• 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!

Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

sangha said:
Yes it is
Click to expand...

That's a lie, and an easily provable one to boot....

I asked....


j-mac said:
Just a question for sangha....Are you in favor of late term abortion? Or even "post birth"?
Click to expand...

Now notice that I highlighted the pertinent part of the question for you, so that you can follow along...No where did I ask if you would have and abortion of any kind, as I believe you to be a male, and know that would be impossible. I instead asked a totally different question based on your own wording in a response to another, which was whether or not you are in favor, or support late term, and using your own words printed here for everyone to see, "post birth"....Now, I have my own guess, but rather than play your games, I will continue to ask you to answer the question asked, and not the one you want to play games with...
 
sangha said:
His question was a genuine one. After all, the fact that many women have abortions should have clued you in to the fact that their having sex was not an agreement to not have an abortion.
Click to expand...

I know just exactly what you mean by that, its just like saying:

After all, the fact that many bank robbers rob banks should have clued you in to the fact that their having robbed banks was not at all an agreement for them to ever actually have to go to jail.

Jeesh… I mean, just how is it that one cannot see the logic/truth of that? Now common sense wise, prudent/practical wise...? Not so much...
 
j-mac said:
That's a lie, and an easily provable one to boot....

I asked....




Now notice that I highlighted the pertinent part of the question for you, so that you can follow along...No where did I ask if you would have and abortion of any kind, as I believe you to be a male, and know that would be impossible. I instead asked a totally different question based on your own wording in a response to another, which was whether or not you are in favor, or support late term, and using your own words printed here for everyone to see, "post birth"....Now, I have my own guess, but rather than play your games, I will continue to ask you to answer the question asked, and not the one you want to play games with...
Click to expand...

I answered the question.

But you can keep asking it if you like
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I know just exactly what you mean by that, its just like saying:

After all, the fact that many bank robbers rob banks should have clued you in to the fact that their having robbed banks was not at all an agreement for them to ever actually have to go to jail.

Jeesh… I mean, just how is it that one cannot see the logic/truth of that? Now common sense wise, prudent/practical wise...? Not so much...
Click to expand...

Maybe that explains why criminals don't lock themselves up
 
vendur said:
Lefties, or useful idiots, i don't care which. I'd like to see your proof they weren't lefties. Being appointed by someone means nothing. Your ill-informed opinion is what it is.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt a conservative president would appoint a liberal to the supreme court. YOU are the one who brought up polititical lean, it's up to YOU to prove your contention that they were 'leftys'.

BTW, a true conservative is prochoice because we want the govt. out of our personal lives as much as possible.
 
sangha said:
OK, please show me where the constitution says that a ZEF is a person.
Click to expand...

How many times do we have to go over this? You can question me, sure, but if I have already given the answer in several different ways, and you just cannot understand the answer for whatever reason, I would recommend getting someone to explain it to you. Simply put, our Constitution is silent, is mute, takes no position on a child in utero unless it is residing in one of the American parents outside the borders of the US of A.

Dunno if this will help, but I can try...

Maybe if I said it in Spanish, would that help? Nuestra Constitución no dice nada, es muda, no se pronuncia sobre un niño en el útero.

¿Entiendes?

Now, show me where our Constitution specifically excludes a child in utero from having rights... or, how about just showing me where it explicitly states that only the born have rights? Your choice. You have made both assertions previously... so take your time, but guess what? It will be forever as the Constitution does not address either...
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
How many times do we have to go over this? You can question me, sure, but if I have already given the answer in several different ways, and you just cannot understand the answer for whatever reason, I would recommend getting someone to explain it to you. Simply put, our Constitution is silent, is mute, takes no position on a child in utero unless it is residing in one of the American parents outside the borders of the US of A.

Dunno if this will help, but I can try...

Maybe if I said it in Spanish, would that help? Nuestra Constitución no dice nada, es muda, no se pronuncia sobre un niño en el útero.

¿Entiendes?

Now, show me where our Constitution specifically excludes a child in utero from having rights... or, how about just showing me where it explicitly states that only the born have rights? Your choice. You have made both assertions previously... so take your time, but guess what? It will be forever as the Constitution does not address either...
Click to expand...

Where does the constitution say anything about a child in utero in one of it's American parents outside the borders of the US of A

And I have already proven that the constitution excludes the unborn from "persons".
 
sangha said:
Maybe that explains why criminals don't lock themselves up
Click to expand...

Now...finally... there is some logic for you...good job. Same basic reasoning behind why people who create babies they don't want don't want laws against abortion, either. Those committing the crimes never really want their just punishments, never really want to take responsibility for what they have done. They all want their own form of "get out of jail free card".

Sorry, that dog don't hunt no more.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Now...finally... there is some logic for you...good job. Same basic reasoning behind why people who create babies they don't want don't want laws against abortion, either. Those committing the crimes never really want their just punishments, never really want to take responsibility for what they have done. They all want their own form of "get out of jail free card".

Sorry, that dog don't hunt no more.
Click to expand...

That would make sense if abortion were a crime

But it's not, so it doesn't
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
So, let me see, if a person gets into the driver's seat of a car, and knows by driving that there is a possibility of a wreck, but this same person who is driving doesn't explicitly and previously agree to this specific wreck that does, indeed, happen, then he or she is not responsible?
Click to expand...

Illogical and irrelevant. The situations are not comparable, because when you get into a car accident, you are responsible for the physical and financial harm that you have caused to others as a result of your negligence. You are not responsible for the care and well-being of the hypothetical beings that may or may not come into existence as a result of your decision to drive the car.
 
sangha said:
Where does the constitution say anything about a child in utero in one of it's American parents outside the borders of the US of A

And I have already proven that the constitution excludes the unborn from "persons".
Click to expand...


I have grown weary of all this unremitting dissembling, am no longer playing your silly game... you have no real intentions of ever getting at the truth, only the agenda... you have never proven nor will you ever prove that the Constitution excludes the unborn...you would have to get a personally worded Amendment passed to be able to show that...not ever happening.

Please do not insult the intelligence of the rest of us by now telling us, again, that SCOTUS, which you can look in the encyclopedia as well as the dictionary and determine that SCOTUS and the US Constitution are, indeed, two completely separate and different things, that SCOTUS has thus forever ruled against the unborn, it has actually ruled for the unborn instead ... and I have shown you explicitly using your own article that, in fact, they did not strike down a law from Missouri indicating that life begins at conception. That kinda favors the unborn does it not...it was just rhetorical, you were never gonna answer truthfully a question on that anyhow.


Gonna need to find someone else to try to ply you worn out old wares on... will need to search to find someone that super gullible though.
 
sangha said:
That would make sense if abortion were a crime

But it's not, so it doesn't
Click to expand...

Partial birth abortion is not a CRIME, huh? ...bet that will come as news to many...

We have taken the first baby steps towards doing away with Roe [ even Roe is against Roe]...now we are growing stronger and certainly bolder all the time, knowing we have right on our side...makes it so easy.

Then there is the ease with which we can destroy all your old politically correct arguments, along with it discarding the unjust weight that the feminist movement wielded in our society has come to an abrupt end...so it is only a matter of time, as you can tell by your worn out and tattered old abortion anthems, a sing song mush of illogic that people are finally seeing for what it truly is... junk.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Illogical and irrelevant. The situations are not comparable, because when you get into a car accident, you are responsible for the physical and financial harm that you have caused to others as a result of your negligence. You are not responsible for the care and well-being of the hypothetical beings that may or may not come into existence as a result of your decision to drive the car.
Click to expand...

So you are saying we cannot hold the ones who created the baby responsible for that baby's care and well being, so instead we should do like those who get into an accident, hold the creators of the baby responsible for the physical and financial harm done? The premeditated murder aspect, put them on trial, hold them in prison for life or maybe even have them incur a death sentence?

Wow, how thoughtfully progressive, you are way ahead of your fellows...
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Partial birth abortion is not a CRIME, huh? ...bet that will come as news to many...

We have taken the first baby steps towards doing away with Roe [ even Roe is against Roe]...now we are growing stronger and certainly bolder all the time, knowing we have right on our side...makes it so easy.

Then there is the ease with which we can destroy all your old politically correct arguments, along with it discarding the unjust weight that the feminist movement wielded in our society has come to an abrupt end...so it is only a matter of time, as you can tell by your worn out and tattered old abortion anthems, a sing song mush of illogic that people are finally seeing for what it truly is... junk.
Click to expand...

There is no medical procedure called "partial birth abortion"

And abortion is legal. 100% legal.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
So you are saying we cannot hold the ones who created the baby responsible for that baby's care and well being, so instead we should do like those who get into an accident, hold the creators of the baby responsible for the physical and financial harm done? The premeditated murder aspect, put them on trial, hold them in prison for life or maybe even have them incur a death sentence?

Wow, how thoughtfully progressive, you are way ahead of your fellows...
Click to expand...

Even if the aborted baby wanted to sue, it couldn't because it doesn't have standing.

And the state can't prosecute because abortion is legal
 
sangha said:
I accept your surrender
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah yeah...

This would probably be more akin to the World War II strategy adopted in the Pacific theater called the Island Hopping Campaign, with a couple exceptions to the analogy. As opposed to the actual strategy in that campaign, I am just avoiding the least well defended in hopes of finding good verbal battles to be fought elsewhere, on higher grounds, where there may be some actual foundation in support of the contrasting arguments, not some hastily assembled barricade ignoring most weaknesses with an almost unfailingly inadequate, artless camouflaging, the rest with simple bluff and a rather uninhabited bravado. If one listens closely enough, one might almost hear the flailing and faint echos of all the hopelessly screamed "Bonzais" in the wafting waffling backwash of the props as we had already passed, long ago, our own Midway turning point in devastating dive bomber attacks on all value targets with well placed hits all along the various wheelhouses where we did not find a lot of evidence of the necessary command and control.

Sayonara as they say...
 
sangha said:
Even if the aborted baby wanted to sue, it couldn't because it doesn't have standing.

And the state can't prosecute because abortion is legal
Click to expand...

Exactly.
Federal laws can negate state laws without having to actually go to court to overturn the state laws.
As has been mentioned there are old state or local laws and a few new ones that are not enforceable because they are against a federal law.
If there is conflict between a federal law and a state law...the federal law is the one enforced.
 
sangha said:
There is no medical procedure called "partial birth abortion"

And abortion is legal. 100% legal.
Click to expand...

So I guess Kermit Gosnell was convicted, and will spend life in prison for something he did that was legal?
 
j-mac said:
So I guess Kermit Gosnell was convicted, and will spend life in prison for something he did that was legal?
Click to expand...

He was convicted for the murders of born babies ...
 
CanadaJohn said:
Your argument fails when you realize except in very rare cases the woman wasn't forced to get pregnant. There are consequences to personal actions/choices.
Click to expand...

You want her forced to be pregnant. Your's is the message of basically all pro-life men who, at their core reasoning, always include their view of punishment of foul women for the sin of having sex.

Your "very" rare is not accurate either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom