• 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!

Question for pro-lifers

cpwill said:
...no. Being a moral person depends on you, not the individual you acting upon.
Click to expand...

By "the application of morals", I mean whether or not it would be right to apply moral principles to the subject, and I do not see how that should depend on anything but the subject itself.
 
Well I researched it on Wikipedia's "human embryonic development" page.An 8-week old embryo has a primitive brain.
 
cpwill said:
No. At the time of the abortion, the child is already human. Our humanity is not determined by how smart we are, or how complex our "thoughts" are.

For example, were you to walk into a hospital ward full of patients in comas and start blasting away, you would be charged with murder, not "animal abuse".
Click to expand...

Good, so when every expectant mother applies for relief money, they have to fork over an extra 500 bucks for the fetus, because the fetus is a person, and therefore that fetus qualifies as another child.

It's either a fetus or it's a person, and if it's a person, then it's already your CHILD, and if it's already your child then they need to fork over the extra five large.
If they won't fork over, then they're saying that your fetus is NOT A CHILD and NOT A PERSON.

Can't have it both ways.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Good, so when every expectant mother applies for relief money, they have to fork over an extra 500 bucks for the fetus, because the fetus is a person, and therefore that fetus qualifies as another child.

It's either a fetus or it's a person, and if it's a person, then it's already your CHILD, and if it's already your child then they need to fork over the extra five large.
If they won't fork over, then they're saying that your fetus is NOT A CHILD and NOT A PERSON.

Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

A fetus is not a child. Technically, a child is a former fetus. Human development is staged all the way from zygote>blastocyst>embryo>fetus>baby/infant>toddler>child/kid>adolescant>adult.
 
Is the fetus alive? Yes.
Is it a human life? Yes.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Good, so when every expectant mother applies for relief money, they have to fork over an extra 500 bucks for the fetus, because the fetus is a person, and therefore that fetus qualifies as another child.

It's either a fetus or it's a person, and if it's a person, then it's already your CHILD, and if it's already your child then they need to fork over the extra five large.
If they won't fork over, then they're saying that your fetus is NOT A CHILD and NOT A PERSON.

Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

.... I mean, did you honestly think I was going to respond with "Oh, well, if it's going to save the government $500, sure, go ahead and kill all the kids." ? If I was going to be wiping out age cohorts in order to produce savings to the government, the elderly would probably be a wiser investment in time and energy.

There's a simple enough test for the vast majority of pro choicers that you can use to determine ahead of time whether or not your argument will cause a consistent pro-lifer to accede the potential acceptability of the logic supporting the death of an infant: ask yourself if you would accept the logic as justifying killing a three year old.
 
Blue Donkey said:
A fetus is not a child. Technically, a child is a former fetus. Human development is staged all the way from zygote>blastocyst>embryo>fetus>baby/infant>toddler>child/kid>adolescant>adult.
Click to expand...

That's the point...the Trump Administration MUST pay UP unless they want to concede the fact that a fetus IS NOT A PERSON yet.
 
cpwill said:
.... I mean, did you honestly think I was going to respond with "Oh, well, if it's going to save the government $500, sure, go ahead and kill all the kids." ? If I was going to be wiping out age cohorts in order to produce savings to the government, the elderly would probably be a wiser investment in time and energy.

There's a simple enough test for the vast majority of pro choicers that you can use to determine ahead of time whether or not your argument will cause a consistent pro-lifer to accede the potential acceptability of the logic supporting the death of an infant: ask yourself if you would accept the logic as justifying killing a three year old.
Click to expand...

They're three years old.
The argument is whether or not a fetus is a child and, for the sake of the debate, since the overwhelming majority of terminated pregnancies by abortion occur in the first trimester, the argument is whether the fetus is even viable outside the mother at all.
To date, out of the tens of millions (maybe more?) of preemie births, the earliest was twenty-one weeks.
The first trimester is one to twelve weeks.

For the sake of the point I was arguing, pro-lifers insist that life begins at conception, thus a single zygote cell is now a child, a person, and persons have rights, yes? Thus, according to that argument, the mother is owed an extra five hundred bucks.

You happen to encounter a structure fire on your walk home. Being heroic, you rush inside and you encounter a lab setup with hundreds of fertilized eggs and a small crying child. Do you save the child and miss the chance to save HUNDREDS of lives or do you grab "the petri dish" with all the fertilized egg cells and leave the child?
 
eohrnberger said:
Is the fetus alive? Yes.
Is it a human life? Yes.
Click to expand...

Is a fetus a person? No.

BTW I am talking about embryos here. So far nobody has been able to disprove my claim that during the first eight weeks, the unwanted human life is capable of feeling mental and physical pain, which are both requirements for it to suffer upon death.
 
Flaetan said:
My understanding is that at the time an abortion is performed, the embryo/fetus isn't conscious, but the reason we would apply moral principles to it is because it has the potential to become a human and form complex thoughts. (And if it is at all conscious, it would still be at a lower level than what society seems to deem okay for killing other small animals/creatures.) But the issue I have with this reasoning is the following: this potential exists just as much before conception as it does after; in other words, sure, it would suck to be the kid who was denied existence because your parents decided to have an abortion, but it would suck just as much to be denied existence because your parents chose not to conceive you in the first place. Yet, it would be morally absurd to enforce some rule mandating pregnancy, so why would abortion be any less moral than simply not having children by means of abstinence or contraception?
Click to expand...

So if someone passes away, even for a moment, you know drowning, heart attack, etc they should not be revived because they are dead and not alive and only have the potential to become a human again if you resuscitate?
 
cpwill said:
.... I mean, did you honestly think I was going to respond with "Oh, well, if it's going to save the government $500, sure, go ahead and kill all the kids." ? If I was going to be wiping out age cohorts in order to produce savings to the government, the elderly would probably be a wiser investment in time and energy.

There's a simple enough test for the vast majority of pro choicers that you can use to determine ahead of time whether or not your argument will cause a consistent pro-lifer to accede the potential acceptability of the logic supporting the death of an infant: ask yourself if you would accept the logic as justifying killing a three year old.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to assume any pro-choicer wants to kill infants. Obviously they always condemn that crime.
 
Blue Donkey said:
There is no reason to assume any pro-choicer wants to kill infants. Obviously they always condemn that crime.
Click to expand...
We would disagree, as I would recognize that an unborn infant is an infant still.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
We would disagree, as I would recognize that an unborn infant is an infant still.
Click to expand...

It is impossible to disagree on the English dictionary definitions of words. There is only onev meaning of infant - always has been and always will be. You can disagree with the timing of "human life" and "human being" all you want, but NOT "infant." There is no such thing as an unborn infant. It is an embryo or a fetus, depending on the gestational stage.

The only people who say otherwise are anti-choicers. People who do not care one way or the other do not use the word infant to mean zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus. Even expecting women do not call them infants. Legally, no laws identify embryos and fetuses as infants.
 
Last edited:
Scrabaholic said:
It isn't. Not until the 3rd trimester.
Click to expand...

Yes, I knew it - feeling pain is impossible during the first trimester. I mean duh, that is obvious. It is sad that many people think the heartbeat is more important than its ability to feel pain.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Pro-lifers have a lot of problems. They are hypocrites, saying all a woman needs to do is refrain from having sex or use contraception when she does, despite knowing the legal and dictionary definitions of rape. Many abortion opponents are married so they know why couples have sex and that abstinence only for life is unrealistic. They also know the only 100% effective contraception methods are spaying and neutering, which would not be covered by health insurance without a medical reason like cancer. But they still insist there is no excuse for getting pregnant despite having mandatory sex education starting at age 10.
Click to expand...

First off, if you look at the reasoning behind abortions, only 7.5% of all (839,226) reported abortions (in 2004) stemmed from issues outside the mothers control (Fetal health issues, Physical health issues, victims of rape etc.) The other 92.5 of all abortions in the U.S. (the other 776,284) abortions stemmed from issues COMPLETELY WITHIN THE COUPLES CONTROL. (Done having children, interference with education/work, not ready for a child, etc.) These people already know, in most cases, that they cant afford a child. If they know that their done having children, then why is the woman getting pregnant? These are the abortions that should not be happening! If you stick a knife in a newborn's heart we call it first degree murder. But when a child is killed inside the womb, we call it a human right? This does not add up. Please enlighten me. Thanks.

Statistics given below:
Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2004
Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics
 
Blue Donkey said:
Is a fetus a person? No.

BTW I am talking about embryos here. So far nobody has been able to disprove my claim that during the first eight weeks, the unwanted human life is capable of feeling mental and physical pain, which are both requirements for it to suffer upon death.
Click to expand...

You've just supported abortion restrictions beyond 20 weeks for the reasons you've cited.
 
Ben_Casey said:
First off, if you look at the reasoning behind abortions, only 7.5% of all (839,226) reported abortions (in 2004) stemmed from issues outside the mothers control (Fetal health issues, Physical health issues, victims of rape etc.) The other 92.5 of all abortions in the U.S. (the other 776,284) abortions stemmed from issues COMPLETELY WITHIN THE COUPLES CONTROL. (Done having children, interference with education/work, not ready for a child, etc.) These people already know, in most cases, that they cant afford a child. If they know that their done having children, then why is the woman getting pregnant? These are the abortions that should not be happening! If you stick a knife in a newborn's heart we call it first degree murder. But when a child is killed inside the womb, we call it a human right? This does not add up. Please enlighten me. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Oh, spare us the argument that all women should be controlling 100% of their sex lives 100% of the time and anything less is just wanton behavior for which their punishment is a baby. Every old, nosey, white, Christian, conservative male that comes here has an almost unlimited supply of reasons why women should stay pregnant.

It's none of your business why women get abortions. You don't get pregnant, and if you did abortion would be a sacrament. There isn't a speck of hope that you will ever stop believing women are airheads that need men telling them what they can and can't do. There isn't a speck of hope that anyone will ever enlighten you. To be enlightened you have to listen. You don't .......... You're welcome
 
eohrnberger said:
You've just supported abortion restrictions beyond 20 weeks for the reasons you've cited.
Click to expand...

I oppose D&E abortions every week. Who needs them when there is a pill women can take at home for a vaginal stillborn delivery?
 
Last edited:
Blue Donkey said:
When it it fully outside the mother's body and the umbilical cord is cut.
Click to expand...

That makes zero sense. The child does not magically become living once it passes through the birth canal. The doctor does not tell you "Congratulations, the umbilical cord is cut, your child is now alive!"
 
weaver2 said:
Oh, spare us the argument that all women should be controlling 100% of their sex lives 100% of the time and anything less is just wanton behavior for which their punishment is a baby. Every old, nosey, white, Christian, conservative male that comes here has an almost unlimited supply of reasons why women should stay pregnant.

It's none of your business why women get abortions. You don't get pregnant, and if you did abortion would be a sacrament. There isn't a speck of hope that you will ever stop believing women are airheads that need men telling them what they can and can't do. There isn't a speck of hope that anyone will ever enlighten you. To be enlightened you have to listen. You don't .......... You're welcome
Click to expand...

How about instead of assuming what I am, and what I believe, you should should actually discuss this issue with me. I gave a well thought out argument with proven statistics that you couldn't handle. Instead of challenging my viewpoint you stereotyped me and came to a conclusion about me based off of 5 sentences. Also, it's "none of my business" when a man beats his dog in his backyard. It's not my property or my dog. However, I'm still going to voice myself when I witness evil acts, thats what free speech is all about. Its unthoughtful to say I cant discuss abortion because Im a male. This is like me saying that "you cant discuss immigration because you're not an immigrant." Or, "you can not talk about guns because you do not own one." See the issue there? Have an open conversation! Thats whats these forums are for, don't attack me because you don't agree. And we wonder why our political culture is so messed up these days.
 
Ben_Casey said:
That makes zero sense. The child does not magically become living once it passes through the birth canal. The doctor does not tell you "Congratulations, the umbilical cord is cut, your child is now alive!"
Click to expand...

Actually birth occurs before the cord or cut, when the baby's entire body is out.

You asked me when the fetus becomes a person. That is the difference. Before a fetus is born, it is not legally a person because the 14th Amendment in the United States Constitutution explicitly singles out "born" humans for protection of all rights granted within.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom