• 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

Shmuel Wyckoff said:
I don't see the point in arguing over word choice because 'person' and 'human' are synonymous. All people are humans and all humans are people. Advocating for 'human rights doesn't mean that you believe that all non-humans don't have any rights at all. All you are advocating for are rights exclusive to humans. As to your link about how most cells in our body are bacterial in nature my question to you would be that if your rationale is that those cells are not human, then what would be wrong with me forcibly removing all those bacterial cells from your body and only leaving your 'human' cells? I would also really like to hear your position (with rationale behind that position) on abortion.
Click to expand...

Because you would be invading someone's bodily sovereignty against their will (you used 'forcibly'). It would be assault at a minimum.

(There are other reasons I could mention but I'll stick to the most easily protected under the US Constitution).
 
Re: pro-life

Shmuel Wyckoff said:
The only question up for debate when discussing abortion is whether a fetus is a human life. If a fetus is a human life then you have no right to kill it. The most consistent pro-life position is that life begins at conception. Once the child is conceived, it has different DNA from the mother, has a predetermined blood type that is separate from the mother, and is a completely separate being than the mother. What must first be established is that life begins at any time when the baby is in the womb rather than after it has exited the birth canal. If a baby has already been in the womb for nine months and is fully viable, but will be born overdue, what is the difference between that baby in the womb 5 minutes before it is born and 5 minutes after it is born? Obviously life can be established when the baby is still in the womb. If it is true that life begins at sometime during the pregnancy and not after birth, then the belief that life begins at conception is the most consistent position because anytime there is a line drawn during the pregnancy that rules the fetus as not a life, that line can be applied to adults. For example, if it is to be established that life begins at viability, then what would be the problem with killing people who are on life support? If the start of a heartbeat is established as the beginning of life, then what would be the problem with killing people who rely on artificial devices to keep up their heartbeat? The most consistent position is that life begins at conception.

The libertarian argument against abortion is compelling but flawed. The best pro-choice argument that I have heard is that even though a fetus is a human life the government should not be enforcing 'positive obligations' on women. The 'positive obligations' being the fact that the mother has to spend more money on different types of care and a different diet. This argument is flawed because the only way for the mother to relieve herself of these 'positive obligations' is to actively terminate a human life. Surely the government has the right to mandate that people not actively kill others even if there will be a 'positive obligation' enforced by the government.

A weaker pro-choice argument is that if the mother can't afford to raise a child she should be allowed to have an abortion. This is not valid because she can just transfer custody of the baby to adoptive parents or child protective services. Also the mother's right to not spend money does not trump the baby's right to life.

The only case in which an abortion would be ethical is when the baby is a direct threat to the mother's life. An abortion in this case is moral because the very existence of the baby threatens the mother's life and the baby should be legally viewed as potential murderer.
Click to expand...

You left out the most compelling reason for choice..a women's right to have control her own body. That is typical of men who think of women as vessels and not a person.
 
Re: pro-life

Skeptic Bob said:
I am so pro-choice that I could probably be considered pro-abortion as I believe the world would be a better place with more abortions. But the whole “if you don’t like abortion then don’t have one” argument is a bad one. To a pro-lifer that is like saying “if you think murder is wrong then don’t murder people but don’t tell me I can’t murder people.”
Click to expand...

No, the “abortion is murder“ argument is nothing like what I said, no matter how strongly the abortion banners thinks they are equivalent.

Murder is not illegal because it is immoral; It is illegal because it infringes on another persons rights. That is the point abortion banners do not get - that we live under the rule of law and those laws are not subject to the perverse immorality of abortion banners
 
Re: pro-life

MrWonka said:
Sorry, but as someone who is pro-choice myself, this is the worst and dumbest argument for an abortion of all time. Being homeless is not a reason to kill someone. You are not allowed to decide who is suffering enough to kill a perfectly healthy person.

The debate is 1.) is it a human being with all the rights of a human being? 2.) What right does it have to occupy a woman's body against her will? Any argument about the quality of life it would have once born is unquestionably abhorrent. You definitely don't get to make that call.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not protect the rights of human beings; It protects the rights of people and the unborn are not people so they have no rights
 
Re: pro-life

Shmuel Wyckoff said:
The supreme court is not the moral arbiter in this country. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is morally correct. According to your logic that anything the supreme court says is correct what about the Dred Scott decision? What about Skinner V. Oklahoma where the court essentially ruled that forced sterilization for mentally ill people was ok. Also Roe V. Wade was decided in in 1973 when science was a fraction of what it is now.
Click to expand...

What you, and the other abortion banners, do not understand, is that in a free country, NO ONE IS THE MORAL ARBITER, especially not those who believe in the perverted morality of abortion banners.

But the Supreme Court is the legal arbiter in this country,and as much as it may get your goat, what they says goes when it comes to the law. So please stop trying to hide the perversity of your inhumane desire to inflict pain and suffering on millions behind your dishonest arguments about morality. Your sanctimony is both cheap and transparent
 
Re: pro-life

Shmuel Wyckoff said:
This logic is absolutely wrong. Evil is still evil no matter what genitalia I have and I can still call it out. Wwas wrong for the North to dictate to the South that it is wrong to hold slaves? After all, what gives them the right to dictate morality to people who are very different from them?
Click to expand...

You are no better than the slavers. Both they and you seek to use the law to impose your immoral code on others, thereby enslaving them. Thankfully, the american people reject the inhuman and perverted ideas you seek to spread.
 
Re: pro-life

Is 'pro life' just for the sake of biological proclivity or is it morally grounded in something more meaningful? It seems to me that for a species to prosper, progress and procreate in a positive manner, it's inherit that it be done with forethought and purpose, not just willy nilly. Otherwise we would simply overrun our planet's resources. Hence, why mother nature allows for death, to make room for the new.
 
Re: pro-life

Shmuel Wyckoff said:
This logic is absolutely wrong. Evil is still evil no matter what genitalia I have and I can still call it out. Wwas wrong for the North to dictate to the South that it is wrong to hold slaves? After all, what gives them the right to dictate morality to people who are very different from them?
Click to expand...

Abortion isn't evil. Forcing a woman to gestate and give birth against her will is.
 
Re: pro-life

Scrabaholic said:
Abortion isn't evil. Forcing a woman to gestate and give birth against her will is.
Click to expand...

As are the people who want the govt to force women to remain pregnant

The sanctimony of the op is a poor substitute for morality, as is his disregard for the sanctity of freedom
 
Re: pro-life

MrWonka said:
False. Killing a trespasser is perfectly legal in the United States and always has been. There's even a poll thread on the very subject on this forum right now where the right to shoot an intruder is winning handly.

Whether you consider the fetus a life or not(which it's not), you still have to establish what right it has to invade a woman's body against her will. If you can shoot someone for trespassing on your land then you can certainly kill someone for trespassing inside your body. No person is allowed to cause another person pain, make them sick every day, use their body for their own survival... If a person tried to do any of those things to you, then you would have a right to make them stop, and if all else fails you would have a right to use violence to stop them.

The fact that you think the fetus looks like a cute wittle baby is irrelevant. When something the size of a watermelon is growing inside your body it is harmful and potentially dangerous.
Click to expand...

The baby didn't chose to be conceived. The mother brought the baby into existence. A trespasser is different because it wasn't in your power to let him on your property.
 
Re: pro-life

sangha said:
You are no better than the slavers. Both they and you seek to use the law to impose your immoral code on others, thereby enslaving them. Thankfully, the american people reject the inhuman and perverted ideas you seek to spread.
Click to expand...

Calling people who disagree with you as bad as slaveowners is disgusting. And if you actually look at the polls the majority of Americans support restrictions on abortions. Science is not on your side dude.
 
Re: pro-life

Shmuel Wyckoff said:
The baby didn't chose to be conceived. The mother brought the baby into existence. A trespasser is different because it wasn't in your power to let him on your property.
Click to expand...

The mother did? Did you just say that? Was that a Freudian slip? Holy cow!
 
Re: pro-life

Skeptic Bob said:
I don’t care if something is “human life”. I don’t value your life because of your DNA or because you have a beating heart. I value your life because you posses a mind. Until a mind is present it may be a human life, but it isn’t yet a person, legally or morally.
Click to expand...

So is it Ok to kill someone who is in a coma?
 
Re: pro-life

Shmuel Wyckoff said:
The baby
Click to expand...
YET ANOTHER DISPLAY OF IGNORANCE BY AN ABORTION OPPONENT. An unborn human is provably so very different from an ordinary "baby" or "child" that it should never be referred-to by either of those labels. *YOU* are more similar to an ordinary baby or child, than is any unborn human. Commonly this huge ignorance of abortion opponents gets expressed as, "What is the difference that birth makes?" --and I'm going to tell you the exact Answer to that Question, because the difference is just as huge as the ignorance that needs to be stomped out of the minds of abortion opponents.

Modern DNA tests revealed a new factor, that had not been known for thousands of years: Much of the placenta is part of the overall unborn human. For thousands of years the placenta was thought to be part of the mother's body, and so only the fetus was considered to matter, inside the womb. That is the sole reason the words "baby" and "child" tend to be applied to a human fetus. However, since we now know that much of the placenta is part of the overall unborn human, we have to accept that what the placenta does is also what the unborn human does, while inside the womb. The placenta is a vital organ without which an unborn human generally cannot survive. It is used by the unborn human to steal nutrients from the body of its mother, to dump toxic biowastes into the body of its mother, and to infuse addictive and mind-altering substances into the body of its mother. No ordinary baby or child has a placenta functioning as a vital organ! And birth occurs (normally) when an unborn human has developed enough to no longer need its placenta to survive. Prior to birth, an unborn human survives by *TAKING* --just like many parasites-- but after birth it is so helpless it can only survive by receiving gifts, including the gift of being carried to a milk-filled teat. That's the Difference That Birth Makes, between an unborn human and a newborn human!

Shmuel Wyckoff said:
didn't chose to be conceived.
Click to expand...
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A HOUSEFLY THAT CHOSE TO BE CONCEIVED? Then why are you blathering idiocy?

Shmuel Wyckoff said:
The mother brought the [mindless unborn human animal entity that acts worse than any parasite] into existence.
Click to expand...
AND HAS THE RIGHT TO DESTROY IT. Exactly as a writer has the right to destroy an unpublished novel, or a painter has a right to destroy a never-displayed canvas. And so on. The mother actually has more right to destroy her womb-occupant, entirely because it acts worse than any parasite. It is called "self defense".
 
Last edited:
Re: pro-life

Shmuel Wyckoff said:
Calling people who disagree with you as bad as slaveowners is disgusting.
Click to expand...

Hypocrisy much?

You do not hesitate to equate murderers and slavers with those who disagree with you. After all, it was you who first compared slavers with people who supported slavery, but I guess it is OK when you do it, right? Because you are so moral, right?

Let me be clear. Your attempts at shaming me are as pitiful and futile as they are hypocritical. When people who support the sort of evils you support, I wear their criticisms as a badge of honor.

If you are going to pretend you are so moral while promoting evil, do not act so shocked when others reject your twisted ideas.

And if you actually look at the polls the majority of Americans support restrictions on abortions.
Click to expand...

If you look at the polls, people all over the world, and throughout the ages, have rejected your perverted notion that abortion is akin to murder.

Science is not on your side dude.
Click to expand...

That is not science, dude; it is morality. I am not surprised you have trouble recognizing it.
 
Re: pro-life

Shmuel Wyckoff said:
The only question up for debate when discussing abortion is whether a fetus is a human life. If a fetus is a human life then you have no right to kill it....
Click to expand...


If another human is threatening my life, do I have a moral right to kill that human ?


I would say yes.


If you don't want life growing inside your own body, you have the right to rip it out.



Of course this debate is entirely a matter of opinion, mine is stated above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom