• 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

Blue Donkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay, fair enough. Thanks.
 
I can take up the discussion with you Ben. Weaver was complaining about pro-lifers in general, which is the truth. There are many so-called "pro-lifers" who show their true colors that they are really "anti-choice" and fail to prove there is a reason to force a woman to stay pregnant against her will. Not coincidentally, all of the anti-choicers except one are male. Notice some conservative members totally agree with liberals on the issue. Do you think it is a coincidence that they are women?
 
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...

Who said it does?
 
Blue Donkey said:
I can take up the discussion with you Ben. Weaver was complaining about pro-lifers in general, which is the truth. There are many so-called "pro-lifers" who show their true colors that they are really "anti-choice" and fail to prove there is a reason to force a woman to stay pregnant against her will. Not coincidentally, all of the anti-choicers except one are male. Notice some conservative members totally agree with liberals on the issue. Do you think it is a coincidence that they are women?
Click to expand...

No, no, no I gotta hear this from Weaver. Things got icky and Weaver dipped outta here. I appreciate you trying to further the conversation, but you already posses this skill, Weaver on the other hand, does not.
 
Integrityrespec said:
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?
Click to expand...

No; in that case, they already had previously understood the concept of mortality, and understood that they did not want to die. In the case of an embryo, it never once had the ability to wish for life.
 
Obviously, a zygote is not a human being. It's a cell. True, it splits and duplicates until it's developed into a number of human cells, but it's not "a human". It's as much a human as one of your skin cells, or a nose hair cell. However, once an embryo forms, it becomes more complicated. Many people do believe the embryo is a living "human". I doubt many people would advocate aborting a foetus in the later stages of pregnancy, unless it was extremely necessary.
It's stupid to claim it's "a baby" from the very instant the sperm and egg meet, but it doesn't make much sense either that the baby only becomes "human" the moment it's born. After all, the exact time it's born depends on decisions made by the doctor and the mother and other factors.
 
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...

I seem to remember, last year, reading about some Indian man who successfully sued his parents for conceiving and giving birth to him - after all, he never asked to be born.
 
Marrybore said:
I seem to remember, last year, reading about some Indian man who successfully sued his parents for conceiving and giving birth to him - after all, he never asked to be born.
Click to expand...

Hem ust have a miserable life.

I can see that happening in IVF cases, but natural conception? Give me a break.
 
Ben_Casey said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is 4% chance that I don't know who you and what you believe Your well thought out argument, isn't. It's the same anti-abortion bull**** that women are: at fault, immoral, in need of correction by morally pure men on how to manage their sex lives. We've already heard sooo many times. But let's pretend you had something well thought out and intelligent to add to the discussion and look closely at what you posted sentence by sentence.


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.) Great opening salvo: 16 year old out of date statistics "that you couldn't handle". Benny baby, the statistics for 2018 are available. Look them up and don't tell me that that I can't handle statistics if you want a discussion.

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.) So, let's look at the next sentence in your well thought out argument. With what appears to be a limited and unsympathetic knowledge of the women you've declared, based on a misquoted Guttmacher study that women get abortions because they don't use any self control. There isn't anything to discuss: you've simply stated your opinion.

These people already know, in most cases, that they cant afford a child. If they know that their (sic) done having children, then why is the woman getting pregnant? Translation: "These people" are irresponsible and shouldn't be having sex. How about a real statistic instead of your out of date stuff. 51% of women get pregnant even though they are using birth control.

These are the abortions that should not be happening! Again, with the opinion and the accusations of irresponsibility about circumstances you know nothing about other than your 16 year old information.


If you stick a knife in a newborn's heart we call it first degree murder.Thank you for the information. We are all very surprised to learn this.


But when a child is killed inside the womb, we call it a human right? . If you want a discussion you don't start out making inflammatory accusations. Any discussion benefits from using the right names for stuff, like embryo, fetus, abortion and the Constitutional freedom to make personal decisions and have them remain private; Planned Parenthood vs Casey

This does not add up. Please enlighten me. Thanks. Looking at your post carefully tells me you don't want a discussion. Enlightenment is not what you are seeking.


So, there isn't anything in that whole post that even suggests you're interested in a discussion, but there seems to be quite a lot of eagerness to tell everyone that women are irresponsible, unable to control themselves and murder children.
 
Ben_Casey said:
.......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.
Click to expand...

"Voice your self"all you want. Just don't call it a discussion. And no, you can't discuss immigration by telling immigrants they are stupid and lacking in self control as you are doing about women and abortion. And no you can't discuss guns if your idea of discussion is to start by calling gun owners lunatics gun nuts with a gun fetish as a substitute for manhood.

Yes these forums are for discussion. And I'll be glad to discuss with you the reasons for abortion, why legal abortion makes sense, what statistics show about women, fetuses, birth, abortion if you really want a discussion. But don't start by telling me how women have to act so it suits your beliefs.
 
Flaetan said:
No; in that case, they already had previously understood the concept of mortality, and understood that they did not want to die. In the case of an embryo, it never once had the ability to wish for life.
Click to expand...
Neither do people with cancer. What is your point?

People choose to give up their right to life for family, religion, country, principles, etc all the time. For you to just assume you know that for the unborn of strangers is not rational.

(It's not really rational to imagine the unborn 'thinking' at all. It's a poor poor emotionally-based argument)
 
Blue Donkey said:
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
Click to expand...

Dictionary.com alone has 3:

...
1. a child during the earliest period of its life, especially before he or she can walk; baby.

2. Law. a person who is not of full age, especially one who has not reached the age of 18 years; a minor.

3. a beginner, as in experience or learning; novice. ​


Merriam-Webster has two, which agreeably overlap:

1 : a child in the first period of life

2 : a person who is not of full age : minor​




FreeDictionary.com:


n.1. A child in the earliest period of life, especially before he or she can walk.
2. Law A person under the legal age of majority; a minor.
3. A very young nonhuman mammal, especially a primate.

adj.1. Of or being in infancy.
2. Intended for infants or young children.
3. Newly begun or formed: an infant enterprise.​


and so on and so forth.

regardless of what semantics game you want to play, the point remains - we don't recognize a fundamental difference in the nature of a child 10 minutes after it has been born and 10 minutes before it is born that somehow makes it acceptable to murder the latter, but not the former, so, we would disagree with your conclusion that you "always" condemn that particular abuse, though we would have to agree that, tragically, it is not a crime.

The only people who say otherwise are anti-choicers
Click to expand...

:shrug: if by that you mean the people who are in favor of criminalizing murdering children, sure. Anti-Choicers would be an equally apt description of those who oppose rape and slavery, as they are against allowing the legal choice to engage in either of those activities.

Even expecting women do not call them infants.
Click to expand...

No, they call them Babies, which is also a term that applies to them.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
They're three years old.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

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.
Click to expand...

Hm. I'm not sure that's correct. A one-month-old in NICU is not viable outside the care it is receiving, nor is someone in a coma. We do not hold that whether or not one is fed by a tube determines one's humanity.

Furthermore, as you note by implication:

To date, out of the tens of millions (maybe more?) of preemie births, the earliest was twenty-one weeks.
Click to expand...

...our ability to keep children alive outside the womb is expanding along with medical knowledge and science. Our humanity equally cannot be determined by whether or not someone else has invented a machine that would help sustain our life were our conditions to suddenly change.

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?
Click to expand...

mitigated ones (for example, all children are denied the right to full free speech as we recognize parents' right to tell them to stop making fart jokes in public), but yes.

Thus, according to that argument, the mother is owed an extra five hundred bucks.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be against it at all, in fact, I think that would solve one major potential snafu in the current law - that someone who has not filed 2019 taxes, but who has had a baby in the mean time, will not receive the $500 for the child they are caring for. I think in general we should have focused resources on the unemployed and businesses facing crises, but should such a modification come up before the Congress, you can count on cpwill supporting it.

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?
Click to expand...

I could quibble about "in such a scenario I would never recognize what a petri dish contained, as I lack microscopic vision" or "in such a scenario I could easily carry both", but, I think, what you are really asking me is: do I have such courage of my conviction that I would prioritize the life of hundreds of unborn children over that of a single born child?

The answer is that yes - that is the logical conclusion, in a scenario where one is legitimately forced to choose.

If your response is something akin to "That's Horrific!", well, yes. It is. I've been in those situations, where one has to choose between competing lives in a zero-sum trap; it is absolutely horrific, and contributed not a little bit to years of alcohol abuse on my part.
 
Last edited:
Flaetan said:
No; in that case, they already had previously understood the concept of mortality, and understood that they did not want to die. In the case of an embryo, it never once had the ability to wish for life.
Click to expand...

However, conservative Christian anthropomorphizing can magically change a non-sentient, unaware, 1 inch embryo whose undeveloped brain is not attached to it's developing neural tube into a legally and biologically full blown person able to yearn for life, laughter and love with all the rights and privileges of a righteous adult.


Things change radically the minute it becomes a real live baby. The real live baby becomes the punishment for the slutty mother that wanted to abort because she wanted to go back to partying and sleeping around. Good Christians stand on their moral high ground and refuse family or child aid to immoral slatterns that think they have a right to choose abortion.
 
Lursa said:
Neither do people with cancer. What is your point?

People choose to give up their right to life for family, religion, country, principles, etc all the time. For you to just assume you know that for the unborn of strangers is not rational.

(It's not really rational to imagine the unborn 'thinking' at all. It's a poor poor emotionally-based argument)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "neither do people with cancer"; I am fairly certain most cancer patients understand the concept of death. And of course the unborn cannot think—
that's why their death is ethically equivalent to someone never being conceived in the first place.
 
Flaetan said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "neither do people with cancer"; I am fairly certain most cancer patients understand the concept of death. And of course the unborn cannot think—
that's why their death is ethically equivalent to someone never being conceived in the first place.
Click to expand...

That (the bold) works for me.
 
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...

If a female has an abortion in the 3rd trimester the day before her due date, is it still considered a fetus?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom