• 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!

Abortion 201

Quag said:
You are wrong your views are just your personal opinion
Ie morality is always subjective no matter how much you dont want it to be
I suggest you read the link you hared which destroys your claim
BBC - Ethics - Abortion: Moral personhood
Click to expand...
Please stop these harassing posts.
Try to understand this: nothing written in the link I posted or anywhere else in any book, article, journal or chapbook in the world make my view "wrong."
Nor can anything written anywhere, including your posts.
And whether morality is subjective or objective is immaterial to its universality.

Now, to humor you, I challenge you to quote from the BBC link the word, line, or passage you think gives the lie to my moral argument.
I shall thereupon point out to you your error.
Whereupon you will stop the harassment.
 
Angel said:
Please stop these harassing posts.
Try to understand this: nothing written in the link I posted or anywhere else in any book, article, journal or chapbook in the world make my view "wrong."
Nor can anything written anywhere, including your posts.
And whether morality is subjective or objective is immaterial to its universality.

Now, to humor you, I challenge you to quote from the BBC link the word, line, or passage you think gives the lie to my moral argument.
I shall thereupon point out to you your error.
Whereupon you will stop the harassment.
Click to expand...
I am not harrasing you despite what you think. I am pointing out that your claims are unfounded
In fact I am just re-pointing out what others already have and you have failed to adress
See post 156 in your thread AP Abortion: Moral Responsibility or you can see it in post 384 in this thread by Minnie
The lie is your false and abusrd claim that your morality is somehow the correct one, it isnt it is just your personal morality
 
Quag said:
I am not harrasing you despite what you think. I am pointing out that your claims are unfounded
In fact I am just re-pointing out what others already have and you have failed to adress
See post 156 in your thread AP Abortion: Moral Responsibility or you can see it in post 384 in this thread by Minnie
The lie is your false and abusrd claim that your morality is somehow the correct one, it isnt it is just your personal morality
Click to expand...
Cite the article or hush up.
 
Angel said:
No, you're treating my view as if it were, like your view, just a personal opinion.


The source of that overarching morality is human nature.

I am claiming universality for my moral argument; you are claiming personal opinion for your morals. And you criticize my moral argument as if it were a personal opinion, like your morals.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Yes, it's your personal opinion. Most of us can justify our opinions, and that's all you're doing.

Even the simplest arguments on this topic are sound:

1) All life should be protected.

2) All persons have a right to choose what happens to their bodies - the state/church has no right to it.

No, you remember that this pejorative view of my threads is yours, not mine.
Click to expand...

I didn't title the threads, "Abortion 101" and "Abortion 102". You did.

And every rational one of of those 7 billion will reason that a human being has a right to life.
Click to expand...

But how many "reason" that all ZEF's are "human beings"??? Words have meanings... There is no "human being" when the process of conception completes, and you can't tell us how, in a practical sense, to even determine when that process has completed. Yet that's where you draw the line between "moral" and "immoral".
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Ah, I see. Yes, it's your personal opinion. Most of us can justify our opinions, and that's all you're doing.

Even the simplest arguments on this topic are sound:

1) All life should be protected.

2) All persons have a right to choose what happens to their bodies - the state/church has no right to it.



I didn't title the threads, "Abortion 101" and "Abortion 102". You did.



But how many "reason" that all ZEF's are "human beings"??? Words have meanings... There is no "human being" when the process of conception completes, and you can't tell us how, in a practical sense, to even determine when that process has completed. Yet that's where you draw the line between "moral" and "immoral".
Click to expand...
Touche on the thread titles.

No, my view is the conclusion of a tightly reasoned argument.

The appeal to reason is for the natural right.

The definition of human being is biology.
 
Angel said:
Cite the article or hush up.
Click to expand...
Hmmm since you asked so nicely(NOT) despite the fact I already told you where to look Ill comply but dont for 1 second think your petty demands have any affect on me
And the time at which a foetus gets the right to life because it's achieved the relevant list of characteristics can vary from the moment of conception to the time the baby is born.

(In fact for some philosophers, very young babies don't really qualify as having earned the right to life by possessing the right characteristics. Fortunately for young children, these philosophers concede that young babies do have the right to life as a result of tradition and law instead.)
Click to expand...

Yes of course it does, because without getting the point sorted out people can find themselves arguing about completely different things, even though they're both using words like 'human being'.

But it may not matter in terms of pure moral philosophy, since there are cases when most people agree that even if the foetus is a person, abortion may be morally justified.
Click to expand...
And some philosophers have argued that abortion can be morally justified even where there is no risk to the physical or mental health of the mother.
Click to expand...
 
Angel said:
Touche on the thread titles.

No, my view is the conclusion of a tightly reasoned argument.

The appeal to reason is for the natural right.

The definition of human being is biology.
Click to expand...

Actually its just a rationalization of your personal opinion
 
Angel said:
Please stop these harassing posts.
Try to understand this: nothing written in the link I posted or anywhere else in any book, article, journal or chapbook in the world make my view "wrong."
Nor can anything written anywhere, including your posts.
And whether morality is subjective or objective is immaterial to its universality.

Now, to humor you, I challenge you to quote from the BBC link the word, line, or passage you think gives the lie to my moral argument.
I shall thereupon point out to you your error.
Whereupon you will stop the harassment.
Click to expand...

Harassing?

You repeat threads that are all variation on the same theme .

Posters respond to you....their responses are not to your liking and you get triggered calling them harassing posts.

You have your own personal sense of morality. Fine. But to impose your point of view or else you cry out?

Seriously.

You are welcome to your own personal belief system, your own sense of morality, and your own philosophy. It is neither right nor wrong.

To call another's personal belief system, sense of morality, and philosophy wrong is just plain odd.

BTW...we do have a board on DP for beliefs, philosphy, and religion. :peace
 
Angel said:
Touche on the thread titles.

No, my view is the conclusion of a tightly reasoned argument.

The appeal to reason is for the natural right.

The definition of human being is biology.
Click to expand...

I conceded those points a long time ago.

The thing is, you're making what you see as a well reasoned argument (I have acknowledged that, in and of itself, I think it IS well reasoned) to the board and it's being rejected for various reasons. I reject it on grounds on impracticality - we are talking about abortion - practicality matters. I would also look at a number of other factors in a woman's life besides the age of a ZEF before passing any moral judgement.
 
year2late said:
Harassing?

You repeat threads that are all variation on the same theme .

Posters respond to you....their responses are not to your liking and you get triggered calling them harassing posts.

You have your own personal sense of morality. Fine. But to impose your point of view or else you cry out?

Seriously.

You are welcome to your own personal belief system, your own sense of morality, and your own philosophy. It is neither right nor wrong.

To call another's personal belief system, sense of morality, and philosophy wrong is just plain odd.

BTW...we do have a board on DP for beliefs, philosphy, and religion. :peace
Click to expand...
Your Doctor of Spin credentials are duly noted.

Since self-knowledge seems to be at a premium among talking pointers, I guess I should point out to you, ma'am, that this charge of yours, to wit: "To call another's personal belief system, sense of morality, and philosophy wrong is just plain odd" -- this charge, I say, applies to you and yours in relation to my views, not to me.

That you cannot see this is a symptom of the talking-point fugue y'all post in.
 
Angel said:
Your Doctor of Spin credentials are duly noted.

Since self-knowledge seems to be at a premium among talking pointers, I guess I should point out to you, ma'am, that this charge of yours, to wit: "To call another's personal belief system, sense of morality, and philosophy wrong is just plain odd" -- this charge, I say, applies to you and yours in relation to my views, not to me.

That you cannot see this is a symptom of the talking-point fugue y'all post in.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact?

Oh I forgot...most facts to you are legal fictions.
 
Angel said:
Touche on the thread titles.

No, my view is the conclusion of a tightly reasoned argument.

The appeal to reason is for the natural right.

The definition of human being is biology.
Click to expand...

Quick follow up - this is basically the definition of 'human being' I use. Is your definition different?


Human being - New World Encyclopedia
 
Quag said:
Hmmm since you asked so nicely(NOT) despite the fact I already told you where to look Ill comply but dont for 1 second think your petty demands have any affect on me
Click to expand...

I guess the color-coded one wasnt clear enough:roll:
 
Quag said:
Hmmm since you asked so nicely(NOT) despite the fact I already told you where to look Ill comply but dont for 1 second think your petty demands have any affect on me
Click to expand...
The bit leading up to the bits you cite reads as follows:
Moral personhood

One of the first issues that need clarifying when thinking about abortion is the idea of what we mean when we talk about 'human life.'

When people talk about 'human life' they may mean:

- a member of the biological human species - having the human genetic code

But they may mean something very different:

- a being that possesses certain human characteristics in addition to the human genetic code
characteristics often suggested might be the ability to think, to imagine, to communicate
but the lists of characteristics put forward may be designed to limit the definition of human in the way the speaker wants
- a being that is a 'moral person', i.e. one that has rights, and probably duties too
Click to expand...

The BBC article, as is made clear here, and in the header text, which reads:
Some people think that abortion is always wrong. Some think that abortion is right when the mother's life is at risk. Others think that there is a range of circumstances in which abortion is morally acceptable.
Click to expand...
-- the BBC article presents a small canvass of the field of views.

There is nothing in the BBC article that pretends to be the correct view.
The BBC article is not an argument; it is a small-scale summary canvass of the field of opinion.
As such, it has no discursive power or authority at all/

What's more -- and I already made this point, but it seems to have gone right over your head -- what's more, I say, even if the BBC article were a tightly reasoned moral argument instead of the piece of journalism it is, and concluded with the words: "Therefore, Quag is correct and Angel wrong about abortion" -- even if this conclusion appeared at the link, it would provide no refutation of my moral argument.

If you want to refute my moral argument, you'll have to do something more engaging than finding some internet link that agrees with you -- you'll have to engage my argument premise by premise and argue its refutation.
 
Angel said:
The bit leading up to the bits you cite reads as follows:


The BBC article, as is made clear here, and in the header text, which reads:

-- the BBC article presents a small canvass of the field of views.

There is nothing in the BBC article that pretends to be the correct view.
The BBC article is not an argument; it is a small-scale summary canvass of the field of opinion.
As such, it has no discursive power or authority at all/

What's more -- and I already made this point, but it seems to have gone right over your head -- what's more, I say, even if the BBC article were a tightly reasoned moral argument instead of the piece of journalism it is, and concluded with the words: "Therefore, Quag is correct and Angel wrong about abortion" -- even if this conclusion appeared at the link, it would provide no refutation of my moral argument.

If you want to refute my moral argument, you'll have to do something more engaging than finding some internet link that agrees with you -- you'll have to engage my argument premise by premise and argue its refutation.
Click to expand...
it was your link, it was the source we requested for you to support your argument. LMAO

First provide a source that DOES support your argument...since now you admit this one fails.
 
Lursa said:
it was your link, it was the source we requested for you to support your argument. LMAO

First provide a source that DOES support your argument...since now you admit this one fails.
Click to expand...
The source of my argument is Reason.
If a member's been shortchanged in this respect, my argument will continue to baffle him. Or her.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Quick follow up - this is basically the definition of 'human being' I use. Is your definition different?


Human being - New World Encyclopedia
Click to expand...
That's a fine definition.
Truth is, however, what human being is, is a total ****ing mystery.
We can define ourselves six ways from Sunday -- indeed, the whole project we call "civilization" is just an attempt to define human being -- but ultimately we remain a mystery to ourselves.
 
Angel said:
......
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
it was your link, it was the source we requested for you to support your argument. LMAO

First provide a source that DOES support your argument...since now you admit this one fails.
Click to expand...

I agree it was his link and disproves his argument.

His argument is done.

He needs to stick a fork in his abortion threads.

He is done.

View attachment 67254692
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
I agree it was his link and disproves his argument.

His argument is done.

He needs to stick a fork in his abortion threads.

He is done.
Click to expand...
Remember early Dylan, Min?
"Don't criticize what you can't understand."
 
Angel said:
The bit leading up to the bits you cite reads as follows:


The BBC article, as is made clear here, and in the header text, which reads:

-- the BBC article presents a small canvass of the field of views.

There is nothing in the BBC article that pretends to be the correct view.
The BBC article is not an argument; it is a small-scale summary canvass of the field of opinion.
As such, it has no discursive power or authority at all/

What's more -- and I already made this point, but it seems to have gone right over your head -- what's more, I say, even if the BBC article were a tightly reasoned moral argument instead of the piece of journalism it is, and concluded with the words: "Therefore, Quag is correct and Angel wrong about abortion" -- even if this conclusion appeared at the link, it would provide no refutation of my moral argument.

If you want to refute my moral argument, you'll have to do something more engaging than finding some internet link that agrees with you -- you'll have to engage my argument premise by premise and argue its refutation.
Click to expand...

You seem confused on why this article defeats your claims
First you posted the link to defend your claims that the morality of abortion is settled, the article prves you wrong. More importantly the article shows that philosophically speaking there is no correct answer to any of these questions.
Your moral argument has already been refusted as it is just your personal opinion, nothign more
 
Just say No To Abortion. It's easy. It's done. Enjoy your tomorrow !
 
Angel said:
The source of my argument is Reason.
If a member's been shortchanged in this respect, my argument will continue to baffle him. Or her.
Click to expand...

No the soure of your argument is your opinion
 
PTF said:
Just say No To Abortion. It's easy. It's done. Enjoy your tomorrow !
Click to expand...

That's a joke, right? "Easy?" "Done?" Saying that means 9 months of pregnancy that may lose you your job, lose you your ability to support your dependents, and perhaps being unable to fulfill your other obligations to family, church, community, etc. It can even cost your life or leave a woman permanently disabled. The latter happens in about 80,000 cases/yr in America.

Not to mention 18 years of raising a child. (often 'another' child' as most women that have abortions already have at least 1 child...this should indicate that it's untrue that most women have abortions 'to save their shape' or 'keep a man,' etc)

Of course there is adoption, but there are already over 100,000 children waiting to be adopted in America...so it's not remotely ethical IMO to encourage women to have more unwanted or unaffordable kids just to dump them into that vast pool.


So see? Your poorly thought out slogan is deceptive and kinda pointless. "Easy, done!" :doh
 
Angel said:
The source of my argument is Reason.
If a member's been shortchanged in this respect, my argument will continue to baffle him. Or her.
Click to expand...

Your own shortcoming of such led you to post a source that proved you wrong :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom