, sudden Passions, Frights … violent Purgatives and in the general anything that tends to promote the Menses.”) Hoping to found his own newspaper to compete with Keimer, Franklin responded in print through the satiric voices of two fictional characters, “Celia Shortface” and “Martha Careful” who expressed mock outrage at Keimer for exposing “the secrets of our sex” which ought to be reserved “for the repository of the learned.” One of the aggrieved ladies threatened to grab Keimer’s beard and pull it if she spotted him at the tavern! Neither Franklin nor his prudish protagonists objected to abortion per se, but only to the immodesty of discussing such feminine mysteries in public.

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a well known physician who signed the Declaration of Independence, shared his views of the subject matter-of-factly in his book of Medical Inquiries and Observations (1805). Discussing blood-letting as a possible treatment to prevent miscarriage during the third month of pregnancy, when he believed there was a special tendency to spontaneous abortion, Rush asked the question, “what is an abortion but a haemoptysis (if I may be allowed the expression) from the uterus?”A hemoptysis is the clinical term for the expectoration of blood or bloody sputum from the lungs or larynx. In Rush’s mind, apparently, what we would now call the three-month-old embryo was equivalent medically to what one might cough up when ill with the flu.

Thomas Jefferson put no moral judgment on abortion, either. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, he observed that for Native American women, who accompanied their men in war and hunting parties, “childbearing becomes extremely inconvenient to them. It is said, therefore, that they have learnt the practice of procuring abortion by the use of some vegetable, and that it even extends to prevent conception for some time after.” Jefferson on the whole admired the native people and the Notes were intended in part to counter the views of the French naturalist Buffon, who accused the indigenous inhabitants of the New World of being degenerate and less virile than their European counterparts. In extenuation, Jefferson cites “voluntary abortion” along with the hazards of the wilderness and famine as obstacles nature has placed in the way of increased multiplication among the natives. Indian women married to white traders, he observes, produce abundant children and are excellent mothers. The fact that they practice birth control and when necessary terminate their pregnancies does not lessen his respect for them, but appears to be in his mind simply one of the ingenious ways they have adapted to their challenging environment.
Click to expand...

American Creation: The Founding Fathers and Abortion in Colonial America
 
Re: pro-life

Checkerboard Strangler said:
Just STOP.
Click to expand...
NOPE. It is Stupid Prejudice that must stop. See my signature line?

Checkerboard Strangler said:
Science fiction novels and movies are entertainment, not education.
Click to expand...
STORIES OFTEN HAVE A GRAIN OF TRUTH, REMEMBER? Just because we are talking about modern stories, instead of ancient myths and legends, why should that make a difference? Especially and specifically when science fiction stories must get at least a few facts right, in order to qualify for that label! And in the general case relevant here, the crucial Fact is that the concept of "person" and the concept of "human" are two different things, totally unrelated to each other. Very plain and simple!

Checkerboard Strangler said:
If you cannot tell the difference between a science fiction novel/movie and SCIENCE itself,
Click to expand...
I most certainly do know the difference. Science must be verifiable; fiction needn't be. And in the general case relevant here, the crucial Fact, that the concept of "person" is unrelated to the concept of "human", is indeed totally verifiable.

For example, a human "hydatidiform mole" is a 100% human and 100% alive entity that originates in an ovum-fertilization event, but not even the most vehement of abortion opponents would claim it qualifies as a person. And if an adult human on full life-support is verifiably diagnosed as "brain dead", at that time a Formal Death Certificate is filled out, because the scientists and the doctors and even the lawyers all agree that the person is dead, despite all the rest of the overall human body still being very much alive.

Meanwhile, human stories and myths and legends have for thousands of years been portraying various non-human entities as equivalent to human persons, from angels to elves to extraterrestrials. Plus we have evidence suggesting that right here on Earth is is possible that non-human persons do exist. Therefore the concepts of "human" and "person" are indeed totally unrelated to each other (and any abortion opponent claiming otherwise is an ignoramus needing to be educated). Q.E.D.

Checkerboard Strangler said:
you have a problem and you need professional help.
Click to expand...
BRAGGING ABOUT YOURSELF, PERHAPS? (Are you an ignorant abortion opponent erroneously claiming "human" and "person" are synonymous per Objective Fact?)

Checkerboard Strangler said:
You're not helping.
Click to expand...
HAW! HAW!! HAW!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom