• 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

Angel said:
1.) Morality is not subjective by definition. Edify yourself here:
The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
2.)But even if your concept of morality is subjective
3.) that concept does not affect the OP argument at all.
4.) Or can you show -- not just assert, but show -- that it does affect the OP argument.
5.)Morals and law are related. Why do you think there are laws for killing and thieving?
Click to expand...
aaaaand another dodge and fail
1.) LMAO yes it the definition proves that
philosophy is not fact its subjective try a dictionary :lamo
2.) again posting lies wont work its not my concept its just facts. Facts you cant change hence your inability to do so.
3.) there is no argument in the OP only statements that are factually wrong. Again hence your inability to support it and why it completely fails
4.) already did, the definition proves your op is false
5.) again repeating this retarded lie wont make it true. based on this topic its meaningless. Its always so much fun exposing your lies.

so here we are again in the same place

FACTS:
Morals are subjective
Morals on this topic have nothing to do with law
= your OP fails

So once again when this changes let us know, until then both your threads will continue to fail and do nothing but provided entertainment to honest, educated objective posters, we'll be waiting, thanks!
 
Angel said:
The moral argument is based on the right to life and allows for exceptions also based on the right to life.
Click to expand...

That sounds nice, clean and logical, but it makes IVF immoral because it involves creating "life" knowing that most of that "life" will die in the process. My sister in law was given about a 5% chance of carrying one of her IVF attempts to term. She had multiple miscarriages in the process, but I now have a 15 year old nephew.

In fact, about 30% of natural conceptions don't make it to term. That sounds like the intelligent designer wasn't overly concerned about this whole thing.
 
Angel said:
Abortion 201: the Legal question​


Prerequisite: Abortion 101

https://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/350312-abortion-101-a.html#post1069806631

In Abortion 101 we explored the moral argument for being at once both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice in the matter of abortion.

Over 200 posts later and the DP Pro-Choice Contingent still didn't get it.

I explain this failure in two ways:
1. The Pro-Choice Contingent cannot think outside their talking points.
2. The Pro-Choice Contingent cannot separate the moral from the legal aspects of abortion.

In Abortion 201 we take up the legal question of abortion.

Question:
How does the moral question of abortion relate to the legal question of abortion?

In order to avoid the drone of talking points which the misunderstanding of this question will draw from the Pro-Choice Contingent,
let us stipulate here at the outset that abortion is legal in the United States, and that its legality is not the question being mooted here.

The question raised here goes to the relation between the moral argument presented in Abortion 101 and the legality of abortion.

Inasmuch as the DP Pro-Choice Contingent still does not get the moral argument, this summary may be in order:

1. Being both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice is the morally sound view on abortion.
2. Abortion is immoral (with exceptions).
3. But every moral agent has a right to be immoral (a right in the sense of a claim, not a right in the sense of privilege).

Questions:
In allowing an immoral act is abortion law an immoral law?
In embodying the morally sound view on abortion is abortion law itself morally sound?​
Click to expand...
Eloquently written garbage argument.
 
prometeus said:
Yes, no one made it. Post a link to it or quote it.

Is this purposeful stupidity or just the depth of ignorance? Defining morality does not define what is moral. The list would be endless.

Yes it is among the dumbest crap posted here on DP.
Click to expand...
You need to read more carefully, pilgrim.
The question was: What claim are you talking about.
The response said: defining morality tells you what moral propositions are about.
Yes, my post is "among the dumbest crap posted here on D" precisely because it is now found among your posts.
 
AGENT J said:
aaaaand another dodge and fail
1.) LMAO yes it the definition proves that
philosophy is not fact its subjective try a dictionary :lamo
2.) again posting lies wont work its not my concept its just facts. Facts you cant change hence your inability to do so.
3.) there is no argument in the OP only statements that are factually wrong. Again hence your inability to support it and why it completely fails
4.) already did, the definition proves your op is false
5.) again repeating this retarded lie wont make it true. based on this topic its meaningless. Its always so much fun exposing your lies.

so here we are again in the same place

FACTS:
Morals are subjective
Morals on this topic have nothing to do with law
= your OP fails

So once again when this changes let us know, until then both your threads will continue to fail and do nothing but provided entertainment to honest, educated objective posters, we'll be waiting, thanks!
Click to expand...
You can troll this silliness as persistently as you have nothing better to do, but it will still be uninformed silliness.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
That sounds nice, clean and logical, but it makes IVF immoral because it involves creating "life" knowing that most of that "life" will die in the process. My sister in law was given about a 5% chance of carrying one of her IVF attempts to term. She had multiple miscarriages in the process, but I now have a 15 year old nephew.

In fact, about 30% of natural conceptions don't make it to term. That sounds like the intelligent designer wasn't overly concerned about this whole thing.
Click to expand...
It is "nice, clean and logical." The percentages of success or failure in IVF or the old school method don't reach since the failures in these cases are not brought about by moral agents. And only you seem to be talking about theism in this thread. I certainly have not.
 
Angel said:
If a pregnancy threatens the life of a woman, then the choice to abort is morally defensible.
If all pregnancies are life threatening, as you appear to be claiming, then all abortions are morally defensible.
To force anyone to do anything against his/her will is not morally defensible on its face.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

If this is the case, how can abortion be an immoral act? (if it's a woman's choice)

(And I'm not claiming that it is or isnt)
 
Angel said:
You need to read more carefully
Click to expand...
I read just fine, you clearly have no clue what you read.

Yes, my post is "among the dumbest crap posted here on D" precisely because it is now found among your posts.
Click to expand...
No dear it is dumb because it is devoid of anything intelligent and it does not create a great impression about you.
 
Angel said:
Inelegantly written garbage reply to the argument.
Either make a counter-argument or don't waste my time.
Click to expand...
I’ve been called worse by far better.

Your entire argument is wrapped in your personal bias, not logic and fact, so from the get go it’s a bust.

You don’t get to determine what is or isn’t moral or immoral. Your arrogance in accusing others of not being able to adjust to your viewpoint proves, absolutely, that you are the intransigent one.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
I’ve been called worse by far better.

Your entire argument is wrapped in your personal bias, not logic and fact, so from the get go it’s a bust.

You don’t get to determine what is or isn’t moral or immoral. Your arrogance in accusing others of not being able to adjust to your viewpoint proves, absolutely, that you are the intransigent one.
Click to expand...
Congrats on your relations with others.

Your second sentence can be applied with equal validity to you and your second sentence. You don't appear to know much about the nature of morality. I've posted two links earlier; I recommend that you look at them.
 
If a pregnancy threatens the life of a woman, then the choice to abort is morally defensible.
If all pregnancies are life threatening, as you appear to be claiming, then all abortions are morally defensible.
To force anyone to do anything against his/her will is not morally defensible on its face.
Click to expand...
Lursa said:
...
If this is the case, how can abortion be an immoral act? (if it's a woman's choice)
...
Click to expand...
How? If the antecedent in the conditional bolded above is false.
 
Angel said:
Then rebut, show the lie, show the worthlessness, make a counterargument -- do all the things you claim you can do in this post; don't just assert them.
You talk the talk, now walk the walk.
Click to expand...

Easy enough. Let's start with the idea that life begins at conception.
World first baby born using the Geri incubator | Planet Innovation
“The embryos are continually dividing into cells and expanding and excluding cells and none of that was observable to us because the embryos were inside the incubators,” Genea explained. “Made up of 6 independent chambers Geri maintains an optimal environment during an embryo’s crucial first 5 days,” clarifies reporter Amanda Bennett. “A time-lapse camera featured to each compartment takes a photo every 5 minutes meaning embryos can be monitored without being disturbed.”
Click to expand...

A woman will donate a dozen eggs of which several will be viable and with this technology we now know which are viable. So all life begins at conception so what according to the pro life crowd should happen? Should the woman be forced to give birth to all seven alive embryo's? Should several women be forced to be impregnated because women are not as important as the life of the embryo? Or perhaps iv births should be banned in which case the pro life will be responsible the aborting of thousands of lives that many parents seek through iv. Or the most likely scenario is you will do what all the pro lifers do when confronted with how ridiculous a life begins at conception rule is, you will try and ignore this in the hope that by ignoring it you can continue making the worthless claim that life begins at conception.


As for the right to life. There is no such constitutional right nor even a god given right. The right to life is not a right in the same sense that america has a right to own a gun. The right to life is nothing more than a concept. It is what we base our ideologies of our constitutional rights upon. Not man or god can guarantee a life. neither can give anyone a right to live. But we can make rights that use that as a concept.

You do not have a moral advantage here. What you do have is a false claim of morality based on misconceptions.
 
Angel said:
Get a good lawyer and sue the **** out of the schools you attended.
Meanwhile, if you can't walk the walk, then don't talk the talk. Either provide an argument for your claims or stop littering the thread with your detritus.
Click to expand...

Actually it is you that should sue. You have not been taught the difference between bad laws and good laws.

You are correct in that some laws are based on morality. Those are in fact bad laws created by governments who are thinking they have the right to be a nanny state. They wish to control their citizens instead of represent them.

Good laws are evidence based not morally based.

So you may be correct that laws are created based on a morality. But that is not enough to say that is a good thing that should be done. Now you need to demonstrate that such moral based laws are good for society or accept the fact that they are nothing more than nanny state thinking.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
Your second sentence can be applied with equal validity to you and your second sentence.
Click to expand...
Not as eloquent as your thread starter, but I understand what you’re attempting to say, and my response is that I’m not the one claiming moral superiority. That’s you.

Angel said:
You don't appear to know much about the nature of morality. I've posted two links earlier; I recommend that you look at them.
Click to expand...
There you go, judging again. I’m gonna pass on your suggested reading material. Don’t take it personally, I just find you to be a pseudointellectual knob and have no interest in your links
 
Angel said:
How? If the antecedent in the conditional bolded above is false.
Click to expand...

The claim was not all pregnancies are life threatening the claim is that any pregnancy can become life threatening .

We never know when a pregnancy can take a turn and become life threatening to a person who we love.
 
soylentgreen said:
Easy enough. Let's start with the idea that life begins at conception.
World first baby born using the Geri incubator | Planet Innovation


A woman will donate a dozen eggs of which several will be viable and with this technology we now know which are viable. So all life begins at conception so what according to the pro life crowd should happen? Should the woman be forced to give birth to all seven alive embryo's? Should several women be forced to be impregnated because women are not as important as the life of the embryo? Or perhaps iv births should be banned in which case the pro life will be responsible the aborting of thousands of lives that many parents seek through iv. Or the most likely scenario is you will do what all the pro lifers do when confronted with how ridiculous a life begins at conception rule is, you will try and ignore this in the hope that by ignoring it you can continue making the worthless claim that life begins at conception.


As for the right to life. There is no such constitutional right nor even a god given right. The right to life is not a right in the same sense that america has a right to own a gun. The right to life is nothing more than a concept. It is what we base our ideologies of our constitutional rights upon. Not man or god can guarantee a life. neither can give anyone a right to live. But we can make rights that use that as a concept.

You do not have a moral advantage here. What you do have is a false claim of morality based on misconceptions.
Click to expand...
You appear to have written this counter-example/counter-argument with reference to talking points in your head, and not with reference to my argument, to which your post purports to be a response.

This is my argument:
The taking of a human life for any reason other than self-defense is immoral.

Except where the pregnant woman's life is at risk, abortion is immoral.

But human beings have a right to be immoral.

Therefore women have a right to be immoral.

Therefore women have a right to abort pregnancies.
Click to expand...

Also, your reference to the Constitution is equally off point. My argument is a moral, not a legal, argument.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Not as eloquent as your thread starter, but I understand what you’re attempting to say, and my response is that I’m not the one claiming moral superiority. That’s you.


There you go, judging again. I’m gonna pass on your suggested reading material. Don’t take it personally, I just find you to be a pseudointellectual knob and have no interest in your links
Click to expand...
Then it's been real.
Glad to make your acquaintance.
 
minnie616 said:
The claim was not all pregnancies are life threatening the claim is that any pregnancy can become life threatening .

We never know when a pregnancy can take a turn and become life threatening to a person who we love.
Click to expand...
Any situation can become life-threatening. A walk to the post office can become life-threatening. The moral defense begins at the moment life is threatened/
 
Angel said:
You appear to have written this counter-example/counter-argument with reference to talking points in your head, and not with reference to my argument, to which your post purports to be a response.

This is my argument:


Also, your reference to the Constitution is equally off point. My argument is a moral, not a legal, argument.
Click to expand...

So i am correct in that you will attempt to ignore the argument because that is the only way you can continue making false claims.

And my reference to the constitution could not possibly have been mistaken for a decleration that you are using a legal argument. You are again trying to dodge the question because you have no answer.


All you have managed to do here is once again demonstrate just how dishonest the pro life side is.

You have in fact used the argument of life begins at conception but when confronted with an example of how wrong it is you deny it.

You have claimed that there is a right to life but when confronted with how no such right exists you find ways to reshape your words to avoid mentioning it.

That you think your argument can be isolated from the basis of thinking that you have already made claim to ie. the right to life and life begins at conception is just simply being dishonest. Your argument in isolation makes no sense and requires both of the ideas you now deny as yours.

Deal with them and show some true honesty rather than try the usual lies of the pro life group.
 
Angel said:
It is "nice, clean and logical." The percentages of success or failure in IVF or the old school method don't reach since the failures in these cases are not brought about by moral agents. And only you seem to be talking about theism in this thread. I certainly have not.
Click to expand...

I disagree. My sister in law and her doctor chose to go ahead with a procedure that they both believed had a 95% chance of causing a death. Repeatedly. They engaged in creating life, and then they played Russian Roulette with a gun that had 19 bullets and one empty chamber. I see moral agency at work there.

If one thinks about the fact that procreation via intercourse has a ~30% failure rate I think it could also be argued they are taking moral agency, but this latter case is admittedly more of a stretch.

My over-riding point is that you can try to shove this issue into a neat, clean philosophical straight jacket if you like, but that's really abstract and I fail to see the real life applicability of it.
 
soylentgreen said:
So i am correct in that you will attempt to ignore the argument because that is the only way you can continue making false claims.

And my reference to the constitution could not possibly have been mistaken for a decleration that you are using a legal argument. You are again trying to dodge the question because you have no answer.


All you have managed to do here is once again demonstrate just how dishonest the pro life side is.

You have in fact used the argument of life begins at conception but when confronted with an example of how wrong it is you deny it.

You have claimed that there is a right to life but when confronted with how no such right exists you find ways to reshape your words to avoid mentioning it.

That you think your argument can be isolated from the basis of thinking that you have already made claim to ie. the right to life and life begins at conception is just simply being dishonest. Your argument in isolation makes no sense and requires both of the ideas you now deny as yours.

Deal with them and show some true honesty rather than try the usual lies of the pro life group.
Click to expand...
If anyone's being dishonest here it's you, and you're being dishonest with yourself if you've convinced yourself that either your incubator story or your Constitutional point addresses the moral argument in the OP.

And for the record, my argument is Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.
And for the record, I made no argument as to when life begins. I answered a question about identifying life as human.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I disagree. My sister in law and her doctor chose to go ahead with a procedure that they both believed had a 95% chance of causing a death. Repeatedly. They engaged in creating life, and then they played Russian Roulette with a gun that had 19 bullets and one empty chamber. I see moral agency at work there.

If one thinks about the fact that procreation via intercourse has a ~30% failure rate I think it could also be argued they are taking moral agency, but this latter case is admittedly more of a stretch.

My over-riding point is that you can try to shove this issue into a neat, clean philosophical straight jacket if you like, but that's really abstract and I fail to see the real life applicability of it.
Click to expand...
The percentages are determined by nature in both cases. Assuming risk the nature of IVF and old-school sexual intercourse. Now there may be a moral argument to be made about assuming risk in these cases, but I have not made it, and it doesn't reach the concept of abortion, which is what my argument concerns itself with.

As to your "over-riding point," all I can say is I regret you don't like my argument, but all moral argument is abstract.
 
Angel said:
Any situation can become life-threatening. A walk to the post office can become life-threatening. The moral defense begins at the moment life is threatened/
Click to expand...

No a moral defense can be proactive.

An example ( Put life jackets on young children riding in a pboat just in case they might be needed)

But one of out 10 pregnancies can become life threatening from 2 of the many life threatening complications of pregnancy.

And protecting oneself from those complications by having a pro active abortion would be moral.


From post number 44 of your other thread.


Any pregnancy can take a turn at a moments notice and put the woman’s health and even her life at risk, at a point where an abortion once the symptoms are there will be too late to prevent a death of the woman or lifelong major irreparable disability.

That’s why no woman should be forced to take the risk if she wants an early elective abortion it should be her choice not to risk the pregnancy. Some women can sence there is something wrong ahead of time.


Life threatening complications aren't rare up to 8 percent of all pregnancies affected by pre- eclampsia or one of it's variants including HELLP syndrome.

We never know when a pregnancy might take a turn and become life threatening to someone we love.

Another 1 to 2.5 percent of pregnancies are ectopic pregnancies which are also life threatening.

So about 1 out 10 pregnancies can be life threatening just from 2 of the many types of life threatening complications.... eclampsia variants and ectopic pregnancies.
Click to expand...

Abortion 101
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
If anyone's being dishonest here it's you, and you're being dishonest with yourself if you've convinced yourself that either your incubator story or your Constitutional point addresses the moral argument in the OP.

And for the record, my argument is Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.
And for the record, I made no argument as to when life begins. I answered a question about identifying life as human.
Click to expand...

So basically you refuse to answer such questions. The incubator is asking you for a moral judgement. ban incubation, force women to be pregnant, these are all moral judgments. Which you will refuse to deal with because it makes a mockery of your beliefs.

No, your argument is nothing ore than pro life because only the pro life choose to make abortion an issue about life. For the pro choice the issue is a woman's right to choose.

Your words
Angel said:
The moral argument is based on the right to life and allows for exceptions also based on the right to life.
Click to expand...

None of the exception you have mentioned include any argument that life does not begin at conception. Do not try and deny that life begins at conception is part of your argument as a way of getting out of giving an answer.

All you do with these pathetic delay tactics is emphasise just how weak your arguments really are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom