• 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!

Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Last edited:
tessaesque said:
"Hi, Business X? This is Deputy Dude, with the Texas State Department of Corrections. I'm going to need you to employ this convicted rapist so he can pay for the pregnancy-related costs inflicted upon his victim."

Can you imagine?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Do the expenses then fall to the government? Is it right to make the rest of us pay?
 
JayDubya said:
Except for the victim who is violently killed, you'd be right. Which means you're not.
Click to expand...

The "victim" has absolutely no conscious awareness....and never did prior to being aborted.

You're hyperbolizing reality to justify an archaic, poorly supported world view.

It's rather sad, honestly.
 
JayDubya said:
Not sure how you go from point A to point B there, but a court should force someone to be financially responsible for the costs they inflict upon others.

Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

so the court should force someone to pay for all the unwanted babies then too if abortion is illegal because the fact remains that will be inflicted upon women

your logic is so broken
 
rocket88 said:
I don't think that he's an uncaring person. That's an unfair criticism.

I do get the feeling that he's starting from a pro-life standpoint and hasn't necessarily thought through all of the consequences of what he thinks is right.
Click to expand...

who said he is totally uncaring about everything? not me

I simply stated the fact he cares more about ZEFs than women, he doesnt care about the woman if its at the expense of the ZEF. The evidence of that adds up with just about every post of his.
 
tessaesque said:
The "victim" has absolutely no conscious awareness....and never did prior to being aborted.

You're hyperbolizing reality to justify an archaic, poorly supported world view.

It's rather sad, honestly.
Click to expand...




I think I see the problem - you're only focusing on physical pain meaning of "hurt," when that is not what I intended. I don't think you're just playing nonsense word games, and I will happily give you the benefit of the doubt. But you must know that by that standard, if I use enough anesthetic before I kill you, I have not hurt anyone.

If I inflict a violent death upon you, I have wronged you, inflicted injury, harmed you, wronged you. Hurt you.



Also, if "human rights need to be protected" is old-fashioned, then the new fashion kind of stinks.
 
JayDubya said:
Except for the victim who is violently killed, you'd be right. Which means you're not.
Click to expand...

LMAO such dishonest hyperbole

I can play too

what about the victim that is violently tortured, enslaved and forced to risk her life against her will and stripped of her rights freedoms and liberties??

thats right she doesnt matter
 
JayDubya said:
If I inflict a violent death upon you, I have wronged you, inflicted injury, harmed you, wronged you. Hurt you.

I think I see the problem - you're only focusing on physical pain meaning of "hurt." By that standard, if I use enough anesthetic before I kill you, I have not hurt anyone.


If "human rights need to be protected" is old-fashioned to you, well, the new fashion kind of stinks.
Click to expand...

Your argument carries no weight at all. You cannot compare a fully aware self-sustaining human with a 12-week-old fetus. It is a logical fallacy of epic proportions and science (you know, actual facts instead of subjective bull****) back me up. Your point, on the other hand, has absolutely no factual support what so ever.
 
My arguments are based upon science and a belief in human rights, nothing more and nothing less.

In terms of what matters from a human rights perspective, a "12 week old fetus" is unquestionably a living member of the species Homo sapiens. If all men are created equal, and possess unalienable rights, and governments exist to uphold these rights, then our government is derelict in its duty to unborn humans.

So yes, I will happily continue to compare one human to a human of a different age to the extent that they are both human, and no human should be killed in aggression.

If you want scientific facts, "fetus" is just one stage of life within the lifespan of one contiguous organism, and that organism never stops changing - growing and aging - from conception until death.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
My arguments are based upon science and a belief in human rights, nothing more and nothing less.

In terms of what matters from a human rights perspective, a "12 week old fetus" is unquestionably a living member of the species Homo sapiens. If all men are created equal, and possess unalienable rights, and governments exist to uphold these rights, then our government is derelict in its duty to unborn humans.
Click to expand...

parts of your post above have been proven FACTUALLY proven wrong many many times no need to go into that but you also put the human rights of the ZEF above the mothers human rights. Youd show integrity and honest to just admit that.

it is impossible to grant equal rights in this case, IMPOSSIBLE and that fact has also been proven over and over again.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
There are a lot of people who can only say "no" to those questions, and who nonetheless are still capable of displaying the barest shreds of empathy.
Click to expand...

This is true. I am pointing out what he is ignoring.
 
JayDubya said:
My arguments are based upon science and a belief in human rights, nothing more and nothing less.

In terms of what matters from a human rights perspective, a "12 week old fetus" is unquestionably a living member of the species Homo sapiens. If all men are created equal, and possess unalienable rights, and governments exist to uphold these rights, then our government is derelict in its duty to unborn humans.

So yes, I will happily continue to compare a human to a human to the extent that no human should be killed in aggression.

If you want scientific facts, "fetus" is just one stage of life within the lifespan of one contiguous organism, and that organism never stops changing - growing and aging - from conception until death.
Click to expand...


"All men are created equal" and constitutional protections are extremely limited for anybody under the age of 18, including pre-born fetuses.
 
tessaesque said:
Your argument carries no weight at all. You cannot compare a fully aware self-sustaining human with a 12-week-old fetus. It is a logical fallacy of epic proportions and science (you know, actual facts instead of subjective bull****) back me up. Your point, on the other hand, has absolutely no factual support what so ever.
Click to expand...

this will ignored because the bottom line is he doesnt care and it doesnt matter to him.

to him ZEF>Woman, the woman is second
 
tessaesque said:
"All men are created equal" and constitutional protections are extremely limited for anybody under the age of 18, including pre-born fetuses.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about driving a car or voting here, tess, just the right to exist free from the violence of others. And that right is natural and unalienable.
 
JayDubya said:
We're not talking about driving a car or voting here, tess, just the right to exist free from the violence of others. And that right is natural and unalienable.
Click to expand...

The supreme court disagrees with you.
 
What's the point of raping a bitch if you can't force her to raise your bastard seed to boot?
 
tessaesque said:
The supreme court disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

Hardly the first time those bumbling illiterate incompetents have gotten something wrong. Won't be the last.
 
JayDubya said:
We're not talking about driving a car or voting here, tess, just the right to exist free from the violence of others. And that right is natural and unalienable.
Click to expand...

more hyperbole
free from violence of others unless of course that violence is against the woman.
 
JayDubya said:
Hardly the first time those bumbling illiterate incompetents have gotten something wrong. Won't be the last.
Click to expand...

Should we keep somebody in a persistent vegetative state alive? People in comas?
 
tessaesque said:
Should we keep somebody in a persistent vegetative state alive? People in comas?
Click to expand...

I'll be frank. What sort of bizarre straw man are you concocting here? Maybe you don't mean to, but what on Earth are you on about now?
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
I'll be frank. What sort of bizarre straw man are you concocting here? Maybe you don't mean to, but what on Earth are you on about now?
Click to expand...

It isn't a strawman. I'm making a point. Answer the question:

Should we mandate that people in persistent vegetative states or comas be kept alive indefinitely?
 
Death is death, and keeping the tissues of a brain dead mammal physiologically alive doesn't change the fact that the organism is dead. If a family wishes to spend all of their resources to do just that, and it doesn't conflict with the wishes of the deceased, hey, it's their dime.

But we were talking about inflicting death upon the living. Doesn't really relate very well to letting the dead be dead.



If I had to guess, I would bet this is where you would equate being in the physiological state of being too young to have developed the organ and having lived out your life and being in the pathophysiological state where that organ is irreparably damaged... but as the sentence I just wrote lays out, I don't find those things very comparable, and neither would anyone looking at the facts in an objective manner.
 
Aren't fetuses brain dead up to a certain point? ;)
 
Thorgasm said:
Aren't fetuses brain dead up to a certain point? ;)
Click to expand...

See above..

If I had to guess, I would bet this is where you would equate being in the physiological state of being too young to have developed the organ and having lived out your life and being in the pathophysiological state where that organ is irreparably damaged... but as the sentence I just wrote lays out, I don't find those things very comparable, and neither would anyone looking at the facts in an objective manner.
Click to expand...
 
JayDubya said:
Death is death, and keeping the tissues of a brain dead mammal physiologically alive doesn't change the fact that the organism is dead. If a family wishes to spend all of their resources to do just that, and it doesn't conflict with the wishes of the deceased, hey, it's their dime.

But we were talking about inflicting death upon the living. Doesn't really relate very well to letting the dead be dead.



If I had to guess, I would bet this is where you would equate being in the physiological state of being too young to have developed the organ and having lived out your life and being in the pathophysiological state where that organ is irreparably damaged... but as the sentence I just wrote lays out, I don't find those things very comparable, and neither would anyone looking at the facts in an objective manner.
Click to expand...

Somebody in a persistent vegetative state or a coma is functionally equal to a fetus. The only significant difference between the two is the coma patient has a significant likelihood of feeling pain if painful stimulus is presented.

Both the fetus and the PVS/coma patient require life support to maintain "life".
Both the fetus and the PVS/coma patient are unable to sustain life without constant access to life support systems.
Both the fetus and the PVS/coma patient are completely and totally lacking consciousness.
Both the fetus and the PVS/coma patient are often kept alive or allowed to die by the decisions of family members, with absolutely no input from themselves.

So if you would not mandate that PVS/coma patients be kept alive, your absolutely idiotic demands for the cessation of abortion are ragingly hypocritical. If you would mandate that PVS/coma patients be kept alive, your point is still idiotic (not to mention painfully illogical).

Perhaps it would serve you well to actually consider the true facts of the situation before utilizing arbitrary, fleeting, and wholly subjective morality to create a false reality in which abortion is somehow more than it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom