• 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!

It seems many pro-life claim a fetus is a baby - except when not

Lursa said:
Interestingly enough...I've discovered a pretty clear dividing line for "acceptable" for pro-life people. It's viewed the same very very frequently.

If it's the woman's 'fault' she got pregnant (she enjoyed sex, her birth control failed, etc.) then she should not be allowed to have an abortion.

If it wasnt her fault (rape, severe medical issues, incest as a minor) then she should be allowed to have an abortion.
Click to expand...

Can you quote anyone (by name) who says that? Or is this fodder for the CT forum?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Can you quote anyone (by name) who says that? Or is this fodder for the CT forum?
Click to expand...

Direct quotes? Well you can just look at your poll for one thing. (in the other thread)

But people post all the time that they only find abortion acceptable for rape, incest, medical reasons. Are you disputing that? And without exception, those are things that are not something the woman chose. So they're not her fault.

So what is it you are disputing, if anything?

Are you denying the conclusion I come to? If so, please explain why.
 
Lursa said:
Direct quotes? Well you can just look at your poll for one thing. (in the other thread)

But people post all the time that they only find abortion acceptable for rape, incest, medical reasons. Are you disputing that? And without exception, those are things that are not something the woman chose. So they're not her fault.

So what is it you are disputing, if anything?

Are you denying the conclusion I come to? If so, please explain why.
Click to expand...

You don't offer any evidence to support your conclusion, that's why. Forum posts don't count, because they're anonymous. I'm interested in whether you think anyone has made these claims in the public record.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
You don't offer any evidence to support your conclusion, that's why. Forum posts don't count, because they're anonymous. I'm interested in whether you think anyone has made these claims in the public record.
Click to expand...

Ah, avoided the question again. And instead, ask me.

The polls are posted all the time. Minnie posts them, Y2Y posts them, RM posts them. They are not polls of the forum posters :doh

Those are very standard, clear-cut categories for pro-life people:

Acceptable only: rape, incest, mother's health

And these are all things that are 'not her fault,' correct? Is that a fact (evidence) or not?

So again, do you dispute this and if so, why? And what is your 'conclusion?'
 
DifferentDrummr said:
You don't offer any evidence to support your conclusion, that's why. Forum posts don't count, because they're anonymous. I'm interested in whether you think anyone has made these claims in the public record.
Click to expand...

From the BBC Ethics Guide:

“
Sure a woman has the right to choose whether or not to become pregnant. She makes that choice before engaging in sex. To make that 'choice' after a pregnancy is underway, merely as a matter of birth control, is an immoral act.

Mona Charen



“

The argument in steps

a person should accept the consequences of risks that she knowingly and willingly takes
a woman who willingly has sexual intercourse knows that she takes the risk of bringing a foetus/moral person into existence
therefore a woman who becomes pregnant should accept the pregnancy as the consequence of taking the risk involved in sexual intercourse

therefore the woman has a duty of care to the foetus/moral person

therefore she should allow the resulting foetus/moral person to be born

therefore she should not abort the foetus/moral person

This argument works well even if you don't accept that a foetus is a moral person, which is why both terms have been used.

Unwilling sex invalidates this argument


But suppose that a woman has not willingly taken the risk of getting pregnant and so did not have any choice in the conception (perhaps she has been raped, for example)

In this case the woman does not have any responsibility for the foetus and so it seems that abortion is not wrong.

This makes it clear that the vital plank of the argument is not the rights of the foetus, but the duties of the mother.
Click to expand...

BBC - Ethics - Abortion: Responsibility of the mother
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Ah, avoided the question again. And instead, ask me.

The polls are posted all the time. Minnie posts them, Y2Y posts them, RM posts them. They are not polls of the forum posters :doh

Those are very standard, clear-cut categories for pro-life people:

Acceptable only: rape, incest, mother's health

And these are all things that are 'not her fault,' correct? Is that a fact (evidence) or not?

So again, do you dispute this and if so, why? And what is your 'conclusion?'
Click to expand...

I'm always skeptical of polls, including those from organizations that try to conduct them responsibly. There can still be all kinds of issues with poll questions, methodologies, and so forth. The public never gets to see those. That's why I don't accept polls at face value.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I'm always skeptical of polls, including those from organizations that try to conduct them responsibly. There can still be all kinds of issues with poll questions, methodologies, and so forth. The public never gets to see those. That's why I don't accept polls at face value.
Click to expand...

So, then you reject that those are the standard, common reasons that most pro-life supporters feel are acceptable?

Even tho multiple polls consistently show exactly that?

What's not to accept at face value? What's hidden? What was hidden in YOUR poll? It seemed very straightforward.

So is this your way of avoiding the premise I wrote, that objections to abortion are based more about the woman's culpability rather than the welfare of the unborn?

Minnie's post seems to support it as well.

It's certainly an ethical point to examine on the issue. Why, again, am I willing to but you are not?
 
Lursa said:
So, then you reject that those are the standard, common reasons that most pro-life supporters feel are acceptable?
Click to expand...

Ah, so at long last you say "most" instead of "all." Which is entirely consistent with the point I made to begin with (and you tried to refute).

Glad we finally agree.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Ah, so at long last you say "most" instead of "all." Which is entirely consistent with the point I made to begin with (and you tried to refute).

Glad we finally agree.
Click to expand...

I never refuted it...what post number please

I rarely say/said all. I explicitly even called out those that dont believe in making exceptions for those things listed.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Ah, so at long last you say "most" instead of "all." Which is entirely consistent with the point I made to begin with (and you tried to refute).

.
Click to expand...

Great, now that you have clarified things, please give me your conclusions re: this, the source of the tangent for clarification:

Interestingly enough...I've discovered a pretty clear dividing line for "acceptable" for pro-life people. It's viewed the same very very frequently.

If it's the woman's 'fault' she got pregnant (she enjoyed sex, her birth control failed, etc.) then she should not be allowed to have an abortion.

If it wasnt her fault (rape, severe medical issues, incest as a minor) then she should be allowed to have an abortion.

So what we can see here is that:

--obviously most pro-life people do not view the unborn as equal... If the unborn was truly equal, you could not terminate it's life in cases of rape or incest or even the mother's life to some extent. (THere are a few pro-life people that do believe you cannot terminate the unborn in these circumstances and at least they are consistent.)

-- most pro-life people care more about judging and punishing a woman than they care for that 'innocent life'. (yeah, considering it punishment because the unborn is frequently referred to as a 'consequence')

So IMO the dividing line re: abortion for pro-life supporters has nothing to do with the unborn, it's all about the woman and how they judge her culpability in the pregnancy.​
 
Lursa said:
Great, now that you have clarified things, please give me your conclusions re: this, the source of the tangent for clarification:

Interestingly enough...I've discovered a pretty clear dividing line for "acceptable" for pro-life people. It's viewed the same very very frequently.

If it's the woman's 'fault' she got pregnant (she enjoyed sex, her birth control failed, etc.) then she should not be allowed to have an abortion.

If it wasnt her fault (rape, severe medical issues, incest as a minor) then she should be allowed to have an abortion.

So what we can see here is that:

--obviously most pro-life people do not view the unborn as equal... If the unborn was truly equal, you could not terminate it's life in cases of rape or incest or even the mother's life to some extent. (THere are a few pro-life people that do believe you cannot terminate the unborn in these circumstances and at least they are consistent.)

-- most pro-life people care more about judging and punishing a woman than they care for that 'innocent life'. (yeah, considering it punishment because the unborn is frequently referred to as a 'consequence')

So IMO the dividing line re: abortion for pro-life supporters has nothing to do with the unborn, it's all about the woman and how they judge her culpability in the pregnancy.​
Click to expand...

"All" pro-life supporters, or just a majority?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
"All" pro-life supporters, or just a majority?
Click to expand...

If you read entire the post in contex you know she used the words very frequently and used the word most multiple times.
 
joko104 said:
It seems many pro-life claim a fetus is a baby as much as a born baby - except when they don't want it to be.

As examples:,

1. it would seem that since the country grants "birth right citizenship" to a baby upon birth and if an unborn baby and a born baby are equally "a baby," pro-lifers would demand that birth right citizenship be changed to "conception rights citizenship." If a "baby" is conceived in the USA, that unborn baby should have the same rights as a born baby.

In this, a woman wouldn't have to get to the USA before giving birth, but merely come to the USA on a travel visa or by sneaking in, have sex and get pregnant. She could then demand on behalf of her "baby" the government provide the same assistance it provides - such a medical care - for "the baby." Nor could she be deported because "the unborn baby" is a citizen.

OR she could return to her country with "the baby," who would be entitled to come to the USA any time, before such as with relatives on green cards in the USA, or after becoming an adult at age 18, or even if never returning he and the other 1,000,000,000 babies conceived in the USA on brief visits would be entitled to minimal social security payment even if they never came to the USA.

2. Do you claim equal personhood for an unborn baby to a born baby? It would seem that is the claim - both are equally a baby and equally "human."

In this, an unborn baby certainly could thru a guardian and lawyer to sue the parents both before and after birth. For example, a fetus could obtain a protective order against both parents any and all activities that might risk the baby's safety - and could sue to order the woman's diet, medical care, form of giving birth (C-section, natural, with or without drugs) and could sue for gene therapy to be done.

The unborn baby before and after birth could sue the mother or father for any action that may have injured the person. For example, if the father ran a stop sign and the unborn baby was killed or if you caused an accident and an unborn baby killed, that unborn baby could sue the father or you if you were at fault literally for the lose of an entire lifetime - this to go to the estate of the unborn baby.

The ACLU could be suing local, state, the federal government, any organization, any person or you on behalf of unborn babies - under almost countless theories.

Also, at the moment of conception the unborn baby would have the right to inheritance status - even if the pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. It would take some writing out, but the division of estate issues this would create is huge. If the woman had 3 miscarriages, that is 3 claims of childhood estate claims.

Of course, a person could claim another dependent on taxes from the moment of conception which you might see as a plus.

If you claim a fetus is an unborn child with the same rights as a born child, you are claiming equal personhood, correct?
Click to expand...

Good reason to do away with the bogus confirment of birthright citizens rights. The 14th Amendment, bogus in itself, was never intentioned to do anything but undo the wrongs to former slaves who were not considered citizens even though they and/or their antecedents were born in America.

Time to kick this concep to the curb.

As to the premise of your post, It matters not the the ramifications, a life is a life and one must deal with whatever after based on that concept. Period.
 
minnie616 said:
If you read entire the post in contex you know she used the words very frequently and used the word most multiple times.
Click to expand...

The bobbing and weaving, the avoidance of answering direct questions, and just answering questions with questions is a pattern for "many" pro-life posters.

Again, IMO they dont like being confronted with the fact that they dont necessarily hold the moral High Ground on the issue.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Perhaps there will be, when you stop avoiding the questions. :lamo
Click to expand...

That is funny, to the point of ludicrous really.

And even Minnie told you it was clear in my post.

So you still avoid offering your conclusion, even after running out of excuses? M'k.

I'm pretty sure I know what it is.
 
Lursa said:
Interestingly enough...I've discovered a pretty clear dividing line for "acceptable" for pro-life people. It's viewed the same very very frequently.

If it's the woman's 'fault' she got pregnant (she enjoyed sex, her birth control failed, etc.) then she should not be allowed to have an abortion.

If it wasnt her fault (rape, severe medical issues, incest as a minor) then she should be allowed to have an abortion.

So what we can see here is that:

--obviously most pro-life people do not view the unborn as equal... If the unborn was truly equal, you could not terminate it's life in cases of rape or incest or even the mother's life to some extent. (THere are a few pro-life people that do believe you cannot terminate the unborn in these circumstances and at least they are consistent.)

-- most pro-life people care more about judging and punishing a woman than they care for that 'innocent life'. (yeah, considering it punishment because the unborn is frequently referred to as a 'consequence')

So IMO the dividing line re: abortion for pro-life supporters has nothing to do with the unborn, it's all about the woman and how they judge her culpability in the pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes!
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Glad you appreciate the irony.


All she did was echo you in that post. No original material there at all.
Click to expand...

If the post clearly answered your question regarding 'all,' ...and other people understood it...the limitation is yours. Actually, the excuse is yours. That is what is ludicrous, the extent of your attempts to avoid offering your conclusions.

Again, that's ok, I'm pretty sure I know your 'conclusions.' But since you keep bringing this up (that you couldnt understand the words written regarding 'all' or not,) I see no reason not to point out the moral cowardice you are displaying.

Dont keep badgering me in bad faith about the wording, just admit you dont want to answer it. It's the Internet, nobody's going to make you.
 
Lursa said:
If the post clearly answered your question regarding 'all,' ...and other people understood it...the limitation is yours. Actually, the excuse is yours. That is what is ludicrous, the extent of your attempts to avoid offering your conclusions.

Again, that's ok, I'm pretty sure I know your 'conclusions.' But since you keep bringing this up (that you couldnt understand the words written regarding 'all' or not,) I see no reason not to point out the moral cowardice you are displaying.

Dont keep badgering me in bad faith about the wording, just admit you dont want to answer it. It's the Internet, nobody's going to make you.
Click to expand...

Your refusal to answer my questions is a clear sign of dishonesty. That's fine; I won't press you for answers any longer. Just don't expect them from me.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Your refusal to answer my questions is a clear sign of dishonesty. That's fine; I won't press you for answers any longer. Just don't expect them from me.
Click to expand...

That answer was clearly answered in the post and other people were able to understand it.

So you're lying. Clearly. And clearly, you are lying about any answers forthcoming from you. So not jumping thru that hoop for ya.

Like I wrote, I'm pretty sure I know what your "conclusions" are and that's indeed wny you wont put them in writing.
 
Lursa said:
The bobbing and weaving, the avoidance of answering direct questions, and just answering questions with questions is a pattern for "many" pro-life posters.

Again, IMO they dont like being confronted with the fact that they dont necessarily hold the moral High Ground on the issue.
Click to expand...

Exactly........
 
Removable Mind said:
DD, how much does this really and truly matter to you?

So is 99 out of a 100 actually changing the narrative?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think that both pro-life and pro-choice people tend to stereotype the other group. Both groups are far from being monolithic: I've seen pro-life Democrats and pro-life atheists, for example.

So yeah, stereotyping does matter to me in that we should try to avoid it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom