• 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!

The Pinch - Wake Up, America

Removable Mind said:
The problem is that it would be fruitless to debate you on subjective beliefs, especially God or spiritually related comments or claims.

You can't prove there are such a thing as God given rights. You continue to claim "women's sexual responsibilities are based on your standards.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Click to expand...

Yes, they would be based on my assumptions.... but those arguments do not only work for that...

If you place any value at all on the fetus it works, at least to the point where a woman is responsible for it.
 
celticwar17 said:
Hmmm Idk Irrational is the right word, but wrong?
Click to expand...
Based on your words irrational is the correct answer, but even wrong is incorrect as there is not practical way to prove that you are right.

1. Humans are special is the universe, we violate the laws of physics with our consciousness.... how?
Click to expand...
That is your unprovable perspective and lets just say that I do not agree with it, nor is it truly relevant.

I could go on
Click to expand...
No need as it is not the issue.

Humans, and maybe even life in general, is special and gives things meaning...
Click to expand...
If that were true then ALL life should be treaded the same way. Do you do that?

A typical Atheist view denies this property about humans and life.
Click to expand...
You must have met some really strange atheists.

This is the foundation of my belief that the Universe is Life-centric...
Click to expand...
You are free to have that.

it would not exist if life did not exist
Click to expand...
But it did exist before life so you are mistaken.

I think this gives a strong case for a creator, and I would also touch on a little of Plato and other philsophers...The one over the many argument is very convincing to me.... and tying in saint thomas Aquinas that the One is whom we call god. Idk if you are familiar.... It's quite an exhausting topic that requires a lot on my part, that's why I ask if you are familiar?
Click to expand...
If I may, you are overthinking this and thus are unable to manage the notions that do not converge from the various sources.

A theological and ethical one. There aren't many Theological/religious beliefs that suffer such consequences as abortion.... most can coexist in our society.
Click to expand...
Actually so can abortion.
 
prometeus said:
Based on your words irrational is the correct answer, but even wrong is incorrect as there is not practical way to prove that you are right.

That is your unprovable perspective and lets just say that I do not agree with it, nor is it truly relevant.

No need as it is not the issue.

If that were true then ALL life should be treaded the same way. Do you do that?

You must have met some really strange atheists.

You are free to have that.

But it did exist before life so you are mistaken.

If I may, you are overthinking this and thus are unable to manage the notions that do not converge from the various sources.

Actually so can abortion.
Click to expand...

I don't think those are adequate responses... just short and cheap. Maybe that's all you want...
We cannot prove that the universe existed yesterday...or five seconds ago. You cannot insist that the universe existed before consciousness... the universe existed in a sense, but not in the same way, life collapses the quantum probability equation.
 
celticwar17 said:
I argue it is based on rational and provable tenets... I think it is rational to believe there is some sort of god...That is where the debate is, the abortion issue goes much deeper than just abortion itself.
Click to expand...

And yet, not remotely "provable.'

And yes, abortion goes deeper than 'just abortion itself.' It cannot be examined without considering its impacts on women...ethically and legally.
 
Last edited:
Removable Mind said:
The problem is that it would be fruitless to debate you on subjective beliefs, especially God or spiritually related comments or claims.

You can't prove there are such a thing as God given rights. You continue to claim "women's sexual responsibilities are based on your standards.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
celticwar17 said:
Yes, they would be based on my assumptions.... but those arguments do not only work for that...

If you place any value at all on the fetus it works, at least to the point where a woman is responsible for it.
Click to expand...

Many of us realize value for the unborn, but we value women more.


Why do you value the unborn more than women?

(And yes you do, even if you protest that...because to implement your desires for the unborn in society would, in reality, treat women as lessor.)
 
celticwar17 said:
We cannot prove that the universe existed yesterday...or five seconds ago.
Click to expand...
Clearly, the day before yesterday you were in a different dimension...

You cannot insist that the universe existed before consciousness...
Click to expand...
But you can that it did not eh?

he universe existed in a sense, but not in the same way
Click to expand...
Exactly and then you cam along and shed light on it.

life collapses the quantum probability equation.
Click to expand...
No it implodes it outright...

Ciao...
 
ocean515 said:
25 years ago, or so, a baby born 8 weeks premature was on the margin of survival. Much earlier than that, and survival was almost out of the question. Today, births at 23-28 weeks have a substantially improved chance of survival.
...
Click to expand...

40 years ago premies were surviving at about 28 weeks gestation.
With the invention of infant CPAP in the early 1970s the limit of gestation ( when 50 percent of preemies survived was eventually pushed back to 24 weeks gestation). The limit of gestation has remained at 24 weeks for the last 15 years.
 
celticwar17 said:
I argue it is based on rational and provable tenets... I think it is rational to believe there is some sort of god...That is where the debate is, the abortion issue goes much deeper than just abortion itself.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a religious moral case. There are different religious faith principles ( tenets ) on abortion.
Shortly after the 2004 march, I convened 12 theologians from diverse religious backgrounds to develop an Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as A Moral Decision. These theologians agreed that precisely because life and parenthood are so precious, no woman should be coerced to carry a pregnancy to term. The Open Letter calls for a religious and moral commitment to reproductive health and rights, including comprehensive sexuality education, contraception and safe, legal and accessible abortion services. Further, the theologians affirmed that no single religious voice can speak for all faith traditions on abortion, nor should government take sides on religious differences.


Women must have the right to apply or reject the principles of their own faith without legal restrictions. More than 1,600 clergy have signed this Open Letter.

There is a religious and moral case for safe, legal and accessible abortion services. It is true that religious traditions have different beliefs on the value of fetal life, often according greater value as fetal development progresses. Science, medicine, law and philosophy contribute to this understanding. However, many religious traditions teach that the health and life of the woman must take precedence over the life of the fetus.
Christian and Hebrew scriptures neither condemn nor prohibit abortion. They do, however, call us to act compassionately and justly when facing difficult moral decisions. Women must have the right to apply or reject the principles of their own faith without legal restrictions or accessibility barriers. The scriptural commitment to the most marginalized means that pregnancy, childbearing and abortion should be safe for all women, just as a scriptural commitment to truth-telling means that women must have accurate information as they make their decisions.
Click to expand...

Abortion is a Moral Decision by Rev. Debra W. Haffner
 
Last edited:
celticwar17 said:
Those that are Responsible for the consequences of an Unethical action that they are Responsible for ought not violate the rights(ought suffer the consequences-of) of those for which were not Responsible .

That is my answer.
Click to expand...

Huh????
 
minnie616 said:
40 years ago premies were surviving at about 28 weeks gestation.
With the invention of infant CPAP in the early 1970s the limit of gestation ( when 50 percent of preemies survived was eventually pushed back to 24 weeks gestation). The limit of gestation has remained at 24 weeks for the last 15 years.
Click to expand...

OK. That is what I wrote. However, the historical record lists the earliest known survival at less than 24 weeks of gestation, so your claim is inaccurate. Not that it matters.

So the challenging question remains.
 
ocean515 said:
OK. That is what I wrote. However, the historical record lists the earliest known survival at less than 24 weeks of gestation, so your claim is inaccurate. Not that it matters.

So the challenging question remains.
Click to expand...

There is a 2 week difference between gestational weeks and regular weeks.

When I was expecting in the 1970s doctors still counted the pregnancy weeks from the estimated date of conception now they count gestational weeks from the first day of the last period which means on the day when the human egg is fertilized by the sperm ( day of conception) the pregnancy is considered to be 2 weeks gestation.
 
minnie616 said:
There is a 2 week difference between gestational weeks and regular weeks.

When I was expecting in the 1970s doctors still counted the pregnancy weeks from the estimated date of conception now they count gestational weeks from the first day of the last period which means on the day when the human egg is fertilized by the sperm ( day of conception) the pregnancy is considered to be 2 weeks gestation.
Click to expand...

Let's not get caught up in semantics. That doesn't change anything.

The fact is, there is considerable research underway to create an artificial womb, so how old the fetus is may become moot.

The fact is the line of survivability so often used by advocates is becoming blurred, which raises a challenging question.
 
ocean515 said:
Let's not get caught up in semantics. That doesn't change anything.

The fact is, there is considerable research underway to create an artificial womb, so how old the fetus is may become moot.

The fact is the line of survivability so often used by advocates is becoming blurred, which raises a challenging question.
Click to expand...

Even if an artificial womb is developed an embryo or fetus would relay on a womb ( real or artificial) until past 21 weeks gestation to survive outside the womb. Experts agree that the lungs/digestive system of embryo or early fetus are too immature to be able to survive without gestating in a womb until past 21 weeks gestation. Even the skin is still very thin and translucent before 21 weeks gestation.

There is no way to transfer a pre viable embryo or fetus from a woman's womb to an artificial womb without harming the woman or harming the pre viabilbe embryo/pre viabilble fetus.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
Even if an artificial womb is developed an embryo or fetus would relay on a womb ( real or artificial) until past 21 weeks gestation to survive outside the womb. Experts agree that the lungs/digestive system of embryo or early fetus are too immature to be able to survive without gestating in a womb until past 21 weeks gestation. Even the skin is still very thin and translucent before 21 weeks gestation.

There is no way to transfer a pre viable embryo or fetus from a woman's womb to an artificial womb without harming the woman or harming the pre viabilbe embryo/pre viabilble fetus.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not qualified to comment about possibilities or not. 50 years ago, babies who survive today would have died back then. I'm sure doctors back then would not believe the advancements that have allowed such premature births to survive today.

With artificial wombs, a mother wouldn't necessarily be required. If such a thing is possible, who is to say 15 weeks couldn't be survived.

Again, I think you're missing the point. Should these medical breakthroughs come to pass, the philosophical question become more important.
 
ocean515 said:
Well, I'm not qualified to comment about possibilities or not. 50 years ago, babies who survive today would have died back then. I'm sure doctors back then would not believe the advancements that have allowed such premature births to survive today.

With artificial wombs, a mother wouldn't necessarily be required. If such a thing is possible, who is to say 15 weeks couldn't be survived.

Again, I think you're missing the point. Should these medical breakthroughs come to pass, the philosophical question become more important.
Click to expand...

Would the mother have the option of putting the unborn in an artificial womb? Or would force of law be used to make her do so? (legal and ethical/philosophical question)

And who would be responsible for maintenance of the artificial womb/gestating unborn? How about if the baby wasnt adopted at birth? Who is paying for all this? (practical question)

I always wonder this stuff when people bring up artificial wombs. I think they would be a great thing for couples that want to have a kid but the woman cannot carry it. But I just see many new (and some old) legal and ethical and practical questions that would need to be answered before it could be used to 'solve' abortion.
 
Lursa said:
Would the mother have the option of putting the unborn in an artificial womb? Or would force of law be used to make her do so? (legal and ethical/philosophical question)

And who would be responsible for maintenance of the artificial womb/gestating unborn? How about if the baby wasnt adopted at birth? Who is paying for all this? (practical question)

I always wonder this stuff when people bring up artificial wombs. I think they would be a great thing for couples that want to have a kid but the woman cannot carry it. But I just see many new (and some old) legal and ethical and practical questions that would need to be answered before it could be used to 'solve' abortion.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And that is the point about challenging philosophical questions becoming more important with these medical advancements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom