• 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 Doctor Charged with Murder

Your Star said:
You have to look at it as a realist. Abortions are NEVER going to stop, you can't ignore that fact, and having abortions legal, is better than having it illegal, due to the fact that it will harm women. Abortion by itself isn't good, but when you put it in the context of the real world, having it legal, is better then having it illegal.
Click to expand...

Did you ever take an ethics class in college? Well if you did, you'd remember that ancient philosophers like Aristotle differentiated between Natural Laws and Man-Made Laws. Natural Laws are those things that human beings tend to naturally feel are right or wrong without having to be told. Murder, rape, stealing, etc., most human beings naturally feel those things are wrong and thus they are considered Universal Laws. Man-Made Laws are laws that tend to include a lot of natural Laws but also include laws that aren't universal such as speed limits, zoning and building codes when doing construction, etc. The perfect ideal, according to ancient Greek philosophers and even many modern day legal scholars, is for Man-Made Laws to reflect Natural Laws. Of course as we know, this is not always the case. One example is the legal slavery that existed in America. This where the Natural Laws that slavery is wrong, and State Laws conflicted.

Now, abortion is a crime that violates the Natural Law. I have never met a woman who didn't feel negative and guilty feelings about getting an abortion. Both you and Doc Patty Cake have both asserted on this thread that you feel abortion is morally wrong but that it should still be legal. Thus, this is a clear case of when Natural Laws conflict with our State Laws. This should not be the case. Natural Laws, that is, things that are naturally considered by most humans to be morally wrong, should also be forbidden within our state laws, or else, justice isn't being served.

"Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore holds everywhere.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law"

Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Dr_Patrick said:
One involves a woman choosing what to do with her own body, the other doesn't.
Click to expand...

So you're using the whole "Its the woman's choice to do what she wants with her body" debate? Fair enough. Well then answer me this, what about Siamese twins that share the same body but have two different head? Could one Siamese twin choose to kill the other and not be charged with murder? After all, that person chose what to do with their own body right? Again, I'm not asking what the laws are regarding the situation, I'm asking your opinion on what the law should be, i.e., if YOU consider that murder or not. If you have no opinion of your own on this matter and simply go by whatever the law says then I don't know why you are on a political debate forum because thats what these things are for, debating laws.
 
jamesrage said:
Perhaps you should at least bother to read a dictionary first before telling other people to learn the definition of a word. Since you are at a computer its not that hard to look at a online dictionary, you don't need to dust off that big red Merriam Webster dictionary you have sitting on the shelf somewhere.

Abortionist | Define Abortionist at Dictionary.com
1.
a person who performs or induces abortions, esp. illegally.
2. a person who favors or advocates abortion as a right or choice that all women should have: usually intended as an offensive term.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. ...intended as an offensive term. I prefer Merriam Webster's definition.
 
Johnny Centrist said:
So you're using the whole "Its the woman's choice to do what she wants with her body" debate? Fair enough. Well then answer me this, what about Siamese twins that share the same body but have two different head? Could one Siamese twin choose to kill the other and not be charged with murder? After all, that person chose what to do with their own body right? Again, I'm not asking what the laws are regarding the situation, I'm asking your opinion on what the law should be, i.e., if YOU consider that murder or not. If you have no opinion of your own on this matter and simply go by whatever the law says then I don't know why you are on a political debate forum because thats what these things are for, debating laws.
Click to expand...

Once again, you are using an example that has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. :roll:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I think you are missing the point that there is a minimum threshold that must be met. A two year old qualifies as much as an adult does.
Click to expand...

I dunno.. To me, philosophically, the whole thing can be summed up by simply applying the notion that, as civilized people, it is our duty to protect those that cannot, or are unable to protect themselves. I'd say a 2 year old qualifies, and I'd say a clump of human cells qualifies. If Darwin was correct, we all came from a single cell. I would think a clump of them is vastly more superior, especially when there's a pretty good chance that, that clump will one day become a walking, talking, thinking, individual!

The fact that some can apply logic that, is merely a matter of degree, and pure semantics to justify abortion has always puzzled me.


Tim-
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Once again, you are using an example that has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. :roll:
Click to expand...

Apparently you're not very educated in the legal system and don't understand the concept of common law or legal precedent.

"A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law,[1] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[2] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis)." Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You see, people like me who are proponents of gay marriage point to the case of Loving vs Virginia where it was ruled that laws forbidding interracial marriages are unconstitutional. Based on common law this can be used in courts to prove that it is also therefore illegal to prevent same-sex marriage. Of course, when I debate with the conservatives about this they say "That's a totally different issue." Not only is that rebuttal a complete cop-out to dodge what is a blatant contradiction in their ideologies, it is also not in line with the American legal system which uses common law to judge cases. Therefore, looking at hypothetical or actual cases that are similar to abortion, i.e., any cases involving the termination of fetuses or crimes involving conjoined siamese twins, are completely in line with the American legal system and can help determine whether it is actually legally for a woman to terminate her fetus even if it is inside of her body and cannot live without the support of her body.

But I don't expect you to understand any of that and its obvious you have no real interest in debating this topic. You've made it quite apparent that there is no real argument from the pro-choice side of things and that the liberals have become extremely closed minded on this issue and are unable to analytically look at any of the complex moral and legal issues involving these laws. Instead its simply "its the woman's choice, end of debate". You guys eerily remind me of the conservatives I debate with about gay marriage who simply say "Its wrong because the Bible says so, end of debate." This is precisely why I'm a centrist.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cease the personal attacks.
 
Johnny Centrist said:
Apparently you're not very educated in the legal system and don't understand the concept of common law or legal precedent.

"A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law,[1] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[2] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis)." Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You see, people like me who are proponents of gay marriage point to the case of Loving vs Virginia where it was ruled that laws forbidding interracial marriages are unconstitutional. Based on common law this can be used in courts to prove that it is also therefore illegal to prevent same-sex marriage. Of course, when I debate with the conservatives about this they say "That's a totally different issue." Not only is that rebuttal a complete cop-out to dodge what is a blatant contradiction in their ideologies, it is also not in line with the American legal system which uses common law to judge cases. Therefore, looking at hypothetical or actual cases that are similar to abortion, i.e., any cases involving the termination of fetuses or crimes involving conjoined siamese twins, are completely in line with the American legal system and can help determine whether it is actually legally for a woman to terminate her fetus even if it is inside of her body and cannot live without the support of her body.

But I don't expect you to understand any of that and its obvious you have no real interest in debating this topic. You've made it quite apparent that there is no real argument from the pro-choice side of things and that the liberals have become extremely closed minded on this issue and are unable to analytically look at any of the complex moral and legal issues involving these laws. Instead its simply "its the woman's choice, end of debate". You guys eerily remind me of the conservatives I debate with about gay marriage who simply say "Its wrong because the Bible says so, end of debate." This is precisely why I'm a centrist.
Click to expand...

You were comparing a human being in development to fully developed human beings (siamese twins). Feel free to fillibuster some more, but it does nothing for your argument.
 
Johnny Centrist said:
Did you ever take an ethics class in college? Well if you did, you'd remember that ancient philosophers like Aristotle differentiated between Natural Laws and Man-Made Laws. Natural Laws are those things that human beings tend to naturally feel are right or wrong without having to be told. Murder, rape, stealing, etc., most human beings naturally feel those things are wrong and thus they are considered Universal Laws. Man-Made Laws are laws that tend to include a lot of natural Laws but also include laws that aren't universal such as speed limits, zoning and building codes when doing construction, etc. The perfect ideal, according to ancient Greek philosophers and even many modern day legal scholars, is for Man-Made Laws to reflect Natural Laws. Of course as we know, this is not always the case. One example is the legal slavery that existed in America. This where the Natural Laws that slavery is wrong, and State Laws conflicted.

Now, abortion is a crime that violates the Natural Law. I have never met a woman who didn't feel negative and guilty feelings about getting an abortion. Both you and Doc Patty Cake have both asserted on this thread that you feel abortion is morally wrong but that it should still be legal. Thus, this is a clear case of when Natural Laws conflict with our State Laws. This should not be the case. Natural Laws, that is, things that are naturally considered by most humans to be morally wrong, should also be forbidden within our state laws, or else, justice isn't being served.

"Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore holds everywhere.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law"

Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I don't consider ancient philosophers to be my moral arbiters. And, this is a lame argument. It's basically a dressed up and extremely verbose appeal to authority fallacy.

p.s. If you'd ever taken a logic class in college, you'd know this. ;)
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
I don't consider ancient philosophers to be my moral arbiters. And, this is a lame argument. It's basically a dressed up and extremely verbose appeal to authority fallacy.

p.s. If you'd ever taken a logic class in college, you'd know this. ;)
Click to expand...

So you believe that natural law shouldn't always coincide with man-made laws?
 
Dr_Patrick said:
You were comparing a human being in development to fully developed human beings (siamese twins). Feel free to fillibuster some more, but it does nothing for your argument.
Click to expand...

Same-sex marriage proponents also compare interracial marriage laws to same-sex marriage laws. I guess you think those two can't be compared?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I believe that natural law is flexible, based upon cultural issues, just like man-made laws. Also, this is a strawman. I don't believe in singular, never-changing "truth."
Click to expand...

You don't believe that the vast majority of human beings have an aversion to abortion even if they support the legality of it?
 
Johnny Centrist said:
Same-sex marriage proponents also compare interracial marriage laws to same-sex marriage laws. I guess you think those two can't be compared?
Click to expand...

Not really. They only can be compared in that they are both social discriminatory issues and because a person can't control their sexual orientation anymore than they can control their race, but that's where the comparisons end.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Not really. They only can be compared in that they are both social discriminatory issues and because a person can't control their sexual orientation anymore than they can control their race, but that's where the comparisons end.
Click to expand...

You don't think those comparisons are enough to prove the unconstitutionality of the current "traditional marriage" laws?
 
Johnny Centrist said:
You don't think those comparisons are enough to prove the unconstitutionality of the current "traditional marriage" laws?
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I think that the gay marriage issue has a lot to overcome before it will be made legal, though. There is still a ridiculous stigma on a widespread level against homosexuality. It's also a religious issue too. Christians, for whatever reason, feel like they should be able to control marriage and who is or isn't allowed to get married, as if they invented it.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I don't even know how to respond to something so blatantly silly.
Click to expand...

Wow. I'm shocked at how difficult it is to try to explain common law to people on the internet and how it works in our legal system. Damn public school system.
 
Johnny Centrist said:
Wow. I'm shocked at how difficult it is to try to explain common law to people on the internet and how it works in our legal system. Damn public school system.
Click to expand...

I work in the legal system. Your failure to communicate here has zero to do with the stupidity of other people.

The reason that you're having difficulties here is simple. You believe that state and federal criminal statutes should conform to your ideas of natural laws. You should get over that idea. There is no such thing as common law in the criminal justice system.
 
Last edited:
Johnny Centrist said:
Wow. I'm shocked at how difficult it is to try to explain common law to people on the internet and how it works in our legal system. Damn public school system.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are so much wiser than all of us lowly serfs. Please, sir, tell us how debate is supposed to go. :roll:
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I don't think this argument is going to get you where you think it's going to get you.
Click to expand...

I've never seen a group of people dodge questions as many times as I have in this one single thread. It lets me know they are stumped by my questions or either don't want to admit the fallacies within their own ideologies.
 
Johnny Centrist said:
I've never seen a group of people dodge questions as many times as I have in this one single thread. It lets me know they are stumped by my questions or either don't want to admit the fallacies within their own ideologies.
Click to expand...

If you want to delude yourself into thinking that you are somehow the victor in all of this and that you are so vastly superior to all of us, keep on telling yourself that. :lol:
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I work in the legal system. Your failure to communicate here has zero to do with the stupidity of other people.
Click to expand...

You're obviously not interested in debating. Get off the computer and get back to work. While you're at it, ask your boss about common law.
 
Johnny Centrist said:
You're obviously not interested in debating. Get off the computer and get back to work. While you're at it, ask your boss about common law.
Click to expand...

Considering that you are a newbie around here, it's probably best not to throw your weight around like you are Mr. Big Stuff right out of the gate. Others have tried and failed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom