• 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!

A civil debate on the abortion issue

You first sentence is glib and pointless sophistry. Your second is a statement of the obvious. Think 'trees'. Trees existed before there were words for them - thousands of words in thousands of different languages. They existed before our ancestors (who were of course persons) learned to speak and invent words.

You first sentence is glib and pointless sophistry.
 
An excellent set of propositions, IF we were having a philosophical debate about the reality of ideals.

But since the point of this thread is to have a discussion based on provable facts, I think that argument immediately runs out of ammunition.

practical people like facts and links. philosophers don't, they use pure reason. a philosopher prides himself on his ability to entertain either side of any issue, and his ability to change his mind to the winning side, in his quest for the ultimate truth.
 
Critique of pure reason?

practical people like facts and links. philosophers don't, they use pure reason. a philosopher prides himself on his ability to entertain either side of any issue, and his ability to change his mind to the winning side, in his quest for the ultimate truth.

pure reason - In a real-World debate? If we're to argue facts & concrete actions, doesn't that rule out pure reason?

ability to change his mind to the winning side Why would a philosopher be concerned about being on the winning side? What philosophical advantage (pardon the expression, it's what comes to hand) accrues to the philosopher who happens to be on the winning side?

Please explain how winning side and ultimate truth are related. I don't see it myself, but perhaps I'm not thinking metaphysically enough?
 
I too do not consider abortion to be murder. OPINION. While you think opinions are facts. FACT.

Incorrect. It is fact that abortion is not murder. Murder is the ILLEGAL killing of a human being by a human being. That is FACT.

murder definition.jpg
 
It would be an interesting exercise to develop a surgical/medical method to transplant any fetus into the body of any other consenting adult - male or female. Once that procedure is perfected, the entire issue would be solved. Everyone who believes in the sanctity of the fetus can offer to carry one to term. All those who oppose a woman's reproductive rights over that of a fetus can finally put their body where their mouth is and "save" the life of the unborn. It would be a WIN - WIN - (win) situation.

My guess is there wouldn't be many takers. In an abortion debate chatroom, I once asked a vehemently anti choice, Christian woman if she would carry such a zef and her response? "Hell, no - it's not MY responsibility!" (paraphrased)
 
It would be an interesting exercise to develop a surgical/medical method to transplant any fetus into the body of any other consenting adult - male or female. Once that procedure is perfected, the entire issue would be solved. Everyone who believes in the sanctity of the fetus can offer to carry one to term. All those who oppose a woman's reproductive rights over that of a fetus can finally put their body where their mouth is and "save" the life of the unborn. It would be a WIN - WIN - (win) situation.

It would only be solved if the woman who was pregnant consented to the procedure to have it removed. She could still opt for an abortion (or to have it).

Same with the oft-imagined 'artificial wombs,' they may be an option but the same issue exists...only if the woman consents to the removal procedure. For starters, wouldnt she need to be assured that legally she would not be held financially or otherwise responsible ever for a child that came of the procedure? If not, then abortion would still be preferable if she didnt want or couldnt afford a kid.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
Re: Critique of pure reason?

pure reason - In a real-World debate? If we're to argue facts & concrete actions, doesn't that rule out pure reason?

ability to change his mind to the winning side Why would a philosopher be concerned about being on the winning side? What philosophical advantage (pardon the expression, it's what comes to hand) accrues to the philosopher who happens to be on the winning side?

Please explain how winning side and ultimate truth are related. I don't see it myself, but perhaps I'm not thinking metaphysically enough?

depends how you define winning, and it what context its being used
 
if society provides welfare to survive then you can have a child without imminent threat to your survival, which means abortion doesn't need to be done for your survival, which makes the abortion more of a convenience so to speak. republicans tend to also want to remove all welfare. which would then allow some mothers to get abortions and plead self defense. but republicans could offer loans to mothers, so they can survive through pregnancy. and pay it back later.

There are more people involved in bringing a child into the world than just one person, the mother. Over 60% of women who get abortions already have one or more children. About 70% of the women who abort are living at or blow the poverty line. Bringing another child into such a situation compromises the chances of the already born children. If the mothers are in stable relationships, there is the effect of another child on the father; if the woman is single, very likely there are grandparents whose lives will be effected by another child.

Pro-life steadfastly refuses to recognize that women who get abortions make the decision based on how a child with effect many other lives. Their campaign dependents on presenting women as self-centered, hard-hearted wrenches that kill babies for convenience sake. If you admit there are many lives to consider you also have to admit that there may be situations where abortion is necessary.
 
It would only be solved if the woman who was pregnant consented to the procedure to have it removed. She could still opt for an abortion (or to have it).

Same with the oft-imagined 'artificial wombs,' they may be an option but the same issue exists...only if the woman consents to the removal procedure. For starters, wouldn't she need to be assured that legally she would not be held financially or otherwise responsible ever for a child that came of the procedure? If not, then abortion would still be preferable if she didn't want or couldn't afford a kid.

If the pregnant woman needs an abortion for a medical reason, her consent would be very easy to get because then it is a matter of saving both lives or only one life.
 
Two stupid people spamming links back and forth accomplishes nothing.

What people need to be careful about is making sure the websites are for information only, written by experts, and obviously unbiased. "Spamming links" occurs when two stupid people look for and post only what they want to read.
 
What people need to be careful about is making sure the websites are for information only, written by experts, and obviously unbiased. "Spamming links" occurs when two stupid people look for and post only what they want to read.

no matter how good a link is its useless if people have no depth of thought
 
No matter how good a link is its useless if people have no depth of thought.

Fortunately all true pro-choicers (not people who just want abortion to be legal) have no problem understanding good articles. That is one big clue they support abortion rights for FACTUAL reasons.
 
If the pregnant woman needs an abortion for a medical reason, her consent would be very easy to get because then it is a matter of saving both lives or only one life.

Has nothing to do with what I was responding to.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
It would only be solved if the woman who was pregnant consented to the procedure to have it removed. She could still opt for an abortion (or to have it).

Same with the oft-imagined 'artificial wombs,' they may be an option but the same issue exists...only if the woman consents to the removal procedure. For starters, wouldnt she need to be assured that legally she would not be held financially or otherwise responsible ever for a child that came of the procedure? If not, then abortion would still be preferable if she didnt want or couldnt afford a kid.

Indeed. It goes without saying that her consent is paramount.
 
Let's move back in time. When is the earliest a new life should be called a human being, person, or baby strictly from your POV, regardless of what the law says?
 
Last edited:
Let's move back in time. When is the earliest a new life should be called a human being, person, or baby strictly from your POV, regardless of what the law says?

Until about the 6th week of pregnancy it is almost impossible to tell the difference between a human embryo and the embryo of most other animals. A turtle embryo looks like a human embryo at this stage.. At 8 weeks the human fetus is 1/2 inch long and weighs .04 of an ounce. If looked at under a stereo-microscope it is possible to see that it is different from a turtle fetus. Without the microscope it is impossible to tell. 65% of abortions take place at or before 8 weeks. 75 % of abortions will have happened one week later at 9 weeks. At 10 weeks the fetus is 1.2 inches long and weighs 1/10 of an ounce. 80% of abortions have been done by the 10th week Significant bonding between the mother and her developing fetus has not taken place by the 10 week. That doesn't happen until quickening at about 18th week. When to call a fetus a baby varies from mother to mother. In many cases bonding doesn't happen until after birth.

The maudlin protests of innocent little babies being killed are probably lost on most pregnant women considering abortion between 4 weeks and 10 weeks.
 
Last edited:
I am pro choice until the point of conception.

With free effective contraception so readily available; most unwanted pregnancies are a choice in themselves. Most rights come with responsibilities. Why should reproductive rights be different. The fact that women are born with a womb does NOT give them a unique license to behave irresponsibly.

I certainly agree that if the activity that resulted in conception was not the woman's choice; publicly funded abortion should be available to her.

If I fail to pay attention to my driving, I have no right to expect taxpayers to pay for my repairs: and if a woman chooses not to use available contraceptives, she has no reason to expect taxpayers to pay for her choice.
 
For those of us who oppose abortion because of our faith: The Bible tells us to make Disciples! Nowhere does it tell us to make laws or political noise.

If we truly believe in Salvation by grace; how can we negate grace by trying to place others under law? If we obey Scripture, and address the energy we spend making political noise to making disciples, there will be far fewer abortions. Women of faith don't abort.
 
For those of us who oppose abortion because of our faith: The Bible tells us to make Disciples! Nowhere does it tell us to make laws or political noise.

If we truly believe in Salvation by grace; how can we negate grace by trying to place others under law? If we obey Scripture, and address the energy we spend making political noise to making disciples, there will be far fewer abortions. Women of faith don't abort.

Very well spoken and I do respect people's right to their personal religious beliefs. Just not imposing them on others, so your post is appreciated.

God gave us all free will...and it is great arrogance for man to attempt to impose their beliefs on others thru law or force when He Himself chose not to.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
I am pro choice until the point of conception.

With free effective contraception so readily available; most unwanted pregnancies are a choice in themselves. Most rights come with responsibilities. Why should reproductive rights be different. The fact that women are born with a womb does NOT give them a unique license to behave irresponsibly.

I certainly agree that if the activity that resulted in conception was not the woman's choice; publicly funded abortion should be available to her.

If I fail to pay attention to my driving, I have no right to expect taxpayers to pay for my repairs: and if a woman chooses not to use available contraceptives, she has no reason to expect taxpayers to pay for her choice.

And here we have another one without a uterus wanting to dictate to those of us with one what we can or cannot do with the contents of ours.

If gestation and delivery is publicly funded, then abortion should be as well. Fund both or neither.
 
I am not, in any of my posts, telling women not to abort. When you support taxpayer funded collision insurance, I'll support taxpayer funded abortion.

I don't ask you to pay for my irresponsibility; and I don't want you asking me to pay for yours!

Gestation and delivery are NOT irresponsible behaviors. Choosing not to use contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy is irresponsible behavior.

I have no problem with taxpayer funded contraception. If your religious beliefs do not allow contraception; then they don't allow the activity that causes unwanted pregnancy either.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom