• 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!

Ontogenetic Discrimination and Double Standards

No, OP. I reject your demands.
 
Removable Mind said:
Where do you find a rational right winger? Especially in the current Executive Branch?
Click to expand...
Compared to the orange man Pence is the embodiment of rational. He at least is operating out of conviction and does understand limitations, whereas Trump only convictions is his narcissism and ego and understands no limitations or reality.
 
Troodon Roar said:
Being open-minded and able to see that the issue of abortion is an incredibly complicated issue, depending upon the particular situation, in that it involves the potentially risky juxtaposition of two valuable lives in the process of pregnancy, I find myself taken aback often by the rhetoric spewing from both sides of the fence. However, I have to admit here that I see many of the erroneous or superficial arguments emanating from the pro-choice side.
Click to expand...

This has got to be counted among the worst of bad pro life arguments.

The old is it alive argument is nothing more than a red herring by the pro life group.
The argument that it is alive at every stage and therefore should be allowed to be born is nonsense. Ask where does it stop being alive, and the answer is no where. So taking your argument then every time a man masturbates he must be killing thousands of lives, every time a woman has a period she has allowed the death of a life. Using your argument men would have to try an impregnate women every day and women should not be allowed to go even one month in their lives without getting pregnant. An absurdity.
Any point you or anyone picks as to where life starts is simply an arbitrary choice. Nothing more.

Then you go on to pick the most feeblest of analogies i have seen and point out it's obvious flaws. As if that has any convincing power. There is no argument by pro choice side that a fully developed fetus should be aborted or that a baby itself should be aborted. If you make **** up then what you have is in fact ****.

Even more laughably you then go for the emotional spot by pretending babies are being ripped apart in abortions. A complete lie meant to do nothing than appeal to emotions. You argue by fallacy. Tri semster abortions are rare and only occur if the child or mothers life is endangered. Not on a whim because she cannot be bothered doing the whole mine months.

You then attempt to bring in philosophers who have given a thesis that has been dismissed because of its numerous flaws. A rather pathetic attempt to play on peoples ignorance of the philosophy than any actual use of a philosophy by you.

Your ageism claim is ridiculous because it relies on the emotional words of children, babies and even more preposterous, teenagers. Instead of pointing that in fact we a dealing with embryo at best a fetus at worst.
 
The philosophical/ethical argument concerning abortion for me is contingent on the fetus' capacity for sentience/sapience. If the fetus is terminated prior to developing the capacity for as much then I have no objection to it; afterwords, I'm with the pro-lifers; this and viability independent of the womb are why there are term/trimester limits on abortion.
 
Surrealistik said:
The philosophical/ethical argument concerning abortion for me is contingent on the fetus' capacity for sentience/sapience. If the fetus is terminated prior to developing the capacity for as much then I have no objection to it; afterwords, I'm with the pro-lifers; this and viability independent of the womb are why there are term/trimester limits on abortion.
Click to expand...

This is about the only part of the argument that can change. As technology develops the ability to sustain a fetus outside of a womans body grows. So then does the point as to where we can say the life is not viable without it's mothers support.

But technology is also working on ways in which men can also experience the joy of carrying around a baby in side of them. At which point we will find a lot more men supporting abortion than we do now.
 
soylentgreen said:
As technology develops the ability to sustain a fetus outside of a womans body grows.
Click to expand...
Which is irrelevant to the question of viability which is a strict function of development. Artificial means are not relevant as they can not be equally and in all instances applied.
 
prometeus said:
Which is irrelevant to the question of viability which is a strict function of development. Artificial means are not relevant as they can not be equally and in all instances applied.
Click to expand...

If you note i did say as technology improves. As it is advances already have been made that improve the chances of a prematures survival outside of the womb. As that improves the argument of sentience/sapience becomes less viable.
 
prometeus said:
Compared to the orange man Pence is the embodiment of rational. He at least is operating out of conviction and does understand limitations, whereas Trump only convictions is his narcissism and ego and understands no limitations or reality.
Click to expand...

Since we're :eek:t

In comparison to Trump, while it appears that Pence is more intellectual, more principled, more mentally stable, dedicated to his faith to a fault, but unfortunately he would like nothing more than to institute his dogmatic tenets via the powers vested to the office. He'll also support the hard right in Congress and the Supreme Court to significantly diminish women's rights, but more specifically reproductive rights.

In other words, Pence is held hostage to his (robust) fundamentalist like ideology. We've seen what damage ideology is capable of leaving in it's wake. But I agree with your assessment of Trump.
 
By the way, I am male, and if science finds a way for me to get pregnant in the future, I will never have an abortion. On the contrary, I will embrace the new life growing inside of me and do everything I can to nurture it and make sure it is as healthy as possible. I will be able to recognize that it is not my body, and I have no right to violate my child's right to control its own body, and her/his choice of whether to live or die.

I haven't expressed my views on abortion explicitly this far, so here it is: I am personally very pro-life, but legally, I am pro-choice, as I think it would be better if abortion remained legal due to pragmatic reasons. But personally, I think abortion is an act that is as most anti-choice as you could get, on the part of the embryo or fetus, whose right to bodily autonomy is violated by being killed. Except in cases where the pregnancy poses a risk to the health of the pregnant individual in question, including some cases of rape, I think abortion is a despicably selfish act. I accept it's a woman's choice and she should legally be able to have a safe one, but why not have some mercy? Some compassion? Which is worse -- someone being inconvenienced for some months or having to pay more money, or someone else dying? Sure, it's your call, you have every right to choose -- but that doesn't mean your choice is a good or sensible one.

I will piss a lot of people off with this next paragraph. That's okay. How is Dr. George Tiller any better than Osama bin Laden? Both were doing what they thought was a good cause -- bin Laden saving Middle Eastern children from U.S. military violence, and Tiller helping women get out of desperate situations -- and both used killing of innocent individuals who got in the way to achieve their goals. Same applies to George W. Bush, by the way. He is also directly comparable to bin Laden for starting the Iraq War.

And yet, Scott Roeder, Tiller's killer, was widely acknowledged as a terrorist, while the Navy SEAL who shot bin Laden was widely hailed as a hero. By no means am I defending Roeder or his actions. Absolutely not. I just think that, to be consistent, the Navy SEAL who shot bin Laden should receive the same treatment as Roeder. All four (Tiller, bin Laden, Roeder, and the SEAL who killed bin Laden) are terrorists, in my eyes.
 
Troodon Roar said:
By the way, I am male, and if science finds a way for me to get pregnant in the future, I will never have an abortion.
Click to expand...
YOUR CHOICE, of course.

Troodon Roar said:
On the contrary, I will embrace the new life growing inside of me and do everything I can to nurture it and make sure it is as healthy as possible.
Click to expand...
QUALIFIES AS "ACTIVE EXTERNAL HELP". Are you aware of the full extent of what that phrase can reference? Read this (I wrote it, and linking to it means I don't have to copy it all to here). A lot of abortion opponents act like they think "human potential MUST be fulfilled!" --which implies, when possible Active External Help is added to that, it means every abortion opponent should be willing to **each** be dissected into 30+ trillion cells, all of which can be given a little bit of Active External Help, to fulfill their potential....

Troodon Roar said:
I will be able to recognize that it is not my body,
Click to expand...
A GUINEA WORM WOULD NOT BE YOUR BODY, EITHER. In other posts you claimed that every living thing should be called "a person". Well, if a guinea worm got inside you (study what they do!), are you sure you would still say such things?

Troodon Roar said:
and I have no right to violate my child's
Click to expand...
ERROR! ERROR!! ERROR!!! You, along with most other abortion opponents, need to accept the FACTS that an unborn human is very different from an ordinary "baby" or child" (and I also wrote that, so don't need to copy it to here).

Troodon Roar said:
right to control its own body, and her/his choice of whether to live or die.
Click to expand...
ALL BECAUSE OF YOUR CLAIMS REGARDING "PERSON". Well, after you become better-educated about guinea worms and unborn humans (IF you actually dare to become better-educated!), are you sure you will hold onto those claims?

Troodon Roar said:
I haven't expressed my views on abortion explicitly this far, so here it is: I am personally very pro-life, {snip}
Click to expand...
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Human overpopulation is causing the extinctions of hundreds of entire species every single year. THERE IS NOTHING "PRO-LIFE" ABOUT THAT! Abortion opponents therefore exhibit Stupid Prejudice; they are only "pro human life" --and all other life can DIE, as far as they are concerned. Human overpopulation is mathematically equivalent to a cancer in the biosphere --and we all know that cancers, untreated, are often fatal. When explosive population growth happens to an ordinary animal population, the end-result is called "a Malthusian Catastrophe", and the death rate, for that population, is typically 99% of the entire animal population.

WELL! If someone was to work toward causing the death of 99% of humanity, that person would be called "genocidal". And abortion opponents are doing exactly that, helping human population to grow with total disregard for the inevitable consequences.

"Pro life" Is A Stupid Lie/Propaganda. Pro-Genocide is much more accurate!
 
FutureIncoming said:
YOUR CHOICE, of course.


QUALIFIES AS "ACTIVE EXTERNAL HELP". Are you aware of the full extent of what that phrase can reference? Read this (I wrote it, and linking to it means I don't have to copy it all to here). A lot of abortion opponents act like they think "human potential MUST be fulfilled!" --which implies, when possible Active External Help is added to that, it means every abortion opponent should be willing to **each** be dissected into 30+ trillion cells, all of which can be given a little bit of Active External Help, to fulfill their potential....


A GUINEA WORM WOULD NOT BE YOUR BODY, EITHER. In other posts you claimed that every living thing should be called "a person". Well, if a guinea worm got inside you (study what they do!), are you sure you would still say such things?


ERROR! ERROR!! ERROR!!! You, along with most other abortion opponents, need to accept the FACTS that an unborn human is very different from an ordinary "baby" or child" (and I also wrote that, so don't need to copy it to here).


ALL BECAUSE OF YOUR CLAIMS REGARDING "PERSON". Well, after you become better-educated about guinea worms and unborn humans (IF you actually dare to become better-educated!), are you sure you will hold onto those claims?


YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Human overpopulation is causing the extinctions of hundreds of entire species every single year. THERE IS NOTHING "PRO-LIFE" ABOUT THAT! Abortion opponents therefore exhibit Stupid Prejudice; they are only "pro human life" --and all other life can DIE, as far as they are concerned. Human overpopulation is mathematically equivalent to a cancer in the biosphere --and we all know that cancers, untreated, are often fatal. When explosive population growth happens to an ordinary animal population, the end-result is called "a Malthusian Catastrophe", and the death rate, for that population, is typically 99% of the entire animal population.

WELL! If someone was to work toward causing the death of 99% of humanity, that person would be called "genocidal". And abortion opponents are doing exactly that, helping human population to grow with total disregard for the inevitable consequences.

"Pro life" Is A Stupid Lie/Propaganda. Pro-Genocide is much more accurate!
Click to expand...

Your post means nothing to pro-fetus advocates who only care about an ancient fable behind the moral value of the yet to be born. The yet to be born supposedly serve the purpose of either punishing people for defying the sanctity of the physical act meant for procreation or to perpetuate the fable. Humans destroying the planet is part of the sacred plan.
 
Removable Mind said:
Your post means nothing to pro-fetus advocates who only care about an ancient fable behind the moral value of the yet to be born. The yet to be born supposedly serve the purpose of either punishing people for defying the sanctity of the physical act meant for procreation or to perpetuate the fable. Humans destroying the planet is part of the sacred plan.
Click to expand...

Convincing your debate opponents that their arguments for their position are faulty is usually considered a secondary objective/bonus in a debate.

And yes, their "sacred plan" is a bad plan for all of us in the long run. They would be the ones to hold humanity back from progressing in technology and inhabiting other planets similar to Earth.
 
Troodon Roar said:
By the way, I am male, and if science finds a way for me to get pregnant in the future, I will never have an abortion. On the contrary, I will embrace the new life growing inside of me and do everything I can to nurture it and make sure it is as healthy as possible. I will be able to recognize that it is not my body, and I have no right to violate my child's right to control its own body, and her/his choice of whether to live or die.

I haven't expressed my views on abortion explicitly this far, so here it is: I am personally very pro-life, but legally, I am pro-choice, as I think it would be better if abortion remained legal due to pragmatic reasons. But personally, I think abortion is an act that is as most anti-choice as you could get, on the part of the embryo or fetus, whose right to bodily autonomy is violated by being killed. Except in cases where the pregnancy poses a risk to the health of the pregnant individual in question, including some cases of rape, I think abortion is a despicably selfish act. I accept it's a woman's choice and she should legally be able to have a safe one, but why not have some mercy? Some compassion? Which is worse -- someone being inconvenienced for some months or having to pay more money, or someone else dying? Sure, it's your call, you have every right to choose -- but that doesn't mean your choice is a good or sensible one.

I will piss a lot of people off with this next paragraph. That's okay. How is Dr. George Tiller any better than Osama bin Laden? Both were doing what they thought was a good cause -- bin Laden saving Middle Eastern children from U.S. military violence, and Tiller helping women get out of desperate situations -- and both used killing of innocent individuals who got in the way to achieve their goals. Same applies to George W. Bush, by the way. He is also directly comparable to bin Laden for starting the Iraq War.

And yet, Scott Roeder, Tiller's killer, was widely acknowledged as a terrorist, while the Navy SEAL who shot bin Laden was widely hailed as a hero. By no means am I defending Roeder or his actions. Absolutely not. I just think that, to be consistent, the Navy SEAL who shot bin Laden should receive the same treatment as Roeder. All four (Tiller, bin Laden, Roeder, and the SEAL who killed bin Laden) are terrorists, in my eyes.
Click to expand...

The contradictions you lot set yourself up for is predictable.

You said: including some cases of rape,
then said: and both used killing of innocent individuals

Care to explain why it is that a pregnancy conceived from rape somehow makes the fetus itself guilty enough of the crime of rape to warrant the death sentence you do not want for others?
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Convincing your debate opponents that their arguments for their position are faulty is usually considered a secondary objective/bonus in a debate.

And yes, their "sacred plan" is a bad plan for all of us in the long run. They would be the ones to hold humanity back from progressing in technology and inhabiting other planets similar to Earth.
Click to expand...

If people reject that a problem exists then they won't see the necessity to pursue a solution. That's the case for those who subscribe to the tenet that procreation is a sacrosanct event, which is derived from a deeply embedded ideology that's has been handed down for generations.

Their ideology won't allow them to consider that there are possibilities that are unrelated to their fundamental belief system. They believe all cause and effect events are created and controlled by a single source, inside and outside of our known universe.

Political and religious ideologies are virtually impossible to penetrate.

Not all individuals are held captive to specific dogmas or political philosophies. They are the only persons who are at least open-minded enough to consider all possible sides or belief systems. Unfortunately this category of people represents only a small portion of the sum of the whole.
 
soylentgreen said:
If you note i did say as technology improves. As it is advances already have been made that improve the chances of a prematures survival outside of the womb. As that improves the argument of sentience/sapience becomes less viable.
Click to expand...
Yes I did not and it is still irrelevant. Viability is a strict function of development not technology and I see nothing to make that less relevant or applicable.
 
Removable Mind said:
Your post means nothing to pro-fetus advocates who only care about an ancient fable behind the moral value of the yet to be born. The yet to be born supposedly serve the purpose of either punishing people for defying the sanctity of the physical act meant for procreation or to perpetuate the fable. Humans destroying the planet is part of the sacred plan.
Click to expand...
Please keep in mind that irrational indoctrinations cannot persist without new folks receiving those irrational indoctrinations. BEFORE those new folks become irrationally indoctrinated, they tend to be susceptible to reason. Which is why posts like what I previously wrote need to be spread far and wide --and of course that is also why the irrationally indoctrinated want to completely control the education received by children...(they actually know they are spouting nonsense, and their irrational indoctrinations will generally FAIL to be propagated if Objectively Verifiable Facts are available for presentation to students).
 
prometeus said:
Yes I did not and it is still irrelevant. Viability is a strict function of development not technology and I see nothing to make that less relevant or applicable.
Click to expand...

When we reach the stage where there is no need for a woman to actually carry a child at all. Then on what do you base the right of a woman to decide on an abortion when it is no longer an argument of her body, her right.
 
soylentgreen said:
When we reach the stage where there is no need for a woman to actually carry a child at all. Then on what do you base the right of a woman to decide on an abortion when it is no longer an argument of her body, her right.
Click to expand...

Technology has not changed viability in last 17 years.
In the early 1970s the infant CPAP was invented and that helped changed the limit of viability ( where 50 percent of premies survive even though major disabilities remain high.) As more and more hospitals and clinics got the infant CPAPs the limit of viability changed from about 26 weeks gestation to about 24 weeks gestation . The limit of viability remains about 24 weeks gestation and as I said it has remained at 24 weeks gestation for the last 17 years. Yes some premies born before 24 weeks survive but less than 50 percent and major disabilities are very high. In fact they are so high that most US hospitals recommend any premie that is born before 23 weeks gestion should just be given comfort care. They keep the premie warm and comfortable , and let the parents hold the premie when possible until it expires on its own.

The youngest premies to ever survive were 21 weeks 5 days and 21 weeks 6 days gestation. Those 2 are concodered medial miricals.

Experts agree that even with technology no premie younger than 21 weeks gestation will survive. The air sacs in the lungs have not yet developed ( the lungs are not formed and are still like gelatin ) and the digestive system has not develped enough.
 
soylentgreen said:
When we reach the stage where there is no need for a woman to actually carry a child at all. Then on what do you base the right of a woman to decide on an abortion when it is no longer an argument of her body, her right.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about artificial wombs? And also, the ''viability line'' used by some pro choicers in relation to personhood is used to avoid any infanticide concerns. Any serious account of personhood in the long run by those who have actually debated the topic for many years in the ET and AI categories, won't care for ''adequate lung development''.
 
soylentgreen said:
When we reach the stage where there is no need for a woman to actually carry a child at all. Then on what do you base the right of a woman to decide on an abortion when it is no longer an argument of her body, her right.
Click to expand...
Why would a woman who is not pregnant need an abortion and what does any of that have to do with the argument at hand?
 
soylentgreen said:
When we reach the stage where there is no need for a woman to actually carry a child at all. Then on what do you base the right of a woman to decide on an abortion when it is no longer an argument of her body, her right.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that at some point in the future women's ovums will be forcefully removed from their body and inseminated in order to create a new human life inside an artificial womb?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom