• 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 Apologetics

Lisa said:
I have tried to have logical debates with you but you reject facts, and logic. Your hilariously absurd claim that skepticism disproves atheism is proof of that statement. You seem to believe that you can create bizarre arguments and other must play along to your fun-house mirror claims, but that isn't how logic or debates are required to flow. I first thought that you were a sophist but your arguments aren't that nuanced.
Click to expand...

:applaud:applaud:applaud
 
Tlrmln said:
That's pretty much exactly how I would have responded, so one way or another I suppose you'll have to come up with a real response that's not an ad hominem argument.
Click to expand...

:applaud:applaud
 
Tlrmln said:
That's pretty much exactly how I would have responded, so one way or another I suppose you'll have to come up with a real response that's not an ad hominem argument.
Click to expand...
This is what you would say then:
They [Catholic Church] oppose the use of effective methods of birth control which leads to unplanned pregnancies, which often end in abortion.
Click to expand...
Well, I asked for "reasoning" and this is an anti-religion talking point. First of all, the Church does not "oppose the use of effective methods of birth control." The Church is perfectly all right with married couples using "effective methods of birth control." What the Church opposes is extra-marital sex.

Second, are you and Lisa telling us that an unmarried woman breaks the Church rule on extra-marital sex but keeps the Church rule about contraception for extra-marital sex and then finding herself pregnant violates the Church ban on abortion?

What kind of reasoning is this?
 
weaver2 said:
You really aren't interested in comments and counter-arguments. Conversations were dispensed with many posts ago.
Click to expand...
If you include derogatory dismissal and personal derogation under the rubric of Comment, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.
As for counter-argument, wherever good-faith civil counter-argument has been posted I replied in kind.
 
Angel said:
.............. First of all, the Church does not "oppose the use of effective methods of birth control." The Church is perfectly all right with married couples using "effective methods of birth control." What the Church opposes is extra-marital sex. .............
Click to expand...

"Effective methods" means rhythm method or some renamed form of it. All other forms of female contraceptives are call artificial and are "intrinsically evil". Interestingly enough male control of contraception ie condoms, may be OK with the Church. Men can make the decisions on conception and pregnancy but women can't. WOW that's blatantly anti-women.



Position of the Catholic Church on contraception controlled by women.
In 1997, the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family stated:
The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.........
..........The 2008 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's instruction Dignitas Personae reiterates church opposition to contraception, mentioning new methods of interception and contragestion, notably female condoms and morning-after pills, which are also "fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral".
However, Father Tad Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania stated in March 2016 that contraceptives are permissible if the sex is non-consensual, such as events of rape and sexual assault.
Christian views on birth control - Wikipedia
 
weaver2 said:
"Effective methods" means rhythm method or some renamed form of it. All other forms of female contraceptives are call artificial and are "intrinsically evil". Interestingly enough male control of contraception ie condoms, may be OK with the Church. Men can make the decisions on conception and pregnancy but women can't. WOW that's blatantly anti-women....
Click to expand...
I don't think you're correct about condoms, but at any rate, nothing you post rehabilitates the supposed "reasoning" that makes for more abortions.
 
There's but one valid reason for an abortion, the Woman requests it.
 
Angel said:
If morality is grounded in the binary life and death, as per the OP argument, then morality, which derives from that binary, is binary in its foundation. Is that argument for non-binary morality which I asked you for available yet? As long as science cannot explain the phenomenon of life on earth, life is miraculous by definition.
.
Click to expand...


It quite suddenly struck me how obviously wrong the last sentence is. Life is actually anti-miraculous, and giving birth an anti-miracle - by definition. Life abounds. Procreation is commonplace. Miracles - by definition - are something quite rare, and defy the laws of nature and biology. We certainly do not have over 7,000,000,000 miracles walking around the planet. Wouldn't that render the word miracle totally meaningless?
 
MamboDervish said:
It quite suddenly struck me how obviously wrong the last sentence is. Life is actually anti-miraculous, and giving birth an anti-miracle - by definition. Life abounds. Procreation is commonplace. Miracles - by definition - are something quite rare, and defy the laws of nature and biology. We certainly do not have over 7,000,000,000 miracles walking around the planet. Wouldn't that render the word miracle totally meaningless?
Click to expand...
A miracle is "unnatural" only in the sense that natural science -- our authority on nature -- cannot explain it. There are, indeed, 7 billion miracles walking around the planet, and the planet itself involved in another miracle, the physical universe, and our discussion of this matter, the intercommunication of two consciousnesses, participate in yet another miracle.
 
weaver2 said:
While abortion in the wild is spontaneous and in humans it is consciously decided there are similarities we should consider if we are to have an intelligent respect for the decisive and extensive role abortion, legal or illegal, plays in culture, society, religion, morals, economics, women and children.

As you pointed out self preservation is a fact of nature and abortion is the strategy for species and self preservation in times of extreme and consequential stress. Insufficient food, water, livable habitat, good health and over population are the stressors that trigger spontaneous abortion of a fetus that would be born weak or dead. Abortion preserves the female’s health, produces healthy offspring in the future and strengthens the health of the herd.

It’s important to recognize that pregnancy and birth during a time of extreme stress is an extinction strategy. Weakened females either die giving birth or are too weak to raise offspring and they die. Even if a female lives the herd is weaker.

In humans financial insecurity, emotional instability, poor health, hostile environment predict a debilitating outcome for mothers and children. They are the stressors that can cause spontaneous abortion or make women decide to abort rather than expose a child, herself or her family to a toxic and destructive situation.

That abortion is spontaneous in the wild but humans must make a conscious decision to abort doesn’t change the fact that stress triggered the abortion in both situations in order to preserve the female’s health and produce a healthy child/offspring later. Stress in the extreme has a similar effect in the wild and in human society.

There is no doubt that abortion is tragic. Photographs exist of animals mourning a dead fetus. But abortion is irrefutably and immutably a natural, life preserving, species protecting reaction to compelling and life threatening stresses. It is not helpful to make abortion into a moral or religious issue. It isn’t.

It is a natural strategy, conscious or unconscious, to protect the health of child-bearing females in bad times so strong children become possible later. Banning or restricting abortion circumvents the natural instinct to preserve the individual and the species.
Click to expand...

“It is incorrect to equate induced abortion in humans with spontaneous abortion in wild animals.”

I agree. I never compared induced abortion in humans with spontaneous abortion in wild animals.

My original post had nothing whatsoever to do with spontaneous abortions in wild animals.

I questioned another poster’s use of wild animals as a debate concerning the value of human life based on the following argument.

Anti-Abortion Argument

4. The value of human life is grounded in biology, in the survival instinct, the drive to self-preservation.

I considered the animal comparison to be a deflection concerning the value of human life in order to devalue a human fetus based on the anti-abortion argument.

I kept to the subject of the thread which was about human life. I did not use human/animal comparisons. I rejected those comparisons.

None of my posts had anything to do with the legal abortions role concerning religion, morals, economics, or a woman’s personal choice of abortion or any of her particular reasons for deciding to abort.

That comparison was introduced by a poster via the introduction of “Human Nature” and it’s meaning. A personal reference to the woman right of choice...Which was not my intention.

My debate was simply based on the comparison of the two different processes.

1. A natural spontaneous human bodily function called a “miscarriage” that I labeled as a “natural” process.
2. A human elective action caused by human intervention called an “abortion” that I labeled as an “unnatural” process.

I’m willing to eliminate the label “unnatural”. It seems to be offensive to several posters.

Replacement: An elective action caused by human beings via a human intervention process called an “abortion” as a substitute for the natural spontaneous human bodily function called a “miscarriage” a natural process.

Miscarriage Symptoms, Causes, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Note: The use of the word spontaneous as the key word to differentiate between a “nature” (natural) abortion and an abortion that is not caused by “nature”.

A miscarriage is the loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. The medical term for a miscarriage is spontaneous abortion, but "spontaneous" is the key word here because the condition is not an abortion in the common definition of the term.

What Causes Miscarriage?
Most miscarriages happen when the unborn baby has fatal genetic problems. Usually, these problems are unrelated to the mother.

Please Note: Most miscarriages (natural) are caused by fatal genetic problems.

link provided in a prior post Note: human

Roseann:)
 
Angel said:
A miracle is "unnatural" only in the sense that natural science -- our authority on nature -- cannot explain it. There are, indeed, 7 billion miracles walking around the planet, and the planet itself involved in another miracle, the physical universe, and our discussion of this matter, the intercommunication of two consciousnesses, participate in yet another miracle.
Click to expand...


Ahh! As I suspected, you just made the word "miracle" totally meaningless. By defining it as the opposite of itself, you've managed to make it its own oxymoron. I suggest you look up the definition. It might explain why your world is upside down, as well as why you don't even know it is. Perhaps it's part of an answer to a question you haven't yet learned to ask yourself.

Just a thought.
 
soylentgreen said:
Not really. Presenting a negative scenario furthers your argument not at all. Calling something unnatural usually means the something unnatural is something you do not like. Pointing out individual behaviour only tells me of culture.. Terms more usually used by evolutionists such as natural or even unnatural would be talking about genetic variation in the alleles which record and transmit gene changes. It is only when a mutation establishes itself in the gene pool has any evolution occurred in the species. Emphasise "the species" and not anyone individual within the species.
Click to expand...

Introducing a lion and spider to a debate about the human subject being addressed was a deflection.

The subject has nothing to do with what I like or don’t like. Besides, in my post to weaver2 I eliminated that word and offered different wording.

A large collection of human individuals all over the world, over a span of time, that have been practicing the exact same behavior imho they are no longer individuals they are a collective.

Based on the fact... that “collective” via mutual agreement, consent and encouragement shared by both male and female adherents abortion is an acceptable cultural norm that has been labeled “Abortion Culture” in this thread.

And, all of them are a group that I can label legitimately as a collection of the human species acting collectively to accomplish their desired culture norm without question.imho

Too many men: China and India battle with the consequences of gender imbalance | South China Morning Post

I think, that “individual argument” would fall on deaf ears to all of those the individual men of China and India due to the abortion practices of their Countries who may never be participants of the species gene pool because they are a now a “collective” of men that outnumber women by 70 million.

Roseann:)
 
CharisRose said:
“It is incorrect to equate induced abortion in humans with spontaneous abortion in wild animals.” I agree.

The value of human life is grounded in biology, in the survival instinct, the drive to self-preservation.
I considered the animal comparison to be a deflection concerning the value of human life in order to devalue a human fetus based on the anti-abortion argument.
Most miscarriages happen when the unborn baby has fatal genetic problems. Usually, these problems are unrelated to the mother.
Click to expand...

When I said stress was the trigger for abortion it included genetic problems. They stress either the physical well being of the female or the direct development of the fetus in animals or humans. The point was to show that abortion is a natural reaction to stress, not to devalue the fetus. Nobody devalues a fetus, even animals can show what looks like grief over a dead fetus. Abortion, spontaneous or induced, is not a happy occasion.

If abortion is spontaneous and natural in animals it seems that it makes sense not to simply dismiss it in humans without asking why humans choose to abort. After all we are animals so the question is why do women abort a fetus. These are the reasons

Not ready for a child or another child ………….. 25%
Cannot financially support a child ……………… 23%
Have other people depending on me.. .………….19%
Unstable relationship with father or other………….8%
Not mature enough………………….………….......……..7%
Job and education leave no time for a child……….4%
Health of mother…………………………….........…………4%
Health of fetus…………………………………..........………3%
Incest, rape, family and father want abortion……….2%
Other…………………………………………...............…………6%
Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives | Guttmacher Institute

Every reason , with the exception of "other," represents a stress either to the family, to the female or to the potential child. The list has no frivolous reasons. If, after thinking and reasoning a woman says that the stress of adding a child or another child to situation already unsuited to raising a child will be bad for the family, the child and the woman herself it makes sense to listen to what she is saying. Why would one ignore someone that says, "I can't do this" when this means the future of a child. Every child needs a home where there is a physical, mental and emotional capacity to care, love, and nurture the well being of all the family. Very few children grow up well to become responsible members of society without a family that can provide those essentials to healthy lives.

Extreme stress in nature automatically causes spontaneous abortion in animals. With the capacity to think and reason humans have an obligation to consider the future of the family, the child and the woman, an obligation to think very carefully about the survival a child to a situation that lacks support for that child. There are a few children that survive horrendous situations and go on to become contributing adults, but they are so few that denying abortions to thinking reasoning women is not a wise policy.

The mechanism that assures the survival of the herd is exactly the same as the mechanism that assures the health of human society. The only difference is that humans have to think about it and animals don't.
 
CharisRose said:
Introducing a lion and spider to a debate about the human subject being addressed was a deflection.

The subject has nothing to do with what I like or don’t like. Besides, in my post to weaver2 I eliminated that word and offered different wording.

A large collection of human individuals all over the world, over a span of time, that have been practicing the exact same behavior imho they are no longer individuals they are a collective.

Based on the fact... that “collective” via mutual agreement, consent and encouragement shared by both male and female adherents abortion is an acceptable cultural norm that has been labeled “Abortion Culture” in this thread.

And, all of them are a group that I can label legitimately as a collection of the human species acting collectively to accomplish their desired culture norm without question.imho



Roseann:)
Click to expand...

No, the introduction of any animal shows that there is no truth in arguing that a theory such as survival instinct can be used for any individual member of a species. It was just that having to explain the meaning to you was a side track.

If you use terms that do not belong such as unnatural then we are talking about what you personally think is unnatural.

You have not shown that any effect has happened because women get abortions. The so called genetic drift is just as you have said, nothing more than a "imho" There is no such thing as an abortion culture. that many women all around the world have had an abortion does not mean they conspire to have more or get other women to have abortions.

Too many men: China and India battle with the consequences of gender imbalance | South China Morning Post

I think, that “individual argument” would fall on deaf ears to all of those the individual men of China and India due to the abortion practices of their Countries who may never be participants of the species gene pool because they are a now a “collective” of men that outnumber women by 70 million.
Click to expand...

Why are you showing me stupidity like this? Are you trying to make my argument for me?

This kind of dumb **** is what happens when you let politics and men decide what is good for women.

In america idiot christian men want the right to tell women when and how they can breed as well as the chinese and indian government.
 
weaver2 said:
When I said stress was the trigger for abortion it included genetic problems. They stress either the physical well being of the female or the direct development of the fetus in animals or humans. The point was to show that abortion is a natural reaction to stress, not to devalue the fetus. Nobody devalues a fetus, even animals can show what looks like grief over a dead fetus. Abortion, spontaneous or induced, is not a happy occasion.

If abortion is spontaneous and natural in animals it seems that it makes sense not to simply dismiss it in humans without asking why humans choose to abort. After all we are animals so the question is why do women abort a fetus. These are the reasons

Not ready for a child or another child ………….. 25%
Cannot financially support a child ……………… 23%
Have other people depending on me.. .………….19%
Unstable relationship with father or other………….8%
Not mature enough………………….………….......……..7%
Job and education leave no time for a child……….4%
Health of mother…………………………….........…………4%
Health of fetus…………………………………..........………3%
Incest, rape, family and father want abortion……….2%
Other…………………………………………...............…………6%
Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives | Guttmacher Institute

Every reason , with the exception of "other," represents a stress either to the family, to the female or to the potential child. The list has no frivolous reasons. If, after thinking and reasoning a woman says that the stress of adding a child or another child to situation already unsuited to raising a child will be bad for the family, the child and the woman herself it makes sense to listen to what she is saying. Why would one ignore someone that says, "I can't do this" when this means the future of a child. Every child needs a home where there is a physical, mental and emotional capacity to care, love, and nurture the well being of all the family. Very few children grow up well to become responsible members of society without a family that can provide those essentials to healthy lives.

Extreme stress in nature automatically causes spontaneous abortion in animals. With the capacity to think and reason humans have an obligation to consider the future of the family, the child and the woman, an obligation to think very carefully about the survival a child to a situation that lacks support for that child. There are a few children that survive horrendous situations and go on to become contributing adults, but they are so few that denying abortions to thinking reasoning women is not a wise policy.

The mechanism that assures the survival of the herd is exactly the same as the mechanism that assures the health of human society. The only difference is that humans have to think about it and animals don't.
Click to expand...


So the mechanism is exactly the same for both the herd and the human?

The mechanism assures the survival of the herd and the mechanism assures the health of human society?

What about the health of the herd and the survival of the human are those included in the mechanism?

The exact same mechanism works for both the human thinker and the herd that don’t think?

Here’s the problem humans don’t just think about it... humans also put those thoughts into action at will and may interfere with the mechanism via the abortion process.

Herd animals do not have the same ability as humans to interfere with that mechanism.

So, the mechanism at one point in time may have been exactly the same as the mechanism of the herd animals until it was altered by human intervention via the abortion process.

The question is has the mechanism been negatively or positively altered via human intervention via the abortion process instead of the natural process via the mechanism.

Mechanism | Definition of Mechanism by Lexico

mechanism - 2. a natural or established process by which something takes place or is brought about.

Roseann:)
 
Women who obtain an abortion should exercise their right to privacy and refuse to give any reason for their choice or if/when asked for a reason the response should be NOYB. IMO, it is a wholly personal matter like belief in a God. Self justification is ALL that is necessary.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, the introduction of any animal shows that there is no truth in arguing that a theory such as survival instinct can be used for any individual member of a species. It was just that having to explain the meaning to you was a side track.

If you use terms that do not belong such as unnatural then we are talking about what you personally think is unnatural.

You have not shown that any effect has happened because women get abortions. The so called genetic drift is just as you have said, nothing more than a "imho" There is no such thing as an abortion culture. that many women all around the world have had an abortion does not mean they conspire to have more or get other women to have abortions.



Why are you showing me stupidity like this? Are you trying to make my argument for me?

This kind of dumb **** is what happens when you let politics and men decide what is good for women.

In america idiot christian men want the right to tell women when and how they can breed as well as the chinese and indian government.
Click to expand...

Elective abortions results: Are a collective multitude worldwide of potential human species offspring which may have had all of those theoretical bells and whistles In Utero that will never become individuals like their parents... who were born via a natural process.

I never said they conspire... promotion is a better word.

Pro-choice promotion movement is a combination of both men and women for the acceptance of the “Abortion Culture” and it is a worldwide movement.

There is also a Pro-life promotional movement of both men and women and not all of them disagree with elective abortion based on religion.

Interesting no sympathy whatsoever for those men of China and India based on their leaders stupid abortion policies.

China and India abortion policies had absolutely nothing to do with what was good for women or men. It was simply forced population control over their people.

Forced population control would never happen in the U.S. (which is a very good thing) U.S. population control method is a “right” to an elective abortion.

Cull the herd - Idioms by The Free Dictionary

Roseann:)
 
MamboDervish said:
Ahh! As I suspected, you just made the word "miracle" totally meaningless. By defining it as the opposite of itself, you've managed to make it its own oxymoron. I suggest you look up the definition. It might explain why your world is upside down, as well as why you don't even know it is. Perhaps it's part of an answer to a question you haven't yet learned to ask yourself.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Speaking of thought, I suggest that you engage in a little more of it than you do in this post. Or do you think you can actually give me an example of something "unnatural" that is not either fictional or figurative?
 
Angel said:
Speaking of thought, I suggest that you engage in a little more of it than you do in this post. Or do you think you can actually give me an example of something "unnatural" that is not either fictional or figurative?
Click to expand...

A football.

lol (I slay me!)

Perhaps your post was meant for someone else's argument. I don't recall engaging any discourse on the definition of "unnatural".
If you wish, however, to use your own definitions for words, I submit it will make understanding one another more difficult. Creation - or for that matter, pro-creation - is anything but a miracle. Unto itself, it is an anti-miracle. Were it otherwise, I would not remain . . .
. . . in Search of the Miraculous.
 
The Miraculous Football​

MamboDervish said:
Angel said:
...As long as science cannot explain the phenomenon of life on earth, life is miraculous by definition...
Click to expand...

It quite suddenly struck me how obviously wrong the last sentence is. Life is actually anti-miraculous, and giving birth an anti-miracle - by definition. Life abounds. Procreation is commonplace. Miracles - by definition - are something quite rare, and defy the laws of nature and biology. We certainly do not have over 7,000,000,000 miracles walking around the planet. Wouldn't that render the word miracle totally meaningless?
Click to expand...
Angel said:
A miracle is "unnatural" only in the sense that natural science -- our authority on nature -- cannot explain it. There are, indeed, 7 billion miracles walking around the planet, and the planet itself involved in another miracle, the physical universe, and our discussion of this matter, the intercommunication of two consciousnesses, participate in yet another miracle.
Click to expand...
MamboDervish said:
Ahh! As I suspected, you just made the word "miracle" totally meaningless. By defining it as the opposite of itself, you've managed to make it its own oxymoron. I suggest you look up the definition. It might explain why your world is upside down, as well as why you don't even know it is. Perhaps it's part of an answer to a question you haven't yet learned to ask yourself.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Angel said:
Speaking of thought, I suggest that you engage in a little more of it than you do in this post. Or do you think you can actually give me an example of something "unnatural" that is not either fictional or figurative?
Click to expand...
MamboDervish said:
A football.

lol (I slay me!)

Perhaps your post was meant for someone else's argument. I don't recall engaging any discourse on the definition of "unnatural".
If you wish, however, to use your own definitions for words, I submit it will make understanding one another more difficult. Creation - or for that matter, pro-creation - is anything but a miracle. Unto itself, it is an anti-miracle. Were it otherwise, I would not remain . . .
. . . in Search of the Miraculous.
Click to expand...
You do seem to slay you, yes. But take heart, your search for the miraculous seems to be over at last!
For by your own lights a football is miraculous!
 
Last edited:
angel said:
the miraculous football​






you do seem to slay you, yes. But take heart, you're search for the miraculous seems to be over at last!
For by your own lights a football is miraculous!
Click to expand...

touchdown !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom