• 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!

Is Abortion wrong?

Is abortion wrong?

  • Total voters
    49
Henrin said:
Why is function part of the formula? Its not, its a qualifier that you picked and nothing else.
Click to expand...

If you have a metal box with no harddrive or motherboard in it, is it a computer? If it has a cut-in-half, non-functional harddrive or motherboard in it, is a computer?

No. It doesn't compute. It is not a computer. The metal box does not make it a computer.

Obvious answer should be obvious...
 
If it would turn into a computer left undisturbed, in a few months, then yes - I have a computer. Call me crazy, but I count my chickens before they hatch, and I predict yields.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
If it would turn into a computer left undisturbed, in a few months, then yes - I have a computer. Call me crazy, but I count my chickens before they hatch, and I predict yields.
Click to expand...

Well, you're factually wrong. :shrug:

In keeping with the analogy, it wouldn't "turn into" anything. It is built by you. The fact that the build system for a human is not consciously performed doesn't make it not so. It is still an action performed by the builder. And the builder should decide what to do with it.

P.S. You've also just admitted a fetus isn't a human.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Why is function part of the formula? Its not, its a qualifier that you picked and nothing else.
Click to expand...

No, it's essential, which is why it's a sufficient condition. If the neural hardware is completely nonfunctional then ...whatever it is, is dead. A minimal degree of neural function is a sufficient condition of being a human being, however it's just a bare minimum, compared to what would be required to qualify as a person, which is significantly greater.

Henrin said:
Generalizations are generally not helpful.
Click to expand...

He made a claim that Pro-Lifers are more compassionate, that opened the door. I'm fully within my rights. If you question the veracity of my statement, I can provide statistical evidence which bears out my assertion.

Henrin said:
Another generalization. War can be helpful to the common man, and have been a few times in history.
Click to expand...

Not in any way that couldn't be achieved by some other means. It simply (obviously) is not in the best interest of the working class to slaughter eachother, en masse. However, I don't want to go to far off on a tangent. That's a subject for another thread.
 
MistressNomad said:
If you have a metal box with no harddrive or motherboard in it, is it a computer? If it has a cut-in-half, non-functional harddrive or motherboard in it, is a computer?

No. It doesn't compute. It is not a computer. The metal box does not make it a computer.

Obvious answer should be obvious...
Click to expand...

The computer argument fails. It needs you to go out and buy all those parts, put them all in, install a bunch of software to talk to it, and finally have a user to use all those parts as one. It just doesn't work without those parts, as the function of the parts are needed to be to move from being a collection of parts to a entire computer. A fetus is functioning at it current stage and is working towards another stage of function in the process. Its a totally different thing that you are trying to make the same, when it clearly is not.
 
Henrin said:
The computer argument fails. It needs you to go out and buy all those parts, put them all in, install a bunch of software to talk to it, and finally have a user to use all those parts as one. It just doesn't work without those parts, as the function of the parts are needed to be to move from being a collection of parts to a entire computer. A fetus is functioning at it current stage and is working towards another stage of function in the process. Its a totally different thing that you are trying to make the same, when it clearly is not.
Click to expand...

Uh, what do you think pregnancy is?

What, you think babies just poof into existence? You think a couple cells get together and say "ok, now we just have to get bigger"? No. The woman's body sets up a "feeding" system to provide energy for the work HER body puts in to developing the fetus, which is largely directed by her hormonal and nutritional influence. Even the DNA to create the fetus would not exist in full if not for her.

There is nothing original about a fetus' development. It is all guided by the influence of the parents' DNA and the woman's body. It requires a builder, and a provider of tools.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
Uh, what do you think pregnancy is?

What, you think babies just poof into existence? You think a couple cells get together and say "ok, now we just have to get bigger"? No. The woman's body sets up a "feeding" system to provide energy for the work HER body puts in to developing the fetus, which is largely directed by her hormonal and nutritional influence. Even the DNA to create the fetus would not exist in full if not for her.

There is nothing original about a fetus' development. It is all guided by the influence of the parents' DNA and the woman's body. It requires a builder, and a provider of tools.
Click to expand...

Not my argument, but cute. My argument is simple, and very basic. I imagine you are understanding exactly what I said, but please yourself by missing it for debating purposes. Lets say it again, the baby is functioning while it is working to a higher function. Are you part of this? Yes and no. While it is true that without you the baby would die, and its true that without you it wouldn't exist, its not true that you are actively involved in baby developing from one functional order to another. The difference in the example is pretty glaring to me.
 
Henrin said:
Not my argument, but cute. My argument is simple, and very basic. I imagine you are understanding exactly what I said, but please yourself by missing it for debating purposes. Lets say it again, the baby is functioning while it is working to a higher function. Are you part of this? Yes and no. While it is true that without you the baby would die, and its true that without you it wouldn't exist, its not true that you are actively involved in baby developing from one functional order to another. The difference in the example is pretty glaring to me.
Click to expand...

You are defining "actively" as "consciously." You're wrong. This is where your argument falls apart.

The fact that the body has a system for this doesn't mean the woman isn't directly guiding it. The fact that she doesn't have to think about it doesn't change that.
 
MistressNomad said:
You are defining "actively" as "consciously." You're wrong. This is where your argument falls apart.

The fact that the body has a system for this doesn't mean the woman isn't directly guiding it. The fact that she doesn't have to think about it doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about consciousness? Its doing it on its own using the energy provided by the woman and the environment of the woman to do what said. It doesn't need to be conscious to do any of this.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Who said anything about consciousness? Its doing it on its own using the energy provided by the woman and the environment of the woman to do what said. It doesn't need to be conscious to do any of this.
Click to expand...

You are implying an action needs to be conscious in order to be performed.

Do you think about breathing? Probably not. Does this mean you aren't controlling your breathing? No. You obviously are - you just have an unconscious system for it.

Likewise, fetal development is impossible without A. A pre-provided blue print (DNA), B. A regulatory body (the woman), and C. Specific influences and actions at specific times (mostly hormones of the woman). In other words, a builder.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
P.S. You've also just admitted a fetus isn't a human.
Click to expand...

Oh please. Don't get pissy when someone lowers themself to a lame analogy in attempt to help.
 
MistressNomad said:
You are implying an action needs to be conscious in order to be performed.

Do you think about breathing? Probably not. Does this mean you aren't controlling your breathing? No. You obviously are - you just have an unconscious system for it.
Click to expand...

When I say that I'm not doing something and I explain how I'm not why do you continue to come at me as if I am?

Likewise, fetal development is impossible without A. A pre-provided blue print (DNA), B. A regulatory body (the woman), and C. Specific influences and actions at specific time (mostly hormones of the woman). In other words, a builder.
Click to expand...

I never said even once that the woman wasn't important. I even made it point to say she was. If you aren't following me, tell me that, and stop pretending like you are following along.
 
ecofarm said:
Oh please. Don't get pissy when someone lowers themself to a lame analogy in attempt to help.
Click to expand...

Pissy? I think you're projecting.

And I wouldn't need to if anti-choicers wouldn't deny the simply realities of biology.
 
Henrin said:
When I say that I'm not doing something and I explain how I'm not why do you continue to come at me as if I am?

I never said even once that the woman wasn't important. I even made it point to say she was. If you aren't following me, tell me that, and stop pretending like you are following along.
Click to expand...

The fetus has no parts of its own at all. All of them are built according to the blue-print which is pre-provided. The fetus is not functioning at anything - at least not at the age when elective abortions occur. It is more of a function of the woman, than an indepedent entity.
 
MistressNomad said:
The fetus has no parts of its own at all. All of them are built according to the blue-print which is pre-provided. The fetus is not functioning at anything - at least not at the age when elective abortions occur. It is more of a function of the woman, than an indepedent entity.
Click to expand...

So the fetus doesn't have any parts of its own?
Why does it matter if its using a blue-print?
Why isn't it functioning? ...functioning doesn't mean it has to do it on its own..
 
MistressNomad said:
Pissy? I think you're projecting.

And I wouldn't need to if anti-choicers wouldn't deny the simply realities of biology.
Click to expand...

Ok, you caught me. I don't really believe what I've professed for years. The cat is out of the bag! Good job. Like that's not pissy. It's really a rather pathetic tactic, and unbecoming. "I made up an analogy that doesn't work and caught you!!11!!"


Again, please.

MistressNomad said:
If you have a...
Click to expand...

ecofarm said:
yes - I have a computer.
Click to expand...

MistressNomad said:
P.S. You've also just admitted a fetus isn't a human.
Click to expand...

You think that's intellectually honest?
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Ok, you caught me. I don't really believe what I've professed for years. The cat is ot of the bag! Good job.

Like that's not pissy. It's really a rather pathetic tactic, and unbecoming.
Click to expand...

Huh? Now I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

Projecting and babbling. Good technique.
 
Until the pro-life crowed is prepared to deal with Est. 1.3 million new borns that otherwise would have been aborted.. Then there is not point to this discussion?? If you ban abortion and force women to have the baby.. You can't force her to keep it.. Are you going to find 1.3 million adoptive parents each year?? Not likely?? Foster care?? Are you going to approve funding for that?? What about school and medical?? Are you going to approve funding for all this so those 1.3 million babies aren't just being tossed into the street to die..

If you pro-lifers are going to grand stand and scream murder and crap, then you all better give thought to the consequence to your views.. Until you come up with a viable solution as to what to do with the babies after they are born, and how are you are going to fund that solution.. Your arguements on this issue are essentially moot.. You can't argue one side and not take into account the other.. You can't say abortion is wrong and have no idea about what to do when the baby is born.. Any arguement against abortion is simply flawed without solution to what to do when they are born..

Is abortion wrong?? Stupid question.. It is the best solution we have for unwanted pregnancies.. Until someone comes up with something better.. There simply isn't anything else to say.. You either figure out a plan to deal with the babies when they are born, or spare the rest of us your lame arguements.. All you are doing is showing the rest of us how short sighted your views are..

You can't call abortion murder.. If you are going to let it die after it is born.. That is murder..
 
DemonMyst said:
You can't call abortion murder.. If you are going to let it die after it is born.. That is murder..
Click to expand...

Why? What is the difference between a child the day before it is born and the day after, that makes the death of one criminal and the other merely unfortunate?
 
DemonMyst said:
Until the pro-life crowed is prepared to deal with Est. 1.3 million new borns that otherwise would have been aborted.. Then there is not point to this discussion?? If you ban abortion and force women to have the baby.. You can't force her to keep it.. Are you going to find 1.3 million adoptive parents each year?? Not likely?? Foster care?? Are you going to approve funding for that?? What about school and medical?? Are you going to approve funding for all this so those 1.3 million babies aren't just being tossed into the street to die..

If you pro-lifers are going to grand stand and scream murder and crap, then you all better give thought to the consequence to your views.. Until you come up with a viable solution as to what to do with the babies after they are born, and how are you are going to fund that solution.. Your arguements on this issue are essentially moot.. You can't argue one side and not take into account the other.. You can't say abortion is wrong and have no idea about what to do when the baby is born.. Any arguement against abortion is simply flawed without solution to what to do when they are born..

Is abortion wrong?? Stupid question.. It is the best solution we have for unwanted pregnancies.. Until someone comes up with something better.. There simply isn't anything else to say.. You either figure out a plan to deal with the babies when they are born, or spare the rest of us your lame arguements.. All you are doing is showing the rest of us how short sighted your views are..

You can't call abortion murder.. If you are going to let it die after it is born.. That is murder..
Click to expand...

All true.

But even if they could, it's still wrong. I don't want a kid. I don't think this is a responsible world to bring a kid into. Even if they had a solution of what to do with it, I still wouldn't care - that is not the issue for me. The issue happens way before birth.

And while I do everything in my power to avoid having to ever deal with an unwanted pregnancy, you better bet your sweet ass no one is forcing me to breed. And if you think I'm the only one, you're wrong. I know some people in the pro-choice movement getting some serious work done, and gearing up for what is happening in the states.

They don't have a solution to what to do with all these unwanted children, and they don't care. "Human rights" only matter to them before it's born. Afterwards, bring on the war, the death penalty, and a good ole's free market empty belly.

But even if they did, it doesn't matter. The issue is that it's a woman's body.
 
Last edited:
Viktyr Korimir said:
Why? What is the difference between a child the day before it is born and the day after, that makes the death of one criminal and the other merely unfortunate?
Click to expand...

Well.. Since I am not the one calling abortion murder?? I see no point to your question.. My point stands as it is..

I will say that any child that is viable will not be aborted.. Or at least shouldn't be.. If it is viable then it will be simply born.. Which renders your question moot.. If the baby is not viable.. Well then.. Again.. Your question is moot.. As I said.. Currently abortion is our best solution.. Until someone comes up with better.. There isn't much to say..
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
The issue is that it's a woman's body.
Click to expand...

This is true.. But with that power comes great responsibility.. Should we have laws that demand that a women get her tubes tied if she has had 3 or more abortions??

If it were up to me.. Highschools would be pushing the issue of Sex Education hard.. To me an abortion is something you should avoid at all cost.. Unless in the case of rape or incest.. But there are way to many people that just can't seem to figure out how to put a rain coat on a banana.. Either that or have sex in ways that can't lead to pregnancy.. The bottom line is, more effort needs to be made to prevent pregnancy.. That is really the only answer to this problem..

In some ways I think it should be law that as soon as a women has her first period.. She needs to be put on the pill.. Or allow free access to the morning after pill.. Money is the big issue here..
 
DemonMyst said:
This is true.. But with that power comes great responsibility.. Should we have laws that demand that a women get her tubes tied if she has had 3 or more abortions??

If it were up to me.. Highschools would be pushing the issue of Sex Education hard.. To me an abortion is something you should avoid at all cost.. Unless in the case of rape or incest.. But there are way to many people that just can't seem to figure out how to put a rain coat on a banana.. Either that or have sex in ways that can't lead to pregnancy.. The bottom line is, more effort needs to be made to prevent pregnancy.. That is really the only answer to this problem..

In some ways I think it should be law that as soon as a women has her first period.. She needs to be put on the pill.. Or allow free access to the morning after pill.. Money is the big issue here..
Click to expand...

And who are you to say how she should handle that responsibility? Who are you to tell her what she needs to do with her fertility?

Hell, it's the same people who want to ban abortion that make it nearly impossible for a woman under 30 (whether she has kids or not) to get an elective tubal. I'd jump at the chance. But even then, accidents still happen. Nothing short of completely removing the gonads of one or both partners makes pregnancy 100% impossible.

Your idea to force women to go on the pill is mad. The pill is a drug, and it can be a serious one. The fact that most women have limited problems doesn't mean that a few don't have serious problems. And in girls of 11 or 12 (which is when girls are reaching menarche these days), you're proposing some pretty serious biochemical invasion.

Why is people's solution always to invade the bodies of someone else against their will?

Education I agree with. Better education and more consistent birth control use would drop unwanted pregnancy rates drastically. But they will *always* occur, no matter how perfectly one uses birth control. The right must be preserved.
 
MistressNomad said:
And who are you to say how she should handle that responsibility? Who are you to tell her what she needs to do with her fertility?

Education I agree with. Better education and more consistent birth control use would drop unwanted pregnancy rates drastically. But they will *always* occur, no matter how perfectly one uses birth control. The right must be preserved.
Click to expand...

My idea about the pill was just that an idea.. I don't believe that women have an unrestricted right to simply have sex and get as many abortions as she pleases.. Especially since the father has no rights to force her to have it.. So she is not all powerful and society does have a role here.. I don't believe abortion should be abused and used as a form of birth control.. So please don't get all high and mighty about your fertility.. Unless women want to share that with the fathers, they have nothing to say on the issue when it comes to abortion.. The fact that it is their body is irrelevent.. Your fertility is meaningless without a males sperm.. So?? Are you willing to share responsibility with the father?? They father should be able to force you to have the child.. You can't penalize him because of biology..

Also.. Society does have a say.. Roe V. Wade isn't a personal issue.. I think abortion should be available.. But I also think their needs to be some restrictions to prevent abuse..

I have a right to my opinions.. Do not question them again please.. Asking me 'Who are you to say' and 'Who are you to tell her' is inappropriate.. I said nothing and told her nothing.. And you aren't all that and a box of raisins.. If you don't like my ideas that is fine.. But don't get all high and mighty.. You deminish your position by doing that..
 
DemonMyst said:
Until the pro-life crowed is prepared to deal with Est. 1.3 million new borns that otherwise would have been aborted..
Click to expand...

Ah, so Hitler wasn't a murderer. Afterall, who was going to take care of all the disabled people he euthanized?

That is a piss poor justification for killing a baby. I have adopted once sofar and working on a second adoption. There are thousands of families lined up who can't have a baby of their own and are waiting to adopt. Most of the kids who don't get adopted out of the foster system are the older kids. We could solve that real quick, just abort them too. Right? That seems to be your logic here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom