• 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!

"The Unborn"

Marrybore said:
So a human is not a human until born alive?
Click to expand...
Yes, until birth, an embryo is part of a pregnant woman and becomes a person at birth with all the rights of an independent viable human being.
 
ecofarm said:
To me, third trimester.

Are you starting to see why there's a debate? Human is irrelevant. If human was relevant, there wouldn't be a debate.
Click to expand...
But what constitutes "personhood"? What makes this a person and that not a person?
 
Angel said:
But what constitutes "personhood"? What makes this a person and that not a person?
Click to expand...

That's the debate. Human is irrelevant and does not qualify one as a person.
 
Angel said:
You didn't answer my question:
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter to me how they rationalize it. If you're not able to offer the child a decent future, if you're not in a position to care for it properly, then you have no business allowing it to be born. This is a potential human you're bringing into the world. Not something to be done lightly.
 
Marrybore said:
Isn't it?
Click to expand...

Nope.




This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
Jean-s said:
Yes, until birth, an embryo is part of a pregnant woman and becomes a person at birth with all the rights of an independent viable human being.
Click to expand...

Why draw the line at birth instead of viability. What does the host have to do with determining personhood.
 
Angel said:
Scientifically, the diploid zygote is a genetically complete individual human life.
"The law is a ass," as the Dickens character says.
Click to expand...

"Genetically complete human life." and "child" are not the same thing. Either scientifically or legally.

And it is fine for you to opine that the law is an ass. That is certainly your right to believe, but the social contract you opt into with your citizenship is that you will obey it or there will be consequences.
 
Irredentist said:
It doesn't matter to me how they rationalize it. If you're not able to offer the child a decent future, if you're not in a position to care for it properly, then you have no business allowing it to be born. This is a potential human you're bringing into the world. Not something to be done lightly.
Click to expand...
Likewise, "this is a potential human you're [not] bringing into the world" -- "a potential human" you're killing. Is that "something to be done lightly"?
So why wouldn't you want the full emotional weight of the decision to be felt by those making the decision?
 
ModernDiogenes said:
"Genetically complete human life." and "child" are not the same thing. Either scientifically or legally.

And it is fine for you to opine that the law is an ass. That is certainly your right to believe, but the social contract you opt into with your citizenship is that you will obey it or there will be consequences.
Click to expand...
"Child" is neither a scientific nor a legal term of art. So how do you translate?
I'm for legal and safe abortions. That's not the issue mooted in this thread.
 
Angel said:
Likewise, "this is a potential human you're [not] bringing into the world" -- "a potential human" you're killing. Is that "something to be done lightly"?
So why wouldn't you want the full emotional weight of the decision to be felt by those making the decision?
Click to expand...

Who says it isn't?

I wouldn't want any pregnancy of my seed aborted.

I have my dogma, which I imagine is not much different than your own.

I have my belief, which I am sure are more alike as yours than different.

Where we differ is I will not stand before a pregnant woman, who is standing on the ground of this secular representative democracy, whose laws I respect and use to be paid to enforce, whose rule of law I have opted into with my continued citizenship, and without the ability to give a clear, distinct, profound enough to change standing judicial precedent thus change the law as it currently exists, tell that pregnant woman that she does not have the choice the laws of this land give her to control the fate of her body and what is within it. For to do so is to breach the social contract and make a mockery of my former oath, and I do not go around breaching contracts.
 
Angel said:
"Child" is neither a scientific nor a legal term of art. So how do you translate?
I'm for legal and safe abortions. That's not the issue mooted in this thread.
Click to expand...

Than your issue is at what point it crosses the line?
 
Angel said:
Likewise, "this is a potential human you're [not] bringing into the world" -- "a potential human" you're killing. Is that "something to be done lightly"?
So why wouldn't you want the full emotional weight of the decision to be felt by those making the decision?
Click to expand...

I don't know how people feel about their their abortions. I don't care. I don't want people to feel guilt. But if they have to that's fine too. All that matters is whether they have the ability and desire to raise and care for a child. Don't bring someone into the world if you can't love them properly. Because that's an awful way to live.
 
Angel said:
"Child" is neither a scientific nor a legal term of art. So how do you translate?
I'm for legal and safe abortions. That's not the issue mooted in this thread.
Click to expand...

If "where is the line" is the matter at hand that the answer is simple enough.

It is where the people in the legislatures and those in the black robes say it is. The law is written. The law is passed. The judicial system reviews it. Constitutionality is decided.

There are many situations were rights come into conflict. In such cases they are measured, a determination on whose rights take precedent is determined. That is the law. That is the social contract. There is your answer, as the matter is a matter or rights. Who has them. If both, whose will take the superior position to the other. We have a system. It has heard this. It was decided. Until it becomes differently, because new information with sufficient bearing on the case demands the court take the matter up again for further review, precedent stands.

Simply research the applicable precedent of the court that holds jurisdiction and there is your answer.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
Who says it isn't?

I wouldn't want any pregnancy of my seed aborted.

I have my dogma, which I imagine is not much different than your own.

I have my belief, which I am sure are more alike as yours than different.

Where we differ is I will not stand before a pregnant woman, who is standing on the ground of this secular representative democracy, whose laws I respect and use to be paid to enforce, whose rule of law I have opted into with my continued citizenship, and without the ability to give a clear, distinct, profound enough to change standing judicial precedent thus change the law as it currently exists, tell that pregnant woman that she does not have the choice the laws of this land give her to control the fate of her body and what is within it. For to do so is to breach the social contract and make a mockery of my former oath, and I do not go around breaching contracts.
Click to expand...
We don't differ at all then because I'm firmly Pro-Choice.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
If "where is the line" is the matter at hand that the answer is simple enough.

It is where the people in the legislatures and those in the black robes say it is. The law is written. The law is passed. The judicial system reviews it. Constitutionality is decided.

There are many situations were rights come into conflict. In such cases they are measured, a determination on whose rights take precedent is determined. That is the law. That is the social contract. There is your answer, as the matter is a matter or rights. Who has them. If both, whose will take the superior position to the other. We have a system. It has heard this. It was decided. Until it becomes differently, because new information with sufficient bearing on the case demands the court take the matter up again for further review, precedent stands.

Simply research the applicable precedent of the court that holds jurisdiction and there is your answer.
Click to expand...
According to your way of reasoning, the unborn child was a person when abortion was illegal but is no longer a person since abortion was made legal -- is that right?
 
Angel said:
We don't differ at all then because I'm firmly Pro-Choice.
Click to expand...

I am pro the life of any potential child I have had anything to do with creating. I do not pretend to be smart enough to make that decision for anyone else, nor to be the one who forces the issue by legislating new law either way [though I am anti the back room dealings of states to circumvent federal rulings by playing games with the law to effect change indirectly that ought only be changed directly].

What I am is pro the rule of law, and the law has ruled on this issue.
 
Angel said:
According to your way of reasoning, the unborn child was a person when abortion was illegal but is no longer a person since abortion was made legal -- is that right?
Click to expand...

According to my way of thinking, whether the child is a person can be considered by the court, but in the end all that matters is does it have rights, and if so do they supersede that of the mother.

Like I said, in our social contract we have tendered to the folks in the black robes the obligation to make binding decision regarding the rights of those who come before the bar seeking justice. We have bound ourselves to, if not agree and respect, at least obey their decisions.

The matter has been adjudicated. Precedent established and attached.
 
vegas giants said:
I think its wonderful that you support abortion
Click to expand...

It seems that personal growth is always possible after all.



This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
Angel said:
"The Unborn"
The Dehumanization of a Human Life

DJagrWQ.jpg


This is the term used by Abortion Apologists to describe the individual human life gestating inside a woman during pregnancy: "The Unborn."
Sounds like the title of a horror movie, doesn't it?

l0TZZ8O.jpg


That's exactly the connotation Abortion Apologetics seeks when it rejects terms like "baby" or "child"
although historically pregnant women were commonly said to be "with child" and "having a baby"
and are still so described by those who have not sold out to Abortion Culture.

The aim of Abortion Apologetics is to dehumanize the human life growing inside a pregnant woman so that it can be killed without compunction.

TTeoZ4L.jpg


Sometimes Abortion Apologists will use the more sci-fi horror name "Zef" --
but this acronymic dehumanization is less effective that the more subtle dysphemism: "The Unborn."
"Zef" shows their hand.
"Zef" is the name of a monster.

"The Unborn," on the other hand, though more eerie than "Zef," lends itself more readily to the denial of its dehumanizing purpose.

"The Unborn" is a baby, a child, a developing human life.
Oppose Abortion Culture.
Call out Abortion Apologetics for what it represents -- the dehumanization of human being.

Comments?
Contrition?
Testimonials?

​
Click to expand...

Do you baptist the dead also?
 
Marrybore said:
We have to remember, the main issue here is not, are pro-life men trying to control women, or are pro-choicers trying to justify murder, but, "is this unborn child really human"?
Angel seems to think so. Most pro-lifers seem to think so. Pro-choicers say not. Angel thinks they're trying to make themselves feels better by dehumanizing the unborn child.
I'm often drawn to the pro-choice crowd, because most pro-lifers are either religious fanatics or misogynists. Women should be able to choose - but what we have to ask, is, is the unborn child really human, at what stage does it become human, and is it really right if the child is human to prioritize its life rather than the mother's?
Can anyone actually say with certainty at what point does the Unborn become a human child, without claiming something just because it supports their view?
Click to expand...

I have never heard a pro-life advocate deal with those questions with any intellectual honesty.
 
Angel said:
"The Unborn"
The Dehumanization of a Human Life

DJagrWQ.jpg


This is the term used by Abortion Apologists to describe the individual human life gestating inside a woman during pregnancy: "The Unborn."
Sounds like the title of a horror movie, doesn't it?

l0TZZ8O.jpg


That's exactly the connotation Abortion Apologetics seeks when it rejects terms like "baby" or "child"
although historically pregnant women were commonly said to be "with child" and "having a baby"
and are still so described by those who have not sold out to Abortion Culture.

The aim of Abortion Apologetics is to dehumanize the human life growing inside a pregnant woman so that it can be killed without compunction.

TTeoZ4L.jpg


Sometimes Abortion Apologists will use the more sci-fi horror name "Zef" --
but this acronymic dehumanization is less effective that the more subtle dysphemism: "The Unborn."
"Zef" shows their hand.
"Zef" is the name of a monster.

"The Unborn," on the other hand, though more eerie than "Zef," lends itself more readily to the denial of its dehumanizing purpose.

"The Unborn" is a baby, a child, a developing human life.
Oppose Abortion Culture.
Call out Abortion Apologetics for what it represents -- the dehumanization of human being.

Comments?
Contrition?
Testimonials?

​
Click to expand...

As a free moral agent you can believe anything you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom