• 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!

Pope to US Speaker Pelosi: Reject abortion support

FORCING a woman to carry a baby to term is taking away liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the woman.

No it's not.

She volunteered to have the sex that got her knocked up, didn't she?

THAT is her Point of Choice.

She doesn't want to be pregnant? Fine. She does something else for sexual fun. That's her choice.

Sane societies don't grant people the option to murder other individuals for their personal convenience.
 
She volunteered to have the sex that got her knocked up, didn't she?

You're point?
So now a female should be forced to carry something in her body that is unwanted because she has sex? Its fine for a male to say that seeing they get all the fun and little of the baggage.
 
You're point?
So now a female should be forced to carry something in her body that is unwanted because she has sex? Its fine for a male to say that seeing they get all the fun and little of the baggage.

Pregnancy is a well known side effect of sexual intercourse.


Just seemed like the obvious needed to be stated.:2razz:
 
No it's not.

She volunteered to have the sex that got her knocked up, didn't she?

Agreeing to have sex and agreeing to carry a fetus for 8 months is NOT the same.

It is forcing her. PERIOD!

Maybe you pro-lifers would be for rape too as well, what is the will of a woman right?
 
Pregnancy is a well known side effect of sexual intercourse.


Just seemed like the obvious needed to be stated.:2razz:

Common sense just seems to allude some people. Maybe they only got a good enough diploma and those GED courses didn't teach them biology.
 
Agreeing to have sex and agreeing to carry a fetus for 8 months is NOT the same.

It is forcing her. PERIOD!

Maybe you pro-lifers would be for rape too as well, what is the will of a woman right?

Forcing a woman to lose her virginity forever just because she had sex ONCE is just NOT FAIIIIR!!!!!:2bigcry:


:rofl
 
I king of take Pelosi's side on this one,
if the people elected her to be pro-choice, she should be pro-choice (but I do agree that makes her a horrible Catholic).

And although the whole "If her congressional public voted her in to bring back slavery, would she do it because her people support it"

is a good debate, I'd still rather have a politician represent what they were voted in to represent albeit her questionable contradicting character. She shouldn't have ran if she believed in pro-life. I agree with that.
 
Pregnancy is a well known side effect of sexual intercourse.

Just seemed like the obvious needed to be stated.:2razz:

And Abortion and contraceptives are invented to remove us of that problem :roll:
 
Could you expand on this? Do you mean that legally it's nothing until it's born? Or do you literally consider the unborn, no matter how far along into the pregnancy, to be nothing?

Legally it is a nothing until it hits a certain stage of pregnancy and after birth is when it is protected.
 
Legally it is a nothing until it hits a certain stage of pregnancy and after birth is when it is protected.

And that law is based on nothing except the convenience of the legislators trolling for female votes.

The law permits partial birth abortions, which involve the gross manipulation of the baby inside the uterus to force it into a breech presentation, which is an abnormal presentation, and then forcings it's delivery yet halting that process so the baby-killer can jam scissors in the unaneshetized baby's head to stir his brains, which are then sucked out through a hose. There's absolutely no medical justification for this, but this can be done at the very end of a full gestational term. It's only function is the delivery of a corpse.

The law has Scott Peterson on death row for the "murder" of a child much younger than the law permits for partial birth abortions.

People that try to use the "law" to argue the morality or justification of abortion are sadly mistaken. The only argument to be found there is that the legislators are confused and ignorant.

The science says it's a human being from conception.

For once a church got something right.
 
And that law is based on nothing except the convenience of the legislators trolling for female votes.

The science says it's a human being from conception.

Perhaps in US, female votes are trolled but that does not occur in UK. I don't know if partial birth Abortions occur in UK.

Science does not say that. Religion says that. Make that distinction.
At conception, reminds me of the catholic teaching.
 
Science does not say that. Religion says that. Make that distinction.
At conception, reminds me of the catholic teaching.
Here's a couple...


Lifespan Development and the Brain - Cambridge University Press
The power of brain and cultural plasticity in co-shaping human behavior begins at conception and continues into old age


Human Development
In psychology, development is defined as a pattern of change in human capabilities that begins at conception and continues throughout the life span.
 
Perhaps in US, female votes are trolled but that does not occur in UK.

Yeah, right.

Be for real.


I don't know if partial birth Abortions occur in UK.

Science does not say that. Religion says that. Make that distinction.
At conception, reminds me of the catholic teaching.

No.

Science says it.

Religion is bunk.

The life of an organism begins when sexual gametes merge and create its unique genetic code. From that point on, it's alive, growing, and a unique individual.

Since you can't do it, I won't waste my time or embarass you by asking you to define what "human" means or when a human life begins. Past experience has shown that such requests provide entertaining gymnastics from the baby-killers, but no useful information.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, right.

Be for real.

US/UK political systems are very different.

Abortion and Stem cell stirs absolutely no ones hornet. It is not a controversial issue, for most part it is a settled issue.
There is no 'conservative party = Pro life/Labour = Pro choice. All main parties are pro choice so yes, i am serious and real when i say Abortion will never be used to gain female votes.

No.

Science says it.

The life of an organism begins when sexual gametes merge and create its unique genetic code. From that point on, it's alive, growing, and a unique individual.

A foetus is not viable outside of the womb at a few weeks or even months.
It is after the cut off point for Abortion it has a surviving chance to live with alot medical care and not to mention the added issue that it may suffer medical problems in the future if born at 20/22/24

I have never seen a 6 week foetus being born and growing healthy, it would die so i hardly view it as important.
 
Last edited:
Pretty demented when the natural beauty of procreation is labeled a "problem."

Depends on the individuals outlook.

The power of brain and cultural plasticity in co-shaping human behavior begins at conception and continues into old age.

That is all well and good, no one denies a foetus has DNA. I think that is pretty elementary science
When it can survive outside of a womb is when it should be protected. It cannot survive outside of the womb when the sperm hits the egg so no, it should not get state protection and it should not be seen as trumping a womens right to her body imo.
 
Last edited:
If you typed in "Jewish Encyclopedia" in google, it's the first (and second,and I believe third) option. You do understand that, right?:doh
Why are you asking rhetorical questions?
You were the one who offered and then seemed to take offense when I took you up on the offer.
:doh
Geez. Why even make an offer if you are going to take offense when someone takes you up on it?

Regardless.
As I stated earlier; "That is an opinion based on interpretation. Nothing more."



Genesis 25:22 "But the children in her womb jostled each other ... "
II Kings 19:3 "Children are at the point of birth, but there is no strength..."
Ruth 1:11 "Have I other sons in my womb..."
Numbers 12:12 "Let her (an unborn child) not this be like the stillborn babe..."
Luke 1:43 "And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me." (A reference to Jesus PRIOR to his birth)

There are many other examples of reference to the unborn as people in the Bible, but these should suffice.
Suffice? As to what?
These do not even come close to supporting the contention that a fetus is, in and of itself, at any stage, a child. Unlike the passage I quoted, which is clear and unambiguous as to how an expelled fetus should be considered.
Even if you substitute "child" for fetus in the quoted passage, it is still clear and unequivocal as to how it should be considered.
 
Why are you asking rhetorical questions?
You were the one who offered and then seemed to take offense when I took you up on the offer.
:doh
Geez. Why even make an offer if you are going to take offense when someone takes you up on it?

Regardless.
As I stated earlier; "That is an opinion based on interpretation. Nothing more



:rofl

That's an answer?

:rofl
 
Back
Top Bottom