• 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 fire choice.

Follow what logically?

The average person would save the life of a crying baby over some fetuses in tanks, because the fetus doesn't trigger the protective instinct outside the womb of the mother. That doesn't mean the fetus's life has no value.

Why isnt it ok for a woman to choose abortion?

Because killing children is wrong and the fetus is her child.
 
The average person would save the life of a crying baby over some fetuses in tanks, because the fetus doesn't trigger the protective instinct outside the womb of the mother. That doesn't mean the fetus's life has no value.

Because killing children is wrong and the fetus is her child.

Would love to see some kind of source for the first statements.

And the very topic we're posting in is the exact example of why your second assumption is not one held as fact, only opinion.

It especially highlights that the unborn *are not children.* How did you miss this, did you read the OP?
 
So-called "ethical dilemmas" always fall apart when you humanize the protagonist. Humans don't use ethics to make decisions, we largely go by emotion and instinct.
You should see top ethicists and philosophers go at it with this topic. It only "falls apart" when two inexperienced people decide to rush head first into this debate without stepping back and reading up and realizing where the debate is at right now.

It's largely true that humans use instinct and emotions to make decisions but humans who's brains are "hard wired" differently use ethics and pure logic to make decisions. Look at Aspergers for example.
 
It forces you to admit that a fertilized embryo is not equal to a baby. Not even 1000 embryos equal a baby.



Yes, we are. We are proving that you do not actually value a fertilized embryo equally to a living breathing baby. The problem with people like you is that you think of a growing baby as if it's a real baby. You don't factor in the reality that it's only a potential baby, it has not feelings, no conciousness, no guarentee of survival at all. So equating it with a baby is patently ridiculous.

All abortions are a bad choice. You have to weigh the good of the mother over the good of a potential child. You weigh the child above the mother because you think it's equal to a baby, but it's clearly not. Not even 1000 potential children equat to 1 baby, and this question forced you to admit to that reality.

It does not such thing and you know that. You are absolutely not proving anything other than you seem upset about this issue. Making wild assumptions about this and that.
 
You should see top ethicists and philosophers go at it with this topic. It only "falls apart" when two inexperienced people decide to rush head first into this debate without stepping back and reading up and realizing where the debate is at right now.

It's largely true that humans use instinct and emotions to make decisions but humans who's brains are "hard wired" differently use ethics and pure logic to make decisions. Look at Aspergers for example.

I have Aspergers. If faced with something like the trolley dilemma, I would still respond instinctively. My brain isn't wired differently, it just has defective social function and gets "stuck" on certain subjects.
 
Would love to see some kind of source for the first statements.

Source: me.

And the very topic we're posting in is the exact example of why your second assumption is not one held as fact, only opinion.

The quote function only takes the previous comment, so it's hard to discern context. I assume you mean the fetus's life having value?

My point is that the abortion dilemma is not comparable to a fire rescue, for three reasons:

1. There's no immediate life-or-death choice to make. You have time to think things through.

2. Getting an abortion is a deliberate decision to kill the fetus, while being unable to save it from a fire is merely bad luck and timing. If I could save everything in the building, I would.

3. Fetuses in tanks in a building are not fetuses in their mother's womb, so the context is completely different.

It especially highlights that the unborn *are not children.* How did you miss this, did you read the OP?

It does nothing of the sort. A dead baby is a child while a teddy bear is not, but I'd probably save the bear over the body. The status of "child" is not relevant to fire rescue scenario, despite what OP might claim.
 
Source: me.

The quote function only takes the previous comment, so it's hard to discern context. I assume you mean the fetus's life having value?

My point is that the abortion dilemma is not comparable to a fire rescue, for three reasons:

1. There's no immediate life-or-death choice to make. You have time to think things through.

2. Getting an abortion is a deliberate decision to kill the fetus, while being unable to save it from a fire is merely bad luck and timing. If I could save everything in the building, I would.

3. Fetuses in tanks in a building are not fetuses in their mother's womb, so the context is completely different.

It does nothing of the sort. A dead baby is a child while a teddy bear is not, but I'd probably save the bear over the body. The status of "child" is not relevant to fire rescue scenario, despite what OP might claim.

It's not about how much time you have. It's about how the American public views the unborn vs the born.

Legally they cannot be treated equally (nor ethically). Society, and the law (which is based on the Constitution and Roe v Wade and legal definition, etc.) have decided that born people are equal and deserving of rights. Value is subjective but based on these and other criteria, the laws favor born people, 'value' the born more.

The example in the OP is to illustrate that altho a difficult decision, people DO value the born more than the unborn (or not...everyone is entitled to decide for themself).

People claim, in this debate, that the unborn are exactly the same as born people and thus should be treated equally and protected equally under the law. It's not possible but they often dont like to admit that, they prefer to willfully ignore what they dont want to confront.

So: in the OP, what would you do. If you had time to only save one, which would you save? 1000 embryos or 1 newborn? Can you answer it or not? And why did you pick your answer?
 
So: in the OP, what would you do. If you had time to only save one, which would you save? 1000 embryos or 1 newborn? Can you answer it or not? And why did you pick your answer?

I already gave an answer and justified it.

Also, I don't claim that life begins at conception. I draw the line for abortion at one month, for the following reasons:

1. The brain and heart have formed.

2. That's when pregnancy tests start working.

3. She's had an entire month to choose the morning-after pill.

It's not about how much time you have.

In the case of a fire, time is the crucial factor. Since we're saving "fetuses" and not "pregnant women", I assume the fetuses are in some kind of incubation tank? I wouldn't have the first clue how to disconnect and move one of those, whereas carrying a one-year-old is easy. If I was faced with three pregnant women and a child, and I had two seconds to grab somebody and jump out the window before a gas tank exploded, I'd rescue the one-year-old because he/she is lighter.

It's about how the American public views the unborn vs the born.

I'm not American. The abortion debate is bigger than you (though with less risk of diabetes).

Legally they cannot be treated equally (nor ethically). Society, and the law (which is based on the Constitution and Roe v Wade and legal definition, etc.) have decided that born people are equal and deserving of rights. Value is subjective but based on these and other criteria, the laws favor born people, 'value' the born more.

Roe v. Wade is bullsh**, in my opinion. You'll just ignore any elaboration I give, so I won't bother with it.

The example in the OP is to illustrate that altho a difficult decision, people DO value the born more than the unborn (or not...everyone is entitled to decide for themself).

It's not a fair comparison, for reasons I've already explained. It's also a red herring, since the abortion debate revolves around the absolute value of fetal life, not its relative value compared to a baby's life. And to give a counter-example anyway: many people choose to save the fetus instead of the mother. Following your logic, this would imply that fetuses are worth more than adult women.

People claim, in this debate, that the unborn are exactly the same as born people and thus should be treated equally and protected equally under the law. It's not possible but they often dont like to admit that, they prefer to willfully ignore what they dont want to confront.

I don't argue that position, so I don't have to defend it.
 
I already gave an answer and justified it.


So you use some biological criteria that are completely arbitrary compared to many other human life stages and you "'believe" that women have plenty of time to make decisions. Noted.

Here in America, women have many rights protected by the Constitution. Pro-choice people in America object to those right being superseded by the needs of the unborn. If you dont like RvW, that's too bad.

Also noted that you cant answer the question like almost every other pro-life person that posts here...because you refuse to confront the fact that it really does show that your 'opinions' are founded on valuing the unborn over women. And if you are good with that, then just admit it.

Instead you quibble over details in order to avoid it. Here it is: 1000 unborn embryos in a container you can lift unaided, with 2 hands, or a newborn. Which would you save in a fire if there's only time to save one.

You cannot value both equally in any circumstances that would actually affect restricting or allowing abortion. The actual real life affects would harm either one or the other.

So just be honest.

I am honest: While I value the unborn, I value women more. All born people more. *I* would save the newborn in the OP scenario.

Funny, I have no problem admitting to my position.
 
Last edited:
Also noted that you cant answer the question like almost every other pro-life person that posts here...because you refuse to confront the fact that it really does show that your 'opinions' are founded on valuing the unborn over women. And if you are good with that, then just admit it.

I am not "every other pro-life person that posts here". I do not defend or conform to the positions of the crowd. If you want to debate with me, then debate my arguments and not some strawman.

Instead you quibble over details in order to avoid it. Here it is: 1000 unborn embryos in a container you can lift unaided, with 2 hands, or a newborn. Which would you save in a fire if there's only time to save one.

I would save the newborn. I've already explained myself here, so I will not do so again.

You cannot value both equally in any circumstances that would actually affect restricting or allowing abortion. The actual real life affects would harm either one or the other.

I never claimed to value both equally.

So just be honest.

I am honest: While I value the unborn, I value women more. All born people more. *I* would save the newborn in the OP scenario.

Funny, I have no problem admitting to my position.

That's because your entire purpose here is to virtue-signal. You don't give a damn about anything besides your own moral superiority. Newsflash: you're not moral and you're not superior. You just repeat the same arguments over and over while ignoring everybody else.
 
I am not "every other pro-life person that posts here". I do not defend or conform to the positions of the crowd. If you want to debate with me, then debate my arguments and not some strawman.
I would save the newborn. I've already explained myself here, so I will not do so again.

I never claimed to value both equally.

That's because your entire purpose here is to virtue-signal. You don't give a damn about anything besides your own moral superiority. Newsflash: you're not moral and you're not superior. You just repeat the same arguments over and over while ignoring everybody else.

LOL Well this is a switch...most pro-life people claim pro-choice people are by far less morally superior than themselves.

I commend you for admitting that you value the unborn more than women. It is your belief, your opinion, subjective just as is mine.


You did not however, answer the question without changing it to meet your own ends, adding details that enabled you to avoid the real question.

But since you said you dont value both equally and are an advocate of not allowing elective abortions (ever?, just not after 12 weeks?) then it's clear you prioritize the unborn more.


For me, I'm just always curious why. Fortunately, in the US, women have Constitutional rights that protect them and that is why IMO choice works for everyone: each woman may decide based on her own beliefs.
 
LOL Well this is a switch...most pro-life people claim pro-choice people are by far less morally superior than themselves.

I specifically shot down the notion that you're morally superior, so don't try that deceitful sh** with me.

I commend you for admitting that you value the unborn more than women. It is your belief, your opinion, subjective just as is mine.

I used an example with that implication to demonstrate how utterly ludicrous your worldview is.

You did not however, answer the question without changing it to meet your own ends, adding details that enabled you to avoid the real question.

I answered it, in full, many many times.

But since you said you dont value both equally and are an advocate of not allowing elective abortions (ever?, just not after 12 weeks?) then it's clear you prioritize the unborn more.

I'd allow abortion if the mother's life was at risk and safe delivery was impossible. I don't agree with that choice, since a good mother would sacrifice herself to save her child, but I don't think the government has any right to demand that sacrifice from her.

If her life isn't in danger, then the fetus has more to lose than she does. Pregnancy lasts nine months while death is forever, so suck it up, girly.

For me, I'm just always curious why. Fortunately, in the US, women have Constitutional rights that protect them and that is why IMO choice works for everyone: each woman may decide based on her own beliefs.

And what about the girl-babies who get aborted? Feminists should be all over that. Many first-wave feminists were fierce opponents of abortion, because their ideology was based on classical liberalism and not the Marxist rubbish that masquerades as "liberal" today.
 
...


I'd allow abortion if the mother's life was at risk and safe delivery was impossible. I don't agree with that choice, since a good mother would sacrifice herself to save her child, but I don't think the government has any right to demand that sacrifice from her.

....

See you are judging the woman and putting the unborn ahead of the born.

Did you know that over 60 percent of women who seek abortions already have a least born child.

Many of them feel they have to sacrifice the unborn in order to insure their born are properly taken of and loved by their mother.
 
I specifically shot down the notion that you're morally superior, so don't try that deceitful sh** with me.

I used an example with that implication to demonstrate how utterly ludicrous your worldview is.

I answered it, in full, many many times.

And what about the girl-babies who get aborted? Feminists should be all over that. Many first-wave feminists were fierce opponents of abortion, because their ideology was based on classical liberalism and not the Marxist rubbish that masquerades as "liberal" today.

LMAO I didnt say I thought I was morally superior. Read better.

And I didnt say any of your opinions on the unborn, women, or abortion were necessarily wrong...I said it's subjective and then I pointed out exactly what the cumulation of your opinions means. You didnt shoot down any of my opinions, lol. Women in the US dont have to 'suck it up' at all. But you were very clear:

You value the unborn over the born. Now it seems you are not comfortable confronting that. I cant help that. But it cant be both...it's not possible, legally or ethical.

If you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you really do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.

And why would people that support women's choice and value born people more than the unborn think there was a difference when it came to the gender of the unborn? If men got pregnant, my position would not change.
 
I'd allow abortion if the mother's life was at risk and safe delivery was impossible. I don't agree with that choice, since a good mother would sacrifice herself to save her child, but I don't think the government has any right to demand that sacrifice from her.

If her life isn't in danger, then the fetus has more to lose than she does. Pregnancy lasts nine months while death is forever, so suck it up, girly.

Well here's the really good thing. It's not up to you, not in the US.

As for your dismissal of women's lives and health,



Lursa said:
Each year in the US, 86,700 women/year die or suffer severe harm from pregnancy and childbirth, things like stroke, aneurysm, kidney failure, diabetes, etc. These are not predictable and they are not preventable (otherwise they would have been :roll: )

It's not just about numbers...these are individual women that suffer these consequences, as are their families and friends. All harmed. It's not remotely insignificant to any of them. The unborn, OTOH, are aware of nothing, suffer nothing.

As it's not predictable or preventable, you're right, the govt has has no right to demand a woman take these risks against her will.


Again, here women are fortunate that the govt does not presume to demand she risk her life, her health, or her future. They recognize that imposing on women's bodily sovereignty & self-determination is wrong.

*
In 1973 the Supreme Court heard arguments that were anchored in the Constitution in which the following questions were raised:*
*
1) Do women have equal protection under the law?*
*
2) Are women exempt from NOT being deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process under the law?*
*
3) Are women and medical exempt from right to privacy in which their relationship can be conducted without unauthorized intrusion?* That relationship may involve a medical provider performing tests, diagnosis, treatments, and medical procedures that within the boundaries of state and federal law.**
*
4) Are women exempt from having their medical records being published for the the public's review?
 
Last edited:
Also, I don't claim that life begins at conception. I draw the line for abortion at one month, for the following reasons:

1. The brain and heart have formed.
Have they?

3. She's had an entire month to choose the morning-after pill.
So it is OK to kill it as long as it is according to your parameters. What a load of uneducated crap.

since the abortion debate revolves around the absolute value of fetal life
What gives fetal life value and based on what?
 
I already gave an answer and justified it.

Also, I don't claim that life begins at conception. I draw the line for abortion at one month, for the following reasons:

1. The brain and heart have formed.

No, the brain and heart have not yet formed at one month.


At 4 weeks pregnant a heartbeat hasn’t yet arrived. There is however a distinct blood vessel has formed inside inside embryo, which will later develop into a heart and the circulatory system. In the early stages, the heart resembles a tube.

The major structures of the brain are in place and functioning around the second trimester ( about 12 weeks or 3 months)

Feel free to draw the line for yourself but not for others.
 
Last edited:
...
I draw the line for abortion at one month, for the following reasons:


3. She's had an entire month to choose the morning-after pill.
...

With an assumption like that i would guess you have no idea how how the morning after pill works.

Maybe you were talking about abortion pills which is two different types of medication taken a day apart.

The morning after pill only works if the woman has not yet ovulated ( released the egg/ovum from her ovary yet).
The pill will not prevent an ovum from being fertilized or implanted. It does not prevent pregnancy if the egg was released it just delays ovulation if an egg was not yet released.

And the woman has to take the morning after pill within 72 hours of intercourse for it to work.

If the woman were raped, hadunprotected sex or knew the condom broke she could take the morning after pill to lower her chance of getting pregnant but if her birth control failed she would not know until it was too late for the morning after pill to work.

Here is a link that explains how the morning after pill works:

plan B ? How it works
 
Last edited:
I am honest: While I value the unborn, I value women more. All born people more. *I* would save the newborn in the OP scenario.

Isn't it funny how, time and again, the pro-choice position emerges as the more honest one?

Oh yeah, per the OP, I would save the child. I would not let the child burn to death. Easy choice.
 
Isn't it funny how, time and again, the pro-choice position emerges as the more honest one?

Oh yeah, per the OP, I would save the child. I would not let the child burn to death. Easy choice.

It's amazing how no pro-life people will deal with the question in the OP without changing it to make their consciences feel better; so they dont have to make the uncomfortable choice that they deny to themselves.
 
No, the brain and heart have not yet formed at one month.


At 4 weeks pregnant a heartbeat hasn’t yet arrived. There is however a distinct blood vessel has formed inside inside embryo, which will later develop into a heart and the circulatory system. In the early stages, the heart resembles a tube.

The major structures of the brain are in place and functioning around the second trimester ( about 12 weeks or 3 months)

Feel free to draw the line for yourself but not for others.

A better background in biology would be helpful too.

And it's laughable that a month would be enough time for a woman to determine a pregnancy...if she doesnt have regular periods or gets pregnant right after one...LOL for God's sake, it's not a train on a schedule!
 
3. She's had an entire month to choose the morning-after pill.

I get that a lot of the abortions debates boil down to a belief system One can argue that they BELIEVE a zygote, embryo, or fetus SHOULD have the rights of a born person ans such. I have no difficulty accepting that others have different beliefs than myself.

But what I have great difficulty with is when known facts are ignored and falsehoods are put out as truth.

It would be nice if facts were discussed as common ground to then speak to beliefs.

But every day it seems to get worse.

I am curious, when people find out that "facts" they have been told are untrue....do they ever go back to the source and educate them?
 
It's amazing how no pro-life people will deal with the question in the OP without changing it to make their consciences feel better; so they dont have to make the uncomfortable choice that they deny to themselves.

It's amazing that anyone would think this scenario has any effect on facts
 
Back
Top Bottom