• 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 vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

theplaydrive said:
Never said they weren't. I said abortions are 3% of their services - meaning abortion isn't their agenda or main service to the population.
Click to expand...

:shrug: the infantry is a relatively small piece of the military. obviously the military's main agenda isn't killing people?
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: the infantry is a relatively small piece of the military. obviously the military's main agenda isn't killing people?
Click to expand...

You have a point and yet your point in no way shows that abortion is the main agenda of Planned Parenthood - so we're back at square one.:shrug:
 
Barbbtx said:
You'd be surprised at how many people would take them up on that offer. I've never heard of anyone getting an abortion because she couldn't find anyone who would absolutely love to adopt the baby.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of children waiting to be adopted who will never be adopted that beg to differ....
 
theplaydrive said:
There are a lot of children waiting to be adopted who will never be adopted that beg to differ....
Click to expand...

And A lot that do get adopted....few become drains on society. All abortions result in dead babies.
 
mac said:
And A lot that do get adopted....few become drains on society. All abortions result in dead babies.
Click to expand...

That children get adopted does not dismiss the fact that many do not. Nonetheless, when you show scientifically that a fetus is a conscious human being, then your dramatic appeal to emotion will be relevant. Until then, it isn't.
 
theplaydrive said:
That children get adopted does not dismiss the fact that many do not. Nonetheless, when you show scientifically that a fetus is a conscious human being, then your dramatic appeal to emotion will be relevant. Until then, it isn't.
Click to expand...

It's no worse than your dramatic appeal to emotion. You stop using them and so will I. Many Children do get adopted, many are fostered, well, until adult-hood. Stop your emotional appeals, and I'll stop mine.

Many children are also up for adoption because something happened to their parents. Not simply because they are unwanted. Be honest in your comments.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
It's no worse than your dramatic appeal to emotion. You stop using them and so will I. Many Children do get adopted, many are fostered, well, until adult-hood. Stop your emotional appeals, and I'll stop mine.
Click to expand...

What is my dramatic appeal to emotion?

1. It is a fact that MANY children do NOT get adopted and it is therefore irresponsible to suggest that "unwanted" children will be taken care of by society.
2. It is NOT a fact that a fetus is a conscious human being - statements such as yours are purely emotional appeals with no observational/scientific basis.
3. You started talking about "killing babies" WAY before I made a comment about adopting children so it is very clear that you have no intention of not making your non-scientific, dramatic, emotional arguments.

Edit: I saw you added a comment about "children being up for adoption because something happened to their parents". Please show me where I gave a blanket statement about the causes of being an orphan. Your comment does not contradict anything that I have said or anything that I believe. Please stop attributing things to my comments that don't exist.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
What is my dramatic appeal to emotion?

1. It is a fact that MANY children do NOT get adopted and it is therefore irresponsible to suggest that "unwanted" children will be taken care of by society.
2. It is NOT a fact that a fetus is a conscious human being - statements such as yours are purely emotional appeals with no observational/scientific basis.
3. You started talking about "killing babies" WAY before I made a comment about adopting children so it is very clear that you have no intention of not making your non-scientific, dramatic, emotional arguments.

Edit: I saw you added a comment about "children being up for adoption because something happened to their parents". Please show me where I gave a blanket statement about the causes of being an orphan. Your comment does not contradict anything that I have said or anything that I believe. Please stop attributing things to my comments that don't exist.
Click to expand...

The label "unwanted" for one. Dramatizing the existence of un-adopted kids as legitimization of abortion.

You're appealing to emotion, buddy, face it.
 
mac said:
The label "unwanted" for one. Dramatizing the existence of un-adopted kids as legitimization of abortion.

You're appealing to emotion, buddy, face it.
Click to expand...

I used the word "unwanted" AFTER you criticized me for using emotional appeal. Please show me the original comment where I appealed to emotion.
 
theplaydrive said:
I used the word "unwanted" AFTER you criticized me for using emotional appeal. Please show me the original comment where I appealed to emotion.
Click to expand...

Saying that abortion is not killing is an emotional appeal (and a moral stance).

Because you feel your position is superior, you rationalize your own emotional appeals and very really morality on the subject. Nevertheless, they are there and are no more valid (or less) than anyone elses. The hypocrisy is in your accusations of others doing what you do.
 
mac said:
Saying that abortion is not killing is an emotional appeal (and a moral stance).
Click to expand...
1. A statement that makes you feel emotion is not an emotional appeal.
2. Please show me where I said "abortion is not killing/murder". (Hint: I haven't. I have said A) That there is no scientific proof that it is murder. B) That I do not perceive it as murder). In other words, I have not made an argument of any kind nor would I ever. Therefore, your complaint is irrelevant.

Because you feel your position is superior, you rationalize your own emotional appeals and very really morality on the subject. Nevertheless, they are there and are no more valid (or less) than anyone elses. The hypocrisy is in your accusations of others doing what you do.
Click to expand...
1. I'll admit that I'm superior when I start trying to limit other people's behavior so that they live according to my subjective morality - you do that, not me. Stop projecting.
2. To me, abortion is an amoral medical procedure, particularly relative to the government's opinion of it.

I make decisions about laws/funding based on whether or not the actions in question threaten the security and rights of other citizens. There is no scientific evidence that abortion threatens the security or rights of any citizens. Therefore, there is no reason to ban it or defund organizations that provide it. Please explain to me how this is a moral judgment. I have no opinion on whether it is right or wrong, moral or immoral. It is amoral.

Judging based on whether or not threatens action threaten security and rights =/= moral judgment.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
1. A statement that makes you feel emotion is not an emotional appeal.
2. Please show me where I said "abortion is not killing/murder". (Hint: I haven't. I have said A) That there is no scientific proof that it is murder. B) That I do not perceive it as murder). In other words, I have not made an argument of any kind nor would I ever. Therefore, your complaint is irrelevant.

1. I'll admit that I'm superior when I start trying to limit other people's behavior so that they live according to my subjective morality - you do that, not me. Stop projecting.
2. To me, abortion is an amoral medical procedure, particularly relative to the government's opinion of it.
Click to expand...

Based on your own subjective morality. Plain and simple.

I make decisions about laws/funding based on whether or not the actions in question threaten the security and rights of other citizens. There is no scientific evidence that abortion threatens the security or rights of any citizens. Therefore, there is no reason to ban it or defund organizations that provide it. Please explain to me how this is a moral judgment. I have no opinion on whether it is right or wrong, moral or immoral. It is amoral.

Judging based on whether or not threatens action threaten security and rights =/= moral judgment.
Click to expand...

Laws are morals. Any law you agree to or disagree with is demonstrating your own morality. Lack of morality, in your words, is morality. You are injecting your own morality into this argument and faulting others for doing the same.
 
mac said:
Based on your own subjective morality. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Something cannot be amoral and moral/immoral at the same time. That doesn't make any sense.

a·mor·al   
1.not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
2.having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

Amoral | Define Amoral at Dictionary.com

For me, abortion is an amoral topic. In other words, my evaluation of abortion does not involve questions of right or wrong, the moral quality of the act or place no value on the morality or immorality of the procedure. I do not believe that abortion is moral or immoral - I believe that it is amoral. You need to understand that amorality is not morality. It's not that difficult.

Laws are morals. Any law you agree to or disagree with is demonstrating your own morality. Lack of morality, in your words, is morality. You are injecting your own morality into this argument and faulting others for doing the same.
Click to expand...
That is a ridiculous statement. I evaluate laws (that restrict behavior) based on whether or not they prevent threats to my safety or rights - that is an amoral, practical way of evaluating laws. If it doesn't prevent either then I think it needs to go - hence why laws against abortion and gay marriage don't belong anywhere.

You need to understand that morality involves evaluations of right and wrong. 1) I don't view abortion as either right or wrong. It just is. 2) Laws can and are made without considering right or wrong.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
Something cannot be amoral and moral/immoral at the same time. That doesn't make any sense.

a·mor·al   
1.not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
2.having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

Amoral | Define Amoral at Dictionary.com

For me, abortion is an amoral topic. In other words, my evaluation of abortion does not involve questions of right or wrong, the moral quality of the act or place no value on the morality or immorality of the procedure. I do not believe that abortion is moral or immoral - I believe that it is amoral. You need to understand that amorality is not morality. It's not that difficult.
Click to expand...

That makes absolutely no sense. "For me" --- "Abortion is an amoral topic"

How do you not see/understand this?!?

You need to understand that morality involves evaluations of right and wrong. 1) I don't view abortion as either right or wrong. It just is. 2) Laws can and are made without considering right or wrong.
Click to expand...

You need to understand that this is exactly what you are doing. Whether or not YOU see it as an amoral action doesn't make it amoral. You, are injecting a subjective judgement....a moral.
 
mac said:
That makes absolutely no sense. "For me" --- "Abortion is an amoral topic"

How do you not see/understand this?!?

You need to understand that this is exactly what you are doing. Whether or not YOU see it as an amoral action doesn't make it amoral. You, are injecting a subjective judgement....a moral.
Click to expand...

For some people, taking Tylenol is an issue of morality. For most of us, taking Tylenol is an AMORAL action (it has no value of right or wrong).
For some people, abortion is an issue of morality. For others, abortion is an amoral procedure (it has no value of right or wrong).

This is so easy to understand. Something that is an issue of morality for you is NOT necessarily an issue of morality for others. See my example on taking Tylenol and how pretty much everyone thinks of it as an amoral act except for some hardcore Christians.

Edit: Let me list some things that are amoral for most people: wearing skirts, taking Tylenol, dancing, drinking, getting tattoos, going to birthday parties, etc. And yet, though they are amoral for most of us, they are issues of morality for others. Include abortion on this list relative to me.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
You have a point and yet your point in no way shows that abortion is the main agenda of Planned Parenthood - so we're back at square one.:shrug:
Click to expand...

every medical instutition under the sun can give you a pap smear. It costs about $300, probably less if you're willing to pay cash. medicaid already subsidizes it for those as can't afford. as for PP's "birth control": Consumer Reports says they are the most substandard of all brands tested.. Not that an organization opened for the purpose of enacing a Eugenicist progam on the American populace would ever hand out substandard condoms in order to give people a false sense of security, of course....

Planned Parenthoods' Reason For Being at this point (I would say they've probably weeded out most of the Eugenics nuts from their ranks) is Abortion. They are the largest and most reliable provider of it in the nation. Saying that PP isn't "about" abortion because they do other things is like saying that the KKK wasn't "about" torturing, intimidating, and murdering black people because they also went' after deadbeat dads.

from the same link:

...Planned Parenthood operates nearly 850 centers nationwide. It distributes between seven and ten million condoms a year and performs more abortions than any other business.

The controversy has led some to speculate that Planned Parenthood’s faulty condoms are likely to increase the abortion rate at Planned Parenthood centers.

Planned Parenthood’s annual report does show an increase in abortions at its facilities. The number of surgical abortions at Planned Parenthood grew 6.1 percent, according to STOPP International, a group that monitors Planned Parenthood.

"Increases in abortions, more money from taxpayers’ pockets, and bigger profit margins — all while clinics are closing down and donations are dwindling. That is the state of Planned Parenthood," said STOPP International Executive Director Jim Sedlak...
Click to expand...
 
VanceMack said:
With any luck they will completely eliminate the federal Health Departments and return control (and budgeting) to the states where they belong. Ive got MY fingers crossed...
Click to expand...

But if they do this would it not hurt poor folks in poor states as you know those States are probably gonna cut funding in reguards to folks getting much needed healthcare?
 
cpwill said:
every medical instutition under the sun can give you a pap smear. It costs about $300, probably less if you're willing to pay cash. medicaid already subsidizes it for those as can't afford. as for PP's "birth control": Consumer Reports says they are the most substandard of all brands tested.. Not that an organization opened for the purpose of enacing a Eugenicist progam on the American populace would ever hand out substandard condoms in order to give people a false sense of security, of course....

Planned Parenthoods' Reason For Being at this point (I would say they've probably weeded out most of the Eugenics nuts from their ranks) is Abortion. They are the largest and most reliable provider of it in the nation. Saying that PP isn't "about" abortion because they do other things is like saying that the KKK wasn't "about" torturing, intimidating, and murdering black people because they also went' after deadbeat dads.

from the same link:
Click to expand...

I can see how someone would come to the conclusion that their main agenda is abortion particularly given its history, but the fact that they spend the majority of their time on prevention and other services does not lead me to make that conclusion. I agree that abortion is a huge part of their purpose, but I think their main agenda is to provide general women's health services, particularly in poor areas - abortion is part of those services. The fact that they exist as a safe place for women who want abortions to go without feeling judged and that they exist mostly in poor areas where unexpected pregnancies happens explains to me why they are one of the leading providers of abortion - I don't see the cause as backed by so much intention.
 
Barbbtx said:
You'd be surprised at how many people would take them up on that offer. I've never heard of anyone getting an abortion because she couldn't find anyone who would absolutely love to adopt the baby.
Click to expand...

So a woman should be forced to carry a child simply because she may be able to find someone willing to adopt it? I do not think so:(
 
theplaydrive said:
There are a lot of children waiting to be adopted who will never be adopted that beg to differ....
Click to expand...

I feel they need to relax the crap you must go through to adopt-they are way too picky and make folks jump through hoops. Too much red tape and it cost too much too. Not saying they should not screen folks but they could be more lax about it.
 
Kali said:
I feel they need to relax the crap you must go through to adopt-they are way too picky and make folks jump through hoops. Too much red tape and it cost too much too. Not saying they should not screen folks but they could be more lax about it.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. They are especially hard on single people who want to adopt, unmarried couples and gay couples. If they loosened those standards, I think a lot more kids would find loving homes.
 
mac said:
The label "unwanted" for one. Dramatizing the existence of un-adopted kids as legitimization of abortion.

You're appealing to emotion, buddy, face it.
Click to expand...

Still never heard a woman say she got an abortion because she couldn't find a loving family begging to adopt him. All she'd have to do is open up a newspaper or phone book. But no, abortion is easier. Just don't use the excuse that they are "unwanted". They are very much wanted, just not by the biological mother.
 
Kali said:
So a woman should be forced to carry a child simply because she may be able to find someone willing to adopt it? I do not think so:(
Click to expand...

No, she is free to be selfish. I just don't like people using the excuse that the baby is "unwanted". Also, there is no "may" about it. She could find a loving home if she wanted to.
 
theplaydrive said:
I agree with that. They are especially hard on single people who want to adopt, unmarried couples and gay couples. If they loosened those standards, I think a lot more kids would find loving homes.
Click to expand...

There are also open adoptions where the mother can choose the parents, parent. I think it's a little riskier though, especially for the adoptive parents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom