• 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!

Child Separation Good; Abortion Bad

Child Separation Good; Abortion Bad
Click to expand...

Life is sacred to the Religious Right, until the child is born; then mother and child can eat **** and die for all they care.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Just like the invading fetus...
Click to expand...



gfm7175 said:
There is no such thing as an "invading fetus"... Invasion involves an unwelcome intrusion by a person/people (usually with the purpose of taking over or defending a territory)... A fetus makes no such choice, nor has the capability of invasion.

In fact, the parents made the choice for the chance of having a fetus be there. The existence of the fetus in the womb is the sole cause and fault of the parents, not the fetus.

Stop redefining the word invasion to suit your immorality...
Click to expand...

Hummm I am begging to see how this works.
When someone talks about an invading fetus they need to stick to the dictionary definition but when you talk about abortion as recreationally killing off “to- be - born infants” you do not need to stick to the dictionary meaning.




gfm7175 said:
My post stating [["Yes, they are recreationally killing off "to-be-born" infants."]] was not an appeal to emotion. It was a statement of truth, and the no-bones way of stating what is happening...
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
It was a lie unless you are unable to comprehend the words that you use...even after I give you the dictionary definition.

Of course it's not rational to use words in your own invented way and expect other people to understand, respect, or use them that way.
Click to expand...

gfm7175 said:
How do you think words came to have meaning in the first place?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
gfm7175 said:
No, I didn't. Where so?
Click to expand...

You say that dictionaries don't define words, that words are defined by people. Yet you say that the zef doesn't invade the woman's uterus. If people define words, then people can say it does, even if the dictionary doesn't. (I'm not saying it doesn't, just making a point)
 
minnie616 said:
Hummm I am begging to see how this works.
When someone talks about an invading fetus they need to stick to the dictionary definition but when you talk about abortion as recreationally killing off “to- be - born infants” you do not need to stick to the dictionary meaning.
Click to expand...

Dictionaries do not authoritatively define ANY word, including the word invade.
 
Scrabaholic said:
You say that dictionaries don't define words, that words are defined by people.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Scrabaholic said:
Yet you say that the zef doesn't invade the woman's uterus.
Click to expand...
Correct. There is no possible way that the "zef" can be located anywhere else other than the woman's uterus... That's not what 'invasion' means or entails... You are redefining the term to suit your agenda... You're using it differently here than you do elsewhere...

Scrabaholic said:
If people define words, then people can say it does, even if the dictionary doesn't.
Click to expand...
They sure can, but I would argue that there is a more sound way to define the term.

Scrabaholic said:
(I'm not saying it doesn't, just making a point)
Click to expand...
And I'm making mine.
 
gfm7175 said:
Correct. There is no possible way that the "zef" can be located anywhere else other than the woman's uterus... That's not what 'invasion' means or entails... You are redefining the term to suit your agenda... You're using it differently here than you do elsewhere...
Click to expand...

According to you people define words. Why can't I define "Invade"?

BTW, you *do* know that the pregnancy lowers the woman's immune system so that her body does not reject the zef as foreign material, right? I'd say it doing that qualifies as an invasion.
 
gfm7175 said:
Correct. There is no possible way that the "zef" can be located anywhere else other than the woman's uterus... That's not what 'invasion' means or entails... You are redefining the term to suit your agenda... You're using it differently here than you do elsewhere...
Click to expand...


Scrabaholic said:
According to you people define words. Why can't I define "Invade"?

BTW, you *do* know that the pregnancy lowers the woman's immune system so that her body does not reject the zef as foreign material, right? I'd say it doing that qualifies as an invasion.
Click to expand...

No kidding.

I have heard term invading fetus lots of times by many different posters on the DP alone.

But the first and only person/poster I ever heard using the term recreationally killing off “to-be-born infants” was by gfm7175.
 
Last edited:
Scrabaholic said:
According to you people define words. Why can't I define "Invade"?
Click to expand...
Correct, and you sure can... You do need to follow logic when you do so, however, which you haven't been doing... You also need to argue why your definition is more sound than mine...

Scrabaholic said:
BTW, you *do* know that the pregnancy lowers the woman's immune system so that her body does not reject the zef as foreign material, right? I'd say it doing that qualifies as an invasion.
Click to expand...
No, that doesn't make it an invasion. The woman made the choice to allow for the chance for the zef to be there in the first place (through the act of sex). The woman brought that chance upon herself... How in the hell is THAT "invasion"?? That seems like she's welcoming the possibility of a zef forming inside her...
 
trouble13 said:
I agree that there is some contradictions but that same argument can be just as easily flipped on you.

Abortion is fine
Separating children and capital punishment is inhumane

While I dont share the lock n step the rights views on this topic I will present it if your prepared to defend the conflicts on the lefts stance

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There are no conflicts on the left with either of these issues. Children should not be separated from their parents and put into camps and cages for the "crime" of seeking sanctuary in the U.S., and a pregnant woman should be allowed to make her own choices for her own reasons.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Prove that ants can think! LOL
Click to expand...

FYI, an ant brain has about 250k brain cells, a human brain has 10,000 million, so a colony of 40,000 ants has collectively the same size brain as a human.

:2wave:
 
minnie616 said:
Hummm I am begging to see how this works.
When someone talks about an invading fetus they need to stick to the dictionary definition but when you talk about abortion as recreationally killing off “to- be - born infants” you do not need to stick to the dictionary meaning.
Click to expand...

Recreationally? Please explain why you chose that word.
 
Idiometer said:
Recreationally? Please explain why you chose that word.
Click to expand...

I did not chose that word. Ask the person who used that word in his quote to describe abortion.

gfm7175 said:
My post stating [["Yes, they are recreationally killing off "to-be-born" infants."]] was not an appeal to emotion. It was a statement of truth, and the no-bones way of stating what is happening...
Click to expand...
 
gfm7175 said:
Correct, and you sure can... You do need to follow logic when you do so, however, which you haven't been doing... You also need to argue why your definition is more sound than mine...
Click to expand...

Not my fault you can't see logic when it's in front of you.


No, that doesn't make it an invasion. The woman made the choice to allow for the chance for the zef to be there in the first place (through the act of sex). The woman brought that chance upon herself... How in the hell is THAT "invasion"?? That seems like she's welcoming the possibility of a zef forming inside her...
Click to expand...

Just like if I leave my door unlocked and someone comes in and pistol whips me, it's a home invasion.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Not my fault you can't see logic when it's in front of you.
Click to expand...
Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one rejecting logic...

Scrabaholic said:
Just like if I leave my door unlocked and someone comes in and pistol whips me, it's a home invasion.
Click to expand...
Argument By Repetition Fallacy. I have already counter-argued this point, but will do so again for the heck of it...

In your "home invasion" example, the fact that you left your door unlocked is completely irrelevant... Locking doors does not stop unwelcome company from invading your home (it only reduces the likelihood of home invasion, much like birth control only reduces the likelihood of pregnancy). The other person's choice to enter into your home (unwelcomed) was completely out of your own control, whether you chose to lock your doors or not... Therefore, that qualifies as an invasion, by definition.


In the "fetus invasion" example, the fetus NEVER makes a choice to enter into a woman's uterus (unwelcomed), nor at any point was that entry ever out of the woman's control. The fetus's entry into the woman's uterus was also welcomed by the woman through HER choice to engage in the act of sex with a man. Therefore, with a fetus, it does NOT qualify as an invasion, by definition.


You are redefining the word 'invasion' solely for the purposes of this argument... That's a logical fallacy...


To sum up, in example #1 (home invasion):

1) The other person CHOSE to enter.
2) The other person was UNWELCOME (through NO act of consensual invitation) before choosing to enter.
3) The other person's choice to enter was UNCONTROLLABLE by the owner.


In example #2 (fetus "invasion"):

1) The fetus did NOT choose to enter.
2) The fetus was WELCOMED (through the act of consensual invitation) before it was CAUSED by his/her parents to enter.
3) The fetus's CAUSING to enter was CONTROLLABLE by his/her parents.


So, no... a fetus does NOT invade his/her mother's womb like an unwelcomed person invades a home... Try again...
 
Last edited:
Idiometer said:
There are no conflicts on the left with either of these issues. Children should not be separated from their parents and put into camps and cages for the "crime" of seeking sanctuary in the U.S., and a pregnant woman should be allowed to make her own choices for her own reasons.
Click to expand...
Why shouldnt they be seperated? Because they are innocents? They should not be punsished for decissions their parents made for them?

That pretty much the same argument prolife people make about why sbortion is wrong. Innocent children are being exterminated for choices they had no say in making

That is a conflicted position

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Scrabaholic said:
Incorrect, but hey, that's nothing new.
Click to expand...

Again, a dismissal of an argument as "absurd" without forming any sort of counterargument to it...

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.


Like I said in other comments, I think our correspondence is finished...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom