• 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 Murder. Sorry, but That is a Fact

TrumpGurl said:
Define Murder please.
Click to expand...

The UNLAWFUL (illegal) killing of a person by a person.


I am saying that Roe v, Wade is unconstitutional, and that abortion is indeed murder using the very definition of murder
Click to expand...

Au contraire, mon ami - if it's legal, it cannot be murder. Plus, the unborn are not persons.
 
TrumpGurl said:
Okay.





Ahhh... ...but what if the supreme court decision that keeps it legal for now is actually unconstitutional?


I have a question for you. Is slavery constitutional? For a while the supreme court said it was, and then it said it wasn't. Obviously SCOTUS is not an all knowing god. But I ask YOU: Is slavery constitutional?
Click to expand...

The slaves had rights and were capable of exercising them at the time. When freed and recognized as equal, they were able to exercise all of them.

The unborn have no rights, none are recognized for them (I posted that law for you). Not only that, they are completely incapable of exercising a single right independently. They are wholly and completely physiologically intertwined with (there's some science for ya) with the woman. The mother can survive without the unborn, the inverse is not true. This truly demonstrates that the unborn is not equal to born people.

A baby starts independently exercising a right to life when they are born and start breathing....
 
Lursa said:
The slaves had rights and were capable of exercising them at the time. When freed and recognized as equal, they were able to exercise all of them.....
Click to expand...

That was not my question. I repeat:

Is slavery constitutional? For a while the supreme court said it was, and then it said it wasn't. Obviously SCOTUS is not an all knowing god. But I ask YOU: Is slavery constitutional?

And , my question is for the other guy. You I have no interest in.
 
TrumpGurl said:
That was not my question. I repeat:

Is slavery constitutional? For a while the supreme court said it was, and then it said it wasn't. Obviously SCOTUS is not an all knowing god. But I ask YOU: Is slavery constitutional?

And , my question is for the other guy. You I have no interest in.
Click to expand...

The result of making elective abortion illegal would mean the govt would be charged with forcing women to remain pregnant against their will...also slavery. Women would love several Constitutional rights, being relegated to 2nd class citizens again...also, like the slaves.

Do you see that happening? So far you have shown zero ability to think your surface-based self-righteous arguments through...please do so.

Slavery is not Constitutional...and that includes for women.
 
KevinKohler said:
Murder is defined as the illegal killing of another human.
Click to expand...


Okay.


KevinKohler said:
Abortion is not illegal, ergo, its not murder.
Click to expand...


Ahhh... ...but what if the supreme court decision that keeps it legal for now is actually unconstitutional?


I have a question for you. Is slavery constitutional? For a while the supreme court said it was, and then it said it wasn't. Obviously SCOTUS is not an all knowing god. But I ask YOU: Is slavery constitutional?
 
trixare4kids said:
I respect the way that you see it. You are pro-life but that's where your rights do not trump the rights of other women.

Btw, I am personally pro-life too but I can put my conviction rooted in my religious beliefs aside and realize that not all women should be mandated to share my personal belief system.
Click to expand...

Likewise...well said. :thumbs:
 
trixare4kids said:
I respect the way that you see it. You are pro-life but that's where your rights do not trump the rights of other women........
Click to expand...

You mean women have the right to murder children? Where is that in the constitution?
 
TrumpGurl said:
You mean women have the right to murder children? Where is that in the constitution?
Click to expand...

Ah...this from the person who tried to use 'science' earlier?

The unborn are not children. Child is a stage of born minors. The unborn are also classified by stages...zygote, embryo, fetus. I just go with unborn as an accurate generalization. Child and baby are innaccurate from someone who wants to depend on science.

So no children are murdered in abortions.
 
TrumpGurl said:
You mean women have the right to murder children? Where is that in the constitution?
Click to expand...

I'm not about to debate morality or engage religious beliefs with a staunchly Pro-Life woman.
Don't want to have an abortion, don't have one.

Roe v. Wade, the decision, is based on the right of women to make their own reproductive health care decisions without running it by those whose religious beliefs might stand in their way.

And that's the way it should stay, that is, if we believe the first amendment protects women from the government establishing a religious standard women should have to live by.
 
Last edited:
TrumpGurl said:
That was not my question. I repeat:

Is slavery constitutional? For a while the supreme court said it was, and then it said it wasn't. Obviously SCOTUS is not an all knowing god. But I ask YOU: Is slavery constitutional?

And , my question is for the other guy. You I have no interest in.
Click to expand...

The word slavery is never mentioned in the constitution. However, the southern states thought slavery was a 'state right'...they even fought a war over it.

When the Civil War started, Lincoln didn't care about slavery...he was only interested in keeping the Union in tact. During the war, he only freed slaves in the southern states, not the north. He did so as a military tactic to scare the confederate troops into deserting and running home to protect their women and property from the hordes of freed slaves taking their revenge. The point being, slavery wasn't a constitutional issue because slaves were considered property and only counted as 3/5 of a person for the US census. But the southern states did try to get the federal government to enforce their individual and state right to own property. IE: the Fugitive Acts.

So the Supreme court ruling on Dred Scott became null and void...not because another SCOTUS overturned the ruling....but because there was a Civil War and congress passed the 13th and 14th amendments.

So what exactly is your point, TrumpGurl?
 
Last edited:
TrumpGurl said:

The atheist’s case against abortion: respect for human rights
The atheist’s case against abortion: respect for human rights | America Magazine

I am an atheist, a 29-year-old woman, well-educated at secular institutions, and I lean liberal on many issues, including same-sex marriage and climate change. I am also a dedicated pro-life activist, working to make abortion unthinkable....

...Most secular pro-choice people are well-meaning and affirm a commitment to human rights. Most are horrified by ableism—but close their eyes to the often lethal consequences of prenatal genetic testing. Abortion advocates would never murder a defenseless sleeping or comatose person—yet they argue that because children in the womb lack consciousness, killing them is permissible....​

My comment: The author is much kinder than I am to choicers.
Click to expand...


murder verb
murdered; murdering\ ˈmər-​d(ə-​)riŋ \
Definition of murder (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb

1: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice


Not a fact. Nor is it the definition.
/End Thread
/Failed Thread
 
TrumpGurl said:
You mean women have the right to murder children? Where is that in the constitution?
Click to expand...
Oh the drama.

The constitution can't guarantee that a fetus won't die in the womb or become a miscarriage...no one can. And they can't count a miscarriage as a person because that would skew the US census and representation in government. The constitution mandates a census of "all persons residing" in the US...and the 14th amendment protects the rights of "persons that are born" or naturalized US citizens. A fetus is neither born or a person...and it doesn't reside anywhere except in another person's body that the government has no right to impose itself upon until the fetus reaches viability and can survive on it's own.


Text. Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.​
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Oh the drama.

The constitution can't guarantee that a fetus won't die in the womb or become a miscarriage...no one can. And they can't count a miscarriage as a person because that would skew the US census and representation in government. The constitution mandates a census of "all persons residing" in the US...and the 14th amendment protects the rights of "persons that are born" or naturalized US citizens. A fetus is neither born or a person...and it doesn't reside anywhere except in another person's body that the government has no right to impose itself upon until the fetus reaches viability and can survive on it's own.


Text. Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.​
Click to expand...

Don't expect any replies for a while, she is in time out, now that was real quick, but not unexpected.
 
Casper said:
Don't expect any replies for a while, she is in time out, now that was real quick, but not unexpected.
Click to expand...

Well, that's going to put a dent in her agenda, isn't it? lol
 
God aborts more fetuses by miscarriage. It seems that he is both for and against abortion.
 
TrumpGurl said:
The right to not be murdered is a fundamental human right. It has nothing to do with religion. It is wrong for someone to murder another innocent human being, and that is exactly what abortion is. Its a human rights issue.

And before anyone goes blabbing about "womans" rights, that is a fantasy. I am a woman, and I tell you there is no such thing as womans rights. There are RIGHTS which ALL people have under the constitution, and the most fundamental of those is the right to not be killed by someone else.
Click to expand...

The right of ownership of one's body and the autonomy to do with one's body as one wishes is also a fundamental human right. It means that no one can use the body of another person against that person's will even if it means they will die. Fetuses do not have the right to use a woman's body if that woman does not want to.
 
TrumpGurl said:
I love this tweet from Feminists for Life

"In Chile, pregnant women silently gave voice to the voiceless with “loudhailers” to amplify the sound of the ❤️s beating inside them.

One participant said, "Abortion activists lost all words. They watched in silence: The voice of those hearts was an unanswerable question."

DUkF_HQXkAAnBdp
Click to expand...

Definitely you want to link to Latin American countries where women who have miscarriages are put in prison for murder. That's definitely the kind of example you want to argue for America.
 
TrumpGurl said:
The right to not be murdered is a fundamental human right. It has nothing to do with religion. It is wrong for someone to murder another innocent human being, and that is exactly what abortion is. Its a human rights issue.

And before anyone goes blabbing about "womans" rights, that is a fantasy. I am a woman, and I tell you there is no such thing as womans rights. There are RIGHTS which ALL people have under the constitution, and the most fundamental of those is the right to not be killed by someone else.
Click to expand...

Throw those aborted babies into a blender with some ice cream and chocolate syrup.

A nice chocolate fetus shake will make you see the error in your ways.

Delicious.
 
TrumpGurl said:

The atheist’s case against abortion: respect for human rights
The atheist’s case against abortion: respect for human rights | America Magazine

I am an atheist, a 29-year-old woman, well-educated at secular institutions, and I lean liberal on many issues, including same-sex marriage and climate change. I am also a dedicated pro-life activist, working to make abortion unthinkable....

...Most secular pro-choice people are well-meaning and affirm a commitment to human rights. Most are horrified by ableism—but close their eyes to the often lethal consequences of prenatal genetic testing. Abortion advocates would never murder a defenseless sleeping or comatose person—yet they argue that because children in the womb lack consciousness, killing them is permissible....​

My comment: The author is much kinder than I am to choicers.
Click to expand...

Murder unless a god does it you mean? All those miscarriages are part of the divine plan, aren't they? I will propose that there are many more miscarriages than there are abortions.
 
TrumpGurl said:

The atheist’s case against abortion: respect for human rights
The atheist’s case against abortion: respect for human rights | America Magazine

I am an atheist, a 29-year-old woman, well-educated at secular institutions, and I lean liberal on many issues, including same-sex marriage and climate change. I am also a dedicated pro-life activist, working to make abortion unthinkable....

...Most secular pro-choice people are well-meaning and affirm a commitment to human rights. Most are horrified by ableism—but close their eyes to the often lethal consequences of prenatal genetic testing. Abortion advocates would never murder a defenseless sleeping or comatose person—yet they argue that because children in the womb lack consciousness, killing them is permissible....​

My comment: The author is much kinder than I am to choicers.
Click to expand...



Why is prenatal genetic testing a sin and what is wrong about finding out and aborting a fetus that will be burdened for life with painful malformations, empty brain cases or debilitating genetic diseases? Why is considered inhumane to prevent a life of suffering?
 
Irredentist said:
Working to make abortion unthinkable? Well that'll never happen. As long as there are pregnant women who aren't capable of taking care of children, abortion will always be an option they consider.
Click to expand...

And as long as there are pregnant women, there will be patients with pregnancy complications that would certainly kill them if fetuses are not aborted. That is a medically proven fact ALL gynecologists agree on.
 
TrumpGurl said:
Define Murder please.

I am saying that Roe v, Wade is unconstitutional, and that abortion is indeed murder using the very definition of murder
Click to expand...
And you are wrong. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. Having an abortion is legal, so it cannot be unlawfully killing someone. You could call it unjustified killing of an innocent human being, but I realize that would diminish the effect for you.

Also Roe v Wade cannot be an unconstitutional decision. It is an interpretation of the Constitution. Additionally, unborn humans have no rights under the Constitution, born humans do.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
No, no it's not. By definition.

Got any other brilliant observations?

The difference between a defenseless sleeping/comatose person and an in-utero embryo/fetus is that the former is not entirely dependent on using the body of another human for its survival.
 
TrumpGurl said:
That was not my question. I repeat:

Is slavery constitutional? For a while the supreme court said it was, and then it said it wasn't. Obviously SCOTUS is not an all knowing god. But I ask YOU: Is slavery constitutional?

And , my question is for the other guy. You I have no interest in.
Click to expand...
It was, and then we changed the Constitution. The SCOTUS didnt make slavery unconstitutional, we changed the Constitution to do that.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom