• 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!

Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservatives’ Sway

mac said:
Do we need to dig up every far left nut job that has committed violent acts for their cause?
Click to expand...
Left-wing people who do this:

ter·ror·ism   
[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Click to expand...

are also terrorists.

mac said:
]Calling politicians terrorists for pursuing their political agenda is asinine.
Click to expand...
He's not talking about politicians - he's talking about people who did this:

ter·ror·ism   
[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Click to expand...
 
theplaydrive said:
He's not talking about politicians - he's talking about people who did this:
Click to expand...

He was equating politicians to the people that did those things, and it's stupid.
 
theplaydrive said:
That's a good question.

I think they should be charged with murdering the unborn child as well, but not for any rational reason - only because he's a murderer anyway and his intent was malicious.
Click to expand...

So you wouod charge them with murder of the baby only for the emotional appeal, huh?
 
theplaydrive said:
We're not talking about emotion - we're talking about emotional appeal. Focus.
Click to expand...

Is it just the sub-literates who want to abort babies?

I've mentioned "emotional appeal" several times! Haven't you noticed?

Focus!
 
Grant said:
Is it just the sub-literates who want to abort babies?

I've mentioned "emotional appeal" several times! Haven't you noticed?

Focus!
Click to expand...

My comment was in response to this:
Grant said:
There is no real reasons why there shouldn't be a display of emotions when human life is involved. Would the Leftists really prefer that no emotion was involved in the deaths of babies? Or the elderly, infirm, the handicapped or people otherwise dependent on our help??
Click to expand...

You're talking about emotion here, not emotional appeals. Like I said, focus.
 
theplaydrive said:
My comment was in response to this:


You're talking about emotion here, not emotional appeals. Like I said, focus.
Click to expand...

And my response still applies! It's not up to you to decide what is an applicable response is or choose whether I want to say "emotion", "emotional" or "emotional appeal". It's all related. Much more so than a comatose person and a baby in the womb, by the way.

There should have been some notification if you've been appointed to control the dialogue on these boards and how others choose to respond.
 
Grant said:
And my response still applies! It's not up to you to decide what is an applicable response is or choose whether I want to say "emotion", "emotional" or "emotional appeal". It's all related. Much more so than a comatose person and a baby in the womb, by the way.

There should have been some notification if you've been appointed to control the dialogue on these boards and how others choose to respond.
Click to expand...

Actually this comment makes no sense in this conversation:
Grant said:
There is no real reasons why there shouldn't be a display of emotions when human life is involved. Would the Leftists really prefer that no emotion was involved in the deaths of babies? Or the elderly, infirm, the handicapped or people otherwise dependent on our help??
Click to expand...

Because what you're saying is that when I (and others) point out your (and others) emotional appeals we are trying to take out emotion from the entire abortion issue. No one has suggested that at all - we have not suggested that you take out emotion, we have suggested that you take out emotional appeals. Those are two different things. Focus.
 
Grant said:
So it was just to make you feel good? A little more upbeat? Let a little sunshine into your life?
Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much. It's a bad reason to make a decision isn't it?
 
theplaydrive said:
Actually this comment makes no sense in this conversation:


Because what you're saying is that when I (and others) point out your (and others) emotional appeals we are trying to take out emotion from the entire abortion issue. No one has suggested that at all - we have not suggested that you take out emotion, we have suggested that you take out emotional appeals. Those are two different things. Focus.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, and I say this only to examine the possibilities, you don't have any real insight or understanding as to what is being said.

That's something you might want to consider.

In the meanwhile, why not respond to what is written and not try to determine the direction the debate takes, as long as it remains on track.
 
theplaydrive said:
Yep, pretty much. It's a bad reason to make a decision isn't it?
Click to expand...

Not really. Human beings often make decisions based on their emotions. Some of these decisions have positive consequences and others negative.

It's all part of life's rich pageantry.
 
Grant said:
Perhaps, and I say this only to examine the possibilities, you don't have any real insight or understanding as to what is being said.

That's something you might want to consider.

In the meanwhile, why not respond to what is written and not try to determine the direction the debate takes, as long as it remains on track.
Click to expand...

By making this comment, you are saying that "Leftists" would prefer to remove emotion from the entire situation and discussion of abortion. Nobody has argued that and I'm pretty sure no one believes that, so what was the purpose of that comment. If I have no insight into the meaning of this comment - explain it.

Grant said:
There is no real reasons why there shouldn't be a display of emotions when human life is involved. Would the Leftists really prefer that no emotion was involved in the deaths of babies? Or the elderly, infirm, the handicapped or people otherwise dependent on our help??
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
Not really. Human beings often make decisions based on their emotions. Some of these decisions have positive consequences and others negative.

It's all part of life's rich pageantry.
Click to expand...

Well, in general, I argue that we should not judge law and punishment based on emotion - so from my perspective, it would be a pretty mad reason to make such a decision. But I agree that emotion based decisions are sometimes good, particularly in one's personal life.
 
Grant said:
Hey, don't get me wrong, Mertex. I'm all for the Democrats refusing to drill for oil and giving big oil companies the heave-ho. I'm Canadian and as a result of our exporting oil to the US our economy is booming! Be sure to vote Democrat as long as you can and always get out there to protest big oil or drilling for the filthy stuff. We'll do the dirty work up here and, despite your dollar collapsing, we will still, as long time friends, accept them.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get the idea that Democrats refuse to drill for oil - Democrats are just not predisposed to coddle the oil companies as the Republicans do. The recent problem we had with BP came about due to the previous administration not enforcing stiff regulations against the companies, which resulted in serious damage to the environment. And nobody is giving the oil companies the heave-ho. I'm glad your economy is booming, perhaps the main reason being you don't have Republicans mucking it up. But considering your economy is booming, your unemployment rate is not all that much lower than ours.

I don't wait for anyone else to plan my future, Mertex, I do it myself. Isn't that what Americans used to do?
Click to expand...
Most Americans still do, but some are hoping that some of the money from the wealthy will trickle down, don't want to upset the super wealthy by making sure they pay their fair share.

And apparently the most important rights today are the right to abortion and government handouts.
Click to expand...
As a Canadian I don't see reason for your concern with what rights we consider important here in the US, since it doesn't affect you, but apparently abortion was an important right in Canada at some time, being that Canada has no restrictions on it.


Wiki:
Abortion in Canada is not limited by the law (on-demand, no time limit). While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion.

And, you most certainly have a Welfare system, so I don't understand your uppity attitude about that.


Perhaps we're not taxing the rich enough, or the greedy corporations either, because there's certainly a lot of them moving up here.
Click to expand...
That may not be the reason they are moving up there, maybe they have just found some new suckers to squeeze money out of. But, you can't possibly be taxing corporations less than we do, why we had one of our biggest corporations, GE, not pay any taxes at all. Bet you can't top that!
 
Grant said:
I also see emotional appeals from pro abortionists.

There is no real reasons why there shouldn't be a display of emotions when human life is involved. Would the Leftists really prefer that no emotion was involved in the deaths of babies? Or the elderly, infirm, the handicapped or people otherwise dependent on our help??
Click to expand...

This from someone that lives in a country where abortion has no legal limits? And, most of the people favor euthanasia? And, not to mention have publicly funded health care? Seems to me you should be trying to get your own house in order before you start meddling in someone else's.

In Canada, access to health services is guaranteed by the Canada Health Act. Abortion is considered a safe, legal, insured and funded service, meaning that a woman should not have to pay for abortion services in Canada.

National Abortion Federation: Access to Abortion in Canada


(Angus Reid Global Monitor) – Most people in Canada support the legalization of euthanasia, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 67 per cent of respondents share this point of view, down four points since August.
Most Canadians Generally Agree with Euthanasia | Vision Critical


Wiki:
Health care in Canada is delivered through a publicly-funded health care system, which is mostly free at the point of use and has most services provided by private entities.
 
Grant said:
But it's right to call Communists "Fascists".
Click to expand...

No, you are still not getting it. A communist is a communist. However, every attempt at communism on a larger scale ends up being fascism. Communism ALWAYS fails. Are you getting it, yet?

Now you can read as well as I can, Captain Courtesy, and can see I asked you a question. Therefore it should be obvious you didn't say that.
Click to expand...

Good. Then stop ascribing positions to me that I do not hold.


Fair enough.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I'm calling Communists what Communists called Communists. Everyone called Communists Communists and you're the only one I've heard of who has ever called them Fascists.
Click to expand...

You're STILL not getting what I'm saying. Read my first comment in this thread.

Now perhaps the dream didn't go as expected and things didn't work out as planned but that should have been obvious in the 1920's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. Yet the Leftists still continued to support Communists and Communism, as they saw it was, not how they envisioned it should be. They never claimed at the time that it wasn't doing well or that it was "Fascism". Instead it was Ronald "Ray Gun" who was the right wing ideologist and a danger to the world. And the Leftists were all looking for wisdom and leadership in Mao's "Little Red Book". Mao, of course, was also the murderer of millions. I suppose he was a Fascist also, right? And Fidel a Fascist too..
Click to expand...

What are you ranting about? You do know that not everyone who is leftwing is also a communist, right? Black and white, Grant... remember, you agreed that not everything is black or white.


Right. Mussolini was never a Socialist, no matter what he and others might claim. He was a Fascist before Fascism even existed!
Click to expand...

You do understand that Mussolin rejected socialism and is the "father of modern fascism". He stated quite clearly that is was NOT a leftwing ideology.

Is that so? I'd never heard of that before either.
Click to expand...

Interesting. It eeks from near every one of your posts.

Yes, I know. It's always a grand revolutionary idea the Leftists have but then for some reason, through no fault of their own, things screw up very badly. Their ideologies are great, they just seem to have a lot of bad luck with them once they're implemented.
Click to expand...

Right wing ideologies such as fascism are SO successful, though. :lol:


Hey, you won me over. Communism was really Fascism. I'll pass the word along.
Click to expand...

Hey... you STILL don't understand what I am saying. Congratulations.
 
dolphinocean said:
What emotional appeal and straw man?

The "shredding into bloody pieces of a tiny helpless human being in the womb and sucking them out " is simply a description of an abortion procedure called "Dilation and Curettage" (D&C). It's a fact. How then can you say it's "Nothing but an appeal to emotion and a straw man argument"?

Susan Smith did not want her two children because her wealthy lover had told her he didn't want a ready made family. As such the children would get in the way of her pursuit of her happiness. She didn't want to give them up to her husband or put them up for adoption for the very same reason abortive women wouldn't. As such, Susan Smith's two children were just as "unwanted" as those unborns you condemned as "unwanted". It's a fact. How then can you say it's "Nothing but an appeal to emotion and a straw man argument"?
Click to expand...

Just as I said. All you are doing is appealing to emotion "the poor little human, boo hoo." That's an appeal to emotion logical fallacy. Make your argument without the dramatics and I won't have to call you on it.

Your straw man argument is claiming I made an argument I never made. I never said that my answer to the complex question of what to do with unwanted chidren due to lack of abortions is to abort them. I asked a question, one which no one, including you, has answered. Again, I won't have to call you out on logical fallacies if you don't make them.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Just as I said. All you are doing is appealing to emotion "the poor little human, boo hoo." That's an appeal to emotion logical fallacy. Make your argument without the dramatics and I won't have to call you on it.
Click to expand...

I did actually answer the question. It just happens you didn't like my answer.

Right wing ideologies such as fascism are SO successful, though.
Click to expand...

How does the father of fascism saying its not left make it not left? Was that not what you just said? That because he said it wasn't it wasn't?
 
Demon of Light said:
The issue is always more complex, but I am not nearly interested enough in refuting the absurdity of the argument in detail. If Planned Parenthood were to be shut down as a result of defunding, not a certainty, it might inconvenience the people who use it and possibly make it difficult for a small portion of them to receive some of the services offered, but the kind of rhetoric being thrown around about Planned Parenthood is greatly exaggerating its importance.
Click to expand...

And this is your problem. You refuse to look at the complexity of the situation, which is my whole point. Behaviors and actions have consequences, consequences that affect many more than what you are considering. You are failing to either grasp or address the entire issue. Either way, your position flounders because of that.

Lol, I wasn't telling you for any other reason than because I think it would be the correct thing to say. You can spin it around however you like and get all paranoid, but I was merely suggesting you should adopt a position that I consider correct.
Click to expand...

Just because you consider it correct, doesn't make it so... a fact that you seem to forget... and one I always enjoy pointing out. You are incorrect.

So are you telling me you think there will not be more of these issues? If you insist you were not stating an absolute than that would mean you are suggesting these might not be an issue at all yet you are insisting I provide a solution for these problems that are already present. Of course, I was reading between the lines of your comments since I know how people on the "pro-choice" side tend to debate. As it stands you have yet to deviate from the typical path of debate. The nonsense of saying "Oh but these children will be abused; it will put even greater strains on social services, the budget, and our economy; and there will be serious health risks if you go and stop killing babies!" is just par for the course. That is an appeal to emotion.
Click to expand...

Not an appeal to emotion at all. All accurate statements. It's a real simple fact of numbers, DoL. Increase the population, increase the need for services, materials, food, etc... VERY SIMPLE economics. Further, children who are not wanted tend to be treated as such. All of this is the reality of how things operate. Now, I know that the way that pro-lifers tend to debate is outside the parameters of reality and planning, but that does not alter my intention to present those real issues.

Are you saying calling for the mass-murder of people for their race genocide is appeal to emotion?
Click to expand...

Nope.

If not are you suggesting that I am lying when I say that I truly consider abortion to be the mass slaughter of children?
Click to expand...

Do you believe it? Yup. Is it an appeal to emotion? Yup.

Those are the only two options you have there.
Click to expand...

I've told you before. You do not decide how I debate. I do... as I just demonstrated. You can keep trying, but I will ignore and mock you each time you try this.

It is not an appeal to emotion. How many people do you think would be making the arguments you are making for allowing abortion if it was widely recognized that they were as human as the rest of us?
Click to expand...

I accept that they are human. And I am still making the argument that I am making. You have failed AGAIN. You do not understand the argument.

The situation would not be different, however. It would only mean that the issues might be larger. Like I said, your demand is illegitimate because someone who believes it is the slaughter of innocent human life for no good reason is not going to think first about the consequences and second about stopping it. How about, for once, someone on your side actually debate the issue of abortion itself? Tell me why the near certainty of human consciousness in a matter of months after conception does not merit the same protections other people have. Explain to me how you would go about determining a cut-off point for when the unborn are worthy of said protections and are not, since I assume you believe there is a point where such protections should exist.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to what I am discussing with you. You can try to change because you cannot or will not answer the question, but that does not mean that I will allow you to slink away from it. You want abortion to stop. One thing you need for that to happen is to convince some of us who could be swayed. I am telling one way to do that. This argument is an argument that lots of pro-choicers put out there... and one that pro-lifers refuse to answer. Your emotional concerns for the unborn are irrelevant to me... and if you want to sway me, you need to focus on what IS relevant. What would be your plan to manage all of the additional chidren that would be alive if abortion no longer happened?

That is just a difference in how we view the law. You believe the physical institutions of the State and the force to impose their decisions are the only things that matter and my belief is that there is a natural law overriding any institutions of man with that belief being the very basis of constitutional government.
Click to expand...

And as I said, your belief is irrelevant considering what exists. It woud serve you better if you debated what is real as opposed to what you wish.

"Most" providers? From what I can tell that is definitely wrong.
Click to expand...

Demonstrating that you do not know what you are talking about. I work with providers, daily. Very few take Medicaid.

I am just demonstrating how many places get funding to provide these services to the poor.
Click to expand...

OK.


Actually, that just means 11% of their clients received abortions that year. It does not reflect how much of that takes up their efforts. One must keep in mind that at present only a third of their facilities offer abortions so it would suggest those facilities provide far more abortions than anything else.
Click to expand...

That's you parsing the numbers. It also means that 2/3 of their facilities have nothing to do with abortions.
 
Henrin said:
I did actually answer the question. It just happens you didn't like my answer.
Click to expand...

Your answer was a non-answer. You didn't care. Sorry. Not an answer.

How does the father of fascism saying its not left make it not left? Was that not what you just said? That because he said it wasn't it wasn't?
Click to expand...

If you read Mussolini, he was pretty clear around some of the leftwing concepts that he rejected. His philosophy was decidedly NOT leftwing.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Your answer was a non-answer. You didn't care. Sorry. Not an answer.
Click to expand...

Your point was that collateral damage would result. My answer was yes I know. Life is collateral damage, and so is law. Still, what the collateral damage would be would be decided on what I said my punishment was.

If you read Mussolini, he was pretty clear around some of the leftwing concepts that he rejected. His philosophy was decidedly NOT leftwing.
Click to expand...

What he said on his ideas is not what characterizes his ideas.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Your point was that collateral damage would result. My answer was yes I know. Life is collateral damage, and so is law. Still, what the collateral damage would be would be decided on what I said my punishment was.
Click to expand...

Repost your answer and refresh my memory. Not what I remember.



What he said on his ideas is not what characterizes his ideas.
Click to expand...

What you think characterizes his ideas is not what characterizes his ideas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom