• 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!

A Question To Pro-Choice People

Re: @ least two errors there

Wayne Jr said:
List the full legal names of each of these "people" with working links to where they publicly made such statements.
Click to expand...

No. You do your own research if you believe no leftists think it is cruel to force a mother to keep her unborn baby alive.
 
Re: @ least two errors there

marke said:
There are those licensed to legally kill in modern leftist liberal barbarian America.
Click to expand...
You keep adding these words expecting to be edgy.
 
Re: @ least two errors there

marke said:
No. You do your own research if you believe no leftists think it is cruel to force a mother to keep her unborn baby alive.
Click to expand...
It's your claim, the burden of proof is on you.
 
Re: @ least two errors there

marke said:
Some unborn babies are still alive when the abortionist first begins to cut it apart in the womb. Most unborn babies aborted by a particular partial birth abortion method are still alive when the abortionist stabs it in the base of the skull and sucks its brains out to make it easier to get the head out of the womb.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as an unborn baby..FAIL
 
Re: @ least two errors there

marke said:
Example of a hunch: 'Trump colluded with the Russians to make Hillary lose the election.' A stupid assumption and a bad hunch, nonetheless, but a hunch just the same.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the thread topic as well as your silly 'hunch.' dismissed...
 
Re: @ least two errors there

Wayne Jr said:
You keep adding these words expecting to be edgy.
Click to expand...

He has a thing about using the term 'barbarian.'....not sure why, as it certainly isn't helping his failed arguments.
 
Re: @ least two errors there

Logician Man said:
Who was sitting on SCOTUS at time and how did they vote ? List the names of the SCOTUS members and how each SCOTUS member voted .
Click to expand...

The case flip-flopped through courts and the SCOTUS refused to overturn the last judgment rendered by the lower court. Politicians and Americans formed strong opinions on both sides, but the demonic ACLU and the leftist murderous democrats won in the end.
 
Re: @ least two errors there

marke said:
The case flip-flopped through courts and the SCOTUS refused to overturn the last judgment rendered by the lower court. Politicians and Americans formed strong opinions on both sides, but the demonic ACLU and the leftist murderous democrats won in the end.
Click to expand...

So you're just blowing smoke, have no facts, only your biased opinions, and can't support one damn thing you are claiming....especially your asinine 'hunch' that her husband strangled her and 'took his time calling 911' ( as if you have a fricking clue as to what actually occurred )....noted and dismissed.
 
Re: @ least two errors there

tosca1 said:
It's infanticide - plain and simple!

But I wouldn't be surprised if some loony psychopathic pro-choice would want to de-classify infanticide
to abortion (just like these two) - just so they'll have the excuse to get rid of born children they don't want!

These two were on a "fishing" expedition (trying to float that idea/argument)......but they didn't realize that even though society is now agreeable to the murder of the unborn.........

........unlike them, society isn't quite there to that extent.......yet.


If left to their evil devises, I strongly believe pro-choice will eventually get there.
Click to expand...

I have no clue what you are saying.

Abortion is termination of pregnancy. Not infantacide.

After a baby is born it is infantacide.

Can you point to someone on the left that wants to call infantacide abortion?

Your group initially pointed to Governor Northam, but that was easily debunked.

So I will wait for a quote that states someone is pushing for this.
 
Re: @ least two errors there

tosca1 said:
Lol. Unless the woman is comatosed.....or really unconscious....


I suppose we can say......the woman, who's supposed to have sole control of her own body.......

.........didn't have any consciousness......

....and had no awareness of surroundings and self......as the baby was being created inside her.


I suppose, there's no reasonable hope of recovery for such stupidity!



Like, she's......brain-dead!


Oh, sweet irony.
Click to expand...

Comatosed? :doh

So if a person is deemed persistent or permanent vegetative by 3 well respected neurologists.....you still will defer to your "what ifs"?
Do you think there is diagnostic criteria that is followed? Do you think there are tests and studies they do to diagnose?

Do you think there is diagnostic criteria for coma and PVS?

I remember when the Schiavo case was front page news. There were stories that were presented by the pro-lifers to show Terri had potential. Their story was - a man was in a horrible accident with severe brain injury and was in a coma for 20 years and woke up one day and asked for a pepsi (coke?). Except they totally mischaracterized the story. The man had a severe brain injury. True. He was in a coma true. 20 years no response. False. After the brain swelling went down he was able to respond. He was in a minimally conscious state and his condition So if you asked him a question he could respond in a poorly intelligible fashion. So He didn't "wake up" after 20 years. His ability to speak improved. What was also VASTLY different is that this guy had a traumatic brain injury which is nothing like the severe anoxia that Terri suffered.

What is my point? Faith is fine. But leave medical opinion to those who actually specialize in this. If you want your medical care guided by your faith and beliefs, that is fine...but leave the rest of us out of it.

By the way. PVS is not brain dead...

PVS is more like awake but not aware.

Just to be clear, if you expressed wishes to be kept alive with PVS indefinitely....I am ok with that.
 
tosca1 said:
How did that human get to be in there?

Who's supposed to have sole control over her body?
Click to expand...

For starters this is irrelevant. Even if I did, in fact, invite someone into my home I have the right to ask them to leave at any time. If they refuse I have the right to use whatever force is necessary to make them leave.

Secondly, rape is a thing, and it's notoriously difficult to prove whether it happened or not. In this case, though, the burden won't be on the state to prove a man committed rape, the burden will be on the state to prove the woman wasn't raped. That means any woman that wants a legal abortion can just say she was raped, and you'll have to let her have the abortion. That is just one of many things that makes your silly ban completely unenforceable.

tosca1 said:
Which brings me back to my question in the OP.
Pro-choice don't have the confidence that their main argument will successfully stand alone
Click to expand...


It already did stand alone in front of the Supreme Court. The only way it wouldn't in the future is if right-wing zealots pack the court with activist judges who want to legislate from the bench and shred the constitution.
 
Re: @ least two errors there

marke said:
Some unborn babies are still alive when the abortionist first begins to cut it apart in the womb. Most unborn babies aborted by a particular partial birth abortion method are still alive when the abortionist stabs it in the base of the skull and sucks its brains out to make it easier to get the head out of the womb.
Click to expand...

Actually the intact D and E abortion ( nick named partial birth abortion ) was invented as an alternative to a dismemberment abortion.

But that is moot since Partial birth abortions are banned.
 
Re: @ least two errors there

marke said:
You are right. I would be wrong to accuse him of doing that just like it is wrong for people to accuse Trump of colluding with Russians when there is no evidence he ever did. Hillary did over several years. Ted Kennedy did in 1984. Others have formed cozy relationships with Putin over the years, but there is no evidence Trump ever did, in spite of lies invented by democrats. I should say I suspect Terri's husband strangled her, not claim he did it.
Click to expand...

There is evidence of possible collusion with the Russians. it is your narrow mind that makes you believe that Trump is the only one being investigated.

Interesting enough, I have ZERO clue what the report will show. I do not want any foreign power to interfere with the election process, do you?

Are you open to what a report may show ?

Frankly, as usual Trump only has to blame Trump for his woes.

Hell, Trump emphatically urged the Russians to hack Hillary's emails.....I personally think he was stupidly trying to make a funny in a really messed up way...but seriously....why would he say such crap? Who's laughing now....the Russians most likely.

He seems to go out of his way to make himself a target.

But what the report will show? Who the hell knows. I do not.

In terms of Terri being strangled by her husband (as a cause for her PVS)....there would be clinical evidence. The clinical evidence showed she had a potassium level of 2.0. Which is beyond the danger zone. Your insistence that you suspect that he did this without any credible evidence is just trying to make him look bad to add fuel to your argument. But you flush your argument into the sewer by pushing this unfounded false narrative.
 
Re: @ least two errors there

marke said:
Yes, liberals on court benches sentenced Terri to death by slow starvation to satisfy the desires of the hateful murderous husband.
Click to expand...

Stop lying. Really.
 
Re: @ least two errors there

marke said:
The killer of an unborn baby can go to jail for murder, but not because the unborn baby has rights? Do leftists want the courts to take away the scientific definition of 'living human being?'
Click to expand...

Exactly an unborn has not rights.

States have rights if a crime against the pregnant occurred and the unborn was killed, charges can be brought against the perpetrator.

By UNited States Code an unborn is not a person/human being/child/ individual.
 
Last edited:
Re: @ least two errors there

marke said:
Drowning is inhumane? What about slicing off limbs and then cutting off the head and sucking the brains out to make it easier to get the dead body out of the womb? Inhumane?
Click to expand...

No. It is already dead and doesn't feel a thing. And that is not first trimester abortion, which is elective and 92% of all abortions.
 
Re: @ least two errors there

marke said:
When it comes to establishing what is cruel and what is not cruel, who gets to decide?
Click to expand...

Does it cause suffering?



I could not get the link to open, which was frustrating because someone wanted me to post the link. No big deal. I just posted another link proving the first link was valid.
Click to expand...


Actually, you didn't.


Arrested. Charged. Posted bail. Went to court. Was found not guilty. Sounds like a process map of Russian collusion conspiracy theory charges resulting from Mueller's failed investigation.
Click to expand...

What??? Your response seems like a dodge from the fact you were caught using a source that proved you wrong.
 
Re: @ least two errors there

marke said:
You just needed one decision to make abortion legal and you just need one decision to establish the fact that unborn babies are living human beings with rights. There have been several cases, however, and not just one. I see no reason for me to hunt down every case and post it here for you, since we only need one.
Click to expand...

Not too informed on the Constitution and precedents eh?
 
Re: @ least two errors there

marke said:
Wrong. You should say "The unborn allegedly feels and knows nothing."
Click to expand...

No, unless this is also true: you 'allegedly have a brain.'

Even tho you dont demonstrate the signs of having a brain, science can experiment and detect the presence of one.

Which do you prefer? My guess about you not having a brain, or the *fact* that science had determined you must have one?
 
Re: @ least two errors there

Lursa said:
He was charged with animal cruelty...that is a crime. Killing your own pet is not a crime.
Click to expand...

marke said:
Killing your own unborn baby is OK but killing your own pet is a crime? What kind of evil logic is that?
Click to expand...

Are you incapable of reading? I and others wrote that killing your pet is not a crime.

You cant even accurately discuss what's directly in front of you. :roll:
 
Re: Follow the bouncing ball

marke said:
"Rare" especially if you have come to love the unborn baby that is under consideration for execution.
Click to expand...

Why would a woman that loves her unborn baby have an abortion? :doh

Only in the most desperate and tragic circumstances, right?
 
smallvoice said:
But do you find the government regulating reprehensible behavior reprehensible?

I guess its a matter of degree of reprehensibility that confounds pro-choicers.
Click to expand...

Forcing women to gestate against their will is reprehensible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom