• 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!

Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservatives’ Sway

There is a vast difference. The baby will likely go on to live if it is not killed.

I think everybody agrees with that statement, but you asked me whether or not it was a human, so yeah...
 
Remember that time a non-communist country pretty much wiped out an entire race, the enslaved another race and then put yet another race of people in internment camps. What a bitch that place was...oh wait. How about the rest of the inhumanities of the world?

You were asking about Left Wing atrocities and I gave you an example. But it seems to me, from some of what you said, you're still talking of Leftists. Socialists, right?
 
I think everybody agrees with that statement, but you asked me whether or not it was a human, so yeah...

The big follow up question is, if it is human...why doesn't it have the same rights as other humans?
 
You were asking about Left Wing atrocities and I gave you an example. But it seems to me, from some of what you said, you're still talking of Leftists. Socialists, right?

I'm talking about the United States that wiped out the Native Americans, enslaved blacks and put Japanese people in internment camps. The point, is that "the Left" is not responsible for all the "inhumanities of the world" as you put it - human beings are. Considering the "left" is pretty much always attacked on here for "trying to save the world" - your comment makes zero sense.
 
The big follow up question is, if it is human...why doesn't it have the same rights as other humans?

Why doesn't an irreversibly comatose human being have the same rights as other human beings?
 
No. The comment that I was responding to was this:


1. My comment explained that a response to stimuli does not denote consciousness. The comment had nothing to do with equating a "permanent condition to a temporary one".
2. Re: your comment about "the potential for consciousness in the future" - I responded to that in the post that you just quoted. #224

I was ready to let this by since you seem to be claiming you weren't making the comparison, but then you said this to someone saying the unborn are human:

Sure it's human...but so is someone in an irreversible coma.

So my comment stands and you did not address it at all. The key thing about someone in an irreversible coma is that it is irreversible, meaning that person will never be conscious again. You cannot honestly act as though that is the same thing as being a few months away from developing consciousness.

Those are all pretty rational reasons...

For using a condom maybe, but not for killing another human being.
 
I was ready to let this by since you seem to be claiming you weren't making the comparison, but then you said this to someone saying the unborn are human:
In the comment you referred to earlier, I was not making that comparison - you will see that if you read it. You weren't "letting anything by" - you were misreading my comment.

So my comment stands and you did not address it at all. The key thing about someone in an irreversible coma is that it is irreversible, meaning that person will never be conscious again. You cannot honestly act as though that is the same thing as being a few months away from developing consciousness.
Again, you're referring to a comment that does not claim that a fetus and an irreversibly comatose person are wholly the same thing. In this new comment that you quoted, I am explaining that a fetus and an irreversibly comatose person are both human, nothing more - this is not a contested statement, so your comments on it are strawmen.

Let me make this clear so you stop attributing imaginary arguments to me:
Not once have I claimed that someone in an irreversible coma and a fetus are the same thing. I have claimed that both can be considered human and that both can respond to external stimuli. Nothing more.

For using a condom maybe, but not for killing another human being.
If you feel that way, then don't have an abortion.
 
Great so then we agree that pulling the plug is equally applicable to all human beings including fetuses.

Absolutely, only one problem. Most fetuses that are killed have a very good chance of surviving if left to nature where as a man in a coma does not. Further, the man in the coma probably has a living will or other expression of sentiment as to whether he would prefer to be kept alive or die.
 
Absolutely, only one problem. Most fetuses that are killed have a very good chance of surviving if left to nature where as a man in a coma does not.
They sure do. Unfortunately, potential is not actuality and since they do not have consciousness, that potential isn't particularly relevant to me. There's too much grey area and the woman should be able to decide.

Further, the man in the coma probably has a living will or other expression of sentiment as to whether he would prefer to be kept alive or die.
Some do. Some of them have families who make the decision for them. Oh well.
 
It has everything to do with it. People are arguing against defunding by pointing out other services Planned Parenthood offers and I am pointing out that their services in this regard are very, very small in comparison to their role in abortion services.

This is dishonest, simply because the issue is far more complex than you are presenting.

I was just saying you should have because then you would be correct. Apparently you don't have an interest in being correct.

I've told you before, DoL. You do not get to tell me what my position is. I know you would much prefer to argue against what you WISH I had said than what I actually said. Too bad. Try to be honest when you debate.

Here you go:



You apparently think that if you did not use the exact same words that you can get out of what you actually have said. Not gonna work.

What's not going to work is you attempting to straw man my argument. Again, I know you would MUCH prefer to argue against what you WANT me to have said, but THAT'S not going to fly. Your descriptions were over the top and absolute. Mine were not. You failed, again.

It is not an appeal to emotion anymore than it is to call a mass-murder of people due to their race genocide.

Of course it is. You don't want it to be because it prevents you from attempting to validate your position using emotional and inaccurate terminology. Debate correctly and we won't have these problems.

I have considered the "repercussions" but you see the difference is that, unlike you, I think protecting millions of innocent lives is worth dealing with any repercussions. Nowhere did I say I do not have an idea of how to deal with problems, but my point is these problems already exist and so the only real change would be an increase in cases. What you really want me to do is come up with a solution to all the existing problems before I can suggest stopping abortions. If you have a situation where hundreds of thousands of babies are being killed a year, you don't ask how to deal with the consequences of stopping before you decide it needs to be stopped. Basic human compassion would demand that you stop it as soon as possible even if you do not have a way to deal with resulting problems that are, all in all, less severe than hundreds of thousands of babies being killed a year.

More appeal to emotion.

DoL, the situation would be different. I do not care about you solving the current situation. Give some solutions to the issues that the addition of hundreds of thousands of children will bring. This is not a small matter. You want this, you identify how it works.

Like I said, my position here is backed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not the law. The Constitution is the law.

Abortion is currently legal. Your position is invalid based on that.


Nowhere have I said in any way that I do not have a plan. I just think the demand for a plan for after it is stopped is absurd. Like I said, you don't wait to come up with a plan for the aftermath when you are dealing with the massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent children. Not everyone is going to have a plan and your claim that without such a plan the demand is illegitimate is just complete nonsense.

I am completely fine the way things are. You want the change? Convince me that it is viable. Can't do that? All you have left is your constant appeals to emotion.

I understand that people with lower income are not unable to obtain these services because even among the poor Planned Parenthood does not make major contributions. For instance, 30% of the patients are on Medicaid so the only difficulty they would run into is finding another medical facility in the area. Of clinics funded by Title X Planned Parenthood makes for a whopping 14%. In other words 86% of clinics that provide these services to the poor, without including clinics that do not receive Title X money but accept Medicaid enrollees, would still be operating even if Planned Parenthood were to shut down.

DoL, you do not understand the difficulty in finding Medicaid providers. Medicaid pay SO poorly, most providers refuse to accept it. So, telling someone to find another Medicaid provider is not so easy.


I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. I have no problem with a facility that provides abortions getting federal aid as long as that aid is not being used for abortions.

You can say something that has truth to it and still be dishonest. In this case that is exactly what you and Chappy are doing. In fact, I just saw something indicating how dishonest these figures are:





Source: Planned Parenthood

In other words it was actually about 11% of their clients that received abortions in 2009. Huh, that makes it seem like abortion is a lot more significant for Planned Parenthood than some are trying to lead people to believe. When you look at the information it is pretty interesting since cancer screenings are given to about 30% of clients, which corresponds to the number on Medicaid. So quite probably most, if not all, people given those screenings will be able to get the same services at another clinic.

OK. Let's say that is accurate. So, 11% of what PP does is provide abortions. 89% is other services. STILL... big difference.
 
Last edited:
So, your “far more complex than a simple answer” is a simple solution of shredding into bloody pieces of a tiny helpless human being in the womb and sucking them out to be tossed into the biohazard bin without blinking an eye?

If your appeal to “unwanted children” diatribe is a logical argument to addressing the complex social problem, then shouldn’t we simply allow women such as Susan Smith or Andrea Yates to drown their “unwanted children” with impunity until society can "present some sort of plan for managing the amount of unwanted children"?

Nothing but an appeal to emotion and a straw man argument. No response needed.
 
No. My point is that your use of the term living thing is irrelevant. All living things are relevant in some way... Unfortunately, not all types of "life" is equal which is why "living things" like irreversibly comatose patients get the plug pulled on them.

That's pretty much how I summed up your position. Not all types of life, and we are talking about human life here, are equal. That's not an unusual position for Leftists to take. And we are not talking about "irreversible comatose patients" here. We are talking about babies.


Poor people and old people in diapers are not "wholly dependent" on anyone. A fetus is wholly dependent on its mother - it is a part of the mother (hence the umbilical cord).

There are thousands of people dependent on others, and many thousands more willing to help others, It is second nature to many millions of people to help, while there are many more who think otherwise. You're using the old "Am I my brother's keeper?" argument, and it's clear which side you come down on.
I agree. I'm standing for the rights of women to be free from unscientific religious judgment.

Unscientific religious judgment? Do you think it's only religious people who feel that aborting babies is wrong? And if you feel strongly about the "rights of women", lets see you on a thread defending Muslim women and attack the men, and the system, that works against them.

Umm...I mentioned "wholly dependent" in order to explain to you why saying "either it's life or it isn't" is nonsensical - it had nothing to do , as you know, with describing fetuses as a "pox on humanity". You get lost too easily in conversations...

And I explained why it isn't nonsensical. if there is anything that is absolute in humans its the difference between life and death,
 
Last edited:
Of course not. They give the procedure a clinical name like abortion. Then they support the pretense the child isn't human by calling it a fetus and they do all of this under the guise of "Women's rights". In reality, they are children that are being killed and in most cases for no other reason than they just aren't convenient. That is the side the democrats have chosen.

That is so comical, considering the fact that the Republican party goes all out for "fetuses" but doesn't give a damn about them once they are born.

So what if the mother doesn't have insurance and is not able to give the unaborted fetus the proper medical care that HCR is now providing? And, we can do away with welfare, because I'm sure the mother is a lazy person that doesn't want to work.

It is born, it can take care of himself on his own, isn't that the Rep Motto? Or, is it "he can pull himself up by his own bootstraps"? I forget which one it is, but it sounds similar to either one of those.

Oh, and are Republicans going over to fertility clinics and protesting? They discard embryos on a regular basis - hmmm, are those different?
 
Okay, how about Communism. Can we agree that the Left supported Communism?

Are you aware of the horrors of Communism?

It was actively supported by the Left and, oddly enough, despite all the information available, many Leftists still support it. But that's who they are. It's all political and human life means little.

This is absurd. Communism is not the problem. From an idealistic standpoint, Communism is optimal. It is man's greed and therefore inability to live under any kind of pure cimmunistic regime that is the problem. Communism usually turns into fascism... a right wing ideology.
 
It is as simple as I put it. From the moment the sperm penetrates the egg, it is a human.

And, you have proof of this? We know it is a group of cells that keep multiplying, they can be frozen and brought back to it prior state, something that can't be done with humans, hmmmmm, seems like there may be a difference here. At least for a few weeks!
 
And, you have proof of this? We know it is a group of cells that keep multiplying, they can be frozen and brought back to it prior state, something that can't be done with humans, hmmmmm, seems like there may be a difference here. At least for a few weeks!

Biologically and genetically, it's human. That is really not in question.
 
I'm talking about the United States that wiped out the Native Americans, enslaved blacks and put Japanese people in internment camps. The point, is that "the Left" is not responsible for all the "inhumanities of the world" as you put it - human beings are. Considering the "left" is pretty much always attacked on here for "trying to save the world" - your comment makes zero sense.

You asked me this."Really? Every inhumanity known to man? Please provide examples and statistics showing that the collective "left" supports them".

And i mentioned where the Left, Communists, committed every atrocity known to man. And the Left in the democracies supported them.

Now you are on to Americans "wiping out" the Native Americans, which would come as a surprise to the many Native Americans still around. Or Slaves? Freed by Republicans and kept in chains by the Democrats and the internment of Japanese by a left wing Democrat. Don't know much about his-tory! Don't know much bi-ol-o-gy.
 
They sure do. Unfortunately, potential is not actuality and since they do not have consciousness, that potential isn't particularly relevant to me. There's too much grey area and the woman should be able to decide.


Some do. Some of them have families who make the decision for them. Oh well.

Grey area? A grey area is the rationalization of a decision that is contrary to the individual or group's moral values. Generally, this decision is more expedient or convenient.
 
That's pretty much how I summed up your position. Not all types of life, and we are talking about human life here, are equal. That's not an unusual position for Leftists to take. And we are not talking about "irreversible comatose patients" here. We are talking about babies.
Oh I see. You're willing to talk about irreversible comatose patients when it suits you and you're not when it doesn't. I mean, even you know that the life of an irreversibly comatose patient and a normal human being are not equal. You just don't want to admit it because it gets in the way of your argument.

There are thousands of people dependent on others, and many thousands more willing to help others, It is second nature to many millions of people to help, while there are many more who think otherwise.
I don't need the lecture on helping people. Many conservatives on this board have already told me that I and other liberals are too idealistic in our expectations for taking care of people.

You're using the old "Am I my brother's keeper?" argument, and it's clear which side you come down on.[
No. Please explain how you got this from my argument.

Unscientific religious judgment? Do you think it's only religious people who feel that aborting babies is wrong? And if you feel strongly about the "rights of women", lets see you on a thread defending Muslim women and attack the men, and the system, that works against them.
Okay - unscientific moral judgment. Muslim women? What are you even talking about?

And I explained why it isn't nonsensical. if there is anything that is absolute in humans its the difference between life and death/
If only that were true.
 
This is absurd. Communism is not the problem. From an idealistic standpoint, Communism is optimal. It is man's greed and therefore inability to live under any kind of pure cimmunistic regime that is the problem.

Communism is not "optimal" from an idealistic standpoint or any other standpoint. There is absolutly nothing to recomend it.

Communism usually turns into fascism... a right wing ideology

Funny you should say that!

I happened to be at the Berlin Wall during its destruction and following an afternoon of futile chipping away at concrete I mentioned to my wife that soon the Left would be calling Communism "right wing", just as they did with Nazism.

You aren't the first one to suggest that Communism is right wing though, I first heard of it about four years after the wall came down. Still, it's a good shot at historical revisionism.
 
Back
Top Bottom