• 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!

If Life begins at Conception?

Lursa said:
You've run off the rails here, it's like you are posting with your hair on fire...this is all specious fabrication from your imagination, it's not connected logically to my responses.

Have a little self-respect. Either discuss without inventing fantasies or dont bother.
Click to expand...

How is this running of the rails? If what you said is true, and the fetus is simply a parasite until it can exercise independent rights, that means you should be OK with me intentionally killing a pregnant woman's child. You want to drawn this fuzzy line of life and the rewarding of human rights yet you can't even get your story straight. Do you see now why nobody in their right mind could possibly trust you?

Do you see now why there are people who are disgusted and concerned with your callous and dangerous view?
 
Lursa said:
Still cant read properly eh? I wrote about equal status, not persohood, and in the example you are quoting here...physiological equality. I spelled it out for you. But again...you cant refute my arguments directly, so off you go, on your own tangents.

You asked for a scientific example, I gave it to you, and you turned it into something about personhood (no such thing in science) and finances :doh

Same with my legal example...which of course includes a discussion of rights :doh And you switched it to personhood, again.

Your dishonesty and failure know no bounds.
Click to expand...

You can't even build a proper argument. You've used 1 sector of independence to justify why a fetus is not a person, while ignoring multiple other sectors of independence, without giving any particular or valid reason as to why your chosen sector is any more or less defining that the others. You're basically resorting to child's tactics

images
 
Crusader13 said:
How is this running of the rails? If what you said is true, and the fetus is simply a parasite until it can exercise independent rights, that means you should be OK with me intentionally killing a pregnant woman's child. You want to drawn this fuzzy line of life and the rewarding of human rights yet you can't even get your story straight. Do you see now why nobody in their right mind could possibly trust you?
Click to expand...

??Can you kill someone's dog without their permission? Can you take someone else's property without their permission? To kill a pregnant woman's unborn is to violate her rights, not some imaginary rights for the unborn. :doh

You are not making a bit of sense here.
 
Crusader13 said:
You can't even build a proper argument. You've used 1 sector of independence to justify why a fetus is not a person, while ignoring multiple other sectors of independence, without giving any particular or valid reason as to why your chosen sector is any more or less defining that the others. You're basically resorting to child's tactics
Click to expand...

*snicker*

I called you out on your failure...I provided exactly what you wanted, examples you ASKED for...and now you just pretend they werent spot on.

Cool...everyone else can read my post.

It certainly appears you've run out of rational arguments.
 
Lursa said:
??Can you kill someone's dog without their permission? Can you take someone else's property without their permission? To kill a pregnant woman's unborn is to violate her rights, not some imaginary rights for the unborn. :doh

You are not making a bit of sense here.
Click to expand...

Shifting the goalposts there. I know that I'm (hypothetically) violating the woman's rights. What I'm asking you is that should the punishment for this be more severe than simply running away with her wallet? After all, by your very own definition, if I intentionally kill her child, I haven't done anything worthy of heavy punishment. All I did was kill her favourite parasite - no different to if she had a bacteria farm and I flushed it down the toilet. What's the big deal? Would you happily defend me in court for adopting your view on the value of a fetus, or would you perhaps seek a more severe punishment for doing something which you know yourself is wrong and putrid?

You want to draw the line on human life but you can't even get your damn story straight. I detest your ideas and everything they stand for.
 
Lursa said:
I called you out on your failure...I provided exactly what you wanted, examples you ASKED for...and now you just pretend they werent spot on.
Click to expand...

You provided a half-baked example which does not stand up to any form of empirical, scientific, moral, or legal scrutiny.
 
Crusader13 said:
You provided a half-baked example which does not stand up to any form of empirical, scientific, moral, or legal scrutiny.
Click to expand...

You were incapable of even making the slightest inroads to do so.

And you couldnt counter them...you went off on tangents and moved the goalposts...as noted.
 
Crusader13 said:
Shifting the goalposts there. I know that I'm (hypothetically) violating the woman's rights. What I'm asking you is that should the punishment for this be more severe than simply running away with her wallet? After all, by your very own definition, if I intentionally kill her child, I haven't done anything worthy of heavy punishment. All I did was kill her favourite parasite - no different to if she had a bacteria farm and I flushed it down the toilet. What's the big deal? Would you happily defend me in court for adopting your view on the value of a fetus, or would you perhaps seek a more severe punishment for doing something which you know yourself is wrong and putrid?

You want to draw the line on human life but you can't even get your damn story straight. I detest your ideas and everything they stand for.
Click to expand...

When you answer my question directly and honestly, I'll return the courtesy.

You still refused to answer the questions on 'who says,' and 'what authority'.
 
Crusader13 said:
Good to know you draw the line of life at viability. So if you're ever in an accident and go into comatose, needing urgent medical intervention to be bought back, I'll be sure to have your post here printed on flyers to hand out to the hospital staff, just to let them know that you would prefer not to be saved because you're no longer even a person since you rely on other people for life.
Click to expand...

You cannot be serious. Besides the fact that you have no idea who Lursa is, are you seriously comparing a zef living inside of and attached to the body of a woman, potentially putting her at risk and causing her great pain/discomfort to an adult needing medical care that anyone who has the qualifications and consents can provide?
 
Crusader13 said:
No no - it's you who wants to legalize the systematic and on-demand murder of millions of human beings. I'm the one who thinks we should pay tribute to our moral compass that we already have in place, which is backed by millions of years of human history, metaphysics, and philosophy. The onus is on you to prove that we should disregard all this by legalizing infanticide.
Click to expand...

Lursa has said no such thing. Why lie about her?
 
Crusader13 said:
Good to know you draw the line of life at viability. So if you're ever in an accident and go into comatose, needing urgent medical intervention to be bought back, I'll be sure to have your post here printed on flyers to hand out to the hospital staff, just to let them know that you would prefer not to be saved because you're no longer even a person since you rely on other people for life.
Click to expand...

False. A pre-viable fetus is completely dependent on its bio mothers bodily life systems to survive.

If the pregnant woman dies and her body’s life systems cease to function the previable fetus will also die even if removed quickly and given the very best medical care.

If the fetus is viable and pregnant bio mom dies, the viable fetus has a good chance of surviving if removed quickly and given medical care if needed. A nurse, the father, a grandparent, foster parent, adoptive parent or another caretaker can feed and take care of the infant.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I don't give a good goddamn if it does start "at conception" (which it doesn't).
If it isn't viable outside of the mother, even with heroic super-measures, it's a fetus, and not an independent separate life.
A premature baby can be saved, a 12 week or 16 week fetus cannot.
The most premature baby in history was apparently 21 weeks, a true miracle.

And apart from that, there are plenty of instances where a late term and "otherwise viable" BABY will not survive anyway except in unthinkable agony with zero hope of improvement.
To insist such pain and agony be prolonged because of religious zealotry is despicable when the humane thing to do would be to terminate such a doomed pregnancy.

Most so called "pro-lifers" are hypocrites.
No one takes pregnancy termination casually or nonchalantly.
Click to expand...

Well, Checkeboard Strangler, be careful when you make categorical statements like "no one." I would point you to Irene Vilar, a self-proclaimed "abortion addict," who generated a bit of buzz with her bizarre and rather creepy story. If you have fifteen abortions within sixteen years for your own pleasure, I would say you are treating the matter of pregnancy rather casually.

Perhaps you should modify it to "No woman in her right mind takes pregnancy termination casually or nonchalantly."
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
Well, Checkeboard Strangler, be careful when you make categorical statements like "no one." I would point you to Irene Vilar, a self-proclaimed "abortion addict," who generated a bit of buzz with her bizarre and rather creepy story. If you have fifteen abortions within sixteen years for your own pleasure, I would say you are treating the matter of pregnancy rather casually.

Perhaps you should modify it to "No woman in her right mind takes pregnancy termination casually or nonchalantly."
Click to expand...

Sure, soon as every STOP sign on the planet includes the word "YOU" because obviously a stop sign is actually saying "YOU stop".

5e41UcE2_400x400.png
 
Felis Leo said:
Well, Checkeboard Strangler, be careful when you make categorical statements like "no one." I would point you to Irene Vilar, a self-proclaimed "abortion addict," who generated a bit of buzz with her bizarre and rather creepy story. If you have fifteen abortions within sixteen years for your own pleasure, I would say you are treating the matter of pregnancy rather casually.

Perhaps you should modify it to "No woman in her right mind takes pregnancy termination casually or nonchalantly."
Click to expand...

A clearly mentally ill individual should not be the standard bearer for determining a woman's right to the use of her own organs. Or, should we begin with throwing Roe into the trash, and then force conservative males who support ending Roe to be the first to donate one of their kidneys, and one of their lungs, and one of their retinae, and a portion of their livers, to not remove the right to life for those in their communities that are in need?

That's the thing I don't get with these pro life zealots. They literally have no idea what undoign Roe could lead to. And if I am in a revanchist mood, I will absolutely lobby for this to become law immediately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom