• 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

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,909
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Abortion 201: the Legal question​


Prerequisite: Abortion 101
Angel said:
The 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.

​

That's the issue settled morally.
Morally, one may be both pro-life and pro-choice.

The legal settlement of the issue is another matter.
The legal settlement of the issue is political.
The political question is how, as a society, to rationalize the taking of human life in abortion as a legal right.
Click to expand...
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?​
 
I'll be honest. I think I agree with what you are saying, with the caveat that I skimmed because I'm tired. However, I don't think you are giving enough credit to the pro-choice crowd here. They understand well beyond the talking points. They just disagree. It's a valid point of view even if you and I feel differently.

I have to admit I was surprised a bit at how civil the 101 discussion was and enjoyed that. It can be a real hot button issue here as much as anywhere else.

I will give a more considered input tomorrow. Have a good night!
 
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...
After 200 posts, you didn't get it.

You obviously can't think outside of your talking points, and you can't separate the moral vs legal aspects of abortion.


I will give you a clue.

Morality is subjective.
 
KevinKohler said:
After 200 posts, you didn't get it.

You obviously can't think outside of your talking points, and you can't separate the moral vs legal aspects of abortion.


I will give you a clue.

Morality is subjective.
Click to expand...

You're correct, and it is an amazing amount of self blindness that angel cannot even see that the question he asked is nothing more than a very good example of how morality is subjective. Because the answer will depend upon one's own view of morality. There is no set rule to answer that question.
 
KevinKohler said:
After 200 posts, you didn't get it.

You obviously can't think outside of your talking points, and you can't separate the moral vs legal aspects of abortion.


I will give you a clue.

Morality is subjective.
Click to expand...

soylentgreen said:
You're correct, and it is an amazing amount of self blindness that angel cannot even see that the question he asked is nothing more than a very good example of how morality is subjective. Because the answer will depend upon one's own view of morality. There is no set rule to answer that question.
Click to expand...
That morality is subjective doesn't change anything at all. You fellas are laboring under a gross misapprehension, and yet have the what-shall-we-call-it to criticize with sarcasm from your lack of understanding. Go figure.
 
Angel said:
That morality is subjective doesn't change anything at all. You fellas are laboring under a gross misapprehension, and yet have the what-shall-we-call-it to criticize with sarcasm from your lack of understanding. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Of course the point of morality being subjective is the most important of points here. You simply wish to ignore that fact so that you can continue harping that your own personal view of what is moral is the only morality being discussed.

It is your person subjective view that the morality of a fetus's life is more important than the morality of a woman having the right to decide who and what she is.
 
soylentgreen said:
Of course the point of morality being subjective is the most important of points here. You simply wish to ignore that fact so that you can continue harping that your own personal view of what is moral is the only morality being discussed.

It is your person subjective view that the morality of a fetus's life is more important than the morality of a woman having the right to decide who and what she is.
Click to expand...
You persist in posting as if you have settled once and for and for everybody what morality is. Well, you haven't, and no one else has.

Angel said:
This is the view of moral realism.

The Definition of Morality

The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And see moral intuitionism as well:
Intuitionism in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Click to expand...
 
Angel said:
You persist in posting as if you have settled once and for and for everybody what morality is. Well, you haven't, and no one else has.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Pointing out how you are wrong is part of the debate. That you can do nothing about it except pretend you understand my motives is a sign that you lack the ability to rebut the argument and instead choose to play the speaker.
 
soylentgreen said:
Not at all. Pointing out how you are wrong is part of the debate. That you can do nothing about it except pretend you understand my motives is a sign that you lack the ability to rebut the argument and instead choose to play the speaker.
Click to expand...

:applaud:applaud:applaud
 
soylentgreen said:
Not at all. Pointing out how you are wrong is part of the debate. That you can do nothing about it except pretend you understand my motives is a sign that you lack the ability to rebut the argument and instead choose to play the speaker.
Click to expand...
Leave me out of it. We're talking about morality and your dismissal of morality as pertinent to the topic of abortion.
 
The biggest deceit of all when Angel blogs his subjective morality on abortion is that he refuses to ever engage in discussing morality as it applies to women...only to the unborn. When you venture into that territory...then he begins abusive posts claiming 'you dont understand!' and 'that's not what I mean!' as if he holds some special expertise in the areas of region and philosophy.

Abortion cannot be discussed on any basis...legal, moral, practical...without considering the effects on women as well. But he will not venture into that territory...it doenst fit his narrative.

Let me ask this basic philosophical question:

Is "human life" (breathing, a heartbeat) more important than anything else for an individual?

If so: who says? what authority?

I doubt he'll address this...it doesnt rigidly follow his personal rules for debating his 'blogs.' It's not like him to show any ability to 'think outside the box.'
 
Lursa said:
The biggest deceit of all when Angel blogs his subjective morality on abortion is that he refuses to ever engage in discussing morality as it applies to women...only to the unborn. When you venture into that territory...then he begins abusive posts claiming 'you dont understand!' and 'that's not what I mean!' as if he holds some special expertise in the areas of region and philosophy.
...
Click to expand...
No, the problem with your blogging pro-choice talking points is that you don't read posts you deign to criticize. In this instance, your blind assertion that women do not figure into Angel's moral argument is given the lie by the fourth and fifth propositions, not to mention in their obvious inclusion in the class :human beings" in the thirst premise:
Therefore women have a right to be immoral.

Therefore women have a right to abort pregnancies.
Click to expand...
 
Angel said:
No, the problem with your blogging pro-choice talking points is that you don't read posts you deign to criticize. In this instance, your blind assertion that women do not figure into Angel's moral argument is given the lie by the fourth and fifth propositions, not to mention in their obvious inclusion in the class :human beings" in the thirst premise:
Click to expand...

Dont lie...I dont post treatises and then shut down discussion...I continually ask questions, answer questions, and invite discussion.

You should just own your behavior...deceit is a sin.

And I didnt say women didnt 'figure in,' I said that you dont discuss abortion in how it morally affects women AND the one time I did attempt it, you refused to engage in that discussion. You wrote the words, but refused to 'discuss' them. SO...you just blogged and ignored questions.

Apparently you dont even realize that your 2 examples above? Are not about how women are impacted morally. It just makes statements...your own assumptions which you refused to discuss when I tried....several times and very civilly.
 
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...

The fact that you need to add "with exceptions" is telling. Do elaborate on that, given that you think as do most theists that there is a set of moral absolutes.
 
Angel said:
You persist in posting as if you have settled once and for and for everybody what morality is. Well, you haven't, and no one else has.
Click to expand...
Your usual ignorant drivel. No such settlement has been put forth and your definitions of morality, which I am willing to wager you do not understand, do not establish what is moral.
 
prometeus said:
Your usual ignorant drivel. No such settlement has been put forth and your definitions of morality, which I am willing to wager you do not understand, do not establish what is moral.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a veritable master of ignorant drivel. And noted accordingly.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
The fact that you need to add "with exceptions" is telling. Do elaborate on that, given that you think as do most theists that there is a set of moral absolutes.
Click to expand...
The moral argument is based on the right to life and allows for exceptions also based on the right to life.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Abortion is a form of self defense, given what pregnancy does to a woman's body.

/thread
Click to expand...
Self-defense is a balanced concept. Killing someone for smacking you in the face is not defensible morally or legally. Only where life is threatened can life be taken in self-defense, morally and legally.
 
Angel said:
Self-defense is a balanced concept. Killing someone for smacking you in the face is not defensible morally or legally. Only where life is threatened can life be taken in self-defense, morally and legally.
Click to expand...

Nobody is allowed to do to anyone what a pregnancy does to a woman's body. She most certainly can defend herself against her body being taken over.
 
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...

The moral arument should be soul competency and the fact the woman is a moral agent and the choice of whether to try to continue her pregnancy of have an early elective abortion is her choice.

“To restrict her choice is deny her soul freedom “

Here is a <SNIP> from an article about soul competency.

From a Huffington Post article:

Most Women Under 40 Haven’t Heard the Pro-choice Moral Argument


Our faith tradition teaches soul competency, a Baptist principle that is violated in restricting the right to choose an abortion.
Our forebears suffered greatly, even to the point of death, to express their conviction that no one stands between the individual and God.

Furthermore, it is a it is God-given right to hold your own belief and to reject state-sponsored religion.

This is the core Baptist principle of soul competency -- belief in the ability of each person to "rightly divide the word of God" (2 Timothy 2: 15) and act accordingly.

Each person and each community of believers has the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, without compulsion from authoritative structures.
Therefore, current legislation restricting women's reproductive choice also restricts moral choice.

To restrict a woman's choice is to refuse her soul freedom.
Click to expand...
Read more:

Most Women Under 40 Haven't Heard the Pro-choice Moral Argument | HuffPost
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
The moral arument should soul competency and the fact the woman is a moral agent and the choice of whether to try to continue her pregnancy of have an early elective abortion is her choice.

“To restrict her choice is deny her soul freedom “
...
Click to expand...
Have you read the OP? Do you not understand that it is Pro-Choice?
 
Angel said:
Self-defense is a balanced concept. Killing someone for smacking you in the face is not defensible morally or legally. Only where life is threatened can life be taken in self-defense, morally and legally.
Click to expand...

A woman dying from pregnancy and childbirth cannot be predicted. Every single pregnancy presents a significant risk to the woman's health and life.

The number of women in the US that die every year is still significant and has an enormous impact on their families, friends, and their contributions to supporting them and society.

Is it moral to force women to accept this risk against their will? In our modern society, women have a choice for a safer legal option in abortion. Abortion is 14 times safer than pregnancy/chilbirth. (I have the links to support that on my home laptop).

Is it moral to place the life of the unborn ahead of the life of the woman?

So, there are 2 questions where I directly address the impact of abortion on women, not the unborn.

They are up for discussion, I dont expect yes or no answers or agreement...just civil discussion.
 
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...
Because all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. Anyone that can make an exception for abortion is morally bankrupt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom