• 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!

Obama wins over notre dame

Goobieman said:
No. What is the way that the majority, if not all, medical procedures are morally neutral?

That is, how do you reach the conclusion that the majority, if not all, medical procedures are morally neutral?
Click to expand...

That they don't result in a moral question being begged or a morally consequential outcome. It's a medical procedure meant to alleviate medical conditions. They are morally neutral as there is no moral issue involved with their performance. Removal of the appendix is not a moral issue. Sewing on a pig's heart valve isn't a moral issue. Removing a fetus which has no functioning central nervous system and has never been self aware isn't a moral issue.

It's morally neutral.
 
jallman said:
That they don't result in a moral question being begged or a morally consequential outcome.
Click to expand...
You're just restating your premise. It doesnt matter how many times you restate your premise, you're still just restating the premise.

So, you can actually address my question, or not. Let me know.
 
Goobieman said:
You're just restating your premise. It doesnt matter how many times you restate your premise, you're still just restating the premise.

So, you can actually address my question, or not. Let me know.
Click to expand...

I did. I'm sorry you don't understand.
 
jallman said:
I did. I'm sorry you don't understand.
Click to expand...
I -do- understand that you're supporting your premise by stating it again.
Sorry that YOU dont understand that by doing so, you aren't supporting your premise.
 
Goobieman said:
I -do- understand that you're supporting your premise by stating it again.
Sorry that YOU dont understand that by doing so, you aren't supporting your premise.
Click to expand...

If you can suggest a moral consequence to removing the appendix, sewing in a pig's heart valve, or removing a fetus, then you can move toward making an argument against moral neutrality.

I stated that medical procedures are morally neutral BECAUSE they do not result in any moral consequence. Now if you can identify a moral consequence that would remove the neutrality of those procedures, I am all ears.

But I totally understand if you want to just sit around and pat your boys on the back because we can all agree Nazis are bad. :roll:
 
jallman said:
If you can suggest a moral consequence to removing the appendix, sewing in a pig's heart valve, or removing a fetus, then you can move toward making an argument against moral neutrality.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Not my job. You claimed moral neutrality, and so it is up to you to illustrate same. Thus far all you have done is continue to re-state your claim in support of that claim.

You may continue at your leisure.
 
Goobieman said:
Sorry. Not my job. You claimed moral neutrality, and so it is up to you to illustrate same. Thus far all you have done is continue to re-state your claim in support of that claim.

You may continue at your leisure.
Click to expand...

So you mean you want me to prove a negative by disproving the existence of a moral consequence?

Yeah, not my job and it's a logical fallacy. But you may continue patting yourself on the back at your leisure. Honesty and genuine interest in intellectual discourse was never your strong suit anyway.
 
jallman said:
So you mean you want me to prove a negative by disproving the existence of a moral consequence?
Click to expand...
Its -your- claim. You have to back -all of it- up for it to be sound.

When you decide to do that, let me know. Else, I'll consider the matter closed.
 
Goobieman said:
Its -your- claim. You have to back -all of it- up for it to be sound.

When you decide to do that, let me know. Else, I'll consider the matter closed.
Click to expand...

Yes, the matter of your dishonesty and disingenuous nature is an open and shut case.
 
jallman said:
Yes, the matter of your dishonesty and disingenuous nature is an open and shut case.
Click to expand...
Your pettiness does nothing to change the fact that you know you havent supported your position with anything other than repeating it.

Buh-bye.:2wave:
 
Goobieman said:
Your pettiness does nothing to change the fact that you know you havent supported your position with anything other than repeating it.

Buh-bye.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Bye. Don't let the door hit ya...
 
celticlord said:
So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let's make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)
Click to expand...

It seems to me that many of you simply want to find something offensive in his words.

I'm no Obama fan, in fact he's done some seriously stupid things, and I agree that he's been uneven and inconsistent.

However, I think his point here is absolutely spot on. This is precisely how to generate some kind of common ground.

I'm against abortion and am a Christian, for what it's worth. However, I'm also against the way folks seem to pre-bash Obama, as if he's the devil incarnate. He's not.

We all know the truth lies somewhere in between, and I find it hard to understand how taking the automatic hard line against him promotes useful debate.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Speeches are never anything except words and play-acting.

Good to see the Democrats and other socialists are impressed with words and play-acting.

The rest of us expect results.
Click to expand...

Please, prove this. Logic, links to credible sources, or even a point would do.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Name them.



It's the only reason he was elected.

It's the only qualification he had to offer.

He didn't have experience.
He didn't have a workable plan.
He didn't have a clue.

But he had melanin.
Click to expand...

Can you prove any of your assertions, whatsoever?
 
celticlord said:
Will you say explicitly that abortion as a form of birth control is a morally wrong choice? Answer yes or no.
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous way to phrase a question, and you know it. It's a complex issue.
 
Analyst said:
However, I think his point here is absolutely spot on. This is precisely how to generate some kind of common ground.
Click to expand...
Just curious:
What common ground is there between people that believe that abortion is the willful and deliberate ending of a innocent human life, and those that believe they should be able to do so at will?

As I said before, The Obama's comments amount to saying "I know you disagree, but I don't care".
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Sorry, the majority of his DNA came from Europe, not Africa.

The majority of his life's experiences came from his white relatives, not his black ones.

The MOST important thing to note 'bout 'bama is that he DID NOT live his formative years as an impressionable young mulatto in the United States in the 1960's. He DOES NOT share the American black "experience".

He's got a permanent tan. That's the only thing "black" about him.
Click to expand...

Wow, amazing..another post without a lick of proof or even logic.
 
Goobieman said:
So does Catholic dogma. There can be no common ground here.

The Obama essentially told them that "I know you disagree, but I don't really care."
Click to expand...

Are you sure this isn't just your interpretation?
 
Goobieman said:
Just curious:
What common ground is there between people that believe that abortion is the willful and deliberate ending of a innocent human life, and those that believe they should be able to do so at will?

As I said before, The Obama's comments amount to saying "I know you disagree, but I don't care".
Click to expand...

Did you read the speech?

There are MANY other things we can work toward that will reduce the NEED to even discuss abortion.
 
I'm done tolerating the ridiculously unsupported assertions made on these boards. Rest assured if you make some partisan snipe without a lick of proof, I'll call you on it.
 
Analyst said:
Did you read the speech?

There are MANY other things we can work toward that will reduce the NEED to even discuss abortion.
Click to expand...
All that is well and good -- but when two sides have diametrically opposing views, there can be no common ground regarding those opposing views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom