• 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

weaver2 said:
How is asking about such specific situations going to address the fidelity and continuity of anyone's stance on abortion. We can't even agree on the broader issues of abortion. These questions about specific and unusual situations don't add anything to the discussion and they almost always turn into "Gotcha" situations. If you think they can lead to an intelligent discussion start the conversation with your own stance instead of demanding answers from others so you can disagree.
Click to expand...

Generalizing about a controversial topic doesn't typically end in a meaningful dialogue. The purpose of debate is to express one's opinion, prove a point and test one's reasoning. It's a bit unsettling you'd think I'm demanding answers.. isn't the purpose of this debate forum to ask questions and articulate and exchange opinions? .. My set of questions are merely to test one's reasoning for consistency about this controversial topic based on legislation that's either been passed or being proposed. I do appreciate your feedback though ..
 
Blue Donkey said:
That is obviously NOT a homocide. Weaver was specifically referring to the rarity of double murder charges for the inteintional killing of a pregnant woman.
Click to expand...

The intent of the question was taking the life of pregnant woman and how the plaintiff should be charged. You're too focused on semantics.
 
jotathought said:
The intent of the question was taking the life of pregnant woman and how the plaintiff should be charged. You're too focused on semantics.
Click to expand...

So you are not talking about childbirth? They are two totally different causes of both hte mom and baby dying.
 
Fishking said:
1. It's already a human. It just happens to be in the beginning stage of a normal human's lifecycle that we all have to go through. The question distinction isn't a biological one. Biologically, it's human, full stop. What you're talking about, when referencing things like consciousness and complex thought, is when we deign to give someone "personhood". That's not a scientific distinction, but a philosophical one. Also, if you're going to just go off of lower capabilities of brain function, deeming them closer to be like animals, then why not include born babies? They also don't have complex thought beyond many mammals.

2. It already exists. It's not a hypothetical of wearing a condom and not conceiving in the first place.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether I was using the term "human" to refer to their biology or their personhood, it doesn't detract from my argument—you shouldn't be applying moral principles to a being merely on the basis of their genetic code. I would think for killing someone to be unethical, they would at least need to have a concept of death; otherwise, they wouldn't be able to wish against it. What else would you go off of if not that?

And sure, you could apply the same logic to infanticide, but at that point it would seem dumb to not just put them up for adoption. And if there were some scenario in which a newborn was killed with the consent of the mother, I really don't think it would be nearly as unethical as the murder of an adult.
 
Scrabaholic said:
A fetus is not a human being until it is born alive. This is indisputable FACT.
Click to expand...

You read that in a dictionary written by a savage godless barbarian with an unchecked hatred for Jesus.
 
weaver2 said:
Fine that's your belief. Live it , nobody is stopping you from believing. Just don't don't make it into law. . Everybody is free to make private decisions about reproduction without people screaming murderer at them and trying to deny them the right to their own personal life.

Go back to your church and make your women stop getting abortions and adhere to your churches no abortion mandate.
Click to expand...

My job is to let people know God hates the murder of innocent babies and He will be confronting those murderers in the coming judgment.
 
marke said:
My job is to let people know God hates the murder of innocent babies and He will be confronting those murderers in the coming judgment.
Click to expand...

We have already told you nobody supports killing innocent babies, There is no reason to think anyone does.
 
marke said:
My job is to let people know God hates the murder of innocent babies and He will be confronting those murderers in the coming judgment.
Click to expand...

If you are using "God" to argue for why abortion should be illegal, you'd also be denying people their 1st amendment right to freedom of religion.
 
marke said:
I have already told you fetuses are innocent babies.
Click to expand...
Fetuses are potential babies in the same way a mother is a potential corpse or an acorn is a potential oak house.
 
Flaetan said:
If you are using "God" to argue for why abortion should be illegal, you'd also be denying people their 1st amendment right to freedom of religion.
Click to expand...

People are not wise who think God will overlook rebellion because of human laws supposedly giving them the right to rebel against God.
 
marke said:
People are not wise who think God will overlook rebellion because of human laws supposedly giving them the right to rebel against God.
Click to expand...
Which is why Religious Pro Lifers should leave the job to judge the sinners to God rather than to allow government to replace God. It is furthermore rather Anti-American to advocate Pro-Life policies since they contradict the notion of separation between Church and State that the country was founded on.

Thus, it makes zero sense for a Conservative to be Pro Life.
 
Dacke said:
Fetuses are potential babies in the same way a mother is a potential corpse or an acorn is a potential oak house.
Click to expand...

Some advocates for murder have redefined humans as only those who survive the birthing process, but not unborn babies. The reason biased barbarians define unborn babies as something other than human is so they can kill them without feeling guilty.
 
marke said:
Some advocates for murder have redefined humans as only those who survive the birthing process, but not unborn babies. The reason biased barbarians define unborn babies as something other than human is so they can kill them without feeling guilty.
Click to expand...
So an unborn calf is a Big Mac? Come on now.
 
Dacke said:
Which is why Religious Pro Lifers should leave the job to judge the sinners to God rather than to allow government to replace God. It is furthermore rather Anti-American to advocate Pro-Life policies since they contradict the notion of separation between Church and State that the country was founded on.

Thus, it makes zero sense for a Conservative to be Pro Life.
Click to expand...

We advocate for serious punishment to be given murderers because murder is wrong and we do not think murder is wrong because of human laws but because it is wrong morally no matter whether there are laws against it or not. Humans cannot make laws which make murder moral no matter what they may think to the contrary.
 
Dacke said:
So an unborn calf is a Big Mac? Come on now.
Click to expand...

When two young expectant parents tell others about their baby they love which is scheduled to be born soon they are not talking about Big Macs.
 
marke said:
We advocate for serious punishment to be given murderers because murder is wrong and we do not think murder is wrong because of human laws but because it is wrong morally no matter whether there are laws against it or not. Humans cannot make laws which make murder moral no matter what they may think to the contrary.
Click to expand...
Murder is OK if it is self-defense though, no?

marke said:
When two young expectant parents tell others about their baby they love which is scheduled to be born soon they are not talking about Big Macs.
Click to expand...
Above I have bolded the words that contradict the point you are trying to make - The parents who are unwillingly pregnant are not expectant, they do not love the baby and the baby is not scheduled.
 
marke said:
People are not wise who think God will overlook rebellion because of human laws supposedly giving them the right to rebel against God.
Click to expand...

The point of one's freedom of religion isn't that it's a means of circumventing "God's" will; it's that not everyone believes in your "God" and thus shouldn't be subjected to laws acknowledging it. If you want to call abortion immoral because it's "murder", consider that what makes murder immoral in the first place is that the victim, and their family, want them to live. In the case of abortion, where the embryo/fetus has no concept of mortality and therefore cannot wish for life, and the decision is made by the family itself, this does not apply. Yet, religious fundamentalists will always follow their "religion" over what is moral, because they cannot distinguish between the two.
 
Flaetan said:
Regardless of whether I was using the term "human" to refer to their biology or their personhood, it doesn't detract from my argument—you shouldn't be applying moral principles to a being merely on the basis of their genetic code. I would think for killing someone to be unethical, they would at least need to have a concept of death; otherwise, they wouldn't be able to wish against it. What else would you go off of if not that?
Click to expand...

OK...so you're talking about personhood status. Now, to your follow on statement, we most definitely impute moral principles to beings based merely on genetic code. I eat a hamburger made out of cow and that is fine and normal. If I eat a hamburger made out of human meet, I'm going to jail.

Now, on to your next statement for killing someone to be unethical there needs to be the concept of death, again, born babies don't have the concept of death. Is it moral to kill them?

And sure, you could apply the same logic to infanticide, but at that point it would seem dumb to not just put them up for adoption. And if there were some scenario in which a newborn was killed with the consent of the mother, I really don't think it would be nearly as unethical as the murder of an adult.
Click to expand...

You see the hole in your own statement but try to wave it away by just saying it's "dumb". It doesn't matter if you try to change your entire premise by saying it's "dumb". The question remains, is it moral or not? And so far as your statement of a newborn being killed by the consent of the mother not being as unethical as killing an adult? That's just sickening. One of the most heinous murders are those done against babies, the most innocent and defenseless among us. This applies to the horror people feel when they hear about cases were the mother or father kills their own children.
 
Flaetan said:
The point of one's freedom of religion isn't that it's a means of circumventing "God's" will; it's that not everyone believes in your "God" and thus shouldn't be subjected to laws acknowledging it. If you want to call abortion immoral because it's "murder", consider that what makes murder immoral in the first place is that the victim, and their family, want them to live. In the case of abortion, where the embryo/fetus has no concept of mortality and therefore cannot wish for life, and the decision is made by the family itself, this does not apply. Yet, religious fundamentalists will always follow their "religion" over what is moral, because they cannot distinguish between the two.
Click to expand...

They can distinguish between the two situations. They know abortion is not murder. However, their goal is not saving innocent little pre born babies, the real goal is controlling the privacy rights of women and if they admit abortion is not murder they no longer have anything upon which to base their false pursuit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom