Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do I have to be prochoice to be a liberal?

Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 7:10:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 6:56:13 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am just wondering.

No you don't. There are plenty of liberals who are pro-life. Bsh1 is for example.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 7:18:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 7:10:02 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/12/2015 6:56:13 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am just wondering.

No you don't. There are plenty of liberals who are pro-life. Bsh1 is for example.

Awesome. I shall call myself call myself a prolife liberal. Thank you.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 7:23:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 7:18:22 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 2/12/2015 7:10:02 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/12/2015 6:56:13 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am just wondering.

No you don't. There are plenty of liberals who are pro-life. Bsh1 is for example.

Awesome. I shall call myself call myself a prolife liberal. Thank you.

Now you just need to update your Big Issue stance ;)
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 7:50:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 7:23:09 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/12/2015 7:18:22 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 2/12/2015 7:10:02 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/12/2015 6:56:13 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am just wondering.

No you don't. There are plenty of liberals who are pro-life. Bsh1 is for example.

Awesome. I shall call myself call myself a prolife liberal. Thank you.

Now you just need to update your Big Issue stance ;)
I did.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 8:29:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm glad to see that you have converted.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 10:16:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
One issue does not dictate ideology haha
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Bennett91
Posts: 4,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 11:47:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 7:18:22 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 2/12/2015 7:10:02 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/12/2015 6:56:13 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am just wondering.

No you don't. There are plenty of liberals who are pro-life. Bsh1 is for example.

Awesome. I shall call myself call myself a prolife liberal. Thank you.

So you really have converted? What made you change your mind?
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 1:52:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 10:16:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
One issue does not dictate ideology haha

This guy speaks truth. Be whatever the heck you want.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 7:51:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Determine what your governmental first principles are. If abortion is your key issue, ask why is abortion so important, and how it applies to your first principles of government. By expanding this idea to other issues, look at first principle applies to today's issues.

Most political philosophies view the role of government on three axis:
civilization vs. barbarians
freedom vs. coercion
oppressed peoples vs. oppressors

In most political arguments, people are not arguing from the same axis. Example in abortion. Rights of the mother can be argued in freedom or oppression terms. Some argue the rights of unborn in freedom or civilization terms. Yet, others argue that killing or forced birth is barbaric.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 8:12:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 7:38:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You can be pro life as long as you are pro gay adoption.

Otherwise you indicate you really don't care about the babies.

Not really. You can believe that both abortion and being raised by gay parents hurts children. Here are two ways to be pro life and against gay adoption, while caring about the babies:

You believe that:
1. Being raised in foster care or adopted by straight parents is better than being aborted or being adopted by gay parents.
or
2. Government can and should incentivize straight couples adopting by cutting down on the red tape involved, and support huge tax breaks for people who adopt.

Now you may not agree with either of these stances. But if you believe either one of those statements, then you are pro life, against gay adoption, and care about babies.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 8:15:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/13/2015 8:12:22 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/12/2015 7:38:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You can be pro life as long as you are pro gay adoption.

Otherwise you indicate you really don't care about the babies.

Not really. You can believe that both abortion and being raised by gay parents hurts children. Here are two ways to be pro life and against gay adoption, while caring about the babies:

You believe that:
1. Being raised in foster care or adopted by straight parents is better than being aborted or being adopted by gay parents.
or
2. Government can and should incentivize straight couples adopting by cutting down on the red tape involved, and support huge tax breaks for people who adopt.

Now you may not agree with either of these stances. But if you believe either one of those statements, then you are pro life, against gay adoption, and care about babies.

More like "Babies are better off fosterless than with gay parents."

Cause that is what happens.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 8:22:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/13/2015 8:15:42 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/13/2015 8:12:22 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/12/2015 7:38:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You can be pro life as long as you are pro gay adoption.

Otherwise you indicate you really don't care about the babies.

Not really. You can believe that both abortion and being raised by gay parents hurts children. Here are two ways to be pro life and against gay adoption, while caring about the babies:

You believe that:
1. Being raised in foster care or adopted by straight parents is better than being aborted or being adopted by gay parents.
or
2. Government can and should incentivize straight couples adopting by cutting down on the red tape involved, and support huge tax breaks for people who adopt.

Now you may not agree with either of these stances. But if you believe either one of those statements, then you are pro life, against gay adoption, and care about babies.


More like "Babies are better off fosterless than with gay parents."

Cause that is what happens.

Again, you can want to invest resources in reforming the foster system or you can believe that the way it currently works is better than having gay parents. Both of these are perfectly valid stances that care about babies and are pro life yet anti gay adoption.

Oh, and if we are going to talk about what happens in reality, my dad and several of his siblings were adopted by a straight couple (my grandparents) and had a great childhood. And I had a roommate in college who grew up in foster care and still keeps in touch and considers them family. So no, not all babies end up "fosterless" or whatever.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 8:25:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/13/2015 8:22:06 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/13/2015 8:15:42 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/13/2015 8:12:22 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/12/2015 7:38:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You can be pro life as long as you are pro gay adoption.

Otherwise you indicate you really don't care about the babies.

Not really. You can believe that both abortion and being raised by gay parents hurts children. Here are two ways to be pro life and against gay adoption, while caring about the babies:

You believe that:
1. Being raised in foster care or adopted by straight parents is better than being aborted or being adopted by gay parents.
or
2. Government can and should incentivize straight couples adopting by cutting down on the red tape involved, and support huge tax breaks for people who adopt.

Now you may not agree with either of these stances. But if you believe either one of those statements, then you are pro life, against gay adoption, and care about babies.


More like "Babies are better off fosterless than with gay parents."

Cause that is what happens.

Again, you can want to invest resources in reforming the foster system or you can believe that the way it currently works is better than having gay parents. Both of these are perfectly valid stances that care about babies and are pro life yet anti gay adoption.

Oh, and if we are going to talk about what happens in reality, my dad and several of his siblings were adopted by a straight couple (my grandparents) and had a great childhood. And I had a roommate in college who grew up in foster care and still keeps in touch and considers them family. So no, not all babies end up "fosterless" or whatever.

I didn't claim all babies end up fosterless, just the ones denied gay parents.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 8:29:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/13/2015 8:25:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I didn't claim all babies end up fosterless, just the ones denied gay parents.

Okay. Would you mind explaining what proof you have of this?
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 3:10:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Exactly what is the question you are asking?
Now that the abortion pill has been invented, women will continue to have abortions if abortion is re-criminalized.
There was a time when abortion was illegal in West Germany. Hitler thought abortion was a crime against the state, as well as immoral.
When a German woman, a Gerwoman perhaps ?, Found out she was pregnant , she got on the autobahn and drove to the Netherlands. As soon as she was west of the border, abortion was legal, for her.
She would then visit an abortion clinic that was in Holland, but everyone there was speaking German.
The Netherlands had been invaded and conquered by the German army twice in that century, if something would result in there being fewer Germans in the future, the Dutch thought that was something good.
There was negative population growth in Germany. the tradition of a woman marrying her boyfriend because she got knocked up, ceased to be common in Germany.
The percentage of Germans who were still single rose in the fatherland as much as that of countries in North America, and Western Europe, as did the average age of first marriage.
You may have some good reasons for your opinion that Abortion must be legal or illegal, but the bottom line is the French would say your opinion was "merde de toro", for it is based on what you believe, not fact.
A good liberal believes the pro-lifers want women to bear the children of the men who raped them. A proper liberal will tell you that we have too many families, and the only acceptable reason for a pregnant girl to neglect to have an abortion is to provide a baby for a gay man and his husband to adopt.
Your liberal friends will like you more if you believe all of the crazy ideas they believe in.
If you believe that life begins at conception, you would do better to keep that secret.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 8:55:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 3:39:14 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
No but being pro-choice is certainly a liberal ideology.

I've never understood why that is.

In everything else, the liberals are usually for the underdog. The down trodden. The one being taken advantage of.

Liberals go far out of their way to put human faces on whales, dolphins, spotted owls and even trees.

Even as they turn the other way and turn a blind eye to the killing of prenatal children, the denial of their rights, protections etc.

It undermines every other 'good intention' they have.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 9:20:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 3:39:14 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
No but being pro-choice is certainly a liberal ideology.

It is a belief, not an ideology. If you ever want to discuss social issues btw PM me since I am not much of a forum warrior, and you seem to want to know what extremists like me think.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 9:27:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Murder is a death when a crime is committed. If the abortion is done in a place where this is legal it is not murder.
When they dropped the Atom bomb on Hiroshima, there must have been hundreds of unborn children down there who got nuked.
Are the bomb crew of the Enola Gay not among the greatest of American heros?
I have heard that they put the word "Gay" on the airplane to let Japan know they were about to get ****ed up the a$$.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 9:39:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Its like Gayparrot says, "You can be pro-life as long as you are pro gay adoption."
Well if you are a liberal, you HAVE to be pro gay anything.
Maybe you should try to start believing that the only good baby is a dead one.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 10:21:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No. I am not Prochoice, but I am a liberal.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 10:52:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 8:55:23 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/14/2015 3:39:14 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
No but being pro-choice is certainly a liberal ideology.

I've never understood why that is.

In everything else, the liberals are usually for the underdog. The down trodden. The one being taken advantage of.

Liberals go far out of their way to put human faces on whales, dolphins, spotted owls and even trees.

Even as they turn the other way and turn a blind eye to the killing of prenatal children, the denial of their rights, protections etc.

It undermines every other 'good intention' they have.

Well firstly, I'm pretty sure whales, dolphins, spotted owls and trees are actually alive, living, breathing, fully developed and functional organisms, fetuses are not. Therefore they are not entitled to the same rights that a living, breathing, fully developed and functioning human being has, or at least not until they develop to full term during pregnancy. Also, all of the organisms you mentioned are endangered, humans are not.

I certainly don't advocate for abortion, but I don't believe a woman should be forced to carry and give birth to a baby she either doesn't want or cannot take care of. What about her rights? Not only that, what about the rights of that child being forced to live in a world where he or she is unwanted and disenfranchised? To me it seems that people are only "pro-life" until that child is born.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 11:45:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 10:52:07 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 2/16/2015 8:55:23 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 2/14/2015 3:39:14 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
No but being pro-choice is certainly a liberal ideology.

I've never understood why that is.

In everything else, the liberals are usually for the underdog. The down trodden. The one being taken advantage of.

Liberals go far out of their way to put human faces on whales, dolphins, spotted owls and even trees.

Even as they turn the other way and turn a blind eye to the killing of prenatal children, the denial of their rights, protections etc.

It undermines every other 'good intention' they have.

Well firstly, I'm pretty sure whales, dolphins, spotted owls and trees are actually alive, living, breathing, fully developed and functional organisms, fetuses are not.

Yes. They are.

If they were not alive and fully functioning (whatever that means) they would already be dead and wouldn't need to be aborted to get rid of them. They (children in the womb) are human beings and 'fully functioning' or not - they are the children of the parents who created them. Our fetal homicide laws already establish this as fact.

Therefore they are not entitled to the same rights that a living, breathing, fully developed and functioning human being has, or at least not until they develop to full term during pregnancy.

I thought that liberals for were proponents for the equal rights of all human beings? You are saying that unless they can breathe on their own, or unless they are "fully developed" - they are okay to be killed for the convenience of others?

So, anyone who is extremely young, in a coma, missing limbs, and does not meet YOUR definition of "fully functional" is just fughked. Is that right?

Also, all of the organisms you mentioned are endangered, humans are not.

Show me where our constitution says that only "endangered" humans are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws. can you do that for me?

I didn't think you could.

I certainly don't advocate for abortion, but I don't believe a woman should be forced to carry and give birth to a baby she either doesn't want or cannot take care of.

That sure reads like the advocating of abortion to me.

What about her rights?

What about them? Does she have the right to violate the rights of a child or children? yes or no?

Not only that, what about the rights of that child being forced to live in a world where he or she is unwanted and disenfranchised?

Do liberals generally think they have the right to make that decision for children in other circumstances too? Or just when they are in the womb?

To me it seems that people are only "pro-life" until that child is born.

You are making the mistake in thinking that the only reason for opposing abortion is because someone is "pro-life" or because they believe that "all lives are sacred." News for you, I am NOT pro-life and I don't think that all lives are sacred.

I am "anti-abortion" because I (unlike liberals) actually believe in equal rights and "justice for all" and I don't / can't justify the denial of rights to ANYONE of any age, stage of development or for the convenience of others - as you have been doing in this post.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 12:39:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well firstly, I'm pretty sure whales, dolphins, spotted owls and trees are actually alive, living, breathing, fully developed and functional organisms, fetuses are not.

Yes. They are.

Can they survive and continue to develop outside the uterus? No, they cannot. Fetuses are not fully developed and functioning organisms. They have no fully functioning brains or hearts, their body systems and functions are practically nonexistent until the third trimester of pregnancy. They are 100% dependent on the mother to continue growing until they actually become a living, breathing organism, until then, they are apart of the mother's body she therefore has the right to abort it if she so chooses.


If they were not alive and fully functioning (whatever that means) they would already be dead and wouldn't need to be aborted to get rid of them. They (children in the womb) are human beings and 'fully functioning' or not - they are the children of the parents who created them. Our fetal homicide laws already establish this as fact.

See above. Fetuses are not children, they are fetuses. They are fully dependent on the mother's body to even continue existing.

Therefore they are not entitled to the same rights that a living, breathing, fully developed and functioning human being has, or at least not until they develop to full term during pregnancy.

I thought that liberals for were proponents for the equal rights of all human beings? You are saying that unless they can breathe on their own, or unless they are "fully developed" - they are okay to be killed for the convenience of others?

Clearly you don't know what liberals are for. According to Roe v. Wade, the word "person" does not include the unborn, and a fetus does not have equal status with the mother until the point of viability, or when the fetus can exist outside of the mother's womb. According to the common law in criminal matters, the definition of a "person" is one who has been born alive, so abortion is not "murder". Fetuses are not "born alive" so they are not people. Without the body of the biological mother supporting them and allowing them to even exist, they are nothing but disposable, underdeveloped organs and tissue.


So, anyone who is extremely young, in a coma, missing limbs, and does not meet YOUR definition of "fully functional" is just fughked. Is that right?

What are you even talking about? Now you are just rambling and using straw man argumentation. I never said anything about a child that is ALREADY BORN. Clearly you don't comprehend my use of the term "functional". Nice try though.


Also, all of the organisms you mentioned are endangered, humans are not.

Show me where our constitution says that only "endangered" humans are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws. can you do that for me?

Again, WHAT are you talking about?


I didn't think you could.

No, I cannot argue against something that doesn't make sense.


I certainly don't advocate for abortion, but I don't believe a woman should be forced to carry and give birth to a baby she either doesn't want or cannot take care of.

That sure reads like the advocating of abortion to me.

That is YOUR interpretation, and therefore your problem, not mine.

What about her rights?

What about them? Does she have the right to violate the rights of a child or children? yes or no?

Fetuses ARE NOT children. They are fetuses. What part of that did you not understand the first time?

Not only that, what about the rights of that child being forced to live in a world where he or she is unwanted and disenfranchised?

Do liberals generally think they have the right to make that decision for children in other circumstances too? Or just when they are in the womb?

AGAIN, what are you talking about?

To me it seems that people are only "pro-life" until that child is born.

You are making the mistake in thinking that the only reason for opposing abortion is because someone is "pro-life" or because they believe that "all lives are sacred." News for you, I am NOT pro-life and I don't think that all lives are sacred.

THEN WHY ARE YOU ARGUING AGAINST ABORTION IF YOU AREN'T PRO-LIFE? Oh right, because you are pro-life.

I am "anti-abortion" because I (unlike liberals) actually believe in equal rights and "justice for all" and I don't / can't justify the denial of rights to ANYONE of any age, stage of development or for the convenience of others - as you have been doing in this post.

No the hell you don't. Your profile says you are anti Affirmative Action and pro racial profiling. But please tell me again how much you believe in equal rights and "justice for all"...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 1:27:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 12:39:21 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
Well firstly, I'm pretty sure whales, dolphins, spotted owls and trees are actually alive, living, breathing, fully developed and functional organisms, fetuses are not.

Yes. They are.

Can they survive and continue to develop outside the uterus? No, they cannot.

That would depend upon their environment.

Fetuses are not fully developed and functioning organisms.

Again, our Constitution does not care nor discriminate based upon such things. It simply says that "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws." It is an inclusive statement.

They have no fully functioning brains or hearts,

Neither do heart patients, severely retarded people or those living with severe disabilities or other abnormalities. Guess what? they are still human beings. they are still "persons" and they are just as entitled to the equal protections of our laws that you are.

their body systems and functions are practically nonexistent until the third trimester of pregnancy.

They exist enough to be recognized as "murder" victims under our fetal homicide laws and other related laws though. don't they?

They are 100% dependent on the mother to continue growing until they actually become a living, breathing organism, until then, they are apart of the mother's body she therefore has the right to abort it if she so chooses.

If that is true, then what do you think the Supreme Court meant when they said "once personhood is established for children in the womb - the case FOR abortion becomes near impossible to make?"

If they were not alive and fully functioning (whatever that means) they would already be dead and wouldn't need to be aborted to get rid of them. They (children in the womb) are human beings and 'fully functioning' or not - they are the children of the parents who created them. Our fetal homicide laws already establish this as fact.

See above. Fetuses are not children, they are fetuses.

Our fetal homicide laws already say you are wrong about that.

They are fully dependent on the mother's body to even continue existing.

So, a child removed (dead or alive) from the mother's womb in an abortion doesn't even exist anymore? LOL. You should do an image search on that.

Therefore they are not entitled to the same rights that a living, breathing, fully developed and functioning human being has, or at least not until they develop to full term during pregnancy.

I thought that liberals for were proponents for the equal rights of all human beings? You are saying that unless they can breathe on their own, or unless they are "fully developed" - they are okay to be killed for the convenience of others?

Clearly you don't know what liberals are for.

I know that they are generally for the denial of basic human rights and personhood to children in the womb.

According to Roe v. Wade, the word "person" does not include the unborn, and a fetus does not have equal status with the mother until the point of viability, or when the fetus can exist outside of the mother's womb.

That is precisely why Roe v Wade will eventually be overturned- Just as the Dred Scott Case was flawed when the SCOTUS tried to use the same approach that you are using now- to deny human rights and personhood to slaves.

According to the common law in criminal matters, the definition of a "person" is one who has been born alive, so abortion is not "murder".

Try selling that notion to the people doing time right now for MURDER - for their part in illegal abortions.

Fetuses are not "born alive" so they are not people.

See above.

Without the body of the biological mother supporting them and allowing them to even exist, they are nothing but disposable, underdeveloped organs and tissue.

If that were true, you would have no problem at all not only overturning our fetal homicide laws - but the laws which limit abortions to various points in gestation as well.

So, anyone who is extremely young, in a coma, missing limbs, and does not meet YOUR definition of "fully functional" is just fughked. Is that right?

What are you even talking about? Now you are just rambling and using straw man argumentation.

Did you not claim that a human being is not a "person" or entitled to the protections of our laws until they are "fully functioning" and can "breathe on their own?" You did. So, what about people who (like my wife) has severe brain injuries, are on a ventilator or are in a coma? Are they "persons?"

I never said anything about a child that is ALREADY BORN. Clearly you don't comprehend my use of the term "functional". Nice try though.

An aborted child is just as BORN as is any other child. Only, they are BORN into the hands of their killers.


Also, all of the organisms you mentioned are endangered, humans are not.

Show me where our constitution says that only "endangered" humans are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws. can you do that for me?

Again, WHAT are you talking about?

Read it again.

I didn't think you could.

No, I cannot argue against something that doesn't make sense.

You claimed that it's okay to kill human beings in the womb because they (we) are not "endangered." So, show me where it is written in our constitution that it's OKAY to deny rights and personhood to "human beings" when they are not considered to be endangered.


I certainly don't advocate for abortion, but I don't believe a woman should be forced to carry and give birth to a baby she either doesn't want or cannot take care of.

That sure reads like the advocating of abortion to me.

That is YOUR interpretation, and therefore your problem, not mine.

ADVOCATE:
a person who argues for or supports a cause or policy
a person who works for a cause or group

What about her rights?

What about them? Does she have the right to violate the rights of a child or children? yes or no?

(Human) Fetuses ARE NOT children.

Yes they are. In fact, our laws already define them as such.

They are fetuses. What part of that did you not understand the first time?

"(d) As used in this section, the term "unborn child" means a child in utero, and the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." - http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Not only that, what about the rights of that child being forced to live in a world where he or she is unwanted and disenfranchised?

Do liberals generally think they have the right to make that decision for children in other circumstances too? Or just when they are in the womb?

AGAIN, what are you talking about?

Read it again.

To me it seems that people are only "pro-life" until that child is born.

You are making the mistake in thinking that the only reason for opposing abortion is because someone is "pro-life" or because they believe that "all lives are sacred." News for you, I am NOT pro-life and I don't think that all lives are sacred.

THEN WHY ARE YOU ARGUING AGAINST ABORTION IF YOU AREN'T PRO-LIFE? Oh right, because you are pro-life.

I am "anti-abortion" because I (unlike liberals) actually believe in equal rights and "justice for all" and I don't / can't justify the denial of rights to ANYONE of any age, stage of development or for the convenience of others - as you have been doing in this post.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 1:35:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 12:39:21 AM, briantheliberal wrote:

I am "anti-abortion" because I (unlike liberals) actually believe in equal rights and "justice for all" and I don't / can't justify the denial of rights to ANYONE of any age, stage of development or for the convenience of others - as you have been doing in this post.

No the hell you don't. Your profile says you are anti Affirmative Action and pro racial profiling. But please tell me again how much you believe in equal rights and "justice for all"...

If you want to debate either of those - just let me know.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 11:51:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ "
The Supreme Court will NEVER have to explain that or anything else. Once you are appointed to this court you can never be fired. You will not need to ask someone for a job ever again either.
If you need to get an explanation from them for anything, don't hold your breath. They believe their knowledge and understanding of the law is superior to that of anybody else.
I will explain what I said about the abortion pill though.
One of the main reasons for making abortion legal was the illegal abortion business. When women needed an illegal abortion they would find a non-law-abiding person who was not afraid to take risks. Sometimes the result of taking a risk here would be a serious injury to the woman.
Some people would say that if she has disobeyed the law and hired a man to murder her baby, it serves her right.
Before 1972 women would not obey this law either, unless they could not afford to make a trip to a place where abortion was legal, and they were afraid to have a criminal do an abortion on them.
Judith Exner had her abortion done in a hospital in Chicago, but they made an exception for her because she was carrying the bastard of President Kennedy.
So, there may be new laws passed in the future that prohibit abortion but these will be unlike the laws that were passed in the past, because we will assume that these laws only exist because some politician will perceive them to be a means of getting votes from pro-lifers. The court makes the final decision on whether a law is constitutional, they are not gonna change their mind and say they were wrong.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 1:09:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 11:51:43 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ "

The Supreme Court will NEVER have to explain that or anything else.

I disagree.

Once you are appointed to this court you can never be fired. You will not need to ask someone for a job ever again either.

There is always impeachment.

If you need to get an explanation from them for anything, don't hold your breath. They believe their knowledge and understanding of the law is superior to that of anybody else.

I'm sure they probably do believe that way.

I will explain what I said about the abortion pill though.
One of the main reasons for making abortion legal was the illegal abortion business. When women needed an illegal abortion they would find a non-law-abiding person who was not afraid to take risks. Sometimes the result of taking a risk here would be a serious injury to the woman.

So, the killing of children needed to be made safer for the child killers.

Got it.

Some people would say that if she has disobeyed the law and hired a man to murder her baby, it serves her right.

Though I don't agree with it entirely, I share that view to some extent, myself. I try to give most women the benefit of the doubt though. I don't believe that most women understand that an abortion entails the murder of an actual child.

Before 1972 women would not obey this law either, unless they could not afford to make a trip to a place where abortion was legal, and they were afraid to have a criminal do an abortion on them.

So, the killing of children needed to be made safer for the child killers.

Got it.

Judith Exner had her abortion done in a hospital in Chicago, but they made an exception for her because she was carrying the bastard of President Kennedy.

The use of one example of corruption to justify even more corrupt behavior seems counter productive to me.

So, there may be new laws passed in the future that prohibit abortion but these will be unlike the laws that were passed in the past, because we will assume that these laws only exist because some politician will perceive them to be a means of getting votes from pro-lifers.

Yeah. No lawmakers actually believe in the laws they are passing. They only care about votes. Uh huh.

Nodding.

The court makes the final decision on whether a law is constitutional, they are not gonna change their mind and say they were wrong.

What do you suppose they will do- when those convicted of murder under our fetal homicide laws try to appeal their convictions (to the Supreme Court) - claiming that according to the fetal homicide laws a child in the womb is a person - but under legalized abortion they are not?

The Court will be continually challenged to reconcile the two.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...