• 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 Culture is the New Racism

bearpoker said:
Prickly and defensive, are we?
Click to expand...

Apparently 4 or 5 currently running threads where he's failed to defend his arguments isnt enough....
 
Angel said:
Did you skip this part of the OP?

The demographic is the class of womb-soujourners. Genocide is always the result of a decision -- or how do you think it occurs, by chance?
Click to expand...

LMAO...so you had to invent your own 'class' to discriminate against to take another shot at preserving your self-esteem? :lamo :lamo

And genocide is a decision by a group of people, committed by a group of people...abortion is an individual decision. Another fail for you.
 
year2late said:
On the other hand, valuing the born...with decent health care, good education, always have a reasonably safe secure place to live without regard to race or religion is valuing the born.

Perhaps if we valued the born MORE, less women would be more apt to maintain their pregnancies.


Many people state women abort for the sake of "convenience". What those people consider "abortion for convenience" is really an abortion to assure the woman does not go homeless or hungry and sacrifice safety along with her born children.
Click to expand...

And maybe if we valued women more, fewer would end up in circumstances where they felt they were unable to care for or afford to have a child.
 
Wan said:
I am sorry to hear that you think the topic of this thread is literally about racism.
Click to expand...

Care to rethink your statement?:lol:

Angel said:
This thread is about the New Racism: Human Racism
Racism toward the human race.
The racism that denies full humanity to the being inside the womb.
Click to expand...
 
nota bene said:
Devaluing human life is not a benefit to society.
Click to expand...

neither is giving it to much value like saying human life is important because its human and not because humans develop thoughts and feelings

or valuing the simple minded life of a fetus over the thoughts and feelings of the mother

valuing are thoughts and feelings over are dna is a benefit to society

how would i value your life any more buy being opposed to abortion?
 
Angel said:
I don't follow your initial question: how is my reference to "legal genocide" hypocritical?
Click to expand...
It is a euphemism you were trying to spin a buzzword immediately after objecting to that aspect of the debate. I notice you snipped my comments on the other examples of you doing the same thing.

Angel said:
What I'd like to see is a more honest law and the cultural recognition that while legal it is immoral (with one exception).
Click to expand...
I think it would be a very dangerous president for ligature to define morality, especially with the context of declaring things immoral but legal. The law should focus entirely on practicality and implementation in the context of overall harm and benefit.

Angel said:
"Abortion culture" is a fair description of the current state of affairs regarding abortion in all its manifold details, of which I assume you are familiar, by which abortion has become a commonplace event, instead of the moral catastrophe it is.
Click to expand...
Abortion has always been as commonplace as it is today, especially if you include the killing and abandonment of new-borns historically. Nobody considers abortion a good thing, nobody celebrates it, nobody dismisses its significance. Your attitude and aggressive rhetoric against anyone who disagrees with you on this topic is actually counterproductive to any practical or attitude change you might like to encourage.

Angel said:
"All human beings are equally entitled to a right to life, whatever their differences.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you alleged that abortion means the human being in the womb is deemed “lesser” which is not automatically the case.
 
Lursa said:
LMAO...so you had to invent your own 'class' to discriminate against to take another shot at preserving your self-esteem? :lamo :lamo

And genocide is a decision by a group of people, committed by a group of people...abortion is an individual decision. Another fail for you.
Click to expand...
All classes are invented.
Genocide is a decision carried out by a group of people.
Think.
 
Lursa said:
Care to rethink your statement?:lol:
Click to expand...
Oy!
Didn't you ever hear the common contemporary sayings, such as "50 is the new 30"?
This is not saying that 50 is 30.
Think. Before you post.
For the love of God think, lady!
 
The neo Christians:

Starving, jailing and stripping kids from their parents good.

Abortion and feeding the hungry bad.


Jesus weeps
 
I don't follow your initial question: how is my reference to "legal genocide" hypocritical?
Click to expand...
HonestJoe said:
It is a euphemism you were trying to spin a buzzword immediately after objecting to that aspect of the debate. I notice you snipped my comments on the other examples of you doing the same thing....
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. Okay. Except buzzwords develop over time. They are not born full-blown from the head of Zeus. But I see what you were going for here.

I snipped comments that asked me to do your work and create the comment.
 
calamity said:
The neo Christians:

Starving, jailing and stripping kids from their parents good.

Abortion and feeding the hungry bad.


Jesus weeps
Click to expand...

Oh dear! Your political priapism is showing. That condition is painful, I have read. So my sympathy.
 
What I'd like to see is a more honest law and the cultural recognition that while legal it is immoral (with one exception).
Click to expand...
HonestJoe said:
...
I think it would be a very dangerous president for ligature to define morality, especially with the context of declaring things immoral but legal. The law should focus entirely on practicality and implementation in the context of overall harm and benefit.
...
Click to expand...
There are two things mentioned in my reply: 1. "more honest law" and 2. "cultural recognition." You conflate the two in your reply.
 
HonestJoe said:
...Yes, but you alleged that abortion means the human being in the womb is deemed “lesser” which is not automatically the case.
Click to expand...
Do you not read any other posts in these abortion threads?
 
HonestJoe said:
...Abortion has always been as commonplace as it is today, especially if you include the killing and abandonment of new-borns historically. Nobody considers abortion a good thing, nobody celebrates it, nobody dismisses its significance. Your attitude and aggressive rhetoric against anyone who disagrees with you on this topic is actually counterproductive to any practical or attitude change you might like to encourage....
Click to expand...
I think your equation of abortion historically and abortion in contemporary America is a political fantasy without basis in history or the contemporary scene.

As for my aggressive attitude in these threads, I assure you I'm not delusional. I'm not changing anyone's mind here. I'm just annoyed by stupidity.
 
Angel said:
I think your equation of abortion historically and abortion in contemporary America is a political fantasy without basis in history or the contemporary scene.

As for my aggressive attitude in these threads, I assure you I'm not delusional. I'm not changing anyone's mind here. I'm just annoyed by stupidity.
Click to expand...

do any of the fetuses think they are being mistreated?
 
Angel said:
Do you not read any other posts in these abortion threads?
Click to expand...
A few. Do any of them demonstrate that abortion automatically implies that the foetus is a lesser human being? Note that a few individuals saying that doesn’t fix the rhetoric in your OP.

Angel said:
There are two things mentioned in my reply: 1. "more honest law" and 2. "cultural recognition." You conflate the two in your reply.
Click to expand...
Maybe you need to clarify “more honest law” then.

Angel said:
I think your equation of abortion historically and abortion in contemporary America is a political fantasy without basis in history or the contemporary scene.
Click to expand...
I didn’t equate anything and I’ve no interest in obsessively focusing on the USA in what is a world-wide question. The fact remains that abortion in some form or other has existed for as long as we can tell and far from a simplistic shift from “bad” to “good”, cultural and political attitudes towards it have always been as varied, debated and controversial as they remain today, all around the world.

Angel said:
As for my aggressive attitude in these threads, I assure you I'm not delusional. I'm not changing anyone's mind here. I'm just annoyed by stupidity.
Click to expand...
I don’t see the point of posting all this if you don’t at least hope to plant some seeds of change. In fact, if you really consider abortion to be as terrible as your rhetoric implies I can’t see why you wouldn’t.
Maybe you don’t feel as strongly as your words would imply? Maybe you don’t feel as strongly as you’d like to think you do? Maybe it’s not other people you’re actually angry at? You don’t need to answer those questions here, they’re just thoughts of personal consideration. :cool:
 
HonestJoe said:
A few. Do any of them demonstrate that abortion automatically implies that the foetus is a lesser human being? Note that a few individuals saying that doesn’t fix the rhetoric in your OP....
Click to expand...
Many of them declare as much. None of them "demonstrate" anything. Except the effects of group think.
 
HonestJoe said:
...I don’t see the point of posting all this if you don’t at least hope to plant some seeds of change.
Click to expand...
Noted.

HonestJoe said:
In fact, if you really consider abortion to be as terrible as your rhetoric implies I can’t see why you wouldn’t.
Click to expand...
Noted.

HonestJoe said:
Maybe you don’t feel as strongly as your words would imply?
Click to expand...
That's very likely.

HonestJoe said:
Maybe you don’t feel as strongly as you’d like to think you do?
Click to expand...
May be.

HonestJoe said:
Maybe it’s not other people you’re actually angry at?
Click to expand...
This well may be.

HonestJoe said:
You don’t need to answer those questions here, they’re just thoughts of personal consideration. :cool:
Click to expand...
I know.
 
Angel said:
Except for your "full humanity" argument, which is irrelevant to the OP issue, I have no quarrel with the points in your post, except for their attitude perhaps. What part of "We acknowledge that abortion must remain legal" was ambiguous or abstruse?
Click to expand...

Because the acknowledgement is false. There is no such thing as having a strict anti-abortion position offered then suggesting leaving it legal, the ideological fight over abortion left the realm of individual choice a very long time ago and as such is subject to the political whim and support of those in power (federal, state, what have you.)

Talking about the moral position on abortion, but trying to leave out the legal question is then a philosophical discussion on life and valuation. But that is not the area of the forums we are standing in. Your moral argument does not lead to some new understanding, it is the basis for another argument. And it is a legal one even if you are not willing to admit it because slavery is also a moral and *legal* argument (among other things.)

Lastly, "full humanity" is an argument point as well very germane to both the abortion debate and the philosophical question on life. Mainly because the term "humanity" not only has different meanings, but also different contexts of use to explain an ideological point of view on "being human" in far more than just the descriptive aspect of those terms.

We both know that.
 
HonestJoe said:
...Maybe you need to clarify “more honest law” then....
Click to expand...
Law that doesn't rely on legal fictions passing themselves off as moral distinctions.
Law that admits its purely pragmatic basis.
 
blarg said:
neither is giving it to much value like saying human life is important because its human and not because humans develop thoughts and feelings

or valuing the simple minded life of a fetus over the thoughts and feelings of the mother

valuing are thoughts and feelings over are dna is a benefit to society

how would i value your life any more buy being opposed to abortion?
Click to expand...

The same way you would value my life more by not killing me because I am very disabled, very sick, or very old.
 
HonestJoe said:
...I didn’t equate anything and I’ve no interest in obsessively focusing on the USA in what is a world-wide question. The fact remains that abortion in some form or other has existed for as long as we can tell and far from a simplistic shift from “bad” to “good”, cultural and political attitudes towards it have always been as varied, debated and controversial as they remain today, all around the world...
Click to expand...

Here's what you said and what I said:

HonestJoe said:
...Abortion has always been as commonplace as it is today, especially if you include the killing and abandonment of new-borns historically. Nobody considers abortion a good thing, nobody celebrates it, nobody dismisses its significance. Your attitude and aggressive rhetoric against anyone who disagrees with you on this topic is actually counterproductive to any practical or attitude change you might like to encourage....
Click to expand...

I think your equation of abortion historically and abortion in contemporary America is a political fantasy without basis in history or the contemporary scene.
Click to expand...


This is an equation:
Abortion has always been as commonplace as it is today
Click to expand...

This is patently false:
Nobody considers abortion a good thing, nobody celebrates it, nobody dismisses its significance.
Click to expand...

This I've already answered:
Your attitude and aggressive rhetoric against anyone who disagrees with you on this topic is actually counterproductive to any practical or attitude change you might like to encourage.
Click to expand...
 
nota bene said:
The same way you would value my life more by not killing me because I am very disabled, very sick, or very old.
Click to expand...

i already don't want to kill you for being sick or old or disabled at least if you don't want to die from that but abortions seems fine because those humans never wanted anything they are like animals ( less then some of them ) and have never been more than that so why not treat them as animals belong to the mother?

seems that would be better for society because it respects the series of other thinking beings
 
Angel said:
Many of them declare as much. None of them "demonstrate" anything. Except the effects of group think.
Click to expand...
So when you talked about “the Great Lie behind abortion culture” you actually meant “the stuff some people say on an internet message board”? You shouldn’t get so caught up in your own rhetoric and try to focus on reality. :cool:

Angel said:
Law that doesn't rely on legal fictions passing themselves off as moral distinctions.
Law that admits its purely pragmatic basis.
Click to expand...
Actual legislation should always be pragmatic and generally and won’t refer to morality at all. Do you have any specific examples where this isn’t the case?
 
Except for your "full humanity" argument, which is irrelevant to the OP issue, I have no quarrel with the points in your post, except for their attitude perhaps. What part of "We acknowledge that abortion must remain legal" was ambiguous or abstruse?
Click to expand...
OrphanSlug said:
Because the acknowledgement is false. There is no such thing as having a strict anti-abortion position offered then suggesting leaving it legal, the ideological fight over abortion left the realm of individual choice a very long time ago and as such is subject to the political whim and support of those in power (federal, state, what have you.)

Talking about the moral position on abortion, but trying to leave out the legal question is then a philosophical discussion on life and valuation. But that is not the area of the forums we are standing in. Your moral argument does not lead to some new understanding, it is the basis for another argument. And it is a legal one even if you are not willing to admit it because slavery is also a moral and *legal* argument (among other things.)

Lastly, "full humanity" is an argument point as well very germane to both the abortion debate and the philosophical question on life. Mainly because the term "humanity" not only has different meanings, but also different contexts of use to explain an ideological point of view on "being human" in far more than just the descriptive aspect of those terms.

We both know that.
Click to expand...
There has been a strict temperance argument, that is to say a moral argument, against the consumption of alcohol for a very long time in my country, and yet the consumption of alcohol is legal.

So, to paraphrase and contradict your assertion, "There is [indeed] such thing as having a strict [moral] position offered then suggesting leaving it legal."

Not sure what you mean here:
the ideological fight over abortion left the realm of individual choice a very long time ago and as such is subject to the political whim and support of those in power (federal, state, what have you.)
Click to expand...
Could you clarify this point for me, that I might reply to it?


Talking about the moral position on abortion, but trying to leave out the legal question is then a philosophical discussion on life and valuation. But that is not the area of the forums we are standing in. Your moral argument does not lead to some new understanding, it is the basis for another argument. And it is a legal one even if you are not willing to admit it because slavery is also a moral and *legal* argument (among other things.)
Click to expand...
Slavery ceased being a legal argument in my country 150 years ago, and that's because slavery was always really only a moral argument.
Abortion is both a moral argument and a legal argument, and the separation of the two is the only way to achieve clarity on the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom