• 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!

Abortion Is Against Science And Common Sense, Its Murder

My awareness of the fact of the overturning of popular Proposition 8 by a single judge is not based upon my theological views.
Well you seem pretty clear that his decision was not based on expert judicial opinion but based on him being a “sodomite”.

Unless you can back it up, that is just bigotry.
 
American baby haters: Hitler hated Germans but Americans do not hate the unborn babies they abort, they love the insignificant living blobs of worthless biological matter.

This post is incoherent ^^^

You continue to make no arguments and your posts are devoid of facts and now even of reason.
 
No, not according to Virginia's 'Dr. Death' governor. No baby is given human rights immediately at birth, but must first be given by the mother and her abortionist provider the right to continue to live.

I said source it. You, like many others, dont understand this. Please source where any baby BORN is given NOT the same rights to care as any other newborn or person. Let's see the words, the law, sourced.
 
Well you seem pretty clear that his decision was not based on expert judicial opinion but based on him being a “sodomite”.

Unless you can back it up, that is just bigotry.

Let's not argue. Let's just agree that conservative interpretations of the Constitution oppose mandates forcing people to accept gay marriage and leftist interpretations of the Constitution oppose laws supporting traditional marriage.
 
I said source it. You, like many others, dont understand this. Please source where any baby BORN is given NOT the same rights to care as any other newborn or person. Let's see the words, the law, sourced.


I am surprised that so many leftist democrats remain ignorant of so many relevant facts of our ongoing political warfare in America.

Here is a source:

Virginia gov suggests baby can be killed right after birth. What?! ‘It went from fetus to infant and hardly anyone noticed.’ Conservative News Today
 
I "forced" my beliefs on you by posting them here? Do you consider your own posts to be an attempt to "force" you views on others as well?

In the context of this debate, the passing of laws that remove the right of bodily autonomy would be the forcing of outside beliefs. Sharing of ideas, no matter how opposing they are to one's beliefs, are never a forcing of those ideas.
 
I am surprised that so many leftist democrats remain ignorant of so many relevant facts of our ongoing political warfare in America.

Here is a source:

Virginia gov suggests baby can be killed right after birth. What?! ‘It went from fetus to infant and hardly anyone noticed.’ Conservative News Today
the title isnt not what he said, it's a title.

So, let's see, from that source, a quote where the gov says a "baby" can be killed. And under circumstances different from any other preemie or newborn?

Let's see the quote.
 
Let's not argue. Let's just agree that conservative interpretations of the Constitution oppose mandates forcing people to accept gay marriage and leftist interpretations of the Constitution oppose laws supporting traditional marriage.

What is it about being gay makes it impossible to interpret the constitution correctly? Be specific.
 
Let's not argue. Let's just agree that conservative interpretations of the Constitution oppose mandates forcing people to accept gay marriage and leftist interpretations of the Constitution oppose laws supporting traditional marriage.

Something being constitutional does not mean you have to like it.
 
People who think science does not show us that life begins at conception are wrong. Growing fetuses in the womb are not dead, they are alive.


Building an automobile is a process. Parts, that have the potential of becoming an automobile are assembled according to a complex manufacturing sequence. If something happens at the early stages of the process and the car can't be completed the cost to the the manufacturer is not great. The parts can be recycled. Unless something is drastically wrong the process is completed. Loss of the car at this stage is costly and significant effort goes into seeing the process finalized and a car produced.


Life did not begin at conception. It began long before. The sperm and the egg are alive; living entities At conception these two entities combine to trigger a complex chemical process, on the molecular level, which if completed results in the production of a green bean, or an octopus or a human. Abortion puts an end to a process.

.
Cars and humans have value to society giving the state a vested interest in the production of both. Its interest at the beginning of the production process is low; scrapping of product or re-cycling of parts has little impact on the state and decision making is left to the manufacturers and women. As the product nears completion and and its value to society increases the state regulates the production and product.

At no point in either process does the church have a vested interest. The state, manufacturers and women have assessed situations, done cost analyses, accumulated information, made decisions based on that information and enacted laws. The regulations needed to produce or to stop the production of cars and humans have been taken care of by the units concerned. There is no reason for the church to assume any right or need to regulate the state.
 
Last edited:
I am surprised that so many leftist democrats remain ignorant of so many relevant facts of our ongoing political warfare in America.

Here is a source:

Virginia gov suggests baby can be killed right after birth. What?! ‘It went from fetus to infant and hardly anyone noticed.’ Conservative News Today

This is the Virginia bill you are trying to discuss.

§ 18.2-32.2. Killing a fetus; penalty.
A. Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with premeditation kills the fetus of another is guilty of a Class 2 felony.
B. Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately and maliciously kills the fetus of another is guilty of a felony punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than five nor more than 40 years.

§ 18.2-32.3. Human infant; independent and separate existence.
For the purposes of this article, the fact that the umbilical cord has not been cut or that the placenta remains attached shall not be considered in determining whether a human infant has achieved an independent and separate existence.

§ 18.2-71. Producing abortion or miscarriage, etc.; penalty.
Except as provided in other sections of this article, if any person administer to, or cause to be taken by a woman, any drug or other thing, or use means, with intent to destroy her unborn child, or to produce abortion or miscarriage, and thereby destroy such child, or produce such abortion or miscarriage, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.
§ 18.2-71.1. Partial birth infanticide; penalty.
A. Any person who knowingly performs partial birth infanticide and thereby kills a human infant is guilty of a Class 4 felony.
B. For the purposes of this section, "partial birth infanticide" means any deliberate act that (i) is intended to kill a human infant who has been born alive, but who has not been completely extracted or expelled from its mother, and that (ii) does kill such infant, regardless of whether death occurs before or after extraction or expulsion from its mother has been completed.
The term "partial birth infanticide" shall not under any circumstances be construed to include any of the following procedures: (i) the suction curettage abortion procedure, (ii) the suction aspiration abortion procedure, (iii) the dilation and evacuation abortion procedure involving dismemberment of the fetus prior to removal from the body of the mother, or (iv) completing delivery of a living human infant and severing the umbilical cord of any infant who has been completely delivered.
C. For the purposes of this section, "human infant who has been born alive" means a product of human conception that has been completely or substantially expelled or extracted from its mother, regardless of the duration of pregnancy, which after such expulsion or extraction breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.
D. For purposes of this section, "substantially expelled or extracted from its mother" means, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the infant's entire head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the infant's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.
E. This section shall not prohibit the use by a physician of any procedure that, in reasonable medical judgment, is necessary to prevent the death of the mother, so long as the physician takes every medically reasonable step, consistent with such procedure, to preserve the life and health of the infant. A procedure shall not be deemed necessary to prevent the death of the mother if completing the delivery of the living infant would prevent the death of the mother.
F. The mother may not be prosecuted for any criminal offense based on the performance of any act or procedure by a physician in violation of this section.

(continued below)
 
(continued)

§ 18.2-72. When abortion lawful during first trimester of pregnancy.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery, to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman during the first trimester of pregnancy.

§ 18.2-73. When abortion lawful during second trimester of pregnancy.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71 and in addition to the provisions of § 18.2-72, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery, to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman during the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester of pregnancy( provided such procedure is performed in a hospital licensed by the State Department of Health or operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.)
§ 18.2-74. When abortion or termination of pregnancy lawful after second trimester of pregnancy.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of § 18.2-71 and in addition to the provisions of §§ 18.2-72 and 18.2-73, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine to practice medicine and surgery to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of a human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman in a stage of pregnancy subsequent to the second trimester, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) 1. Said operation is performed in a hospital licensed by the Virginia State Department of Health or operated by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.
(b) 2. The physician( and two consulting physicians certify )certifies and so (enter) enters in the hospital record of the woman, that in (their )the physician's medical opinion, based upon (their )the physician's best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or (substantially and irremediably) impair the mental or physical health of the woman.
(c) 3. Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage( must )shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.
§ 18.2-76. Informed written consent required.
 
In the context of this debate, the passing of laws that remove the right of bodily autonomy would be the forcing of outside beliefs. Sharing of ideas, no matter how opposing they are to one's beliefs, are never a forcing of those ideas.


I just post opinions. I do not make laws.
 
the title isnt not what he said, it's a title.

So, let's see, from that source, a quote where the gov says a "baby" can be killed. And under circumstances different from any other preemie or newborn?

Let's see the quote.

You can search Google and find plenty of biased defenders twisting his words to make them seem less atrocious, but the man said what he said and we now have it on record, no matter how he or his supporters try to change what he meant.
 
What is it about being gay makes it impossible to interpret the constitution correctly? Be specific.

Straight people and gay people can both misinterpret the Constitution. What are you trying to suggest?
 
Building an automobile is a process. Parts, that have the potential of becoming an automobile are assembled according to a complex manufacturing sequence. If something happens at the early stages of the process and the car can't be completed the cost to the the manufacturer is not great. The parts can be recycled. Unless something is drastically wrong the process is completed. Loss of the car at this stage is costly and significant effort goes into seeing the process finalized and a car produced.


Life did not begin at conception. It began long before. The sperm and the egg are alive; living entities At conception these two entities combine to trigger a complex chemical process, on the molecular level, which if completed results in the production of a green bean, or an octopus or a human. Abortion puts an end to a process.

.
Cars and humans have value to society giving the state a vested interest in the production of both. Its interest at the beginning of the production process is low; scrapping of product or re-cycling of parts has little impact on the state and decision making is left to the manufacturers and women. As the product nears completion and and its value to society increases the state regulates the production and product.

At no point in either process does the church have a vested interest. The state, manufacturers and women have assessed situations, done cost analyses, accumulated information, made decisions based on that information and enacted laws. The regulations needed to produce or to stop the production of cars and humans have been taken care of by the units concerned. There is no reason for the church to assume any right or need to regulate the state.

Christians must support what the Bible teaches. We have no choice. Unborn babies are not like car parts which can be exchanged or discarded. Children are a heritage of the Lord, and the Lord alone gives life to the unborn. Humans do not create life, neither does natural selection and human life is definitely not created by evolutionary monkeys.
 
Christians must support what the Bible teaches. We have no choice. Unborn babies are not like car parts which can be exchanged or discarded. Children are a heritage of the Lord, and the Lord alone gives life to the unborn. Humans do not create life, neither does natural selection and human life is definitely not created by evolutionary monkeys.

Over the millennia, Christianity has done its utmost to strangle any science (or any thought, really) that it deemed to threaten its preeminent position as the sole possessor of eternal Truth on Earth. Galileo, Copernicus, Gregor Mendel's work was buried for a long time. The church fathers would probably have applauded Socrates' condemnation by the Greeks.

So it's a tough sell to put the imprimatur on science & common sense hold that abortion is murder. Christianity still seems to have terrible trouble with sexual behavior even within the priesthood, over all these centuries. So again, that muddies the moral message. If the various churches were serious about the gravity of the sexual offenses by their own staff, they would do something about it - to end the practice.

Mostly, in this regard, I hear a ringing silence; & not much of anything else.
 
Straight people and gay people can both misinterpret the Constitution. What are you trying to suggest?

Well, you seem to suggest that a judge based on his being "a sodomite" judged the constitution wrong. If that is not what you are saying, why the hell did you even bring it up???
 
Over the millennia, Christianity has done its utmost to strangle any science (or any thought, really) that it deemed to threaten its preeminent position as the sole possessor of eternal Truth on Earth. Galileo, Copernicus, Gregor Mendel's work was buried for a long time. The church fathers would probably have applauded Socrates' condemnation by the Greeks.

So it's a tough sell to put the imprimatur on science & common sense hold that abortion is murder. Christianity still seems to have terrible trouble with sexual behavior even within the priesthood, over all these centuries. So again, that muddies the moral message. If the various churches were serious about the gravity of the sexual offenses by their own staff, they would do something about it - to end the practice.

Mostly, in this regard, I hear a ringing silence; & not much of anything else.

Science teaches that life on earth had an origin. It also teaches us that the universe had an origin. It does not teach us that God could not have possibly been involved.

Science also teaches us that life comes from life. Kind begets kind, and so forth. Unborn babies in the womb are alive, not dead, and they are human, not something else.
 
Well, you seem to suggest that a judge based on his being "a sodomite" judged the constitution wrong. If that is not what you are saying, why the hell did you even bring it up???

Americans should be aware that judges have biases and that politicians depend on judges being biased when they recommend certain judges for appointment whose biases reflect their own.
 
Science teaches that life on earth had an origin. It also teaches us that the universe had an origin. It does not teach us that God could not have possibly been involved.

Science also teaches us that life comes from life. Kind begets kind, and so forth. Unborn babies in the womb are alive, not dead, and they are human, not something else.

Why would a baby need a womb ? Babies would suffocate inside of a womb.
 
Americans should be aware that judges have biases and that politicians depend on judges being biased when they recommend certain judges for appointment whose biases reflect their own.

So what evidence do you have that he used bias to make his decision?

You are accusing him of misinterpreting the constitution because of bias. That is a pretty strong accusation.
 
Christians must support what the Bible teaches. We have no choice. Unborn babies are not like car parts which can be exchanged or discarded. Children are a heritage of the Lord, and the Lord alone gives life to the unborn. Humans do not create life, neither does natural selection and human life is definitely not created by evolutionary monkeys.

And that is your belief.
 
Much larger issues

Science teaches that life on earth had an origin. It also teaches us that the universe had an origin. It does not teach us that God could not have possibly been involved.

Science also teaches us that life comes from life. Kind begets kind, and so forth. Unborn babies in the womb are alive, not dead, and they are human, not something else.

Science may never formally exclude God as being the creator of the universe & life. However, one of the requirements of scientific experimentation is that experiments be repeatable, & yield the same results consistently, if all variables are controlled. In that sense, the creation or death of the universe, the creation or extinction of all life - is a one-off. I don't see how it's going to be possible to directly witness either one.

Therefore science resorts to indirect observations & experimentation for cosmology - because there's not much choice, @ this stage in our technological development. We may manage to get to planetary & solar engineering - if we can get past a few crises along the way to there. With that kind of energy & technology available, we may be able to make more direct measurements & get closer to validating cosmological theories.
 
Back
Top Bottom