• 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!

The unborn is not a person

Well, you could accidentally kill me someday. There’s a potential for that. Does that mean I get to kill you right now? With your logic, I could. Would that be morally justifiable using your logic? Absolutely.

If someone threatens you, you can escape. Move away, leave, retreat. That's what you'd do, right?

That's the same decision a pregnant woman get's to make...but she cant 'leave,' she cant escape from what's inside her. So her decision, if the unborn is a threat to her life she doenst have to wait until the last minute when obviously (from all that die or suffer permanent damage) that may not be enough to save her life.

And "her life" means 'the entirety of her life,' a person's life is more than just a heartbeat or breathing. Those are basic physical functions that any higher animal has....why do you value that above the actual entirety of someone's life? The entirety of a life is their involvement with their families and communities, their responsibilities and obligations, their accomplishments and suffering and enjoyment.

It's called 'quality of life' over quantity. Can you explain why the unborn is more entitled to that entire life than the women you would demand sacrifice it (if you had your choice)?
 
I think her point was that a woman should not abort just because the pregnancy could threaten her life. She should abort only if the pregnancy IS threatening her life.

The woman should do what *she* wants (abort vs gestate), not what *you* want her to do.
 
Well, you could accidentally kill me someday. There’s a potential for that. Does that mean I get to kill you right now? With your logic, I could. Would that be morally justifiable using your logic? Absolutely.

Am I INSIDE OF AND ATTACHED TO your body? Y/N
 
I see that a lot of posters here say that the unborn is not a person, and as such, does not deserve legal protection and/or the right to life.

To them, I will simply ask, "what is so special about being a person"? Note that this question is not the same as asking what is a person, nor what special traits a person has.

The way I see it, the act of designating the unborn as not a person is simply a form of discrimination against the unborn. Arbitrarily drawing a life between the unborn and the rest of humanity for the sole purpose of discriminating against them (the unborn).

So. Can someone tell me what is so special about being a person?

Why, you aren't concerned about the ones that spontaneously abort. Are you being hypocritical?
 
Being protected by law from murder.
I did not ask you what the benefit is for having been born. I asked you what's so special about having been born.

Why the **** don't you stay out of things to which you have no capacity to contribute?
I am amused by the fact you used an expletive. Get madder.

What about the sanctity of my life? If I need your blood or organs to keep me alive, can I use yours against your will? NO, because you have the right to your own body just like a woman as the right to her own body. That includes her blood, organs, uterus, and birth canal. A fetus has no more right to use her body than I have to use yours.
The woman can indeed kill the fetus, but she would be committing murder. Against her own young.
The woman should do what *she* wants (abort vs gestate), not what *you* want her to do
You realize I literally did not say the woman has to do what I want her to do, right?

Am I INSIDE OF AND ATTACHED TO your body? Y/N
So what that the unborn is inside and attached to a woman's body? Does this mean you can now kill it? What is so bad about being inside and attached to someone's body?

Why, you aren't concerned about the ones that spontaneously abort. Are you being hypocritical?

First of all, you do not know whether I care about the ones spontaneously abort. Secondly, spontaneous abortion/miscarriage...etc are not the topic of this thread.
 
First of all, you do not know whether I care about the ones spontaneously abort. Secondly, spontaneous abortion/miscarriage...etc are not the topic of this thread.

A zygote is not a person. According to something Angel dug up, a person is a penis used to distract by the abortion culture.
 
I am amused by the fact you used an expletive.
Yea, people who can not make intelligent arguments get amused easily. I do not get mad and the ignorance and stupidity in your posts is not amusing either. Pathetic is the best it can get.
 
A zygote is not a person. According to something Angel dug up, a person is a penis used to distract by the abortion culture.
Except I did not say a zygote is a person. However, you seem to think an entity that carries human DNA is not a part of humanity. Why is this so?

Yea, people who can not make intelligent arguments get amused easily. I do not get mad and the ignorance and stupidity in your posts is not amusing either. Pathetic is the best it can get.
Haha, you are mad.
 
I did not ask you what the benefit is for having been born. I asked you what's so special about having been born.

Begin with finding remarkable that you're able to ask this idle, perverse question. Those who aren't born and also other species are unable to idly ponder.
 
The woman can indeed kill the fetus, but she would be committing murder. Against her own young.

I snipped your post to only where you responded to me.

Murder has a legal meaning, abortion does not meet the requirements of murder.

18 U.S.C. § 1111 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, and divides it into two degrees. Abortion is legal so it would not be an unlawful killing.
 
A zygote is not a person. According to something Angel dug up, a person is a penis used to distract by the abortion culture.
"Person" is a word, with a history, used by you and pro-abortion culture and legal culture to soothe the conscience of a gullible public.
Anyone who introduces the personhood argument into a discussion of abortion is either disingenuous or dishonest.
 
So what that the unborn is inside and attached to a woman's body? Does this mean you can now kill it? What is so bad about being inside and attached to someone's body?

Please answer my question first:

Am I INSIDE OF AND ATTACHED TO your body? Y/N
 
Basic human rights/sanctity of life comes from the Constitution I believe, and the Constitution was written by Christian men who believed in a fundamental basis for morality from their God.

...

You are mistaken about our founding fathers.

Ben Franklin, Benjamin Rush and Thomas Jefferson( our Founding Fathers ) put no moral judgement on abortion.


Our founding fathers actually wrote about the subject.
Benjamin Franklin’s views can be inferred from an incident that occurred in 1729 when his former employer, newspaper editor Samuel Keimer of Philadelphia, published an encyclopedia whose very first volume included a detailed article on abortion, including directions for ending an unwanted pregnancy (“immoderate Evacuations, violent Motions, sudden Passions, Frights … violent Purgatives and in the general anything that tends to promote the Menses.”) Hoping to found his own newspaper to compete with Keimer, Franklin responded in print through the satiric voices of two fictional characters, “Celia Shortface” and “Martha Careful” who expressed mock outrage at Keimer for exposing “the secrets of our sex” which ought to be reserved “for the repository of the learned.” One of the aggrieved ladies threatened to grab Keimer’s beard and pull it if she spotted him at the tavern! Neither Franklin nor his prudish protagonists objected to abortion per se, but only to the immodesty of discussing such feminine mysteries in public.

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a well known physician who signed the Declaration of Independence, shared his views of the subject matter-of-factly in his book of Medical Inquiries and Observations (1805). Discussing blood-letting as a possible treatment to prevent miscarriage during the third month of pregnancy, when he believed there was a special tendency to spontaneous abortion, Rush asked the question, “what is an abortion but a haemoptysis (if I may be allowed the expression) from the uterus?” A hemoptysis is the clinical term for the expectoration of blood or bloody sputum from the lungs or larynx. In Rush’s mind, apparently, what we would now call the three-month-old embryo was equivalent medically to what one might cough up when ill with the flu.

Thomas Jefferson put no moral judgment on abortion, either. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, he observed that for Native American women, who accompanied their men in war and hunting parties, “childbearing becomes extremely inconvenient to them. It is said, therefore, that they have learnt the practice of procuring abortion by the use of some vegetable, and that it even extends to prevent conception for some time after.” Jefferson on the whole admired the native people and the Notes were intended in part to counter the views of the French naturalist Buffon, who accused the indigenous inhabitants of the New World of being degenerate and less virile than their European counterparts. In extenuation, Jefferson cites “voluntary abortion” along with the hazards of the wilderness and famine as obstacles nature has placed in the way of increased multiplication among the natives. Indian women married to white traders, he observes, produce abundant children and are excellent mothers. The fact that they practice birth control and when necessary terminate their pregnancies does not lessen his respect for them, but appears to be in his mind simply one of the ingenious ways they have adapted to their challenging environment.

Read More:

American Creation: The Founding Fathers and Abortion in Colonial America
 
A "person" can live autonomously without being entirely dependent on a single other person. A fetus/embryo cannot.
 
What's So Special About A Person?

The word used to mean "mask."

For two hundred years before abortion law co-opted the word, it meant "penis" at law:

(law) The human genitalia; specifically, the penis.

1824, Vagrancy Act 1824 (5 Geo. 4. c. 83, United Kingdom), section 4:

[E]very Person wilfully, openly, lewdly, and obscenely exposing his Person in any Street, Road, or public Highway, or in the View thereof, or in any Place of public Resort, with Intent to insult any Female ... and being subsequently convicted of the Offence for which he or she shall have been so apprehended, shall be deemed a Rogue and Vagabond, within the true Intent and Meaning of this Act ...

1972, Evans v. Ewels, Weekly Law Reports, vol. 1, page 671 at pp. 674–675:

It seems to me that at any rate today, and indeed by 1824, the word "person" in connection with sexual matters had acquired a meaning of its own; a meaning which made it a synonym for "penis." It may be ... that it was the forerunner of Victorian gentility which prevented people calling a penis a penis. But however that may be I am satisfied in my own mind that it has now acquired an established meaning to the effect already stated. It is I venture to say, well known amongst those who practise in the courts that the word "person" is so used over and over again. It is the familiar synonym of that part of the body, and, as one of the reasons for my decision in this case, I would use that interpretation of what was prevailing in 1824 and what has become established in the 150 years since then.

person - Wiktionary

Mask, penis? What's so special about a "person"?

The word today is a legal fiction used to make abortion appear conscionable.

It has become a bull**** term for bull**** artists to justify an immoral act.


Thus, the OP has it right.
...

The word "person" is a legal fiction become an abortion activist shibboleth.
 
Back
Top Bottom