• 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!

Why Not Ban Abortion Just Like New Zealand?

soylentgreen said:
The hypocrisy is strong with this one. A pro lifer advocating the death penalty. Could you be more ridiculous?
Click to expand...

Yes, although I only advocate the death penalty for guilty people, not for innocent people which includes unborn babies.
 
Lursa said:
:applaud:applaud
Click to expand...

Yet you advocate the death penalty too, or at least you don't see anything wrong with killing an assailant in some situations. If I remember correctly you do own and use guns.
 
Lursa said:
Wow, how little do you empathize with other humans at all? A woman would be reliving it daily for 9 months while pregnant...a constant reminder. And then raising a child from that terror?
Click to expand...
She doesn't have to raise the child, she can put it up for adoption. I know a case of a 16 year old girl who was raped during a party and got pregnant, her family was finding a home for the child.

Lursa said:
And can you please explain how you can propose the death penalty while objecting to abortion? Your entire explanation for being against abortion was "because it takes a life."
Click to expand...
Perhaps I used the wrong words, what I meant is I'm against abortion because it takes an innocent life. For further explanation see post 602
 
DebateChallenge said:
Yet you advocate the death penalty too, or at least you don't see anything wrong with killing an assailant in some situations. If I remember correctly you do own and use guns.
Click to expand...

Of course there is morally justifiable killing, that's one reason it's legal: self-defense, war, assisted suicide, pulling the plug, the death penalty, abortion. All of those are justifiable to the majority (not all) of society.
 
DebateChallenge said:
She doesn't have to raise the child, she can put it up for adoption. I know a case of a 16 year old girl who was raped during a party and got pregnant, her family was finding a home for the child.
Click to expand...
How about the pain and suffering and horror for 9 months? Or wondering if her child grew up to be a rapist or other criminal for the rest of her life? You just dismiss her trauma, her pain, because you resent women in general.

Perhaps I used the wrong words, what I meant is I'm against abortion because it takes an innocent life. For further explanation see post 602
Click to expand...

Please explain why you value the 'innocence' of the unborn? It has no capacity to act or even form intent...that is the 'innocence' of emptiness, a vacuum. If that is your version of innocence, then it's the same 'innocence' of a couch or flower.

So then please explain why you value that 'innocence' of nothingness over women's lives? Over our health, bodily autonomy, self-determination?
 
DebateChallenge said:
Yes, although I only advocate the death penalty for guilty people, not for innocent people which includes unborn babies.
Click to expand...

Right! That is your problem. You judge whether anyone has the right to life and consider it your right to do so.
 
soylentgreen said:
The hypocrisy is strong with this one. A pro lifer advocating the death penalty. Could you be more ridiculous?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Many in the pro life camp are about innocent life. A rapist is far from innocent in their mind. They would also not have issues at serial murders being put down. The fact that there are those who do not condone the death penalty under any circumstance, does not discount the existence of those who separate innocent life from "guilty" life.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
DebateChallenge said:
Why would getting or not getting an abortion have any effect on the trauma of being raped?
Click to expand...

Having to carry the baby for 9 months as a reminder of the rape can, in some cases, add to the trauma of the rape. There are those for whom it doesn't or they endure because it is more import to them that the child live, under their care or adopted out.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
DebateChallenge said:
Why would getting or not getting an abortion have any effect on the trauma of being raped?
Click to expand...

maquiscat said:
Having to carry the baby for 9 months as a reminder of the rape can, in some cases, add to the trauma of the rape. There are those for whom it doesn't or they endure because it is more import to them that the child live, under their care or adopted out.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

He said he only cares about the 'innocent' life...but then I have to ask..what was that woman guilty of?
 
maquiscat said:
Not necessarily. Many in the pro life camp are about innocent life. A rapist is far from innocent in their mind. They would also not have issues at serial murders being put down. The fact that there are those who do not condone the death penalty under any circumstance, does not discount the existence of those who separate innocent life from "guilty" life.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It really just emphasises the point that it is not life they are concerned about. It is their right to judge life that is all that matters.
 
maquiscat said:
Having to carry the baby for 9 months as a reminder of the rape can, in some cases, add to the trauma of the rape. There are those for whom it doesn't or they endure because it is more import to them that the child live, under their care or adopted out.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thus you can see why the label of pro choice is used by those who support the legalisation of abortion rather than the lie pushed by the pro life group of them being pro abortion. It is up to the raped woman to make that decision not a bunch of hypocrites who would demand the rapist die while also demanding life is too precious for the pregnant woman to have an abortion.
 
soylentgreen said:
It really just emphasises the point that it is not life they are concerned about. It is their right to judge life that is all that matters.
Click to expand...
But that doesn't make it a hypocrisy. They are being consistent with their belief/claims. Just because we might interpret "innocent" differently, doesn't make them hypocritical. Wrong, maybe, but not hypocritical.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
But that doesn't make it a hypocrisy. They are being consistent with their belief/claims. Just because we might interpret "innocent" differently, doesn't make them hypocritical.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It is not the interpreting of the word that is the issue. It is that they think they have a right to put a label on it at all. The pro lifer here has no concern about life itself. His only concern is about his right to judge that life. How dare a woman think she can choose whether her pregnancy will continue or not. When in his mind only he has that right to decide who lives and who dies.
 
soylentgreen said:
Right! That is your problem. You judge whether anyone has the right to life and consider it your right to do so.
Click to expand...

Its not me its the system that judges whether a criminal should be executed, its the system that administers the death penalty.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Its not me its the system that judges whether a criminal should be executed, its the system that administers the death penalty.
Click to expand...

It's about using a death penalty, period. The person is judged by the justice system regarding guilt. There are other means of punishment.

It's a moral judgement regarding if the death penalty is...moral.

You are judging individuals who are not committing any crimes at all. THat's what he's questioning. Who are you to condemn a woman to such horrors as we have described from rape? This is why we have a Contstitution...so that such random personal judgements are forced on other (innocent) people.
 
Lursa said:
It's about using a death penalty, period. The person is judged by the justice system regarding guilt. There are other means of punishment.

It's a moral judgement regarding if the death penalty is...moral.
Click to expand...
Alright, if not the death penalty then Im all for life sentences, provided that they don't involve parole and actually are literal "life sentences," but this is not the proper folder or the proper discussion to be debating over the death penalty. It all started when you talked about a rapist gaining legal custody of their child, that won't happen if the rapist is executed but it certainly won't happen if the rapist has a life sentence either.

BTW based on some of your past posts Im quite sure you would have no qualms about administering the death penalty yourself in some situations, with the pull of a trigger.

Lursa said:
You are judging individuals who are not committing any crimes at all. THat's what he's questioning. Who are you to condemn a woman to such horrors as we have described from rape? This is why we have a Contstitution...so that such random personal judgements are forced on other (innocent) people.
Click to expand...
Its not about condemning the woman its about not condemning the baby.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Alright, if not the death penalty then Im all for life sentences, provided that they don't involve parole and actually are literal "life sentences," but this is not the proper folder or the proper discussion to be debating over the death penalty. It all started when you talked about a rapist gaining legal custody of their child, that won't happen if the rapist is executed but it certainly won't happen if the rapist has a life sentence either.
Click to expand...

Off topic, it was about you judging the morality of things...for other people.

BTW based on some of your past posts Im quite sure you would have no qualms about administering the death penalty yourself in some situations, with the pull of a trigger.
Click to expand...

Since my life or my loved one's lives will be in danger, I hope not.


Its not about condemning the woman its about not condemning the baby.
Click to expand...

And yet the unborn suffers nothing...the woman? Well, we've described that she does, and so terribly. So I dont believe yours is moral at all.

And I'm still hoping you'll answer this in further explanation:

Lursa said:
Please explain why you value the 'innocence' of the unborn? It has no capacity to act or even form intent...that is the 'innocence' of emptiness, a vacuum. If that is your version of innocence, then it's the same 'innocence' of a couch or flower.

So then please explain why you value that 'innocence' of nothingness over women's lives? Over our health, bodily autonomy, self-determination?
Click to expand...
 
DebateChallenge said:
Alright, if not the death penalty then Im all for life sentences, provided that they don't involve parole and actually are literal "life sentences," but this is not the proper folder or the proper discussion to be debating over the death penalty. It all started when you talked about a rapist gaining legal custody of their child, that won't happen if the rapist is executed but it certainly won't happen if the rapist has a life sentence either.

BTW based on some of your past posts Im quite sure you would have no qualms about administering the death penalty yourself in some situations, with the pull of a trigger.


Its not about condemning the woman its about not condemning the baby.
Click to expand...
But the woman is being condemned by having to carry that baby, whether you want her to have that condemnation or not. And her life is at risk, her livelihood potentially at risk for a life she doesnt want and there is no guarantee anyone will want to care for.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
But the woman is being condemned by having to carry that baby, whether you want her to have that condemnation or not. And her life is at risk, her livelihood potentially at risk for a life she doesnt want and there is no guarantee anyone will want to care for.

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

Exactly...he's just like, dump the baby for adoption...when there are already over 100,000 children waiting to be adopted in the US right now. (not in foster care, that's even more, 400,000)
 
DebateChallenge said:
Its not me its the system that judges whether a criminal should be executed, its the system that administers the death penalty.
Click to expand...

It is you who condones it. It is you who decides that the system is right. Do not try and pass on the blames to others. It is you who is claiming the right to decide who can live and who can die by accepting that system while denying that right to women. That is your hypocrisy.
 
soylentgreen said:
It is not the interpreting of the word that is the issue. It is that they think they have a right to put a label on it at all. The pro lifer here has no concern about life itself. His only concern is about his right to judge that life. How dare a woman think she can choose whether her pregnancy will continue or not. When in his mind only he has that right to decide who lives and who dies.
Click to expand...
That indeed may well be true. However, the post of mine that you responded to was in response to this.

soylentgreen said:
The hypocrisy is strong with this one. A pro lifer advocating the death penalty. Could you be more ridiculous?
Click to expand...

I responded to your claim of hypocrisy, and showed that it was not automatically true. Regardless of whether or not the person is wrong in their attempt to make judgements on life or on women or whatever, if they remain consistent with what they claim, they are not hypocritical

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
DebateChallenge said:
Its not about condemning the woman its about not condemning the baby.
Click to expand...

In not condemning one you condemn the other. That's why this comes down to whose rights overrides the others.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
That indeed may well be true. However, the post of mine that you responded to was in response to this.



I responded to your claim of hypocrisy, and showed that it was not automatically true. Regardless of whether or not the person is wrong in their attempt to make judgements on life or on women or whatever, if they remain consistent with what they claim, they are not hypocritical

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How is it consistent? Not by an arbitrary position of innocents or guilt. Especially when the innocence is assigned merely on the basis that a fetus has done absolutely nothing. If it could be genetically diagnosed to be a psychopath and sociopath would he then be in favour of abortion?

You are assuming he is capable of consistency in his judgement of innocent or guilt. That he can not be consistent even in a position that life is worth saving just in it self gives no reason to believe consistency in what is an arbitrary decision of innocence or guilt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom