• 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!

Would You Abort A Special Needs Baby?[W:16]***

Lursa said:
You didnt address my post.
Click to expand...
You didn't address my question of why is it considered a child when a mother miscarries (during the first trimester) but it's not considered a child when a mother chooses to abort (within the first trimester)... Why is it a child in one instance and not a child in another?

Lursa said:
According to your posts, you value the unborn more than women...will you admit that? And please note the bold, that's a fact.

As for the moral argument, as I wrote before, you would see the unborn's needs for life and future put ahead of women's, so it amounts to the same thing...morally they also cannot be treated equally and again, I value women more.
Click to expand...

Does my non-support of abortion for a woman who FREELY MADE THE CHOICE to have sex (and in extension, get pregnant) mean that I somehow don't value women as much as unborn children? I guess if you asked "Do I value the current and future life of unborn children more than I value women's sexual desires (and their ability to "remediate" the "whoops, I got pregnant" event?), then I would say yes. But comparing the right to life of both parties, I value both woman and unborn child equally. Pregnancy is a serious choice to make, and it's not right to renege on the creation of a new life. Whether murder, or abortion, it is not right to terminate a life.

They can, and are, being treated morally equally by me. I value both lives equally, and want both lives to always survive and to be lived to their fullest. You choose to value the woman's sexual desires (and her ability to "remediate" the "whoops, I got pregnant" event) much more than you value the current and future life of unborn children. I, according to God's objective morals, refuse to do that.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) according to YOUR subjective morality you mean. see thats the issue. Your personal morality is not universal and factual, its just yours.
als I see you chose to ignore the question and not answer it, very telling
Click to expand...
Speaking of "attacking strawmen", I never mentioned my morality in all of this... I only mentioned God's objective morality. That's the standard that I am using to make my moral claim that abortion is wrong; you (under the subjective morality worldview) have no standard to make such a right/wrong type of claim.

AGENT J said:
2.) wrong again. Please do not make up dishonest and failed strawmen, they will not work. I will expose them every time just like i am now
what i ACTUALLY said is a free society with rights allows its individuals to practice its morality in this case. That was not a prochoice or prolife position. its a first world, country with rights positions.

NEVER said YOU should be accepting of abortion
NEVER said how YOU out to live
Click to expand...
Then I better not hear you claim that somebody "wronged" you when they choose to break into your house and steal all your belongings (or any other example you want to insert here), because while it may LEGALLY be wrong, you would have no grounds (under your worldview) to assert that the thief's actions were MORALLY wrong in any way...

AGENT J said:
ahhhh that was fun. so now that your failed and retarded strawmen have been proven wrong and the fact remains that morals are subjective Ill simply ask you my question again:

so what about the millions that abort based on thier sense of responsibility, driven by thier morals?
What makes your morals better than theirs and vice versa?

please try to answer and not dodge it this time. Thanks
Click to expand...
I answered it the last time, and you never even proved that morals are subjective to begin with; you only made the claim. If they were indeed subjective, then you would have no grounds to ever assert that you were "wronged" in any way, like in my example above.
 
gfm7175 said:
1.) Speaking of "attacking strawmen", I never mentioned my morality in all of this... I only mentioned God's objective morality. That's the standard that I am using to make my moral claim that abortion is wrong; you (under the subjective morality worldview) have no standard to make such a right/wrong type of claim.

2.)Then I better not hear you claim that somebody "wronged" you when they choose to break into your house and steal all your belongings (or any other example you want to insert here), because while it may LEGALLY be wrong, you would have no grounds (under your worldview) to assert that the thief's actions were MORALLY wrong in any way...


I answered it the last time, and you never even proved that morals are subjective to begin with; you only made the claim. If they were indeed subjective, then you would have no grounds to ever assert that you were "wronged" in any way, like in my example above.
Click to expand...

1.) yes and that standard is what i asked my question about so i in fact posted ZERO starwmen thanks for proving it and your claim wrong. .now can you answer the question? thanks
2.) aaaand another failed and retarded strawman that has no merit here.
Never gave you "my world view" its just ANOTHER thing you are making up in desperation to deflect and distract. But it too also fails again.

3.) no you didnt, and yes morals have been proved to be subjective. they are subjective by definition. :shrug:

so here we are. You're still dodging and running from my question. Ill simply ask you AGAIN:

"so what about the millions that abort based on thier sense of responsibility, driven by thier morals?
What makes your morals better than theirs and vice versa?"

please try to answer and not dodge it this time. Thanks


who wants to bet my question is dodged again? LMAO
 
AGENT J said:
1.) yes and that standard is what i asked my question about so i in fact posted ZERO starwmen thanks for proving it and your claim wrong. .now can you answer the question? thanks
Click to expand...
No, you attacked MY morality, not God's objective moral standard. This was what you attacked: 1.) according to YOUR subjective morality you mean. see thats the issue. Your personal morality is not universal and factual, its just yours.
als I see you chose to ignore the question and not answer it, very telling That seems like you were attacking my own personal morality. To be honest, your "I claim I'm right so I'm right and you're wrong hahahahaha" attitude is very offputting and I will not be responding to you after this response because you seem to not be interested in an honest intellectual discussion. I suggest trying to be more like Lursa, who has been having an honest intellectual discussion with me.

AGENT J said:
2.) aaaand another failed and retarded strawman that has no merit here.
Never gave you "my world view" its just ANOTHER thing you are making up in desperation to deflect and distract. But it too also fails again.
Click to expand...
No, you made the claim to me that subjective morality is what truly exists and objective morality does not exist. I gave you an example which proves you wrong, and you don't want to honestly answer it because you know that it proves your worldview wrong. It's just more of you not wanting to hold an intellectual conversation with me.

AGENT J said:
3.) no you didnt, and yes morals have been proved to be subjective. they are subjective by definition. :shrug:
Click to expand...
No, they are not subjective by definition. If morals are subjective, then tell me right now that you would never make the claim that you have been "wronged" if someone decides to break into your home and steal many many thousands of dollars worth of stuff from you. If you do make that claim that you have somehow been morally "wronged", then you have no objective standard to base that claim against. It's simply your subjective moral opinion against your thief's subjective moral opinion. You know this, which is why you refused to answer me.

AGENT J said:
so here we are. You're still dodging and running from my question. Ill simply ask you AGAIN:

"so what about the millions that abort based on thier sense of responsibility, driven by thier morals?
What makes your morals better than theirs and vice versa?"

please try to answer and not dodge it this time. Thanks


who wants to bet my question is dodged again? LMAO
Click to expand...
I adequately answered it the first time. Keep saying I "dodged" all you want; that doesn't make it true.

And you still continue with your childish attitude, so this will be my last response to you concerning this.
 
AustralianuS said:
Not sure how this will hold up, and it will likely be vetoed anyway.

Then Pennsylvania house just banned people from aborting a baby because it has down syndrome.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...sses-bill-banning-abortions-for-down-syndrome

Ohio had a similar law struck down by courts.

This brings up a similar issue, gender based abortions. Where people who want a boy will abort the fetus clump of cells if it turns out to be female. The trouble is, even if you successfully ban it people can always lie as to why they want the abortion.

This has issue has gotten a lot of attention in anti-abortion circles this year (it seems anyway).
Click to expand...

If a woman or couple decide an abortion is their own best interests and they meet the criteria set forth by law then it is no one else's business what they do. Period
 
gfm7175 said:
1.) No, you attacked MY morality, not God's objective moral standard. This was what you attacked: 1.) according to YOUR subjective morality you mean. see thats the issue. Your personal morality is not universal and factual, its just yours.
als I see you chose to ignore the question and not answer it, very telling That seems like you were attacking my own personal morality. To be honest, your "I claim I'm right so I'm right and you're wrong hahahahaha" attitude is very offputting and I will not be responding to you after this response because you seem to not be interested in an honest intellectual discussion. I suggest trying to be more like Lursa, who has been having an honest intellectual discussion with me.


2.) No, you made the claim to me that subjective morality is what truly exists and objective morality does not exist. I gave you an example which proves you wrong, and you don't want to honestly answer it because you know that it proves your worldview wrong. It's just more of you not wanting to hold an intellectual conversation with me.

0
3.No, they are not subjective by definition. If morals are subjective, then tell me right now that you would never make the claim that you have been "wronged" if someone decides to break into your home and steal many many thousands of dollars worth of stuff from you. If you do make that claim that you have somehow been morally "wronged", then you have no objective standard to base that claim against. It's simply your subjective moral opinion against your thief's subjective moral opinion. You know this, which is why you refused to answer me.


3.) I adequately answered it the first time. Keep saying I "dodged" all you want; that doesn't make it true.

4.) And you still continue with your childish attitude, so this will be my last response to you concerning this.
Click to expand...

1.) posting lies wont work, I did not such thing LMAO but please continue your failed strawman, false claims and deflections, they will continue to fail. Im still waiting for you to answer my question, thanks!
2.) see #2, again lies, deflections, made up strawmen and false claims wont work. my question awaits you, please answer, thanks
3.) yes by definition they are subjective. Sorry that fact will never change based on your feelings. Your feelings, just like my feelings dont matter to facts. Morals are subjective by definition. If you disagree with that fact feel free to prove otherwise. Ill be sticking with facts and definitions.
4.) So you are continuing to dodge it? If you disagree and i missed your answer like you claim, simply quote your previous answer, thanks
5.) Translation: you got caught posting lies, false claims, failed strawmen, positions you cant support and deflecting so now you will continue to dodge and runway. Good move because it was only going to get worse for your failed posts if you chose to not answer the question and participate in honest fact based discussion.

When you are ready please let us know and here is my question AGAIN:

"so what about the millions that abort based on thier sense of responsibility, driven by thier morals?
What makes your morals better than theirs and vice versa?"

please try to answer and not dodge it this time, OR simply quote your previous answer that you claim you made. Thanks!
 
gfm7175 said:
You didn't address my question of why is it considered a child when a mother miscarries (during the first trimester) but it's not considered a child when a mother chooses to abort (within the first trimester)... Why is it a child in one instance and not a child in another?

.
Click to expand...

Who says that? The parents most likely?

I dont know, I dont say or consider them differently.
 
gfm7175 said:
Does my non-support of abortion for a woman who FREELY MADE THE CHOICE to have sex (and in extension, get pregnant) mean that I somehow don't value women as much as unborn children? I guess if you asked "Do I value the current and future life of unborn children more than I value women's sexual desires (and their ability to "remediate" the "whoops, I got pregnant" event?), then I would say yes. But comparing the right to life of both parties, I value both woman and unborn child equally. Pregnancy is a serious choice to make, and it's not right to renege on the creation of a new life. Whether murder, or abortion, it is not right to terminate a life.

They can, and are, being treated morally equally by me. I value both lives equally, and want both lives to always survive and to be lived to their fullest. You choose to value the woman's sexual desires (and her ability to "remediate" the "whoops, I got pregnant" event) much more than you value the current and future life of unborn children. I, according to God's objective morals, refuse to do that.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does mean you dont value women as much. Women know they legally have a safer method to avoid pregnancy and are not obligated to remain pregnant, no matter what your personal opinion is. If you think they should follow YOUR opinion, or be forced to, certainly you value the unborn over women's feelings, lives, futures.

You can only treat your own pregnancy morally & 'equally'. You cannot treat other women's morally if you would demand they do anything...abort or remain pregnant...against their will. And certainly, that is not equal, that places the unborn above her will.

That you judge the quality of either's lives according to your standards doesnt change that.
 
Lursa said:
Yes, it does mean you dont value women as much. Women know they legally have a safer method to avoid pregnancy and are not obligated to remain pregnant, no matter what your personal opinion is. If you think they should follow YOUR opinion, or be forced to, certainly you value the unborn over women's feelings, lives, futures.

You can only treat your own pregnancy morally & 'equally'. You cannot treat other women's morally if you would demand they do anything...abort or remain pregnant...against their will. And certainly, that is not equal, that places the unborn above her will.

That you judge the quality of either's lives according to your standards doesnt change that.
Click to expand...

I think we've reached an impasse in this particular discussion. I do greatly appreciate your input of your opposing view though, Lursa. :)
 
gfm7175 said:
You didn't address my question of why is it considered a child when a mother miscarries (during the first trimester) but it's not considered a child when a mother chooses to abort (within the first trimester)... Why is it a child in one instance and not a child in another?
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Who says that? The parents most likely?

I dont know, I dont say or consider them differently.
Click to expand...

The parents. I'm just saying that when a woman miscarries, she will always say that she "lost a child", but if a woman has an abortion, it seems like she doesn't really consider it as "losing a child".

And then there's certain pro-choice people who will say that, when the baby is small and not yet exactly "human-like" in appearance, that it isn't truly a "child" yet, so maybe mothers who miscarry early on in their pregnancy shouldn't say that they "lost a child"? There just seems to be contradiction in the definition of what is considered a child and what is not...

Either:
1) both a miscarriage and an abortion are defined as "not losing a child"
2) both a miscarriage and an abortion are defined as "losing a child"

I mean, when does a child become a child if not at the moment of conception, the moment all the DNA is received from both parents, and the process of child development begins?
 
gfm7175 said:
The parents. I'm just saying that when a woman miscarries, she will always say that she "lost a child", but if a woman has an abortion, it seems like she doesn't really consider it as "losing a child".

And then there's certain pro-choice people who will say that, when the baby is small and not yet exactly "human-like" in appearance, that it isn't truly a "child" yet, so maybe mothers who miscarry early on in their pregnancy shouldn't say that they "lost a child"? There just seems to be contradiction in the definition of what is considered a child and what is not...

Either:
1) both a miscarriage and an abortion are defined as "not losing a child"
2) both a miscarriage and an abortion are defined as "losing a child"

I mean, when does a child become a child if not at the moment of conception, the moment all the DNA is received from both parents, and the process of child development begins?
Click to expand...

I cant speak for how other people improperly use terms. I also dont judge people in how they either anticipate a new family member or try to forget a sad and difficult decision.

But more on focus: those are by no means 'official' medical definitions. Medically or legally, neither is correct. They are merely colloquial English.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom