• 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!

[W:560] Abortion 101

Lursa said:
So you, once again, cannot defend...let's face it, you cant support it at all...your personal opinion on morality.

No worries...that's not even a question anymore. You just dropped the ball avoiding it once again here.
Click to expand...
You're funny. You and Quag both. You two think that posting victory struts is an argument.
 
Angel said:
You're funny. You and Quag both. You two think that posting victory struts is an argument.
Click to expand...

No...pointing out your failures is not an argument...just reality.
 
Angel said:
You're right away with the talking points and legal rationalizations. One step at a time, yes?

Do you, Minnie, recognize and acknowledge a human right to life?
Click to expand...

I sincerely believe as my religion as taught me that human rights start with live birth when the newborn breaths the breath of life.

In a 1968 Christianity Today article

professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
I sincerely believe as my religion as taught me that human rights start with live birth when the newborn breaths the breath of life.

In a 1968 Christianity Today article
Click to expand...
I respect all sincere religious beliefs, yours included. But I have my own, you know, and they conflict with yours on this count. But the clincher here is that my moral argument is not based on any religious belief; my argument is philosophical and scientific and logical. That's the winning trifecta here, it seems to me.
 
Angel said:
I respect all sincere religious beliefs, yours included. But I have my own, you know, and they conflict with yours on this count. But the clincher here is that my moral argument is not based on any religious belief; my argument is philosophical and scientific and logical. That's the winning trifecta here, it seems to me.
Click to expand...

Facts not in evidence. That is the 'support' and 'sources' requested.

There is no scientific foundation behind human life being entitled to a thing. NONE. That you choose to use that criteria in your argument about morality does not make it fact. Science applies no value...moral or otherwise...at all to anything.

And it's not logical, not remotely. I can make that argument from here to Sunday, and have. Legally, physically, societally, practically. There's nothing logical about impairing the contributing member of society in order to attempt to preserve the life of the unborn which may never survive to birth or may be severely defective at birth. Please...I have loads of this stuff in OneNote.

As for philosophy, that is the ONLY foundation on which you can argue the morality of the issue and even those sources do not present any such consensus as you claim (to concur with your opinion).
 
Lursa said:
Facts not in evidence. That is the 'support' and 'sources' requested.

There is no scientific foundation behind human life being entitled to a thing. NONE. That you choose to use that criteria in your argument about morality does not make it fact. Science applies no value...moral or otherwise...at all to anything.

And it's not logical, not remotely. I can make that argument from here to Sunday, and have. Legally, physically, societally, practically. There's nothing logical about impairing the contributing member of society in order to attempt to preserve the life of the unborn which may never survive to birth or may be severely defective at birth. Please...I have loads of this stuff in OneNote.

As for philosophy, that is the ONLY foundation on which you can argue the morality of the issue and even those sources do not present any such consensus as you claim (to concur with your opinion).
Click to expand...
From moral philosophy: right to life
From science: the bio specs on the diploid zygote
From logic:
Angel said:
All my argument needs is that taxonomy.

All H have R
F is H
Therefore F has R

Killing H is immoral
F is H
Therefore killing F is immoral

All H have free choice
W are H
Therefore W has free choice
Click to expand...

Read 'em and weep.
 
Angel said:
From moral philosophy: right to life
From science: the bio specs on the diploid zygote
From logic:


Read 'em and weep.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Nobody, certainly not any of that ^^ proves that human life is entitled to anything.
 
Lursa said:
:lamo

Nobody, certainly not any of that ^^ proves that human life is entitled to anything.
Click to expand...
So may we understand by this assertion of yours that you, Lursa, do not recognize and acknowledge a human right to life?
 
Angel said:
So may we understand by this assertion of yours that you, Lursa, do not recognize and acknowledge a human right to life?
Click to expand...

After you:

LOL You answer mine, then I'll answer yours.

Why should I do so for you when you consistently refuse to return the courtesy?

It's actually poor form and pretty rude to respond as you did when I asked you, politely, questions here in the post you quoted:

"Enjoy?" Why did you just introduce that word?

We are born and live unless and until something kills us.

What does that have to do with anything? If you are born, you live, at least for awhile...that's simple biology.

1) As for a 'right to life,' who says we are entitled to that? 2) And who says the unborn are?

I can provide sources for the first question...but know of none outside religious dogma for the 2nd. Please provide some​
.​
 
Angel said:
I'm quickly learning there's precious little in the way of rationality on the side of abortion mongers.
Click to expand...

Their elevators doesn't go up to the top floor. All I do is give them my smile. There's a old saying from the movie " Christine "... You can't polish a turd. "
 
Lursa said:
After you:

LOL You answer mine, then I'll answer yours.

Why should I do so for you when you consistently refuse to return the courtesy?

It's actually poor form and pretty rude to respond as you did when I asked you, politely, questions here in the post you quoted:

"Enjoy?" Why did you just introduce that word?

We are born and live unless and until something kills us.

What does that have to do with anything? If you are born, you live, at least for awhile...that's simple biology.

1) As for a 'right to life,' who says we are entitled to that? 2) And who says the unborn are?

I can provide sources for the first question...but know of none outside religious dogma for the 2nd. Please provide some​
.​
Click to expand...
Listen, Ma'am, I'm really not that interested in your fantasy life. It's amusing, I grant you, but I'm not moving in.
The first time you pressed this quid pro quo, I fell for it, went first, then you reneged and flipped me the bird.
"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
Have an interesting evening.
 
Angel said:
Listen, Ma'am, I'm really not that interested in your fantasy life. It's amusing, I grant you, but I'm not moving in.
The first time you pressed this quid pro quo, I fell for it, went first, then you reneged and flipped me the bird.
"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
Have an interesting evening.
Click to expand...

Feel free to show where I 'reneged' by not answering.

IMO, that's just a lie because, as can easily be seen: you've avoided the same questions over and over and over...you know you cant answer them honestly and still pretend you have a moral argument.
 
Angel said:
I respect all sincere religious beliefs, yours included. But I have my own, you know, and they conflict with yours on this count. But the clincher here is that my moral argument is not based on any religious belief; my argument is philosophical and scientific and logical. That's the winning trifecta here, it seems to me.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

An embryo is not a person or a human being just because it has human DNA.

An embryo is the precursor to a human being/person.

It is not human DNA that makes a human being, nor that makes it special.
It is the born product that makes a human being.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
I disagree.

An embryo is not a person or a human being just because it has human DNA.

An embryo is the precursor to a human being/person.

It is not human DNA that makes a human being, nor that makes it special.
It is the born product that makes a human being.
Click to expand...
Talking points. Politics. In fact just so much crap.
It is against crap like this that my argument in Abortion 101 stands.
 
Angel said:
Talking points. Politics. In fact just so much crap.
It is against crap like this that my argument in Abortion 101 stands.
Click to expand...

Your "argument" is crap. its just a bunch of personal opinions strung together pretending to be facts
 
Angel said:
Lursa said:
:lamo

Nobody, certainly not any of that ^^ proves that human life is entitled to anything.
Click to expand...
So may we understand by this assertion of yours that you, Lursa, do not recognize and acknowledge a human right to life?
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
:lamo
Click to expand...
So are we to understand by your assertion and goofy laughter, Lursa, that you do not recognize and acknowledge a human right to life?
 
Angel said:
So are we to understand by your assertion and goofy laughter, Lursa, that you do not recognize and acknowledge a human right to life?
Click to expand...

Rights are subjective as well.
You cant base an objective argument on subjective claims
 
Angel said:
Talking points. Politics. In fact just so much crap.
It is against crap like this that my argument in Abortion 101 stands.
Click to expand...



My points stand.

There is no fetal right to life.

The US Surpreme Court looked at the fetal right to life argument and rejected it.

The UN Commission rejects a fetal right to life.

Even John Locke recognizes only the born as having rights.

Your so called argument is what is as you so elegantly put it ...is what is crap.
 
minnie616 said:
My points stand.

There is no fetal right to life.

The US Surpreme Court looked at the fetal right to life argument and rejected it.

The UN Commission rejects a fetal right to life.

Even John Locke recognizes only the born as having rights.

Your so called argument is what is as you so elegantly put it ...is what is crap.
Click to expand...
You confuse the moral with the legal, Minnie. You have no argument. You just offer conclusions reached by others as talkingh points in your discussion of the topic.
Your religious faith is one thing; the legal and political crap you buy into, another.
 
Angel said:
You confuse the moral with the legal, Minnie. You have no argument. You just offer conclusions reached by others as talkingh points in your discussion of the topic.
Your religious faith is one thing; the legal and political crap you buy into, another.
Click to expand...

You do you give a fetus full rights without potentially diminishing the rights of the pregnant woman?

A woman gets pregnant. Upon a full exam, it was found she had a significant heart condition. She was told it is possible for her to maintain the pregnancy, but it was very risky at this time. She was told the usual and most effective therapy was not available since she was pregnant. She was told another therapy is possible during pregnancy and she has a 20 percent chance of dying during pregnancy.

Giving a fetus the same rights as a born person would essentially give a pregnant woman less control over her own health.

A fetus does not and should not have any control over a woman's body.
 
year2late said:
You do you give a fetus full rights without potentially diminishing the rights of the pregnant woman?

A woman gets pregnant. Upon a full exam, it was found she had a significant heart condition. She was told it is possible for her to maintain the pregnancy, but it was very risky at this time. She was told the usual and most effective therapy was not available since she was pregnant. She was told another therapy is possible during pregnancy and she has a 20 percent chance of dying during pregnancy.

Giving a fetus the same rights as a born person would essentially give a pregnant woman less control over her own health.

A fetus does not and should not have any control over a woman's body.
Click to expand...
Ma'am, I wish you would actually read the argument you think you're posting against. According to the argument in the OP, a woman has the exclusive moral right to choose to abort or carry.
 
Angel said:
Ma'am, I wish you would actually read the argument you think you're posting against. According to the argument in the OP, a woman has the exclusive moral right to choose to abort or carry.
Click to expand...

And I think my statement clearly exemplifies why it is her decision...morally.
 
Angel said:
So are we to understand by your assertion and goofy laughter, Lursa, that you do not recognize and acknowledge a human right to life?
Click to expand...

You dont recognize anything as far as I've been able to tell.

But I'm happy to clarify my position when you answer the questions I asked you first.

Another sign of your stringent avoidance was your introduction of the word 'enjoy.' You keep bobbing and weaving, re-arranging words, in order to try and force the response you want. You have not been successsful, obviously. But if you answered directly and honestly, you would get the same in return.

"Enjoy?" Why did you just introduce that word?

We are born and live unless and until something kills us.

What does that have to do with anything? If you are born, you live, at least for awhile...that's simple biology.

1) As for a 'right to life,' who says we are entitled to that? 2) And who says the unborn are?

I can provide sources for the first question...but know of none outside religious dogma for the 2nd. Please provide some​
 
Angel said:
You confuse the moral with the legal, Minnie. You have no argument. You just offer conclusions reached by others as talkingh points in your discussion of the topic.
Your religious faith is one thing; the legal and political crap you buy into, another.
Click to expand...

Even John Locke understood those not yet born did not have natural rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom