• 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]

Mr.Nick said:
Some did, some didn't.

Not like you even care or even know history (you don't given your comment - that, or you have extreme bias against our founders).
Click to expand...




How can a thinking, feeling, human being not have extreme bias towards slave owners?

Explain that to us.
 
Hatuey said:
So what you're saying is that some individuals can be owned, and some individuals can't?
Click to expand...

No, what I'm saying is that NO ONE CAN BE OWNED and the justification for abortion usually exists of sheep telling another thew OWN THAT FETUS.

Get it?
 
shrubnose said:
How can a thinking, feeling, human being not have extreme bias towards a slave owner?

Explain that to us.
Click to expand...

How can a thinking feeling individual murder another individual for selfish reasons (abortion)?
 
shrubnose said:
If you buy an embryo and have it brought to term in a surrogate you purchased that baby.
Click to expand...

Just like people bought slaves - they purchased that slave.
 
shrubnose said:
Do whatever you 'think' is fair and legal.
Click to expand...

Oh I will.

I'm sorry that our judicial system buys "just" as a legal argument.... I've been baffled by the circumvention of murder (abortion) for years now.
 
shrubnose said:
I asked first, are you going to answer my question?
Click to expand...

I did answer your question.... Do you really need me to drop the question mark to suit your expectations?
 
Mr.Nick said:
Oh I will.

I'm sorry that our judicial system buys "just" as a legal argument.... I've been baffled by the circumvention of murder (abortion) for years now.
Click to expand...




You will continue to be baffled by it, because the laws are not going to change.
 
shrubnose said:
You will continue to be baffled by it, because the laws are not going to change.
Click to expand...

Says who? not to mention what makes "laws" moral or even ethical?

I believe in RIGHT AND WRONG and there is no circumvention of that via justification for a collectivists own self interests.

You may as well argue that the robber was justified at robbing the store because he was broke.... Abortion is nothing more than an excuse - a murderous excuse.
 
shrubnose said:
You didn't answer my question.
Click to expand...


Oh I did and you just don't like the answer...

Ask the question again and I will put it in your language - in a concept you may understand (I thought slavery - but no)
 
A fetus is not a separate entity . It is attached to the woman via the umbilical cord and placenta.
It uses her life forces to survive.

A pre viable fetus is totally dependent on the pregnant woman.
If she dies the pre viable fetus will not survive no matter how much medical help it is given.
Once a fetus reaches viability it has developed enough that it can survive outside the womb without the woman's life forces.
If she dies it has a good chance of surviving if doctors remove it quickly and give medical help such as a neo natal unit if necessary.

A nurse, the father, a grandparent, an adoptive parent, a foster parent, or a caregiver can feed it and care for it.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Says who? not to mention what makes "laws" moral or even ethical?

I believe in RIGHT AND WRONG and there is no circumvention of that via justification for a collectivists own self interests.

You may as well argue that the robber was justified at robbing the store because he was broke.... Abortion is nothing more than an excuse - a murderous excuse.
Click to expand...



Whatever.

I am not going to waste any more time with you today.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Says who? not to mention what makes "laws" moral or even ethical?

I believe in RIGHT AND WRONG and there is no circumvention of that via justification for a collectivists own self interests.

You may as well argue that the robber was justified at robbing the store because he was broke.... Abortion is nothing more than an excuse - a murderous excuse.
Click to expand...

Says the constitution and SCOTUS

Neither cares about the abortion banners twisted code of immorality
 
Sherman123 said:
Either a fetus is not a life or it is one. Since abortion is legal I strongly oppose infanticide laws as they relate to fetuses.
Click to expand...

Meh. I do not oppose infanticide laws that apply to fetuses as long as they are not designated as murder. Assaulting a pregnant woman such that she loses her baby is clearly a greater offense than assaulting a man or a non-pregnant woman, especially when the assault was for the deliberate purpose of inducing a miscarriage. Murder? Not hardly, but still greater than aggravated assault.

Mr.Nick said:
Sorry to explain to you that babies (or in your dimension) are not "tissue" but living beings and individuals and you cannot own an individual.
Click to expand...

And I am sorry to have to explain to you that when a person is occupying and modifying your body against your will, you have the right to use force in self-defense.

Mr.Nick said:
IMO, that excuse you made is on par with the concept of slavery... "well I own this individual and his or her fate is dictated by my decisions"

Of course most of the pro-baby killing crowed are against slavery, with the exception of abortion.
Click to expand...

Funny you pro-lifers keep bringing up slavery when you're the ones trying to demand involuntary servitude from women. And what is with this festering plague of pro-life "Libertarians"? You'll argue all goddamned day against liberal "human rights" on the basis that you can't have any right to any good or service if it would require another person to be forced to provide it to you-- and then you say that women should be forced to gestate children because of their innate "right to life". Or do Libertarian theories about personal rights simply not apply to women?

Mr.Nick said:
No progressives view everything as property - even people -
Click to expand...

That's really rich coming from a Libertarian. Isn't your argument that all human rights extend from property rights and the principle of self-ownership?
 
sangha said:
Yes, there's no doubt that the Founding Fathers wanted their "limited govt." to decide whether a couple should have a baby or not. :roll:
Click to expand...

Is that what you read into what the Founding fathers said?
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Meh. I do not oppose infanticide laws that apply to fetuses as long as they are not designated as murder. Assaulting a pregnant woman such that she loses her baby is clearly a greater offense than assaulting a man or a non-pregnant woman, especially when the assault was for the deliberate purpose of inducing a miscarriage. Murder? Not hardly, but still greater than aggravated assault.



And I am sorry to have to explain to you that when a person is occupying and modifying your body against your will, you have the right to use force in self-defense.



Funny you pro-lifers keep bringing up slavery when you're the ones trying to demand involuntary servitude from women. And what is with this festering plague of pro-life "Libertarians"? You'll argue all goddamned day against liberal "human rights" on the basis that you can't have any right to any good or service if it would require another person to be forced to provide it to you-- and then you say that women should be forced to gestate children because of their innate "right to life". Or do Libertarian theories about personal rights simply not apply to women?



That's really rich coming from a Libertarian. Isn't your argument that all human rights extend from property rights and the principle of self-ownership?
Click to expand...

Sorry to explain to you murder is against the law and our congress are not God - they're generally lawyers and lawyers, and given the fact the majority are lawyers they don't know the first fracking thing about morals or ethics... Not only that but they're NOT GOD and their experience chasing ambulances does not justify their opinion on the issue of abortion because their opinion (along with the SCOTUS) is just about as good as yours or mine.

You will never win this argument, because this argument is a political argument to you however, to many this argument is a moral argument and you will never understand the moral perspective.

To kick you - why can the government regulate soda consumption but yet they CANT tell woman they cant murder their baby?

You don't like philosophy do you?

Naw, you just want to eat your cake.,..
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Meh. I do not oppose infanticide laws that apply to fetuses as long as they are not designated as murder. Assaulting a pregnant woman such that she loses her baby is clearly a greater offense than assaulting a man or a non-pregnant woman, especially when the assault was for the deliberate purpose of inducing a miscarriage. Murder? Not hardly, but still greater than aggravated assault.
Click to expand...

So this Fla. man did not commit murder. That would seem to be the general consensus, yet that's what's he charged with..



And I am sorry to have to explain to you that when a person is occupying and modifying your body against your will, you have the right to use force in self-defense.
Click to expand...
But the fetus is not a person and is not doing any occupying or modifying deliberately. In fact the only reason that the fetus is modifying the body at all is a direct result of actions of the owner of that body.


Funny you pro-lifers keep bringing up slavery when you're the ones trying to demand involuntary servitude from women.
Click to expand...

I've never heard that argument raised. Do you have a link?
 
sangha said:
Says the constitution and SCOTUS

Neither cares about the abortion banners twisted code of immorality
Click to expand...

I agree.

Abortion is not about "rights" - murder is not a right or civil liberty. A baby - a "fetus" is its own individual entity - not an organ - not a body part, but an individual - hence it is murder.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
Sorry to explain to you murder is against the law and our congress are not God
Click to expand...

Self-defense isn't murder and it isn't illegal.

Mr.Nick said:
You will never win this argument, because this argument is a political argument to you however, to many this argument is a moral argument and you will never understand the moral perspective.
Click to expand...

Spare me your self-righteous and hypocritical moralizing. Protecting the lawful and natural rights of women is a moral issue for me-- and it would be for you, too, if you cared half as much for human rights as you did for your own social privileges.

Mr.Nick said:
You don't like philosophy do you?
Click to expand...

I like philosophy just fine when it isn't self-serving and self-contradictory.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I agree.

Abortion is not about "rights" - murder is not a right or civil liberty. A baby - a "fetus" is its own individual entity - not an organ - not a body part, but an individual - hence it is murder.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Abortion is about rights, and is not murder

I enjoy watching the right try to claim the high moral ground by posting lies.
 
sangha said:
Wrong. Abortion is about rights, and is not murder

I enjoy watching the right try to claim the high moral ground by posting lies.
Click to expand...

The taking of a human life is not murder?

So this Fla guy should walk then, correct?
 
Grant said:
So this Fla. man did not commit murder. That would seem to be the general consensus, yet that's what's he charged with..
Click to expand...

Yes. As I've noted before, I believe this is morally inconsistent but I am comfortable with it because his offense is greater than simply drugging the woman; it's practically akin to rape, and I have no problem with rapists getting the noose.

Grant said:
But the fetus is not a person and is not doing any occupying or modifying deliberately.
Click to expand...

If it isn't a person, it doesn't have rights and the woman can kill it anyway. Even if it is a person, the fact that it lacks the intent to harm the woman is irrelevant to her right to defend herself from that harm.

Grant said:
In fact the only reason that the fetus is modifying the body at all is a direct result of actions of the owner of that body.
Click to expand...

This is true, but irrelevant to her right to put a stop to those modifications.

Grant said:
I've never heard that argument raised. Do you have a link?
Click to expand...

It's right here in this thread-- Mr. Nick compared abortion to slavery, but is demanding that women be forced to gestate-- forced to give their own bodily mass and labor-- involuntarily for the benefit of the unborn children. Every pro-lifer does this, because it is inherent to the pro-life position that the fetus' "right to life" trumps the biological mothers' rights, but it's only been recently that I've noticed this rash of pro-lifers invoking the struggle to abolish slavery as if they're on the side of the emancipators.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom