• 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:
That's your belief. Fine. Now does it have a moral argument supporting it?
Click to expand...

Angel said:
Based on what reasoning?
Click to expand...



Before viability a an unborn’s brain waves are as flat and unorganized as a brain dead person.

From the following:

As leading neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga, a member of
President Bush’s Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain,
current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn’t possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain. Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead.
Click to expand...


The Consciousness Meter: Sure You Want That? | WIRED
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
See here's your problem you think morality comes from logic. you can have a logic to your own personal morality or not, but it doesn't have to be sound or valid same applies to societal morals
Click to expand...
I really don't get your point here. Are you saying moral argument does not have to be logical?
 
Lursa said:
Several of us have. That's what I meant by...stick to your echo chamber and just blog it.
Click to expand...
No, the several of you haven't. I don't care what your nastiness meant; you have no argument. Go plug away at your talking points.
 
minnie616 said:
Before viability a an unborn’s brain waves are as flat and unorganized as a brain dead person.
...
Click to expand...
Please don't post sources for me; I'm not interested in them.

But you have a premise now:
"Before viability a an unborn’s brain waves are as flat and unorganized as a brain dead person."

Okay. What about that?
 
Angel said:
I really don't get your point here. Are you saying moral argument does not have to be logical?
Click to expand...

Sstrict Muslims would tell you that eating pork is immoral, a sin.

Most folks would say that stealing is immoral.

Many would say that striking another in anger is immoral.

Still more would say that making my child go hungry is immoral.

But I like pork, and I see no logical reason not to eat it.

And I really want a Ferrari, and won't ever make enough to buy one. So, logically, theft is the quickest route to attaining one.

Hitting someone who has made me angry is a pretty sure way to teach them not to anger me.

And my child refused to eat what I made for the family for dinner. Logic dictates that if he gets hungry enough, he will stop being so picky.
 
Take a college level course in philosophy on the subject of morality. Other then very simple questions that most of us would agree are easy to judge, the vast majority of moral questions are not that easy to decide. To state that morality is objective means that the person making that claim has some guide or rule which they use to objectively review the question or case. I hate to break it to all of you but there are damn few philosophical questions of right and wrong that are as clear cut as implied by some here. The history of thought on this subject has been evolving since Hammurabai and it will continue to evolve and move in the future. In order to be a question that is purely objectively answered, it must be true in the past, today and in the future. It must be a fact not a supposition. For instance, it was perfectly moral and just to own slaves for thousands of years. Then it wasn't. How did this come about? Well if you asked a Roman Emperor they would objectively answer that it is perfectly moral to own slaves. That answer was objectively considered given the state of morality at the time.

Let us discuss the morality of treating some animals as if they were not partially or fully sentient beings. Are we not evolving now to the point where most of us know that an elephant is no longer just an animal we can abuse at will? In the future, as we learn more about the level of cognition of other animals we may evolve to believe that harming any animal is an immoral act. We could do this for just about every moral question posed by anyone in history.
 
Angel said:
No, the several of you haven't. I don't care what your nastiness meant; you have no argument. Go plug away at your talking points.
Click to expand...

My talking points are fine thank you...and unassailed at the moment, since you were unable to challenge them.
 
Angel said:
I really don't get your point here. Are you saying moral argument does not have to be logical?
Click to expand...

Not only dosent it have to be logical it dosent even have to be an argument
Morals are just people opinions/beliefs on right/wrong good/bad.
Since there is no objective measure of good/bad right/wrong there is no way to objectively decide if something is moral/immoral.
 
Angel said:
Abortion 201: the Legal question​

...
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.

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...

Of course, amidst all the hand-wringing and foot-stomping of the those whose talking points are nullified by argument in this thread, no one -- and I mean NO ONE -- has even tried to answer the original question posed by the OP. Perhaps knees started jerking before eyes finished reading, yes?.

Anyway, just for the hell of it, here it is, separated from all that consternating text requiring reading, the OP Question:

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

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? ​
 
Angel said:
Of course, amidst all the hand-wringing and foot-stomping of the those whose talking points are nullified by argument in this thread, no one -- and I mean NO ONE -- has even tried to answer the original question posed by the OP. Perhaps knees started jerking before eyes finished reading, yes?.

Anyway, just for the hell of it, here it is, separated from all that consternating text requiring reading, the OP Question:

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

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...

Speaking of no one answering your question. You still need to answer mine. I have shown that the basis of your morality is false. That life begins at conceptoin becomes foolish with iv fertilisation and that the right to life is not a right we can demand someone has.

I suspected you would choose to ignore this as your only way out. You have proved me right.

Your question is biased by your own hypocrisy to not actually engage in a debate on the validity of what you call immoral.
 
soylentgreen said:
Speaking of no one answering your question. You still need to answer mine. I have shown that the basis of your morality is false. That life begins at conceptoin becomes foolish with iv fertilisation and that the right to life is not a right we can demand someone has.

I suspected you would choose to ignore this as your only way out. You have proved me right.

Your question is biased by your own hypocrisy to not actually engage in a debate on the validity of what you call immoral.
Click to expand...
Playing to the crowd, are we? As I pointed out to you earlier, your in vitro question is irrelevant to the OP argument; the OP argument does not hinge on the issue of when life begins -- it hinges on the identification of life as human.
 
Angel said:
Playing to the crowd, are we? As I pointed out to you earlier, your in vitro question is irrelevant to the OP argument; the OP argument does not hinge on the issue of when life begins -- it hinges on the identification of life as human.
Click to expand...

No you are dodging another dishonest attempt by you.

Life begins at conception but the ivf makes that argument look silly. This op hinges on your claim that abortion is immoral and yet ivf puts that to the question which you are desperate to dodge.

it hinges on the identification of life as human
Click to expand...

Which brings us to the question of life begins at conception. Is your argument that at that point the life is not human? If so then what is it?
 
soylentgreen said:
No you are dodging another dishonest attempt by you.

Life begins at conception but the ivf makes that argument look silly. This op hinges on your claim that abortion is immoral and yet ivf puts that to the question which you are desperate to dodge.



Which brings us to the question of life begins at conception. Is your argument that at that point the life is not human? If so then what is it?
Click to expand...
The only question the OP needs answered is when life can be identified as "a human life." The answer lies in the DNA at the diploid zygote stage. The question when life begins is irrelevant to the OP moral argument.
 
Angel said:
The only question the OP needs answered is when life can be identified as "a human life." The answer lies in the DNA at the diploid zygote stage. The question when life begins is irrelevant to the OP moral argument.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter 'when' life begins? Is your claim that if it has a heartbeat, it must have a moral right to life?

If so, why? Why is that more important than a full life already fulfilled and then endangered* by a potential life that may not even survive to birth or may be severely defective?

*Endangered: health, life, commitments and obligations to dependents and society.
 
Angel said:
The only question the OP needs answered is when life can be identified as "a human life." The answer lies in the DNA at the diploid zygote stage. The question when life begins is irrelevant to the OP moral argument.
Click to expand...

That is your definition of a human being? Dividing cells? You know why this became the defacto position of pro-lifers? Because when asked to define it, the more thoughtful of them understood how complex the issue and question was and knew that if they tried, they would never define it thoroughly enough to satisfy critics. So they went for the easy one, a human being is a human being upon fertilization. Bingo all the difficult questions about what constitutes a human being are gone with a magic wand. Of course, this argument did not sway a secular court so hence we have Roe and we do not try women for murder if they had an abortion. No trials for negligent homicide if a pregnant woman loses her baby due to carelessness on her part. No investigations of miscarriages to insure they were not the fault of the mother. Nope, all you care about is that splitting egg because that single issue gave the Moral Majority a rebirth in the late 70s and conservatives a way to appeal to white evangelicals so they would leave the Democratic Party.
 
Angel said:
It doesn't matter when life begins; I've made that point several times already.

No, that is not my claim.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you dont actually back up your statements. Why is that? Please do so.

Yes and no are not 'arguments.'
 
Vadinho said:
That is your definition of a human being? Dividing cells? You know why this became the defacto position of pro-lifers? Because when asked to define it, the more thoughtful of them understood how complex the issue and question was and knew that if they tried, they would never define it thoroughly enough to satisfy critics. So they went for the easy one, a human being is a human being upon fertilization. Bingo all the difficult questions about what constitutes a human being are gone with a magic wand. Of course, this argument did not sway a secular court so hence we have Roe and we do not try women for murder if they had an abortion. No trials for negligent homicide if a pregnant woman loses her baby due to carelessness on her part. No investigations of miscarriages to insure they were not the fault of the mother. Nope, all you care about is that splitting egg because that single issue gave the Moral Majority a rebirth in the late 70s and conservatives a way to appeal to white evangelicals so they would leave the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...
Who or what should define "a human life"?
Politicians? Clergymen? Political activists? Internet pundits? Philosophers? Or a biological fact?
 
KevinKohler said:
Falsly accusing others of trolling is immoral.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but there's no accusation made here and the troll it may or may not have in mind has been trolling me for the better part of two years.
 
Angel said:
Who or what should define "a human life"?
Politicians? Clergymen? Political activists? Internet pundits? Philosophers? Or a biological fact?
Click to expand...

Is your presumption that *all human life* is entitled to the same rights morally?
 
Pointing out your lack of logic and dishonesty is not trolling
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom