• 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!

Why is abortion acceptable?

Raelia said:
That claim holds no explanatory or demonstrable power. I've explained my position and the ethics involved at length. Your inability or unwillingness to understand does not mean nothing was proven, it only means you didn't want to see anything proven.
Click to expand...

If your ethical view was so intrinsic in humanity, so globally recognized, elective abortion would not be legal in most countries to some extent. This is fact, this is demonstrable proof that your opinion is correct only 'for you.'
 
Re: If your Snark be a Boojum!

Raelia said:
Sounds more like you have no idea what special pleading is. I literally said that they're still human, and didn't advocate that their rights would be any different.

I maintain my stance that you're not here for discussion.
Click to expand...

Well not really anymore, except that I find it interesting...and demonstrably wrong...that you believe your particular choice of ethical philosophy is the "end all and be all", "unquestioningly correct" one re: the unborn not being entitled to any rights.
 
AGENT J said:
if true why would that bother anybody??? LMAO

in fact is shows how monumentally stupid the people are when they try to paint this as a right/left issue: lamo
Click to expand...

Abortion isn't a left vs right issue. It isn't a male vs female issue. It isn't even a fetus vs mother issue.

It is an issue of good vs evil. Human life vs. Human death.

Nobody here is attacking women. Nobody wants to take away women rights. However, we want to be fair and equal to all human.
 
Lursa said:
Of course I have (in many previous venues, like college for instance). Just because I refuse to validate them doesnt mean I'm unaware of them.

And unsourced essays mean nothing more than if I wrote an essay on the moon being made of green cheese.

If I posted an essay on that 3 different times here...would it make it more valid?

If your ethical view was so intrinsic in humanity, so globally recognized, elective abortion would not be legal in most countries to some extent. This is fact, this is demonstrable proof that your opinion is not correct.
Click to expand...

"Recognition" doesn't mean anything, that's an appeal to popularity fallacy, which seems to be all you have. You've repeatedly only appealed to popularity and authority, while also claiming that I need to show that someone else has said the same thing, yet objective reality is not determined by who or how many support it.

What makes ethics objective is consistency, something that your argument and all other statist arguments lack, that require fallacies to be accepted in order to be pushed, such as Special Pleading, as I've pointed out and you repeatedly ignored.
 
Bucky said:
Abortion isn't a left vs right issue. It isn't a male vs female issue. It isn't even a fetus vs mother issue.
2.)It is an issue of good vs evil.
3.) Human life vs. Human death.
4.) Nobody here is attacking women. Nobody wants to take away women rights.
5.) However, we want to be fair and equal to all human.
Click to expand...

1.) yes i know the fact thats what I said, thanks
2.) based on what facts?
3.) nope its not that either . . its a matter of legal rights
4.) that is factually not true as the thread proves LOl why do you post so many lies?
5.) theres factually no way to make this situation fair and equal since one life is inside another so ill like options in the middle and Rvw at 24 weeks is damn close . . at best id be willing to go to 20 weeks with all the exceptions still in place but thats about it . . anything else is to far in favor of one of the other
 
Raelia said:
What makes ethics objective is consistency, something that your argument and all other statist arguments lack, that require fallacies to be accepted in order to be pushed, such as Special Pleading, as I've pointed out and you repeatedly ignored.
Click to expand...

based on what? . . oh thats right . . just your feelings and opinions and ZERO facts LMAO

facts
ethics are subjective

disagree? please prove otherwise, thanks!
 
Re: Can we get a more detailed explanation?

Lursa said:
I have taken philosophy and studied ethics.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt that.
[/QUOTE]
What's interesting is that you seem to believe that just because you accept a particular philosophy regarding ethics, that everyone should accept it. You are so blindingly accepting of it that you have reduced it to the same influence as religion: which can be very strong but also very wrong.

I can explain all day long why I believe the moon is made of green cheese. However when it comes to demonstrable...you have done no such thing for explaining why the unborn are entitled to rights. Biology is not a reason...science confers no ethics.[/QUOTE]
Not because I accept it, but because it's the only consistent form of ethics.

I have demonstrated, repeatedly, you've just been ignoring it. I explained in detail every claim I've made, however all you've done is repeat your base assertion. For example, right here, you just re-stated that science confers no ethics, however I was using biology to prove that ethics applied to the individual. Much like everyone who is advocating something nasty, you're skipping steps in an argument, and jumping right to a conclusion, regardless of whether or not your conclusion is accurate. "It is biologically human, humans are self-owning agents, rights and ethics apply to self-owning agents, murdering a self-owning agent is unethical". You're literally just skipping all of the steps you don't like.
 
Re: Can we get a more detailed explanation?

Raelia said:
1.) Not because I accept it, but because it's the only consistent form of ethics.
2.)I have demonstrated, repeatedly.
3.) I explained in detail every claim
Click to expand...

1.) based on your feelings and opinions and zero facts
2.) based on your feelings and opinions and zero facts
3.) based on your feelings and opinions and zero facts

so here we are in the same place, you making factual wrong statements you cant cant back up

you have claimed:
abortion is murder
abortion is unethical
abortion unjustified killing of an innocent individual
ethics are objective

yet you cant provide one fact that makes any of that true . . .not one . . those are just your feelings and some of them are factually wrong

heck i directly challenge you or ANYBODY to present one fact that makes any of those feelings of yours facts. . .please do so in your next post, thanks!
 
Re: If your Snark be a Boojum!

Lursa said:
Well not really anymore, except that I find it interesting...and demonstrably wrong...that you believe your particular choice of ethical philosophy is the "end all and be all", "unquestioningly correct" one re: the unborn not being entitled to any rights.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you were in the first place.

That would be because all others are inherently inconsistent.
 
Re: If your Snark be a Boojum!

Raelia said:
That would be because all others are inherently inconsistent.
Click to expand...

again only based on your feelings and opinions :)
 
Raelia said:
"Recognition" doesn't mean anything, that's an appeal to popularity fallacy, which seems to be all you have. You've repeatedly only appealed to popularity and authority, while also claiming that I need to show that someone else has said the same thing, yet objective reality is not determined by who or how many support it.

What makes ethics objective is consistency, something that your argument and all other statist arguments lack, that require fallacies to be accepted in order to be pushed, such as Special Pleading, as I've pointed out and you repeatedly ignored.
Click to expand...

Cool and I've shown that elective abortion is consistently accepted in most countries.

It's also very myopic of you to claim that you hold the 'only true' ethical position on the issue of the unborn being entitled to rights.

And IMO one very good reason for that is because you 'believe it' solely in a vacuum and not realistically, because the recognition of such rights would have impacts on women and girls that would be unethical.

Practically, societies cannot function that way...'ethics for ethics' sake.' Just like rights cannot be considered that way...there is a balance that must be found when there are competing rights and that's what the laws and govts that you dismiss do...find that balance and generally, their goal if they must compromise, is for the greater good of society.

There are no negative effects of abortion on society. Unless you can list some?
 
Re: If your Snark be a Boojum!

Raelia said:
Comparing a developing human to a brain-dead individual, then claiming that what I explained is somehow degrading is hilariously dishonest.

A brain-dead individual is still human, so long as the cells which make up that human are also alive. Much like the psychopathic and horribly dishonest comparison to a tumor cell, the differences between a brain-dead individual and a developing unborn human are legion. The brain-dead individual, as of now, cannot recover, while violence is required to murder the unborn human.

Have you ever stopped to consider that advocating that unborn humans can be murdered is "degrading to society"?
Click to expand...

75% of "Unborn" fertilized eggs are naturally expelled because of a myriad of reasons. The idea that it is "murder" is hyperbolic and wrong. A fetus is also brain dead when 99% of them are aborted. Some don't even develop brains at all. Our brains are what make us different from any other mammal, without it we cannot be called human.
 
Re: If your Snark be a Boojum!

Raelia said:
I don't believe you were in the first place.

That would be because all others are inherently inconsistent.
Click to expand...

So now I doubt your competent understanding of ethics. In practice, (reality) there are always conflicting ethics and rights. It's not possible for 100% consistency and such an expectation is beyond uninformed.

Perhaps more study is required on your part?
 
Re: Can we get a more detailed explanation?

Raelia said:
I highly doubt that.

What's interesting is that you seem to believe that just because you accept a particular philosophy regarding ethics, that everyone should accept it. You are so blindingly accepting of it that you have reduced it to the same influence as religion: which can be very strong but also very wrong.

I can explain all day long why I believe the moon is made of green cheese. However when it comes to demonstrable...you have done no such thing for explaining why the unborn are entitled to rights. Biology is not a reason...science confers no ethics.
Not because I accept it, but because it's the only consistent form of ethics.

I have demonstrated, repeatedly, you've just been ignoring it. I explained in detail every claim I've made, however all you've done is repeat your base assertion. For example, right here, you just re-stated that science confers no ethics, however I was using biology to prove that ethics applied to the individual. Much like everyone who is advocating something nasty, you're skipping steps in an argument, and jumping right to a conclusion, regardless of whether or not your conclusion is accurate. "It is biologically human, humans are self-owning agents, rights and ethics apply to self-owning agents, murdering a self-owning agent is unethical". You're literally just skipping all of the steps you don't like.
Click to expand...

Unreadable
 
Re: If your Snark be a Boojum!

Lursa said:
So now I doubt your competent understanding of ethics. In practice, (reality) there are always conflicting ethics and rights. It's not possible for 100% consistency and such an expectation is beyond uninformed.

Perhaps more study is required on your part?
Click to expand...
True ethics are supported by the law of non-contradiction and the consistency principal. Maybe the person who advocates that one murder unborn children should better educate themselves on ethics.
 
Re: Can we get a more detailed explanation?

Raelia said:
It's an entire philosophy. You could start by attempting to understand the Non-Aggression Principal, then you could research First Principles. That's the order I started in, anyway. Of course, I don't doubt that your mind isn't open enough to research dissenting ideas.

False parallel, there's no explanatory or demonstrable power behind that claim, while I've explained Ethics at length.
Click to expand...

Most abortions today consist of taking 2 pills. How is that violent or aggressive?
 
Re: If your Snark be a Boojum!

iguanaman said:
75% of "Unborn" fertilized eggs are naturally expelled because of a myriad of reasons. The idea that it is "murder" is hyperbolic and wrong. A fetus is also brain dead when 99% of them are aborted. Some don't even develop brains at all. Our brains are what make us different from any other mammal, without it we cannot be called human.
Click to expand...
Despite your current track record, let's assume that you're right, and that 75% of fertilized eggs are naturally killed by the mother's body. This would mean that nature is infringing on their individual rights, not the mother.

Brains are not what makes an individual different from an animal, it's only one part of many. Besides, animals cannot be self-owning agents, they're incapable of recognizing an ethical framework, while humans demonstrably can. Because the unborn child is biologically human, it is also a self-owning agent. Excluding some humans from self-ownership is special pleading, therefor the child owns itself.
 
Re: Can we get a more detailed explanation?

iguanaman said:
Most abortions today consist of taking 2 pills. How is that violent or aggressive?
Click to expand...
Most murder today consists of pulling one trigger. Regardless of how simplistic the action is, the individual is still terminated, therefor the action is murder.
 
Re: If your Snark be a Boojum!

Raelia said:
1.) True ethics are supported by the law of non-contradiction and the consistency principal.
2.) Maybe the person who advocates that one murder unborn children should better educate themselves on ethics.
Click to expand...

1.) translation: your feelings and opinions
2.) nobody here advocates that, another lie of yours completely failing
 
Re: Can we get a more detailed explanation?

Raelia said:
Most murder today consists of pulling one trigger. Regardless of how simplistic the action is, the individual is still terminated, therefor the action is murder.
Click to expand...

based on what facts is abortion equal to murder . . still waiting

:popcorn2:
 
Lursa said:
Cool and I've shown that elective abortion is consistently accepted in most countries.
Click to expand...
Appeal to popularity fallacy. Again.
Lursa said:
It's also very myopic of you to claim that you hold the 'only true' ethical position on the issue of the unborn being entitled to rights.
Click to expand...
I never claimed that, I'm explaining objective ethics to you, and explained where the idea came from. Your inability to understand that does not mean that I'm declaring myself sole arbiter of ethics.
Lursa said:
And IMO one very good reason for that is because you 'believe it' solely in a vacuum and not realistically, because the recognition of such rights would have impacts on women and girls that would be unethical.
Click to expand...
I already explained it, gave you the name of the applied principles. Your inability to understand said explanation and research it for yourself to verify my explanation is your own fault.

The irony of you calling a woman going through pregnancy due to being 'deprived' of their 'right' to murder an unborn child unethical is probably completely lost on you.
Lursa said:
Practically, societies cannot function that way...'ethics for ethics' sake.' Just like rights cannot be considered that way...there is a balance that must be found when there are competing rights and that's what the laws and govts that you dismiss do...find that balance and generally, their goal if they must compromise, is for the greater good of society.

There are no negative effects of abortion on society. Unless you can list some?
Click to expand...
There are no competing rights, a right ends where another begins. You already accepted the premise of the 'fetus' being a living human, the fact that you're applying special pleading as the basis for your entire argument refutes said argument inherently, as it's a fallacy. It's inconsistent, therefor applying it as ethics would make said ethics arbitrary.

I dismiss them because their entire existence is unethical, inherently. They are individuals who grant themselves dominion over everyone within imaginary borders which they drew, without their consent. They're a Mafia which declared themselves official.

Pretty sure murdering millions is a negative effect.
 
Raelia said:
1.) never claimed that, I'm explaining objective ethics to you, and explained where the idea came from. Your inability to understand that does not mean that I'm declaring myself sole arbiter of ethics.
2.)I already explained it, gave you the name of the applied principles. Your inability to understand said explanation and research it for yourself to verify my explanation is your own fault.
3.)The irony of you calling a woman going through pregnancy due to being 'deprived' of their 'right' to murder an unborn child unethical is probably completely lost on you.
4.)There are no competing rights, a right ends where another begins.
5.) You already accepted the premise of the 'fetus' being a living human, the fact that you're applying special pleading as the basis for your entire argument refutes said argument inherently, as it's a fallacy. It's inconsistent, therefor applying it as ethics would make said ethics arbitrary.
6.)I dismiss them because their entire existence is unethical, inherently. They are individuals who grant themselves dominion over everyone within imaginary borders which they drew, without their consent. They're a Mafia which declared themselves official.
7.)Pretty sure murdering millions is a negative effect.
Click to expand...

1.) oh we get it, its based on your feelings and opinions and no facts
2.) See #1
3.) the idea of you thinking that lie is fooling anybody is lost on you. There is no right to murder, you calling it that only further exposes your inablity to support your claims with any facts. its awesome!
4.) just cause you dont value the womans rights doesnt mean others dont and they dont exist
5.) wrong again thats the retarded strawman you keep making up desperately trying to sell and nobody honest educated and objective is buying it or taking it seriously
6.) again only based on your feelings and opinions and ZERO facts
7.) who is murdering millions, why would that factually be negative?

Did lies like you post above work on the other board you came from? Hint: they arent going to work here for sure:lamo

so here we are in the same place, you making factual wrong statements you cant cant back up

you have claimed:
abortion is murder
abortion is unethical
abortion unjustified killing of an innocent individual
ethics are objective

yet you cant provide one fact that makes any of that true . . .not one . . those are just your feelings and some of them are factually wrong

heck i directly challenge you or ANYBODY to present one fact that makes any of those feelings of yours facts. . .please do so in your next post, thanks!
 
Re: If your Snark be a Boojum!

Raelia said:
True ethics are supported by the law of non-contradiction and the consistency principal. Maybe the person who advocates that one murder unborn children should better educate themselves on ethics.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in any examination of ethics that doesnt have practical application.

When I am discussing an issue that affects people (women and girls that are aware, suffer, enjoy, contribute) I cannot be bothered with 'ethics for ethics' sake'...in a society, ethics have no purpose if they exist in a vacuum, with no regard for their influence.
 
Raelia said:
Appeal to popularity fallacy. Again.

I never claimed that, I'm explaining objective ethics to you, and explained where the idea came from. Your inability to understand that does not mean that I'm declaring myself sole arbiter of ethics.

I already explained it, gave you the name of the applied principles. Your inability to understand said explanation and research it for yourself to verify my explanation is your own fault.

The irony of you calling a woman going through pregnancy due to being 'deprived' of their 'right' to murder an unborn child unethical is probably completely lost on you.

There are no competing rights, a right ends where another begins. You already accepted the premise of the 'fetus' being a living human, the fact that you're applying special pleading as the basis for your entire argument refutes said argument inherently, as it's a fallacy. It's inconsistent, therefor applying it as ethics would make said ethics arbitrary.

I dismiss them because their entire existence is unethical, inherently. They are individuals who grant themselves dominion over everyone within imaginary borders which they drew, without their consent. They're a Mafia which declared themselves official.

Pretty sure murdering millions is a negative effect.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as 'objective' ethics. All ethics are subjective. And you have yet to prove otherwise.

Everything you write is in the abstract with little to know practical purpose in society. Example: in every society there are competing rights.
Thus, I have no interest in wasting time on what amounts to you bowing to ethics like it's an unquestionable deity.

And of course you will only consider your version of 'ethics' so it's pointless for you to continue to do so.

Exactly what are those negative affects? Please list them.
 
Lursa said:
Of course I'm not wrong about the stages of human development.

The unborn are not yet babies or children...and they may never achieve those stages, depending on miscarriage, deformity, abortion, etc. So you can see why it's improper to refer to them that way.

When you qualify it it with 'unborn', then it's accurate.
Click to expand...

You are playing word games. No matter what you call the unborn but within minutes of conception science says human life has begun. As to reaching full term yes there are possible things that can happen but then your entire life is a crap shot. There is no guarantee you will see another sun rise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom