US Election 2020 - Pt 3

Who do you think WILL win the 2020 US presidential election

  • Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)

    Votes: 166 44.4%

  • Donald J. Trump (R)

    Votes: 208 55.6%
  • Total voters
    374
Status
Not open for further replies.
daveza said:
Because only Democrats have abortions. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Abortions are not the killing of babies anyway. A baby is an infant, a human child - a human that has already been born. Abortions are the termination of a zygote, embryo or fetus, not the killing of a baby. Millions of terminated pregnancies is not the same as millions of dead babies. It's the conservatives who tend to reject the idea of the state helping to protect babies, they only care about protecting the fetus. A baby is just another person wanting welfare, in their eyes, and protection goes out the window.
 
Last edited:
C4Cat said:
Abortions are not the killing of babies anyway. A baby is an infant, a human child - a human that has already been born. Abortions are the termination of a zygote, embryo or fetus, not the killing of a baby. Millions of terminated pregnancies is not the same as millions of dead babies. It's the conservatives who tend to reject the idea of the state helping to protect babies, they only care about protecting the fetus. A baby is just another person wanting welfare, in their eyes, and protection goes out the window.
Click to expand...

No that is a nebulous term. As soon as a "fetus" is viable it is a baby. Just because it has not been taken out of the body does not make a difference.

You can argue semantics before this stage, but as technology improves so does viability. By the way look up the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act "
 
Kieppie said:
No that is a nebulous term. As soon as a "fetus" is viable it is a baby. Just because it has not been taken out of the body does not make a difference.

You can argue semantics before this stage, but as technology improves so does viability. By the way look up the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act "
Click to expand...
It's not just semantics, you are using intentionally misleading and inflammatory language to describe abortion. When you talk about murdered babies and killing babies, you are not talking about abortion - I don't know what you think you're talking about. Taking a morning after pill is simply not the same as murdering a baby. The majority of abortions take place before the embryo is even a fetus (before 7 weeks) so there are not millions of dead murdered babies as you claim.
 
C4Cat said:
It's not just semantics, you are using intentionally misleading and inflammatory language to describe abortion. When you talk about murdered babies and killing babies, you are not talking about abortion - I don't know what you think you're talking about. Taking a morning after pill is simply not the same as murdering a baby. The majority of abortions take place before the embryo is even a fetus (before 7 weeks) so there are not millions of dead murdered babies as you claim.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything about first trimester. I actually mentioned the morning after pill and a couple of other options a while back. So you're attacking the wrong person it seems.
It is murder after a certain point, which is why I mentioned viability outside the womb, but it is someones choice to do it or not. If they find it inflammatory that is not my problem.
 
C4Cat said:
Abortions are not the killing of babies anyway. A baby is an infant, a human child - a human that has already been born. Abortions are the termination of a zygote, embryo or fetus, not the killing of a baby. Millions of terminated pregnancies is not the same as millions of dead babies. It's the conservatives who tend to reject the idea of the state helping to protect babies, they only care about protecting the fetus. A baby is just another person wanting welfare, in their eyes, and protection goes out the window.
Click to expand...

The argument about abortion is far more sophisticated than that though - it is precisely under what circumstances should a woman get an abortion etc - not specifically only referring to circumstances like rape etc. but also about timing - e.g. late stage abortion and the like.
 
Chris_the_Brit said:
Some South Africans have such bad takes on this election - clear no research was done and he is hoping for a 2016 repeat...but this isn't 2016 anymore.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1313037999656054785
Click to expand...
Main difference between then and now is that now there isn't a hated person running against him.
Although we'll see if the current culture war saga makes up for this.
Definitely not a comfortable win for either.
 
Chris_the_Brit said:
The argument about abortion is far more sophisticated than that though - it is precisely under what circumstances should a woman get an abortion etc - not specifically only referring to circumstances like rape etc. but also about timing - e.g. late stage abortion and the like.
Click to expand...

Then why are Kippie and SM using such strawmanned black-and-white arguments against abortion?
 
Kieppie said:
Main difference between then and now is that now there isn't a hated person running against him.
Although we'll see if the current culture war saga makes up for this.
Definitely not a comfortable win for either.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't know that reading this thread 'tho, amirite Kieppie?
 
C4Cat said:
Abortions are not the killing of babies anyway. A baby is an infant, a human child - a human that has already been born. Abortions are the termination of a fetus, not the killing of a baby. Millions of terminated pregnancies is not the same as millions of dead babies. It's the conservatives who tend to reject the idea of the state helping to protect babies, they only care about protecting the fetus. A baby is just another person wanting welfare, in their eyes, and protection goes out the window.
Click to expand...
This is a dumb argument.
The argument isn't whether or not a foetus is human or not. If you try and argue that, it means that you can abort a foetus 10 seconds before it is born with the same moral ramifications as taking a morning after pill. To put it more philosophically, it is a variant of the Sorites paradox.
Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?
Click to expand...
This is why you have to consider a foetus a human from the earliest possible instance.

Rather, and this is how I look at it, the question is when is it morally (and legally) acceptable to kill a human.

There are plenty of instances where killing a human is morally acceptable. For example, if they peacefully try and take steal property, or non-violently try to kill you.
 
Last edited:
konfab said:
This is a dumb argument.
The argument isn't whether or not a foetus is human or not. If you try and argue that, it means that you can abort a foetus 10 seconds before it is born with the same moral ramifications as taking a morning after pill. To put it more philosophically, it is a variant of the Sorites paradox.

This is why you have to consider a foetus a human from the earliest possible instance.

Rather, and this is how I look at it, the question is when is it morally (and legally) acceptable to kill a human.

There are plenty of instances where killing a human is morally acceptable. For example, if they peacefully try and take steal property, or non-violently try to kill you.
Click to expand...

It becomes human when the fairies sprinkle human dust as it passes through the birth canal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X