• 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!

Four Fallacies of Abortion

Angel said:
No, in the words posted: since your post was smartass, you can talk to yourself. At any rate, the point of finding our exchange -- which you are apparently oblivious to -- was to show your bad faith, nothing more. And you're showing that now with your current bull**** posts. My response to your in vitro post I recall -- your in vitro post does not reach my moral argument, and the discarding of embryos is immoral by that same argument.
Click to expand...
The part in bold is your attempt to give an answer to my question. Thank you for that.

But it is incomplete and as such it leaves you in a state of contradiction.

The discarding of a viable embryo is immoral so then your only real choice is to force the woman to give birth to the several embryos that are viable through ivf or force several woman to be impregnated with those viable embryos or ban ivf which is effectively creating the abortion of thousands of children who would be conceived by that method.

So which of these methods is the moral choice that allows for your opinion that discarding the embryo is immoral.
 
soylentgreen said:
The part in bold is your attempt to give an answer to my question. Thank you for that.

But it is incomplete and as such it leaves you in a state of contradiction.

The discarding of a viable embryo is immoral so then your only real choice is to force the woman to give birth to the several embryos that are viable through ivf or force several woman to be impregnated with those viable embryos or ban ivf which is effectively creating the abortion of thousands of children who would be conceived by that method.

So which of these methods is the moral choice that allows for your opinion that discarding the embryo is immoral.
Click to expand...
I'm not for forcing anyone to do anything. We are all free moral agents and each of us in his own heart must accept the moral responsibility of his/her choices.
 
Angel said:
I'm not for forcing anyone to do anything. We are all free moral agents and each of us in his own heart must accept the moral responsibility of his/her choices.
Click to expand...

Glad you think that. I fully agree.

But that would change your argument entirely. I got the strong impression that you are trying to argue that we all should agree that abortion is immoral. Not that we are free to make our own decisions on what is or is not immoral.

But the point of ivf is that we cannot make such a broad statement as abortion is always immoral. With ivf we have a trade off. A couple who would never be able to conceive naturally have a chance at having a child they will love . But the price for that is several embryos that were viable as well will be discarded.

Which part should we look at for judging the morality of it. The parents who have a child they will love and cherish or the discarding of a few embryos?
 
soylentgreen said:
Glad you think that. I fully agree.

But that would change your argument entirely. I got the strong impression that you are trying to argue that we all should agree that abortion is immoral. Not that we are free to make our own decisions on what is or is not immoral.

But the point of ivf is that we cannot make such a broad statement as abortion is always immoral. With ivf we have a trade off. A couple who would never be able to conceive naturally have a chance at having a child they will love . But the price for that is several embryos that were viable as well will be discarded.

Which part should we look at for judging the morality of it. The parents who have a child they will love and cherish or the discarding of a few embryos?
Click to expand...
I'm glad we agree (for a change).
But I guess we still disagree on what morality is.
My moral argument is not affected at all by the in vitro cases. Nor is abortion law by the way. So your couple is perfectly within their legal rights, as are the doctors assisting them, and morally free, to develop embryos, discard them, or use them to the desired end.

My moral argument recognizes the freedom and right of every moral agent to choose to act immorally.

Morality, to you, from what I can make out, is whatever the moral agent thinks it is.
Morality, to me, is like the law of gravitation -- we're all subject to it and it's the same for all of us whether we like it or not, and whether we know it or not -- though we each must come to terms with it in the privacy of our own hearts.
 
Angel said:
I'm glad we agree (for a change).
But I guess we still disagree on what morality is.
My moral argument is not affected at all by the in vitro cases. Nor is abortion law by the way. So your couple is perfectly within their legal rights, as are the doctors assisting them, and morally free, to develop embryos, discard them, or use them to the desired end.

My moral argument recognizes the freedom and right of every moral agent to choose to act immorally.

Morality, to you, from what I can make out, is whatever the moral agent thinks it is.
Morality, to me, is like the law of gravitation -- we're all subject to it and it's the same for all of us whether we like it or not, and whether we know it or not -- though we each must come to terms with it in the privacy of our own hearts.
Click to expand...

Your morality is subejctive just like everyone esles
 
Sigh some people just think they are better than everyone else
 
And some people just don't understand how little they understand. Alas!
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
That is another one of his errors. He is dictating not debating.
Click to expand...

year2late said:
Hey Minnie.....you need to adapt Angel's personal philosophy to your life....get with the program!:lamo
Click to expand...
It takes two to discuss something, gentle ladies. I've posted several arguments, none of which have been engaged by you or your sorority sisters. All you do is dismiss and "dictate" your talking points. Let's start with my major premise:
Every human being possesses a natural right to life.
Do you or do you not recognize this right?
If not, on what grounds do you deny a natural right to life to every human being?

See if you can engage this one premise without a summary dismissal and a litany of talking points.
 
Angel said:
Every human being possesses a natural right to life.
Click to expand...
How made that determination, where is it enshrined and most importantly what does it exactly mean?

See if you can engage this one premise without a summary dismissal and a litany of talking points.
Click to expand...
In order to do that you have to articulate what exactly you mean by your statement instead of pretending it to be a universal truth such as gravity.
 
Angel said:
It takes two to discuss something, gentle ladies. I've posted several arguments, none of which have been engaged by you or your sorority sisters. All you do is dismiss and "dictate" your talking points. Let's start with my major premise:
Every human being possesses a natural right to life.
Do you or do you not recognize this right?
If not, on what grounds do you deny a natural right to life to every human being?

See if you can engage this one premise without a summary dismissal and a litany of talking points.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as natural rights. You go out in the woods and tell that 400lbs of wranged up grizz chasing you that he can't kill and eat you because you have a natural right to life....;
 
Abortion is not immoral. No matter the circumstances of the conception or the pregnancy itself, 100% of all abortions are absolutely justified self-defense.

I am not certain what "abortion culture" is, except the free exercise of this universal human right.
 
Angel said:
It takes two to discuss something, gentle ladies. I've posted several arguments, none of which have been engaged by you or your sorority sisters. All you do is dismiss and "dictate" your talking points. Let's start with my major premise:
Every human being possesses a natural right to life.
Do you or do you not recognize this right?
If not, on what grounds do you deny a natural right to life to every human being?

See if you can engage this one premise without a summary dismissal and a litany of talking points.
Click to expand...

I believe that you believe there is a natural right to life.
 
Scrabaholic said:
There is no such thing as natural rights. You go out in the woods and tell that 400lbs of wranged up grizz chasing you that he can't kill and eat you because you have a natural right to life....;
Click to expand...
Silly counter-example. Do you not understand the concept or are you just playing dumb with this post?
 
Angel said:
Do you or do you not acknowledge a human being's natural right to life?
Click to expand...
What exactly is a "natural right to life"? What are the limits what are the circumstances? Who decides the limits and the circumstances.
 
year2late said:
What exactly is a "natural right to life"? What are the limits what are the circumstances? Who decides the limits and the circumstances.
Click to expand...
No limits, no circumstances, just a straightforward question followed by your tapdance.
 
Angel said:
No limits, no circumstances, just a straightforward question followed by your tapdance.
Click to expand...

So it is unlimited....by all means necessary?

Can you describe what this unlimited no circumstances right to life is?

I have no clue what you are talking about and how it would be applied in the real world.
 
year2late said:
So it is unlimited....by all means necessary?

Can you describe what this unlimited no circumstances right to life is?

I have no clue what you are talking about and how it would be applied in the real world.
Click to expand...

He still hasn't addressed the question as to whether or not his personal stance that-----> /// abortion must remain legal /// is compatible with his Roman Catholic beliefs. I wouldn't hold my breath too long awaiting a straight answer to your fair question.
 
Angel said:
It takes two to discuss something, gentle ladies. I've posted several arguments, none of which have been engaged by you or your sorority sisters. All you do is dismiss and "dictate" your talking points. Let's start with my major premise:
Every human being possesses a natural right to life.
Do you or do you not recognize this right?
If not, on what grounds do you deny a natural right to life to every human being?

See if you can engage this one premise without a summary dismissal and a litany of talking points.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that human = human being? Are they exactly synonymous in your belief?
 
Angel said:
No limits, no circumstances, just a straightforward question followed by your tapdance.
Click to expand...

You'll have to prove there are natural rights then.

Because as people here have told you...many dont 'believe' in them. They are no more real than religion. Both are man-made constructs. People, like yourself, like to use natural rights as a 'workaround' when they know that their religious arguments will be dismissed as submission to a mythical being. But natural rights are still an appeal to a higher authority. Because:

Since rights are not inherited or genetic...they are not 'natural' in any biological sense. They are a man-made concept. Do other animals have a right to life? If so, why dont we recognize a right to life for them?

All rights are only "real" when acknowledged, formalized, and then protected/enforced by a society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom