• 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!

Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

Gay baby

  • Yes

    Votes: 35 45.5%

  • No

    Votes: 42 54.5%
  • Total voters
    77
Goobieman said:
We have a court system so people can proive their innocence?

Dont you think, under your scenario, that the situation would be investigated -before- charges were filed, rather than taking someone to court first and determining the facts second?
Click to expand...

Yes, but investigations just show that there is evidence of wrongdoing; one has to prove one's innocence in court. Of course, if the investigation shows no evidence of wrongdoing, then innocence is assumed and does not need to be proved, but I think Gibberish's point is that women who could be shown to have partaken in "risky" behavior would need to prove their innocence in the miscarriage of their children, because if they were found to be responsible, they would be murderers. If the unborn were persons with protection under the law, that is.
 
Gibberish said:
I'm assuming all your Pro-life individuals are also going to push for third-degree murder charges for all women who experience a miscarriage. Since in some cases the death of the child is the result of the woman's body herself failing to care for the child in life sustaining fashion.
Click to expand...

Why does PC keep suggesting that a misarrange would be a crime?
I thought PC was all about logic, yet this repeated insinuation/question/accusation/assumption defies that premise.

So-called "third degree murder" is actually called "Manslaughter", and if you would care to assert that Miscarriage=Murder/Manslaughter and get your azz stomped you can join the carcasses on this killing field:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...der-miscarriage-involuntary-manslaughter.html
Jerry said:
Mansloughter is not a biological function.
Miscarage is not a crime.

The 2 can not be compaired.
Click to expand...
saggyjones said:
Legal Definition of Involuntary Manslaughter

So miscarriage cannot be classified as involuntary manslaughter, I was wrong.
Click to expand...
Rev. said:
If a miscarriage is murder, then a heart attack is suicide.
Click to expand...
tecoyah said:
Miscarriage is a natural function of the Human Body, reacting to a failed pregancy (or creating one). It has no similarity to a manslaughter charge , if only because no "accidental" action has taken place by the mother,thus she is not in control nor responsible for the result.
Click to expand...
jallman said:
On topic, miscarriage is not comparable to voluntary abortion. That's just plain silly.
Click to expand...
 
Goobieman said:
We have a court system so people can proive their innocence?

Dont you think, under your scenario, that the situation would be investigated -before- charges were filed, rather than taking someone to court first and determining the facts second?
Click to expand...

How the woman is found innocent or guilty is irrelevant, the fact that an investigation is to occur is the point.

So you are agreeing that an investigation should occur and that if it is found that the woman's body itself rejected the baby or failed to keep the baby alive that the woman should then be brought to trial to face third-degree murder charges?
 
Jerry said:
Why does PC keep suggesting that a misarrange would be a crime?
I thought PC was all about logic, yet this repeated insinuation/question/accusation/assumption defies that premise.

So-called "third degree murder" is actually called "Manslaughter", and if you would care to assert that Miscarriage=Murder/Manslaughter and get your azz stomped you can join the carcasses on this killing field:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...der-miscarriage-involuntary-manslaughter.html
Click to expand...

Hey, Jer? Please stop busting out this string of quotes. Two or three of them are totally irrelevant to the conversation, and they actually don't prove you right. A miscarriage that could be proven to have been caused by negligent action on the part of the mother -- and we could quite easily define what negligent actions would be considered relevant -- could indeed be seen as equivalent to manslaughter, IF the fetus were seen as a person with protection under our laws. If, for instance, a woman rode horses while pregnant and suffered a miscarriage afterwards, she might be seen as criminally responsible for the death of a person.

And if you'd like me to bring this to your "killing field," I'd be happy to.
 
CoffeeSaint said:
Yes, but investigations just show that there is evidence of wrongdoing
Click to expand...
No, investigations collect evidence to see if there may have been wrongdoing, and if so, who did it -- and then the local prosecutor or a grand jury determines if the evidence is enough to warrant a trial.

one has to prove one's innocence in court.
Click to expand...
Not in the United states.

but I think Gibberish's point is that women who could be shown to have partaken in "risky" behavior would need to prove their innocence in the miscarriage of their children,
Click to expand...
Again, not in here US.
The state must prove that they are guilty.

If the unborn were persons with protection under the law, that is.
Click to expand...
Often, they are.
There are many isntances where a pregnant mother is killed and her killer is charged for the beath of the baby.
 
Gibberish said:
How the woman is found innocent or guilty is irrelevant, the fact that an investigation is to occur is the point.

So you are agreeing that an investigation should occur and that if it is found that the woman's body itself rejected the baby or failed to keep the baby alive that the woman should then be brought to trial to face third-degree murder charges?
Click to expand...

...exorsizing patience...allowing time for you to see post 127.....
 
Gibberish said:
So you are agreeing that an investigation should occur
Click to expand...
No, I was just humoring you for the sake of conversation, since you seem to have dropped your defense of your claim that it's no ones place to determine how someone else lives.
Click to expand...
 
Goobieman said:
No, investigations collect evidence to see if there may have been wrongdoing, and if so, who did it -- and then the local prosecutor or a grand jury determines if the evidence is enough to warrant a trial.
Click to expand...
True.

Goobieman said:
Not in the United states.

Again, not in here US.
The state must prove that they are guilty.
Click to expand...
Isn't disproving the state's claim of guilt equivalent to proving one's innocence?

Goobieman said:
Often, they are.
There are many isntances where a pregnant mother is killed and her killer is charged for the beath of the baby.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but those are poor convictions. It should be considered a property crime, with our laws as they are now.
At any rate, if these convictions do set legal precedent that an unborn child can be murdered, would a woman whose negligent behavior led to the death of her unborn child be charged with manslaughter?
 
Jerry said:
Why does PC keep suggesting that a misarrange would be a crime?
I thought PC was all about logic, yet this repeated insinuation/question/accusation/assumption defies that premise.

So-called "third degree murder" is actually called "Manslaughter", and if you would care to assert that Miscarriage=Murder/Manslaughter and get your azz stomped you can join the carcasses on this killing field:
Click to expand...

man·slaugh·ter /ˈmænˌslɔtər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[man-slaw-ter] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Law. the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought.
2. the killing of a human being by another; homicide.


Mansloughter is not a biological function.
Miscarage is not a crime.
Click to expand...
In your definition and mine it says nothing about biological and non-biological.

Originally Posted by saggyjones
Legal Definition of Involuntary Manslaughter
Click to expand...
I fail to see where this says a miscarriage cannot be murder? Are you suggesting no miscarriages are the result of women mistreating the body, hence causing harm to the child?

The rest of the posts are simply opinions of the posters and should be taken as such.
 
Goobieman said:
No, I was just humoring you for the sake of conversation, since you seem to have dropped your defense of your claim that it's no ones place to determine how someone else lives.
Click to expand...

When did I do that? I was merely making a separate point that you chose to respond to, I posted in response to the previous discussion which, my post, did not receive a response.
 
CoffeeSaint said:
Isn't disproving the state's claim of guilt equivalent to proving one's innocence?
Click to expand...
No. Disproving the state's case only disproves the states case -- you may still be guulty; because of some flaw you pointed out, the state's case simply failed to prove it.

And in any event its up to the state to prove you guilty, not for you to prove you're innocent.

Yeah, but those are poor convictions.
Click to expand...
Doesnt change the fact that in certain instances, unborn babies are protected by law.
 
Gibberish said:
When did I do that? I was merely making a separate point that you chose to respond to, I posted in response to the previous discussion which, my post, did not receive a response.
Click to expand...

I did not see your response to my last challenge of your position, if there was one. If you could supply the post number...?
 
Goobieman said:
I did not see your response to my last challenge of your position, if there was one. If you could supply the post number...?
Click to expand...

What post are you talking about? I went back to page 6 and have not seen a response I have missed. I don't see one you have missed either. I do see that we transitioned topics though.
 
Gibberish said:
No because it is my opinion and my opinion only.
Click to expand...
But, you opnion is that:
It is not your place or anyone else's to dictate to someone else how they should live their lives.

Now, you apply that to telling the mother how she live her life, but you won't apply it to the mother deciding how the baby can/cannot live its life.

You apply your standard in one place but not the other. Why?
 
Gibberish said:
I fail to see where this says a miscarriage cannot be murder?
Click to expand...

Go there, make your case, and we'll put it to the question.

What I quoted was not mere opinion, as you would like to dismiss it as.
What I quoted is what we call "peer review".

1069 posed a hypothesis, it was independently tested by both PL and PC, and it was found to be in error.

That, CoffieSaint, is what my post proved.

That legal theory is dead.

If you can inject some case law and adjust that legal theory to account for new information then it may be worth revisiting. Until then, however, it is no more worthy of mention than the flat-earth theory.
 
CoffeeSaint said:
So you missed post 129, then . . .
Click to expand...

As it happens, yes I did.

You posted 4 minutes after Gibberish, which means that you posted while I was righting my post.

After submitting my post I left to go get my oldest from Kindergarten. I didn't even look at the thread long enough after submitting to see that you posted something.
 
Goobieman said:
But, you opnion is that:
It is not your place or anyone else's to dictate to someone else how they should live their lives.

Now, you apply that to telling the mother how she live her life, but you won't apply it to the mother deciding how the baby can/cannot live its life.

You apply your standard in one place but not the other. Why?
Click to expand...

How am I dictacting how the mother should live her life? By forcing her to have a choice?
 
Gibberish said:
How am I dictacting how the mother should live her life? By forcing her to have a choice?
Click to expand...
No...
The mother is dictating how someone else (the child) should live (or not live) his life.
According to your argument, she cannot do that.
 
Goobieman said:
No...
The mother is dictating how someone else (the child) should live (or not live) his life.
According to your argument, she cannot do that.
Click to expand...

According to the other half of my argument, which you don't seem to ever include into your quotes, I do not see a fetus before the third month as a human being.
 
Gibberish said:
According to the other half of my argument, which you don't seem to ever include into your quotes, I do not see a fetus before the third month as a human being.
Click to expand...
I've addressed this, and you ignored it when I did.

The baby being "human" or not isnt relevant, and if it was, it is easily avoided by arguing that the decision to abort the gay baby wasn't made until the 1st day of the 2nd trimester.

So:
You apply your standard in one place but not the other. Why?
 
Goobieman said:
I've addressed this, and you ignored it when I did.

The baby being "human" or not isnt relevant, and if it was, it is easily avoided by arguing that the decision to abort the gay baby wasn't made until the 1st day of the 2nd trimester.
Click to expand...

How is the fetus being a human life irrelevant? Are you saying it's wrong to kill any human cell's no matter if it's human life or not?

What does aborting a gay baby 1st day of the second trimester have to do with the fetus being a human life or not?
 
How can we abort this stupid poll? If someone would do it, I would be more than OK with it.
 
Gibberish said:
How is the fetus being a human life irrelevant?
Click to expand...
Because its not a discussion about if abortion kills a human being, its a dicsussion about if its OK to abort a baby for a specific reason -- the issue isnt the morality of abortion, its about the acceptability of a given reason for having the abortion.

So:
You apply your standard in one place but not the other. Why?
 
Cremaster77 said:
How can we abort this stupid poll? If someone would do it, I would be more than OK with it.
Click to expand...
Your participation here is voluntary.
If you dont like the poll, dont click on the link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom