• 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!

I attempted to make a politically neutral answer to the question: when does human life begin?

Virgil Jones said:
The simple point in all of this is that abortion is killing a child that has already been created, and already exists.
Click to expand...
2/3rds embryos don’t survive

Which fertilized eggs will become healthy human fetuses? Researchers predict with 93% accuracy -- ScienceDaily

Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully. Now, in a new study, researchers have shown that they can predict with 93 percent certainty which fertilized eggs will make it to a critical developmental milestone and which will stall and die. The findings are important to the understanding of the fundamentals of human development at the earliest stages, which have largely remained a mystery despite the attention given to human embryonic stem cell research.
Click to expand...

Why should women be forced by law to sacrifice their health, even their lives, and their opportunities in life and forgo upholding their responsibilities to their families and employers and communities based on such poor odds for that embryonic life?

IMO it is completely rational, fair, and recognizes that women's rights are entitled to priority in all cases when there is an (imagined ) conflict between woman and unborn. (Imagined because the unborn have no rights)
 
Virgil Jones said:
Although this is a serious argument, I find it funny that it is also an impossible argument for either side to win. The argument mostly points out the frailty of both positions.
Click to expand...

The value of the unborn is clearly the sticking point.

I value the unborn, but I value all born people more.

Since value is subjective...I agree, it's not possible to get consensus. So then why is the pro-choice position not the best position?

It leaves the belief, value, opinion, etc. up to the individual woman.
 
Lursa said:
The value of the unborn is clearly the sticking point.

I value the unborn, but I value all born people more.

Since value is subjective...I agree, it's not possible to get consensus. So then why is the pro-choice position not the best position?

It leaves the belief, value, opinion, etc. up to the individual woman.
Click to expand...

The pro-killing babies position is killing babies, so how can it be the best option?
 
Virgil Jones said:
The pro-killing babies position is killing babies, so how can it be the best option?
Click to expand...

No babies are killed in an abortion. What part about valuing born/unborn didnt you understand? Why did you not address that directly? Using self-indulgent personification of the unborn is an attempt at emotional manipulation...not fact and IMO, not even honest debate.

And I posted clearly that most of the unborn never survive to be born. Please see post 26 and address the questions there for your answer.
 
Lursa said:
No babies are killed in an abortion. What part about valuing born/unborn didnt you understand? Why did you not address that directly? Using self-indulgent personification of the unborn is an attempt at emotional manipulation...not fact and IMO, not even honest debate.

And I posted clearly that most of the unborn never survive to be born. Please see post 26 and address the questions there for your answer.
Click to expand...

Arguing that some people die before childbirth anyway is a reason to kill others is rather bizarre?
 
Virgil Jones said:
Arguing that some people die before childbirth anyway is a reason to kill others is rather bizarre?
Click to expand...

So you have no capacity to balance risks? Do that math? And I didnt only write about dying...you are a very dishonest poster to just ignore everything but cherrypicking one thing from the post.

And no...by no means is the unborn's life more important than the woman's IMO. Why do you value the unborn more than the woman?
 
Lursa said:
No babies are killed in an abortion. What part about valuing born/unborn didnt you understand? Why did you not address that directly? Using self-indulgent personification of the unborn is an attempt at emotional manipulation...not fact and IMO, not even honest debate.

And I posted clearly that most of the unborn never survive to be born. Please see post 26 and address the questions there for your answer.
Click to expand...

If no baby was killed, why perform the abortion at all?
 
Lursa said:
So you have no capacity to balance risks? Do that math? And I didnt only write about dying...you are a very dishonest poster to just ignore everything but cherrypicking one thing from the post.

And no...by no means is the unborn's life more important than the woman's IMO. Why do you value the unborn more than the woman?
Click to expand...

Because a woman considering killing her baby is not capable of making a coherent decision, any woman considering murdering children is unstable, to be charitable.
 
Virgil Jones said:
If no baby was killed, why perform the abortion at all?
Click to expand...

So that the woman does not have to suffer the risks of pregnancy and childbirth and all the sacrifices she'd have to make in taking care of her family (most women who have abortions already have at least one kid, plus may have elderly, disabled, etc dependents), and her obligations and commitments to their employers, educations, community, society. So that she doesnt dump another kid into foster care, waiting to be adopted. There are over 100,000 children waiting for homes already in the US. How do you justify encouraging women to produce more unwanted or unaffordable kids when it means the kids already waiting, hoping, KNOWING, wont get a home? For each newborn added, another one waiting has less chance of adoption.

Apparently you place the unborn ahead of EVERYTHING else in life, no matter who gets hurt. Yet those that disagree with you have no reason to act as you want.
 
Virgil Jones said:
Because a woman considering killing her baby is not capable of making a coherent decision, any woman considering murdering children is unstable, to be charitable.
Click to expand...

But they are not children, something you do not seem capable of grasping.
 
Virgil Jones said:
Because a woman considering killing her baby is not capable of making a coherent decision, any woman considering murdering children is unstable, to be charitable.
Click to expand...
:doh

Please source that in the psychiatric journals or other medical sources.

25% of all women in the US have had an abortion. Yet these women hold jobs, own businesses, hold public office, are doctors, lawyers, nurses, etc, drive in traffic (More men have traffic accidents and road rage by far.), raise other children, yada yada yada. Your claim is total BS. Please prove it.

All you did was make something up to avoid directly answering the post you quoted. How about trying that too?

Lursa said:
No babies are killed in an abortion. What part about valuing born/unborn didnt you understand? Why did you not address that directly? Using self-indulgent personification of the unborn is an attempt at emotional manipulation...not fact and IMO, not even honest debate.

And I posted clearly that most of the unborn never survive to be born. Please see post 26 and address the questions there for your answer.
Click to expand...
 
Virgil Jones said:
If my mother had killed me before I was born, I would still be a person in my opinion. I just would have been a person that my mother killed because she did not want the hassle.
Click to expand...

That kind of remind of who's on first. I know its just me, LOL.
 
Casper said:
But they are not children, something you do not seem capable of grasping.
Click to expand...

I am capable of grasping it, I just don't see the need to say that human beings are not human at 2 weeks but they are at 6 weeks. What am I missing here?
 
Virgil Jones said:
And a person has a right not to care for their ailing mother, who is also not capable of surviving without urgent medical help.
Click to expand...
Is it because of ignorance or just lack of care and understanding that you can't tell the simple fact that anyone can care for a born human while only the pregnant woman can be forced to keep a fetus alive.

Why help mom, just let her die. I have my own rights, who cares about mom over there clutching and vomiting, ooohh
Click to expand...
Never mind my earlier question, it is clear that that emotional moronic tripe is what drives you.
 
Virgil Jones said:
I am capable of grasping it, I just don't see the need to say that human beings are not human at 2 weeks but they are at 6 weeks. What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

Development of the one thing that makes us a person, a brain.
 
Virgil Jones said:
I am capable of grasping it, I just don't see the need to say that human beings are not human at 2 weeks but they are at 6 weeks. What am I missing here?
Click to expand...
Yes, basic understanding and honesty. Nobody said fetuses are not human.
 
Lursa said:
:doh

Please source that in the psychiatric journals or other medical sources.

25% of all women in the US have had an abortion. Yet these women hold jobs, own businesses, hold public office, are doctors, lawyers, nurses, etc, drive in traffic (More men have traffic accidents and road rage by far.), raise other children, yada yada yada. Your claim is total BS. Please prove it.

All you did was make something up to avoid directly answering the post you quoted. How about trying that too?
Click to expand...

Then why do all of these women who have had abortions try to defend their positions in such a fervent manner?
 
prometeus said:
Yes, basic understanding and honesty. Nobody said fetuses are not human.
Click to expand...

Many democrat presidential candidates and Planned Parenthood argue that they are not human beings.
 
RyanCMooney said:
I was looking on Youtube and Google for neutral explanations of when life begins and couldn't find one, so I made one myself:



Let me know what you think!
Click to expand...
Wow! Just skimming through the responses, that got out of hand immediately.

Very well done, nice editing, clear transitions and excellent citing. And I'd say spot on towards the goal. At first, I was going to have a bit of issue on the use of "being" but since you made the distinction between that and "person", I'm good with it. I know others will use the two words synonymously, but you made it clear in this context they are not.

And wonderful speaking voice BTW.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Virgil Jones said:
Then why do all of these women who have had abortions try to defend their positions in such a fervent manner?
Click to expand...

Because in case you have been living under a rock the past few months, there are some states trying to take that right away from women, to our bodily sovereignty and other rights and pretty much our self-determination.
 
Virgil Jones said:
Many democrat presidential candidates and Planned Parenthood argue that they are not human beings.
Click to expand...

Because the more educated a person is on the issue, *usually* the more inclined they are to use the most accurate terms in legislation and debates. And since it is a legal issue, there are specific legal meanings for the terms.

1 U.S. Code SS 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
Click to expand...
 
maquiscat said:
Wow! Just skimming through the responses, that got out of hand immediately.

Very well done, nice editing, clear transitions and excellent citing. And I'd say spot on towards the goal. At first, I was going to have a bit of issue on the use of "being" but since you made the distinction between that and "person", I'm good with it. I know others will use the two words synonymously, but you made it clear in this context they are not.

And wonderful speaking voice BTW.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Hah thank you, I appreciate that. Yeah I was hoping for maybe a drawn out conversation on 'being' vs 'person' but yeah it got out of hand quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom