• 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!

No unborn human needs or wants legal rights

Dayton3 said:
Of course. Surely you knew that.
Click to expand...

Weaver knows the law is what defines a person because person is a legal term, not a biological one.

You can argue when it is a "human being" but not when it is a "person" in the United States.

Be honest here: Do you only care about zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses or also the pregnant girls and women who need to get rid of them?
 
Blue Donkey said:
Weaver knows the law is what defines a person because person is a legal term, not a biological one.

You can argue when it is a "human being" but not when it is a "person" in the United States.

Be honest here: Do you only care about zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses or also the pregnant girls and women who need to get rid of them?
Click to expand...

Pregnant girls and women by and large to not "need" to get rid of them. At least not via abortion. If they truly do not want the "fetus" then they can put it up for adoption once born.

Standard adoption procedure by the way is for the adoptive parents to pay the medical bills for the prenatal care and delivery of the baby.
 
Dayton3 said:
Pregnant girls and women by and large to not "need" to get rid of them. At least not via abortion. If they truly do not want the "fetus" then they can put it up for adoption once born.

Standard adoption procedure by the way is for the adoptive parents to pay the medical bills for the prenatal care and delivery of the baby.
Click to expand...

That was not my question. I asked you if you care about the women who do need abortions. (Some of them really do; it is not always optional.)
 
Blue Donkey said:
That was not my question. I asked you if you care about the women who do need abortions. (Some of them really do; it is not always optional.)
Click to expand...

Of course. My church funds a program that provides post abortion counseling for women who choose to have one.
 
Dayton3 said:
Of course. My church funds a program that provides post abortion counseling for women who choose to have one.
Click to expand...

That is wonderful. It would be great if more churches could have abortion support ministries.

Next question: Do you accept the fact that pregnant women suffer, but nonviable humans do not?
 
Blue Donkey said:
That is wonderful. It would be great if more churches could have abortion support ministries.

Next question: Do you accept the fact that pregnant women suffer, but nonviable humans do not?
Click to expand...

No...
 
Blue Donkey said:
What makes you think weaver ever said a fetus is nothing more than a gathering of cells?

What makes you think weaver ever said blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses are worthless?

What makes you think there is such a thing as an unborn child when none exist?

What makes you think biological processes are not how U.S. laws define a person?
Click to expand...
What magic occurs from the day BEFORE birth and the day after a child is born that suddenly grants a child legal status?
 
VanceMack said:
What magic occurs from the day BEFORE birth and the day after a child is born that suddenly grants a child legal status?
Click to expand...

What makes you think there is any magic involved? It was already explained to you straight from the federal law itself.
 
weaver2 said:
Everybody does. What's your point?
Click to expand...

Blue Donkey's post

Next question: Do you accept the fact that pregnant women suffer, but nonviable humans do not?

suggests that she doesn't believe they do.
 
Dayton3 said:
Blue Donkey's post

Next question: Do you accept the fact that pregnant women suffer, but nonviable humans do not?

suggests that she doesn't believe they do.
Click to expand...

Huh? My question is the exact opposite - that I know for a fact the woman, not the unwanted human life inside her, is capable of suffering.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Huh? My question is the exact opposite - that I know for a fact the woman, not the unwanted human life inside her, is capable of suffering.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the "unwanted human life inside the woman" is INcapable of suffering.?

I still disagree.
 
Dayton3 said:
Blue Donkey's post

Next question: Do you accept the fact that pregnant women suffer, but nonviable humans do not? suggests that she doesn't believe they do.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that idea from? My question was obviously implying the exact opposite - that I know for a fact teh woman, not the unwanted human life inside her, can suffer before the gestational age of viability.

So let's try again. Do you accept these two facts?

1. Before an unborn human life is viable, it can't think or feel anything.
2. Throughout a mom's pregnancy, many problems can happen to her.
 
Blue Donkey said:
When pro-lifers say all "unborn babies" (which are really zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses) have the right to life, they completely ignore all of the proven biological facts about in-utero human development. Their mistakes not only include using the wrong temrinology to describe what these human lives and abortion are, but also why only born people need or should have any legal rights. I assume nobody on DP is an expert on obstetrics or human embryololgy. I hope this will help pro-lifers to learn all about that aspect of abortion vs. motherhood instead of just the fact that all pregnant girls and women need the legal right to choose that is already given to them.
Click to expand...
A pro-abortionist declaring what unborn humans want and need is like Chairman Xi declaring what pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong want and need.

You too were at one time a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, and a fetus, my good blue ass.
 
COTO said:
A pro-abortionist declaring what unborn humans want and need is like Chairman Xi declaring what pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong want and need.

You too were at one time a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, and a fetus, my good blue ass.
Click to expand...

Nobody is a "pro-abortionist" by using the only correct terms for unborn mammals. That term is only used by so-called "pro-lifers" who are really "anti-choice" because their only interest is in taking human rights away from all pregnant girls and women.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Where did you get that idea from? My question was obviously implying the exact opposite - that I know for a fact teh woman, not the unwanted human life inside her, can suffer before the gestational age of viability.

So let's try again. Do you accept these two facts?

1. Before an unborn human life is viable, it can't think or feel anything.
2. Throughout a mom's pregnancy, many problems can happen to her.
Click to expand...

1) I do not believe this to be a "fact".
2) I believe this is a "fact". A pretty obvious one.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Nobody is a "pro-abortionist" by using the only correct terms for unborn mammals. That term is only used by so-called "pro-lifers" who are really "anti-choice" because their only interest is in taking human rights away from all pregnant girls and women.
Click to expand...
A pro-choicer is distinguished from a pro-abortionist by how he regards passive attempts to influence a pregnant mother's choice, and by how he characterizes the act of abortion.

A pro-choicer has no opposition to waiting periods, doctors showing mothers sonograms of their fetuses, or groups like Save the Storks who provide free ultrasounds to mothers to show them the developing foetus (which significantly decreases their likelihood to abort). A pro-choicer tolerates websites and literature that calls abortion immoral and unnecessary. Most importantly, a pro-choicer doesn't take a position that abortion is beneficial (or even necessary) for society.

By contrast, a pro-abortionist resists any attempt to sway the choice of mothers in favour of carrying pregnancies to term, including (but not limited to) waiting periods, doctors showing sonograms to mothers, doctors informing parents, prayer vigils in front of abortion clinics, and groups like Save the Storks. A pro-abortionist abhors the characterization of abortion as immoral/unnecessary, and supports banning websites and literature that promote this view. Finally, a pro-abortionist actively defends/promotes abortion as beneficial (or necessary) to society, and invests time and effort extolling the "benefits" of aborting and the costs of carrying to term.

Which of the two descriptions above would you say best characterizes you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom