• 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!

The Stigma of Abortion

weaver2 said:
...why are you punishing the child by forcing it into a life unwanted, unloved and uncared for? Yours is not logical thinking.
Click to expand...

Because there are multiple options available and yet killing the unborn bubbles up as the most logical to you? Interesting.

I believe it's the convenient option. The easy way out (It's not). And attempts to cover a multitude of poor choices. You're right, many women NEVER recover, but they don't tell you that at your appointment.
 
Schism said:
Because there are multiple options available and yet killing the unborn bubbles up as the most logical to you? Interesting.

I believe it's the convenient option. The easy way out (It's not). And attempts to cover a multitude of poor choices. You're right, many women NEVER recover, but they don't tell you that at your appointment.
Click to expand...

The law requires that abortion clinics give women the full truth about abortions; that includes a full disclosure and discussion about depression. Interestingly, Catholic and evangelical pregnancy centers are not legally required to tell the truth about anything.


There are two options to abortion: giving birth and suicide. Name some others.
 
Scrabaholic said:
There is no wisdom in your OPs. Abortion should never be stigmatized and thankfully, it is less and less so with every passing year.
Click to expand...
Yours is precisely the view deplored in the OP, the view that drives Abortion Culture, the view that lies behind the moral decline of both our countries.
 
Angel said:
Yours is precisely the view deplored in the OP, the view that drives Abortion Culture, the view that lies behind the moral decline of both our countries.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I meant earlier, you view abortion as morally wrong.
Why?
 
Angel said:
Yours is precisely the view deplored in the OP, the view that drives Abortion Culture, the view that lies behind the moral decline of both our countries.
Click to expand...

:lamo Speak for your own country. Mine is just fine. And there's nothing wrong w/ abortion. There's a LOT wrong w/ forcing women to gestate and give birth against their will.
 
Scrabaholic said:
:lamo Speak for your own country. Mine is just fine. And there's nothing wrong w/ abortion. There's a LOT wrong w/ forcing women to gestate and give birth against their will.
Click to expand...
If course there's "a LOT wrong w/ forcing women to gestate and give birth against their will" -- had you taken a moment to read and understand my views you'd know that I feel the same as you, that I am pro-choice and pro-legalization. But you took no moment to understand a nuanced view different from your black-and-white orthodoxy, a view that doesn't march in lockstep with your politically correct official view, a view that doesn't buy into Abortion Culture and that finds something 50 million lives lost to abortion a tragic failure of morality.
 
Marrybore said:
Yes, this is what I meant earlier, you view abortion as morally wrong.
Why?
Click to expand...
Abortion results in the loss of a human life, and on that score if unnecessary it is immoral.
 
Angel said:
Abortion results in the loss of a human life, and on that score if unnecessary it is immoral.
Click to expand...

That is very debatable - after all, it's what most of the debates are about.
What would you consider "unnecessary"?
 
Angel said:
If course there's "a LOT wrong w/ forcing women to gestate and give birth against their will" -- had you taken a moment to read and understand my views you'd know that I feel the same as you, that I am pro-choice and pro-legalization. But you took no moment to understand a nuanced view different from your black-and-white orthodoxy, a view that doesn't march in lockstep with your politically correct official view, a view that doesn't buy into Abortion Culture and that finds something 50 million lives lost to abortion a tragic failure of morality.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you.
 
Angel said:
Abortion for inconvenience, for example.
Click to expand...

And what would you consider "inconvenient"?
Would you allow abortions in cases of rape, or incest?
 
Angel said:
If course there's "a LOT wrong w/ forcing women to gestate and give birth against their will" -- had you taken a moment to read and understand my views you'd know that I feel the same as you, that I am pro-choice and pro-legalization. But you took no moment to understand a nuanced view different from your black-and-white orthodoxy, a view that doesn't march in lockstep with your politically correct official view, a view that doesn't buy into Abortion Culture and that finds something 50 million lives lost to abortion a tragic failure of morality.
Click to expand...

Why are you pro-choice, if you think abortion is so morally wrong? Your views seem contradictory.
 
Marrybore said:
Why are you pro-choice, if you think abortion is so morally wrong? Your views seem contradictory.
Click to expand...
It's not contradictory to hold that a free moral agent has the moral right to choose and that one of the choices is immoral.
Angel said:
Anti-Abortion Argument

4. The value of human life is grounded in biology, in the survival instinct, the drive to self-preservation.
5. Taking human life is wrong unless done in defense of life.
6. Abortion is the taking of human life.
7. Therefore, unless done to save the pregnant woman's life, abortion is wrong.

Pro-Choice Argument

8. Every human being is a free moral agent.
9. Every free moral agent is free to choose to act morally or immorally.
10. A woman is a human being and therefore a free moral agent.
11. A woman is free to choose to act morally or immorally.


Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Anti-Abortion
The only reasonable point of view​
Click to expand...
 
Angel said:
It's not contradictory to hold that a free moral agent has the moral right to choose and that one of the choices is immoral.
Click to expand...

So does this mean you don't put nearly as much weight on the immorality of abortion as you do on the immorality of murder? Where would you rank abortion on the immorality scale? You believe abortion is bad, but you're not so bothered to think it should be illegal.
 
Marrybore said:
That is very debatable - after all, it's what most of the debates are about.
What would you consider "unnecessary"?
Click to expand...


To the anti-abortion advocates every abortion is "unnecessary" unless the mother or fetus is about to die. Otherwise, you are just another immoral slut getting an unnecessary abortion. Some " nuanced" opinion holders even rule out abortion if the pregnancy is the result of rape. The rational? The fetus is a gift from God and neither He nor the fetus did the raping so there is no need for an abortion.
 
Marrybore said:
And what would you consider "inconvenient"?
Would you allow abortions in cases of rape, or incest?
Click to expand...
First of all, let's get this straight: it is not up to be to allow or disallow anything in this regard. If you mean to ask whether my argument allows this or that, the answer is given by my argument for the freedom of the moral agent. The moral agent is free to act morally or immorally in any situation. "Inconvenient" is any reason that falls short of medical necessity,
 
Angel said:
First of all, let's get this straight: it is not up to be (me?) to allow or disallow anything in this regard. If you mean to ask whether my argument allows this or that, the answer is given by my argument for the freedom of the moral agent. The moral agent is free to act morally or immorally in any situation. "Inconvenient" is any reason that falls short of medical necessity,
Click to expand...

It seems to me that your free moral agency could best be described as "My way or the highway." You say I can choose some other way but you've declared that I won't be going the right way and I'll end up lost in your woods of your immorality. That's not a freedom of choice, that's character assassination based on your definition of morality. Maybe in the world of Plato's Cave you could argue that you have allowed freedom of choice but in the real, here and now, practical world you have not allowed free moral agency.

You have restricted the moral agent to only the choices you have presented even though there are other legal and logical choices. You can't reduce the world to your choices only and then base morality on how people act on your personal choices. Well you can, it's your world view, but, you can't call it free moral agency when you arbitrarily eliminate any choices based on biological survival instinct , from which, you have claimed , comes the value of life.
 
weaver2 said:
It seems to me that your free moral agency could best be described as "My way or the highway." You say I can choose some other way but you've declared that I won't be going the right way and I'll end up lost in your woods of your immorality. That's not a freedom of choice, that's character assassination based on your definition of morality. Maybe in the world of Plato's Cave you could argue that you have allowed freedom of choice but in the real, here and now, practical world you have not allowed free moral agency.

You have restricted the moral agent to only the choices you have presented even though there are other legal and logical choices. You can't reduce the world to your choices only and then base morality on how people act on your personal choices. Well you can, it's your world view, but, you can't call it free moral agency when you arbitrarily eliminate any choices based on biological survival instinct , from which, you have claimed , comes the value of life.
Click to expand...
No, it's not "my way or the highway," ma'am. It's right or wrong. Every moral agent is free to choose to act one way or the other, regardless of what the law is. If the law declares some act punishable, then it doesn't matter in terms of punishment whether it is right or wrong. If I choose to do a right thing and it's punishable by law, then I may be punished for doing the right thing. If I do a wrong thing and it's not punishable by law, then I won't be punished for doing a wrong thing. The law is immaterial to moral questions of right and wrong. If I helped a slave to escape bondage in 1857, I did the right thing but might have been punished for my act. If I get an abortion unnecessarily today, I do the wrong thing, but will not be punished under the law.
 
Angel said:
No, it's not "my way or the highway," ma'am. It's right or wrong. Every moral agent is free to choose to act one way or the other, regardless of what the law is. If the law declares some act punishable, then it doesn't matter in terms of punishment whether it is right or wrong. If I choose to do a right thing and it's punishable by law, then I may be punished for doing the right thing. If I do a wrong thing and it's not punishable by law, then I won't be punished for doing a wrong thing. The law is immaterial to moral questions of right and wrong. If I helped a slave to escape bondage in 1857, I did the right thing but might have been punished for my act. If I get an abortion unnecessarily today, I do the wrong thing, but will not be punished under the law.
Click to expand...

OK leave the law out of it. You have still done the defining of moral and still restricted the moral agent to only one moral choice, yours. There are other moral and logical choices. You can't reduce the world to your choices only and then base morality on how people act on your personal choices. You can't call it free moral agency when you arbitrarily eliminate any choices based on biological survival instinct , from which, you have claimed , comes the value of life.

When you say the only morality is my morality it sounds awfully like "My way or the Highway"
 
weaver2 said:
OK leave the law out of it. You have still done the defining of moral and still restricted the moral agent to only one moral choice, yours. There are other moral and logical choices. You can't reduce the world to your choices only and then base morality on how people act on your personal choices. You can't call it free moral agency when you arbitrarily eliminate any choices based on biological survival instinct , from which, you have claimed , comes the value of life.

When you say the only morality is my morality it sounds awfully like "My way or the Highway"
Click to expand...
No, morality restricts the moral agent to two choices: right and wrong. It is in the very nature of morality to be binary. Now, I realize that you disagree with this, that you believe in non-binart morality, but I've asked you for your reasoning on this score, your argument, and am still waiting for it six weeks later.
 
Angel said:
No, morality restricts the moral agent to two choices: right and wrong. It is in the very nature of morality to be binary. Now, I realize that you disagree with this, that you believe in non-binart morality, but I've asked you for your reasoning on this score, your argument, and am still waiting for it six weeks later.
Click to expand...

I don't even remember what the 'binary' argument was about.

The main problem is that I don't believe abortion is immoral and you do. We both have reasons for why we think the way we do. I no more believe in your hyper intellectualization than you believe in my adamant practicality. I'm just going to leave it that your philosophy works for you and mine works for me. It will get decided in the Courts. And even then it won't change minds only the law.Ultimately that's what the whole abortion question is about, who gets to define the las and how they define it. Nobody is actually quarreling over the morality or the philosophy. We are quarreling over law.
 
weaver2 said:
...It will get decided in the Courts. And even then it won't change minds only the law.Ultimately that's what the whole abortion question is about, who gets to define the las and how they define it. Nobody is actually quarreling over the morality or the philosophy. We are quarreling over law.
Click to expand...
That's the problem in a nutshell. And that's why Abortion Culture has proved to be the moral catastrophe it is.
 
Angel said:
That's the problem in a nutshell. And that's why Abortion Culture has proved to be the moral catastrophe it is.
Click to expand...

Getting laws straightened out by the courts causes the abortion question to be a moral catastrophe? How? and what better way is there to decide the legality of an issue that the courts. You want it to be a moral issue for everyone. It isn't. It's a moral issue that each person gets to decide on their own. But the legal points get decided in court. That's the way the Constitution was structured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom