• 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 CONFIDENTIAL: "Abortion Culture"

Angel said:
The Lursa Paradigm at work. It always wins!
Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting you have not progressed. Any time you wish to stop banging your head against a wall, let us know.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
The Lursa Paradigm: Misrepresent and Declare Victory!
Click to expand...

And even this ^^ is a clearly hypocritical post.

Angel said:
You misrepresent my view and then attack that misrepresentation.
I've corrected your misrepresentation six times, but you persist in attacking it.
What do you expect me to do -- defend your misrepresentation of my view?


C'mon, man. Really.
Click to expand...
Angel said:
Notwithstanding whatever your spleen says to the contrary.
Click to expand...

I can even provide evidence that I dont and have not claimed to win or declared victory:

Lursa said:
I never ever bring up 'winning' in the Internet because I think that's pathetic.
Click to expand...
 
Angel said:
You only recognize legal rights, it seems. And your recognition of legal rights seems to grounded in the fact that the state enforces legal rights.
Have I fairly represented that half of your viewpoint?
I think I have. So I'll go on.

Your refutation of any natural rights thesis seems to rely heavily on the lack of enforcement, as you do recognize the might makes right thesis on the basis of enforcement.

No pissiness now. I'm taking your post seriously. Earlier your "painfully stupid" remark rubbed me the wrong way.

So, first, I'd point out that because rights can be violated is not an argument against the existence of those rights. I could give examples within your legal rights thesis, but I don't think that's necessary, yes?
Second, rights, generally speaking, fall into two categories: claims and privileges. Both work as entitlements, but claims originate with the right-bearer, and privileges with the right-grantor.

Natural rights are claims deriving from our rational human nature and grounded in the biological natural instinct for self-preservation.
The sabre-tooth tiger doesn't recognize my right to life, and may try to violate my right to life, and if I cannot enforce my claim against that violation, I am dead meat. But the right I claimed was no less a right just because I was killed. In a very real sense the sabre-tooth tiger is just acting out of its own right to life in killing and eating me, but the sabre-tooth tigers is not aware of this.
Click to expand...

It isn't a "right" to life. Its not the right word.

Where does your concept originate?

You may have an ability to protect your life or the lives of you loved ones. You may have others who will help you protect those lives.But somebody may have the ability to take those lives away from you.

Its like you are using the wrong form of the word "right".

As in it is right to not take a life. Or it is right to not take someone else's property.

But the things you declare natural rights require your ability to enforce them. If you can't stop someone from taking your property they will just take it. And that can't be explained by that person exercising their "right" to survive (which they don't had either).

Nature doesn't confer any "rights". It doesn't acknowledge any "rights". Every extinction would be a violation of that species' "rights". So they can't be "rights" as you use the term.
 
Lursa said:
Thank you for admitting you have not progressed. Any time you wish to stop banging your head against a wall, let us know.
Click to expand...
The "wall" being you and the other pro-abortion advocates, I'll just keep banging away, ma'am. I've already put holes in that wall; more are coming.
 
Angel said:
The "wall" being you and the other pro-abortion advocates, I'll just keep banging away, ma'am. I've already put holes in that wall; more are coming.
Click to expand...

Feel free to post one 'breech' in the wall. Please.

Perhaps there is something...surely acres and acres worth of failed posts in the Beliefs & Skepticism sub-forum have served you well?
 
Angel said:
5. And to abort a pregnancy because it is inconvenient or unexpected or unwanted is an unnecessary abortion and therefore immoral.
Click to expand...

No, just no, pure and simple, a no to this one. You do not get to decide that an abortion done out of the reasons of it being unexpected/unwanted/inconvenient is immoral.

You are just making moral determinations and judgements where you have no place or right to do so. You do not know the reasons why they abort an unwanted/unexpected/inconvenient pregnancy. You keep making moral judgements calls with NO right to do so because you do not know the reasons. Also, your views are that it is immoral, other people will disagree with that wholeheartedly.

Sorry, but you are just making a point that is not proper for anyone to make because we do not have the proper information and even then it is not up to us to judge a woman's choice. That is her choice/her morality and her reasons.
 
Angel said:
5. And to abort a pregnancy because it is inconvenient or unexpected or unwanted is an unnecessary abortion and therefore immoral.
Click to expand...

Who are you to judge whether a pregnancy is unnecessary?

Who are you to judge convenience versus need?

Who are you to judge what is moral versus immoral?

Who are you to impose your philosophical and/or religious beliefs on another person?

When do you perceive an abortion to be moral?
 
Peter King said:
No, just no, pure and simple, a no to this one. You do not get to decide that an abortion done out of the reasons of it being unexpected/unwanted/inconvenient is immoral.

You are just making moral determinations and judgements where you have no place or right to do so. You do not know the reasons why they abort an unwanted/unexpected/inconvenient pregnancy. You keep making moral judgements calls with NO right to do so because you do not know the reasons. Also, your views are that it is immoral, other people will disagree with that wholeheartedly.

Sorry, but you are just making a point that is not proper for anyone to make because we do not have the proper information and even then it is not up to us to judge a woman's choice. That is her choice/her morality and her reasons.
Click to expand...
You raise an interesting question, Peter: the question of standing in moral assessments. Shall we explore answers to this question together?
You believe I lack standing to make moral judgments about abortion, and I believe I have standing.
Shall we take this path?
 
year2late said:
Who are you to judge whether a pregnancy is unnecessary?

Who are you to judge convenience versus need?

Who are you to judge what is moral versus immoral?
Click to expand...
I'm a moral animal like everyone else.


year2late said:
Who are you to impose your philosophical and/or religious beliefs on another person?
Click to expand...
I'm not doing this. You and the other crusaders are doing this for me.

year2late said:
When do you perceive an abortion to be moral?
Click to expand...
Only when the life of the woman is clearly at stake.
 
Lursa said:
Feel free to post one 'breech' in the wall. Please.

Perhaps there is something...surely acres and acres worth of failed posts in the Beliefs & Skepticism sub-forum have served you well?
Click to expand...
Your bad faith is evident throughout your exchanges with me in this Abortion forum.
I don't have to look far. And the word you're looking for is "breach," not "breech."

Just a few pages ago you posted in bad faith, I called you on it, and you double down on the bad faith:

Lursa said:
...So much for the OP's "argument" based on women's selfishness.
Click to expand...
Angel said:
There is no such argument in the OP of this thread....
Click to expand...
Lursa said:
Dont be dishonest...in your OP, narcissism = selfishness. Dont start out lying....
Click to expand...
Angel said:
The Lursa Paradigm: Misrepresent and Declare Victory!

If the OP uses the word "narcissism," then that's the word you should use in engaging the OP.
But the OP doesn't use the word "narcissism." Or "selfishness" for that matter.
The Lursa Paradigm in full flower.

Please think before you post, and probably read what you're replying to. Thank you.
Click to expand...

This exchange carries on, but this snippet highlights your modus operandi.
Such that presently you're spinning "The Lursa Paradigm" as some sort of testament to your debating skill.
Your posts have become more and more frivolous as you are frustrated at every turn by the moral perspective I've brought to this forum.
 
Angel said:
I'm a moral animal like everyone else.



I'm not doing this. You and the other crusaders are doing this for me.


Only when the life of the woman is clearly at stake.
Click to expand...

At what point will you consider the woman's life to be at stake?

Can you give me an idea of her level of illness where you would consider her life to be at stake?
 
year2late said:
At what point will you consider the woman's life to be at stake?

Can you give me an idea of her level of illness where you would consider her life to be at stake?
Click to expand...
That's entirely up to the woman to ascertain; after all, it's her body and soul and life at stake.
Maybe she has a physical intuition or a trusted knowledgeable midwife tells her so or a competent physician does.
 
year2late said:
At what point will you consider the woman's life to be at stake?

Can you give me an idea of her level of illness where you would consider her life to be at stake?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant as he cannot prove that is the only morally correct reason to abort in the first place
 
Angel said:
That's entirely up to the woman to ascertain; after all, it's her body and soul and life at stake.
Maybe she has a physical intuition or a trusted knowledgeable midwife tells her so or a competent physician does.
Click to expand...

So then an abortion would be moral?
 
Angel said:
If her life is really at stake, then yes.
Click to expand...

If you perceive her life to be at stake or she does?

Are you thinking life or health in danger or only chance to live is have this abortion immediately?
 
year2late said:
If you perceive her life to be at stake or she does?

Are you thinking life or health in danger or only chance to live is have this abortion immediately?
Click to expand...
Again, since this is the woman's moral decision to make, it is up to the woman to ascertain whether or not her life is in fact at stake in carrying the pregnancy to term.
What does my perception have to do with her decision?
 
Angel said:
Again, since this is the woman's moral decision to make, it is up to the woman to ascertain whether or not her life is in fact at stake in carrying the pregnancy to term.
What does my perception have to do with her decision?
Click to expand...

So if she believes it to be moral then it is moral.
 
Angel said:
Counter-arguments?
Click to expand...
Here’s an irrefutable argument for you; You are not the arbiter of morality. Your opinions on morality are just that, opinions.
 
Angel said:
You raise an interesting question, Peter: the question of standing in moral assessments. Shall we explore answers to this question together?
You believe I lack standing to make moral judgments about abortion, and I believe I have standing.
Shall we take this path?
Click to expand...

Not my body, not my choice. I have no idea as to why someone has an abortion. It can be a choice that I think how stupid to have an abortion for that reason and there are choices where I think it is very intelligent and the best choice that woman could have ever made. I am not however privy to the reasons of that choice and I am also not interested in nitpicking other people's choices. I do not have the right to morally make a judgement about other people's moral views and if I would think it is moral.
 
year2late said:
So if she believes it to be moral then it is moral.
Click to expand...
It is a moral decision whether she recognizes it as such or not; if she so recognizes it, then if she wishes to make the moral decision, she will not abort the pregnancy unnecessarily, and if she chooses accordingly, either way she chooses, believing her choice to be the moral one in the terms already laid down, then, to answer your question, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom