• 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!

[W:326]*****Death By Pregnancy

Re: Death By Pregnancy

AlphaOmega said:
Good to see you guys defending Kavanaugh! I knew that fiasco was all BS. Course the next justice may not be so sure and if Kav changes his mind....kiss your abortion clinics goodbye.
Click to expand...

How many times do you have to be told that without RvW, each state can still make their own decisions on abortion, and many will still provide facilities? Women now go to other states for the procedure in big state with few facilities because they're closer :doh

Overturning RvW doesnt make abortion illegal. :roll:
 
Re: Death By Pregnancy

Aberration said:
There are lots of risks in life and none of them justify killing an innocent human being. If the risk is so great, don’t get pregnant.

War is when diplomacy has failed. Equating abortion to war is stupid. In any other situation, no. There is one and only one standard for the use of deadly force. It’s not for convenience. It’s not because there is risk.
Click to expand...

According to you they dont justify killing others. Others disagree.

And the greatness of the risk is not for you determine nor if the risk of pregnancy cannot be countered by deciding to have an abortion.

Just as you dont get to tell people they dont get to risk other peoples lives by not being the best drivers, being potentially nervous about driving. I've heard people argue this and it is just as ridiculous as saying "dont get pregnant". It is impractical.

And there are other situations where even in America you can kill innocent people legally. It all depends on the circumstances.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Re: Death By Pregnancy

roguenuke said:
There is no evidence of that contract in any way being...
Click to expand...
Objection noted.

roguenuke said:
And to address this separately, many prochoicers are prolife personally and help others who are valued members of society already, just as many prolifers do.
Click to expand...
Point noted. Relevance to topic at hand or the price of rice in China not understood, but point noted.

roguenuke said:
My post did not designate who that other would or should be, only that once born, anyone else is able to take on the burden of someone else, not a single person.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it won't surprise you that I consider the argument

infants, the infirm, etc. would be disposable in the same way as unborn children except that they can be offloaded onto some compassionate soul (or possibly the government), which is sufficient reason not to dispose of them​

every bit as illogical and absurd as

infants, the infirm, etc. would be disposable in the same way as unborn children except that they can be offloaded onto pro-lifers (or possibly the government), which is sufficient reason not to dispose of them​

but, FWIW, point noted.
 
Last edited:
Re: Death By Pregnancy

COTO said:
However, for pro-lifers who would argue to criminalize it, your appeal to an organ donation analogy here will fail for two reasons. The first is the issue of permissive versus commissive acts already mentioned. The second is that virtually all pro-lifers (myself included) regard conceiving a child as the signing of an unbreakable contract obligating parental responsibilities to that child. By engaging in procreative sexual intercourse, both male and female parties are signing a sacred contract stating, "I do hereby swear to care for any offspring of this sexual union and fulfill the responsibilities of my role as parent." There is no analog to this in organ donation. Or, for that matter, in caring for other people's children.

You can argue there is no such contract, the state has no right to enforce such a contract, etc., and so be it. I'm not going to butt heads with you over it. My point is that virtually all pro-lifers consider such a contract to be extant and enforceable by law, and can reasonably reject organ donation / foster care analogies on this basis alone. This is also why some pro-lifers tolerate abortion in the case of rape--because a woman subjected to rape has not signed this contract by consenting to procreative sex.
Click to expand...

The problem with this contract is that it is fundamentally unenforceable. There is no way to compel a woman to be a loving and responsible parent. You can perhaps compel her to be financially liable. But that is not the same thing. It is better to never be born at all than to come into a world that does not want or care for you. So let the woman abort. For the sake of the child who will never be.
 
Re: Death By Pregnancy

ab•nor•mal*ăb-nôr′məl

►

adj.

Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal;
R.I.F people
 
Re: Death By Pregnancy

Irredentist said:
The problem with this contract is that it is fundamentally unenforceable. There is no way to compel a woman to be a loving and responsible parent. You can perhaps compel her to be financially liable. But that is not the same thing.
Click to expand...
Agreed on all points.

Irredentist said:
It is better to never be born at all than to come into a world that does not want or care for you. So let the woman abort. For the sake of the child who will never be.
Click to expand...
I am letting her abort. I'm pleading with her not to. I'm trying to clean out the garbage pro-choice dogmatists have shoved into her mind, telling her life will be hell if she raises a child, telling her a foetus isn't a child anyway, telling her abortion is just like having a tumour removed. I'm begging her not to kill her offspring.

What truly disturbs me about your comment is that--notwithstanding @roguenuke's absurd rationalizations (see #355)--it's just as applicable to the disposing of infants, the disabled, the infirm, and anyone else who's unloved, not an "asset to society" (as @Lursa puts it), and extremely burdensome to the person with a sacred responsibility to take care of them.

I sometimes wonder if we'll eventually cross the line where the 'kind-hearted' progressives of the world, beholding the burden faced by parents and caretakers, decrying it as 'suffering' and 'slavery' for the parents and 'far better' for the burdensome soul to be put to sleep than endure life in "a world that does not want or care for [them]", acknowledge that @roguenuke's rationale is illogical garbage and decide the right to dispatch these 'unloveds' is 'social justice'.

I doubt few people currently over age 30 would ever support this (I hope I'm not wrong). But we're dying off. Given enough time, we'll all be conservative 'pro-lifers', only begging people not to dispatch their dependents outside the womb as well as in.

So... fancy that. I'm actually grateful more people don't realize @roguenuke's rationale is BS. Because if/when they do and that cognitive dissonance hits, I guarantee you it's not going to be resolved by pro-lifers conceding abortion is murder.
 
Re: Death By Pregnancy

COTO said:
as applicable to the disposing of infants, the disabled, the infirm, and anyone else who's unloved, not an "asset to society" (as @Lursa puts it), and extremely burdensome to the person with a sacred responsibility to take care of them.
Click to expand...

Do not post lies about me. I never ever claimed any such thing. Of course such people are loved and of course they still contribute to society (are an asset to society). And I never wrote anything about being a burden. Also a lie.

Please post where I wrote these things or retract your statements.

I wrote that the unborn were not those things,however, I wrote that they have the 'potential' to be contributors and assets, but are not yet and that is a fact.
 
Re: Death By Pregnancy

COTO said:
Agreed on all points.


I am letting her abort. I'm pleading with her not to. I'm trying to clean out the garbage pro-choice dogmatists have shoved into her mind, telling her life will be hell if she raises a child, telling her a foetus isn't a child anyway, telling her abortion is just like having a tumour removed. I'm begging her not to kill her offspring.

What truly disturbs me about your comment is that--notwithstanding @roguenuke's absurd rationalizations (see #355)--it's just as applicable to the disposing of infants, the disabled, the infirm, and anyone else who's unloved, not an "asset to society" (as @Lursa puts it), and extremely burdensome to the person with a sacred responsibility to take care of them.

I sometimes wonder if we'll eventually cross the line where the 'kind-hearted' progressives of the world, beholding the burden faced by parents and caretakers, decrying it as 'suffering' and 'slavery' for the parents and 'far better' for the burdensome soul to be put to sleep than endure life in "a world that does not want or care for [them]", acknowledge that @roguenuke's rationale is illogical garbage and decide the right to dispatch these 'unloveds' is 'social justice'.

I doubt few people currently over age 30 would ever support this (I hope I'm not wrong). But we're dying off. Given enough time, we'll all be conservative 'pro-lifers', only begging people not to dispatch their dependents outside the womb as well as in.

So... fancy that. I'm actually grateful more people don't realize @roguenuke's rationale is BS. Because if/when they do and that cognitive dissonance hits, I guarantee you it's not going to be resolved by pro-lifers conceding abortion is murder.
Click to expand...

Personally I'm not a fan of infanticide, or of killing the disabled. I'd rather take care of them with tax funded social services. But if the mother aborts, then I suppose we can save the money.
 
Re: Death By Pregnancy

COTO said:
Objection noted.


Point noted. Relevance to topic at hand or the price of rice in China not understood, but point noted.


I'm sure it won't surprise you that I consider the argument

infants, the infirm, etc. would be disposable in the same way as unborn children except that they can be offloaded onto some compassionate soul (or possibly the government), which is sufficient reason not to dispose of them​

every bit as illogical and absurd as

infants, the infirm, etc. would be disposable in the same way as unborn children except that they can be offloaded onto pro-lifers (or possibly the government), which is sufficient reason not to dispose of them​

but, FWIW, point noted.
Click to expand...
You have a tendency to try to reduce others arguments to something other than what was stated and wrongfully state them as something different. As well as to simply dismiss those that you dont like, as if you are some sort of queen or ultimate authority.

You brought up sex as a contract when you can't show it as having any such legal standing or even widely recognized social standing, except among mainly those who view sex as only being for procreation (which is far from reality). It is not an opinion that your proposed view of sex as a contract is not legally valid. It is legal fact.

And allowing that anyone can care for others who cannot take care of themselves shows that those people are not solely dependent and therefore a potential burden to, threat to the life of a single, specific individual, as in the case of pregnancy.

Additionally show where any of those people you mentioned specifically can be shown to increase the mortality rate of the person caring for them. Where those groups mentioned can cause specific health problems that are only related to those caring for them.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Re: Death By Pregnancy

year2late said:
Where your argument fails is that these women who choose abortion my not have the same philosophy as you do.
Click to expand...

That is obvious. Just like murderers, rapists, racists, also do not share the same philosophy.

year2late said:
Philosophically, many believe that it is a POTENTIAL human being.
Click to expand...

Scientifically they are morons.

year2late said:
You seem to view the zygote, embryo, or fetus as what should be a person - a legal designation. Can you imagine how our country would work if a ZEF was a legal person....

Now is a ZEF human? Sure, of course.
Click to expand...

A person is a legal fabrication. They are a human being. I can imagine. It would be amazing.

The Constitution does not speak of protecting only the rights of legal persons. It says people. People are not legal fabrications. They are real living humans.
 
Re: Death By Pregnancy

Scrabaholic said:
Zefs are not human beings/people. FACT.

Pregnancy/childbirth kills far more human beings than legal abortion. FACT.
Click to expand...

According to science your facts are wrong.
 
Re: Death By Pregnancy

Lursa said:
We do it all the time...to justify gun use for self defense, to calculate bombing runs and civilian deaths, to determine the likelihood a brain injured person will recover or pull the plug, in finding the balance between the cost of seat belts on school buses and kid's lives....so I dont see you successfully challenging my arguments with this point at all then.
Click to expand...

Bombing is war, war is for when diplomacy fails. Comparing abortion to war is stupid if not dishonest.

As for self defense gun use, there are laws regarding the use of deadly force and none of them apply statistics.

Pulling the plug on a brain injured person is due to the likelihood of recovery and the quality of life. Let’s apply that standard to unborn, sounds great!

We don’t include seat belts because of cost versus life? [emoji849]

7 Reasons Why School Buses Don't Have Seat Belts - The News Wheel

I dont see you successfully challenging my arguments with this point at all then.

Lursa said:
I also said generalize. You were tying to use your statistics in too broad a manner. Didnt work.
Click to expand...

The manner was very narrow. Just as narrow as the situation it’s analogous to.

Lursa said:
The risk of injury to the woman is low. If she or her partner have regrets, research has shown it is short-lived and in the long run most believe it was the right decision.

So, it really doesnt harm any "actual people." If you means society, there are no negative effects of abortion on society. If there are, please list them.

The risk is irrelevant. There is also little risk in me murdering my wife in her sleep. If I got regrets research has shown it’s short lived and in the long run most believe it was the right decisions.

The unborn is an actual person. Killing someone is the ultimate harm. Killing people harms society.

Lursa said:
Dishonest? You refused to answer the question. You tried to turn it around on me as obvious :roll: That's BS. Where is the blue bold guaranteed to anyone in the Const? And then show me where the unborn has a right to life recognized *anywhere* in the Const? Not only that, the high courts have examined the unborn more than once, interpreting that Const, and not recognized them as equal or having any rights.

So dont act like it's obvious. But feel free to tell me what authority *does* recognize a right to life for the unborn.
Click to expand...

Yes dishonest. And you double down. There is no question you have asked I have refused answer.

The 14th Amendment does not distinguish between the born and unborn.

The high courts also examined and didn’t recognize black people as equal or having any rights.

Lursa said:
You once again avoided answering a direct question so I wont answer yours until you do. Just because you value emptiness, nothingness, it's ludicrous to expect others to have to do so and you cant even articulate why. :roll: Your reasons are all 'feelings' and emotions that you'd see forced on "innocent" women for doing nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

You are once again lying because you don’t like the answer. But it’s still and answer regardless if you can’t be honest or not.

I’ve never stated I value emptiness, nor nothingness. Nor have I stated other should. It’s a straight up lie.

The woman choice to have sex. She is not innocent. Killing another human for convenience is wrong.

Lursa said:
You should try to use words properly in a debate...consensual sex, pregnancy...not bad, not evil, not wrong. So how can there be any guilt attached? That's your personal hangup, nothing to force on other Americans.
Click to expand...

If I improperly used words, show so. I never said consensual sex or pregnancy was bad or evil or wrong. I never said there was guilt attached to consensual sex, nor pregnancy. I have never expressed a ‘hang up’ with any of that.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Death By Pregnancy

Lursa said:
Then you admit to being incapable of assimilating medical and biological facts. And not being capable of using accurate information in a discussion and being wholly driven by dogma and emotions. Understood.
Click to expand...

Where did I admit this? The only medical and biological fact I have discussed is the unborn is a living human being. How is that inaccurate?

Killing a human being for convenience is wholly driven by dogma and emotions.

Lursa said:
And it's also not moral to reduce the entirety of any person's life to a string of conveniences. A woman's life, her health, her ability to care for her family/dependents, keep them safe and fed, to uphold her obligations and commitments to friends, employer, church, community, society, etc...totally immoral in the dishonesty of it.
Click to expand...

I find it immoral to reduce a persons life to a clump of cells.

Lursa said:
Unless you consider your own life a string of conveniences? Do you?
Click to expand...

I don’t consider anyone’s life a string of conveniences.

Lursa said:
**Here you go:

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
Click to expand...

OK. So?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: Death By Pregnancy

Aberration said:
Where did I admit this? The only medical and biological fact I have discussed is the unborn is a living human being. How is that inaccurate?

Killing a human being for convenience is wholly driven by dogma and emotions.



I find it immoral to reduce a persons life to a clump of cells.



I don’t consider anyone’s life a string of conveniences.



OK. So?




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

I got zero problems with killing a human being that is inside another human being for any reason at all. Completely moral
 
Re: Death By Pregnancy

roguenuke said:
According to you they dont justify killing others. Others disagree.
Click to expand...

Of course. And every murderer, rapist, child molester and anyone else who doesn’t respect others also disagrees.

roguenuke said:
And the greatness of the risk is not for you determine nor if the risk of pregnancy cannot be countered by deciding to have an abortion.
Click to expand...

Never said it was.

roguenuke said:
Just as you dont get to tell people they dont get to risk other peoples lives by not being the best drivers, being potentially nervous about driving. I've heard people argue this and it is just as ridiculous as saying "dont get pregnant". It is impractical.
Click to expand...

Except we do get to tell people they don’t get to risk others by not being a licensed driver who passed the safety test. And if they injure someone else do to their choices they are held liable for those damages.

roguenuke said:
And there are other situations where even in America you can kill innocent people legally. It all depends on the circumstances.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Name em.
 
vegas giants said:
I got zero problems with killing a human being that is inside another human being for any reason at all. Completely moral
Click to expand...

I got zero problem with killing a human being that kills innocent human beings. Completely moral.
 
Aberration said:
I got zero problem with killing a human being that kills innocent human beings. Completely moral.
Click to expand...

Then do it. What is stopping you?


That's a real question
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom