• 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!

Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

I don't think it should be banned.
I must be confusing you with someone else. I'm glad we cleared that up.

For the umpteenth time in this thread...I do think our fed tax dollars shouldn't be subsidizing ESCR research given the legitimate and real ethical and moral problems associated with it
A valid point assuming the ethical and moral concerns are compelling. In my experience the only arguments against it stem from unsupportable religious beliefs.

and given that there is substantial state-level ESCR funding as well as public and private partnership financing out there as well as substantial private dollars funding ESCR and given that there are finite fed resources that would be better directed at research that has actually resulted in nearly a hundred medical treatments (that would be adult stem cells) and given that alternatives to destroying embryoes to harvest embryonic stem cells exist.
I'll leave the feasibility studies to the experts. I'm fairly confident they have a better idea of what research is worthwhile and what is not over you and I. Though some here insist that their own judgements are superior because they have read a book or article on the matter.

I chose conception as what? Please address actual arguments.
Somehow people come to the determination that something is moral or immoral. In the abortion/ESCR debate many time people decide that a certain instance in time is deemed special for matter (in this case human matter) and thus any action that would compromise the expected outcome of that matter is immoral. Some claim conception is that special time. Others claim "every sperm is important." Others claim sometime during pregnancy. Still others believe only after birth. A small minority (such as certain tribes in Africa) claim a human is only important after it is named.. Thus depending on ones beliefs ESCR can be either immoral, moral, or ambiguous.

How did you come to the determination that ESCR is immoral. That is, at what point in time does matter suddenly become special to you and why? If you believe for some other reason then please explain why.

Yeah, opinions are like a-holes, we all have one.
Opinions free from fallacies, consistent with facts and knowledge are far superior to those that are not.


Yeah, so lets start medical experimentation on death row inmates and defective children...
only if I believed such people did not have a "right to life" would I believe such. Since I do believe they have such a right then your scenario is a non-sequitur .

I don't disagree that conducting research to cure disease is a virtuous endeavor. The fact is, though, that you're ignoring that this virtuosity (a word?) doesn't justify any and all medical research. That much you have to acknowledge, no?
Of course. That doesn't support your position though so I'm confused on why you think its important.


I wasn't talking about abortion.
Such a debate is based on the "right to life" in most cases thus the issues coincide many times.
 
From the OP:

As far as abortion goes, I believe it should be legal in those states which want it, and illegal in those which don't. It is up to the states themselves, and none of the Federal government's business. This is the reason that I am opposed to Roe v. Wade, just as I am opposed to any effort to federally criminalize abortion.

I have never understood this argument. The States can no more deny a person their "right" to an abortion than they can deny them their right to due process. Conversely, the States can no more condone the murder of an unborn person than they can a born one.

The entire argument hinges on the status of the unborn, i.e. whether or not they are indeed a person. Once this determination has been made it is up to the Federal government to compel the complicity of the States. Abortion is either a right or it is murder; as such the concept of State-authority doesn't enter into it.
 
I must be confusing you with someone else. I'm glad we cleared that up.

I think Felicity, though, was making that argument.

A valid point assuming the ethical and moral concerns are compelling. In my experience the only arguments against it stem from unsupportable religious beliefs.

It's a valid point regardless of whether you find the citation of such ethical and moral concerns as "compelling." Are ethical and moral consideratins not appropriate considerations in debating public policy?

And, so what if those concerns arise from an individual's religious beliefs or otherwise? Scrutinize the concerns themselves rather than impugning some perceived religious zealotry.

I'll leave the feasibility studies to the experts. I'm fairly confident they have a better idea of what research is worthwhile and what is not over you and I. Though some here insist that their own judgements are superior because they have read a book or article on the matter.

I am not pretending that my judgment on the value or feasibility of such research. I am, though, exercising my judgment relative to the appropriateness of using fed taxpayer dollars to subsidize ESCR. That's not an issue that the scientific experts have any particular authority on.

Somehow people come to the determination that something is moral or immoral.

Somehow? What does this mean? We all exercise our moral judgment and do so based upon our individual values.

In the abortion/ESCR debate many time people decide that a certain instance in time is deemed special for matter (in this case human matter) and thus any action that would compromise the expected outcome of that matter is immoral. Some claim conception is that special time. Others claim "every sperm is important." Others claim sometime during pregnancy. Still others believe only after birth. A small minority (such as certain tribes in Africa) claim a human is only important after it is named.. Thus depending on ones beliefs ESCR can be either immoral, moral, or ambiguous.

Um, I think you're conflating abortion and ESCR here. To my knowledge, those participating in the ESCR debate don't rely on any time measurement. It's the type and nature of the cells involved and the implications drawn from the use of those cells, err, embryoes.

Ad I don't agree that morals can be derived from religious beliefs. However, religion is not the onyl source of moral and ethical considerations.

How did you come to the determination that ESCR is immoral. That is, at what point in time does matter suddenly become special to you and why? If you believe for some other reason then please explain why.

I find it immoral because it involves the destruction of human life for scientific research, I find it morally repugnant to consider a human embryo as simply a collection of cells that have no instrinsic value and, therefore, should be available to do with as we please,

Opinions free from fallacies, consistent with facts and knowledge are far superior to those that are not.

I have presented a logically coherent argument that relies on facts and knowledge.

only if I believed such people did not have a "right to life" would I believe such. Since I do believe they have such a right then your scenario is a non-sequitur

So, children with physical deformities or mental defects have no right to life? Death row inmates have no right to life? I offered up eugenics earlier as another example where ethical and moral considerations affected fed policy regarding eugenics. Do you also believe that humans born without favored genetic characteristics have no right to life?

This is curious, your right to life consideration. What basis do you use to conclude that some humans have a right to life while others do not?

Of course. That doesn't support your position though so I'm confused on why you think its important.

I was addressing your point which argued that since scientific research is always virtuous then ethical and moral considerations have no place at the table. At least that is how I understood your comment.

Such a debate is based on the "right to life" in most cases thus the issues coincide many times.

My ESCR argument has no right to life component. You're improperly conflating two different issues.
 
I have never understood this argument. The States can no more deny a person their "right" to an abortion than they can deny them their right to due process.

You're missing the trees in the forest. The states cannot, right now, unduly regulate abortion per the Supreme Court. The OP is arguing for an alternative environment where this public policy issue is returned to the political process where the states would then have the authority to impose regulations affecting abortions.

Currently, what's happening, though, is that state's have attempted to regulate abortion by imposing, for example, notification laws, These have been routinely struck down.

Conversely, the States can no more condone the murder of an unborn person than they can a born one.

Huh? States like Illinois permit (or used to permit) babies surviving an attempted abortion to be left to die be it on a counter, in a custodial closet, or some other morally repugnant situation. We know this as it came up during the presidential campaign where Obama was rightly criticized for opposing a law that would have not permitted such hideous treatment of born babies despite the state law containing the same exact clauses as the federal law. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here.

The entire argument hinges on the status of the unborn, i.e. whether or not they are indeed a person. Once this determination has been made it is up to the Federal government to compel the complicity of the States. Abortion is either a right or it is murder; as such the concept of State-authority doesn't enter into it.

False choice.

If abortion is not a federal constitutional right that does not mean that a state cannot grant such a right to its residents via its own constitutional process.
 
Would libs allow suicide as a viable method of abortion?
 
It's a valid point regardless of whether you find the citation of such ethical and moral concerns as "compelling." Are ethical and moral consideratins not appropriate considerations in debating public policy?
That probably depends on the issue. I havent thought through every issue and every scenarios of every issue to make a definitive blanket statement. So I leave the matter open. That is, if someone makes a claim then the impetus is on them to prove its truth.

And, so what if those concerns arise from an individual's religious beliefs or otherwise? Scrutinize the concerns themselves rather than impugning some perceived religious zealotry.
that's what I am attempting to do. However, in my experience religion must be used otherwise the concept of a soul or immortal consciousness cannot be posited. Without such, such arguments are completely without support and fail miserably or worse, are left as arguments based on ignorance.

Such arguments are not compelling for obvious reasons.

I am not pretending that my judgment on the value or feasibility of such research. I am, though, exercising my judgment relative to the appropriateness of using fed taxpayer dollars to subsidize ESCR. That's not an issue that the scientific experts have any particular authority on.
but I'm confused on why you focus attention on ESCR and not all subsidies of scientific research. That is I hear different arguments:
1) Gov't should not subsidize any scientific research, period.
2) Gov't should not subsidze ESCR research because there exist valid moral objections to it.
3) Gov't should not subsidize ESCR because I don't think its worthwhile even if the appropriators disagree with me(moral arguments aside).

I believe you are #2 but occasionally I feel like #1 and #3 appear in your arguments. Am I right or wrong?



Um, I think you're conflating abortion and ESCR here. To my knowledge, those participating in the ESCR debate don't rely on any time measurement. It's the type and nature of the cells involved and the implications drawn from the use of those cells, err, embryoes.
but only because they feel like the use of those cells kills a person that would have otherwise become a full person which is exactly the debate about abortion. That is, people object to destroying an acorn because it could become an oak tree.

Ad I don't agree that morals can be derived from religious beliefs.
did you mean to say you agree????

However, religion is not the onyl source of moral and ethical considerations
this seems to contradict with your previous statement? I'm confused.



I find it immoral because it involves the destruction of human life for scientific research,
which begs the question "when does human life become important and when does it cease to be important?" You left an unbounded assertion.

I find it morally repugnant to consider a human embryo as simply a collection of cells that have no instrinsic value and, therefore, should be available to do with as we please,
I figured such. But if you answer the above question we can delve further into the issue.



I have presented a logically coherent argument that relies on facts and knowledge.
we shall see if the premises are:
1) Consistent with the conclusion
2) Compelling enough such that they should supercede the alternative conclusions of others.



So, children with physical deformities or mental defects have no right to life? Death row inmates have no right to life?
No. I believe they all do.

I offered up eugenics earlier as another example where ethical and moral considerations affected fed policy regarding eugenics. Do you also believe that humans born without favored genetic characteristics have no right to life?
No.

This is curious, your right to life consideration. What basis do you use to conclude that some humans have a right to life while others do not?
I argue that being "human" and/or having human DNA has nothing to do with it. What matters is self-awareness, cogito ergo sum. (Note: one does not have to acknowledge ones self-awareness to be self-aware much like one does not have to understand how eyes function to see; one simply does because they are capable of such)


I was addressing your point which argued that since scientific research is always virtuous then ethical and moral considerations have no place at the table. At least that is how I understood your comment.
I most definitely believe ethical and moral considerations are important. I just have yet to encounter any sound moral or ethical argument against banning ESCR and/or abortion for all. In my experience it should remain a choice, not a requirement or a restriction.
 
Last edited:
That probably depends on the issue. I havent thought through every issue and every scenarios of every issue to make a definitive blanket statement. So I leave the matter open. That is, if someone makes a claim then the impetus is on them to prove its truth.

Can you not answer a question directly?

that's what I am attempting to do. However, in my experience religion must be used otherwise the concept of a soul or immortal consciousness cannot be posited. Without such, such arguments are completely without support and fail miserably or worse, are left as arguments based on ignorance.

Dude, I'm not relying on concepts of soul or immortal consciousness. In fact, no one here is.

Such arguments are not compelling for obvious reasons.

No, they are not obvious reasons and you simply cannot fairly dismiss any and all ethical and moral concerns because you think that ethical and moral arguments can only rely on religion.

but I'm confused on why you focus attention on ESCR and not all subsidies of scientific research. That is I hear different arguments:
1) Gov't should not subsidize any scientific research, period.
2) Gov't should not subsidze ESCR research because there exist valid moral objections to it.
3) Gov't should not subsidize ESCR because I don't think its worthwhile even if the appropriators disagree with me(moral arguments aside).

I believe you are #2 but occasionally I feel like #1 and #3 appear in your arguments. Am I right or wrong?

I am focusing on ESCR here only because that's the topic of the thread. Why you're attempting to generalize my position on public subsidies for scientific research I don't understand...

I would agree wholeheartedly with #2 and #3. I'm not sure that enlightens the discussion, though.

but only because they feel like the use of those cells kills a person that would have otherwise become a full person which is exactly the debate about abortion. That is, people object to destroying an acorn because it could become an oak tree.

My issue, as I am not "they" is that ESCR that relies on harvesting embryoes simply to conduct research is morally repugnant given that alternatives to harvesting such embryoes exist that avoid those ethical and moral problems.

did you mean to say you agree????

this seems to contradict with your previous statement? I'm confused.

My mistake. I was intending to say that morality is not only derived from religious sources.

which begs the question "when does human life become important and when does it cease to be important?" You left an unbounded assertion.

A human embryo is human life. A human embryo is not just a collection of cells scraped off the inside of a nose. As a matter of basic biological fact human embryos are actual human beings in the earliest stages of their natural development. Human embryos (or fetuses, or infants) do not differ in kind from mature human beings (as carrots or alligators differ from humans); rather the difference between human embryos (fetuses, infants) and adults is a difference merely in stage or degree of development of precisely the same kind of being.

No. I believe they all do.

I misunderstood your prior comment.


Ok.

I argue that being "human" and/or having human DNA has nothing to do with it. What matters is self-awareness, cogito ergo sum. (Note: one does not have to acknowledge ones self-awareness to be self-aware much like one does not have to understand how eyes function to see; one simply does because they are capable of such)

As you can see above, I disagree.

I most definitely believe ethical and moral considerations are important. I just have yet to encounter any sound moral or ethical argument against banning ESCR and/or abortion for all. In my experience it should remain a choice, not a requirement or a restriction.

But, again, I am not talking about banning ESCR altogether, but rather discussing my support for restricting federal government funding of ESCR. And that argument does not rest solely on a ethical/moral argument, but other factors.

As well, I am not an advocate of banning abortion altogether, either. I just want Roe overtunred so that the issue will be returned to the proper political forum.
 
I think Felicity, though, was making that argument.
Naw..I just said it's a waste of money. But I would like to see a ban on it since I do perceive it as killing human beings--which it is. When a segment of human beings is under the total power of others and is "used" by another for the gain of those in power. That is slavery.
 
You're missing the trees in the forest. The states cannot, right now, unduly regulate abortion per the Supreme Court. The OP is arguing for an alternative environment where this public policy issue is returned to the political process where the states would then have the authority to impose regulations affecting abortions.

Currently, what's happening, though, is that state's have attempted to regulate abortion by imposing, for example, notification laws, These have been routinely struck down.



Huh? States like Illinois permit (or used to permit) babies surviving an attempted abortion to be left to die be it on a counter, in a custodial closet, or some other morally repugnant situation. We know this as it came up during the presidential campaign where Obama was rightly criticized for opposing a law that would have not permitted such hideous treatment of born babies despite the state law containing the same exact clauses as the federal law. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here.



False choice.

If abortion is not a federal constitutional right that does not mean that a state cannot grant such a right to its residents via its own constitutional process.

I think, perhaps, you have misinterpreted my position. You see, I am ardently pro-life and believe that there should be an outright Federal ban on this barbaric practice, however, I take issue with the specious legal reasoning that comes from people on both sides, i.e. that abortion - whether it's viewed as a right or murder - falls under the purview of State authority to grant or deny.

In one instance abortion can be viewed as a right, as such, the States should not be able to infringe upon it. In another instance abortion is the murder of another person, as such, the States cannot permit it. Either way the authority of State governments has no bearing on the issue. Either abortion deserves Federal protection as a right or it should be roundly criminalized. I'm of the latter opinion.
 
I think, perhaps, you have misinterpreted my position. You see, I am ardently pro-life and believe that there should be an outright Federal ban on this barbaric practice, however, I take issue with the specious legal reasoning that comes from people on both sides, i.e. that abortion - whether it's viewed as a right or murder - falls under the purview of State authority to grant or deny.

In one instance abortion can be viewed as a right, as such, the States should not be able to infringe upon it. In another instance abortion is the murder of another person, as such, the States cannot permit it. Either way the authority of State governments has no bearing on the issue. Either abortion deserves Federal protection as a right or it should be roundly criminalized. I'm of the latter opinion.

To me, a federal ban is unnecessary--the human beings--even at the earliest stages are HUMAN BEINGS. Deliberately--hell, even ACCIDENTALLY--killing a human being due to malice, neglect, or passion is at the very least manslaughter. Don't we already have a "ban" against that? I believe it's the 14th amendment--
" nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
 
To me, a federal ban is unnecessary--the human beings--even at the earliest stages are HUMAN BEINGS. Deliberately--hell, even ACCIDENTALLY--killing a human being due to malice, neglect, or passion is at the very least manslaughter. Don't we already have a "ban" against that? I believe it's the 14th amendment--
" nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

I suppose a ban would be a little redundant if our government were to view the unborn as persons/human beings/whatever. Good point.
 
To me, a federal ban is unnecessary--the human beings--even at the earliest stages are HUMAN BEINGS. Deliberately--hell, even ACCIDENTALLY--killing a human being due to malice, neglect, or passion is at the very least manslaughter. Don't we already have a "ban" against that? I believe it's the 14th amendment--
" nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

Does it say "person" or "human" or "homo sapien sapien" or ... Nope just "person". Funny how, if I remember correctly, RvW decided fetuses were not "people". (I'll have to double check tonight. They may have just avoided the issue because they could come to no objective conclusion on the matter. Its been awhile since I read the opinion of the court).

Oh yeah, and by your standards you must keep the braindead on life support until they atrophy to physical death otherwise you are a murderer.

:lol: the absurdities one must undertake to be consistent.
 
Last edited:
Does it say "person" or "human" or "homo sapien sapien" or ... Nope just "person". Funny how, if I remember correctly, RvW decided fetuses were not "people".

I'm right because SCOTUS says so...good argument.
 
SCotUS tends play a pretty big role in deciding what is lawful or not.

Lawful does not always equal correct. The de jure definition of a person does not necessarily translate into the de facto definition of a person.
 
Lawful does not always equal correct. The de jure definition of a person does not necessarily translate into the de facto definition of a person.

I agree. The problem is that we will never be able to come to an agreement on what the term "person" encompasses and whether or not a fetus fits into that definition.
 
I'm right because SCOTUS says so...good argument.

When the discussion switches to debating the legality of the issue then the SCOTUS does settle the argument.

As for settleing the moral/ethical argument, no they don't. But I'm sure you caught on to the subtle difference. :wink:
 
I agree. The problem is that we will never be able to come to an agreement on what the term "person" encompasses and whether or not a fetus fits into that definition.

I'm talking about living members of the species HOMO sapien. A "fetus" is a living member of the species HOMO sapien, consequently it should be viewed as such. You were once a "fetus" as was I and every other "person" on the planet. Did you all of a sudden become something else once you reached viability or were born? The distinctions pro-choicers draw between a "fetus" and a "person" are meaningless and arbitrary. This isn't about coming to an agreement, it's about pro-choicers accepting the facts. Sorry if I sound harsh but I'm a grizzled abortion forum veteran...it can get nasty down there.
 
When the discussion switches to debating the legality of the issue then the SCOTUS does settle the argument.

As for settleing the moral/ethical argument, no they don't. But I'm sure you caught on to the subtle difference.

I'm quite sure that Felicity is well aware of the legal status of both abortion and the unborn, so I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by pointing that out. It's pretty much standard practice for the abortion debate to assume an ethical/moral context since the legal aspect of the debate is already settled. Perhaps I missed something...
 
:roll:

Unnecessary waste of money on invalid "research" to appease greedy Pharmaceutical companies who make $$$ off from people who suffer. In the end--it is a WASTE of money...that ALSO is ethically corrupt.

Don't tell you you seriously expect that results for something so complicated to happen in just a short time do you? Hell they've been working practically non-stop on a way to cure HIV/AIDS for YEARS and they still haven't come up with anything. Should we just give it up an call it wasted money also just because there's been no conclusive results?

You may not like the fact that there are people out there that consider an embryo nothing more than a clump of cells but thats the way it is. You're not going to change their mind anymore than I'm going to change yours. And you have no right to force your ideals, your beliefs, on people anymore than I have a right to enforce mine on you.
 
I'm talking about living members of the species HOMO sapien. A "fetus" is a living member of the species HOMO sapien, consequently it should be viewed as such.
I do. I just don't attribute so much because of it. There is no reason to. There's a disconnect in logic why simply being human is special. Try to break it down further and determine why being human is an example of something special.

You were once a "fetus" as was I and every other "person" on the planet. Did you all of a sudden become something else once you reached viability or were born?
Yes!!!! Sometime during that time I achieved self-awareness.

The distinctions pro-choicers draw between a "fetus" and a "person" are meaningless and arbitrary. This isn't about coming to an agreement, it's about pro-choicers accepting the facts.
If you are bounded in a nutshell then of course you consider yourself king of infinite space. But when you realize you are in a nutshell your perception changes dramatically..
Sorry if I sound harsh but I'm a grizzled abortion forum veteran...it can get nasty down there.
Agree. Let's do our best to keep it nice up here.
 
Does it say "person" or "human" or "homo sapien sapien" or ... Nope just "person". Funny how, if I remember correctly, RvW decided fetuses were not "people". (I'll have to double check tonight. They may have just avoided the issue because they could come to no objective conclusion on the matter. Its been awhile since I read the opinion of the court).
I present Exhibit "A" --EXACTLY the same sort of reasoning used to enslave Americans is used to justify killing another segment of human beings. Dred Scott anyone?

Oh yeah, and by your standards you must keep the braindead on life support until they atrophy to physical death otherwise you are a murderer.
After all this time you STILL don't get it. ACTIVELY killing someone is different from not treating terminal illness.:roll:
 
Don't tell you you seriously expect that results for something so complicated to happen in just a short time do you? Hell they've been working practically non-stop on a way to cure HIV/AIDS for YEARS and they still haven't come up with anything. Should we just give it up an call it wasted money also just because there's been no conclusive results?
There have been advances with AIDS research--no cure, but it is treatable. There is ZERO from embryonic SCR...not a little bit Z>E>R>O...zip, zilch, none, nada, nuttin. PLUS OTHER SCR using adult and cord blood have yielded many.

And you have no right to force your ideals, your beliefs, on people anymore than I have a right to enforce mine on you.
Apparently--according to your reasoning--that is exactly what you're doing since we disagree and it's happening.
 
I present Exhibit "A" --EXACTLY the same sort of reasoning used to enslave Americans is used to justify killing another segment of human beings. Dred Scott anyone?
and as my exhibit I present PETA and "whale wars". The same sort of reasoning used to killl innocent beings. :roll:
 
and as my exhibit I present PETA and "whale wars". The same sort of reasoning used to killl innocent beings. :roll:
Sea Kittens are Yummy.
 
Back
Top Bottom