• 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!

Is Abortion wrong?

Is abortion wrong?


  • Total voters
    49
killing your kid is killing your kid. the only difference between getting an abortion
and dumping your baby in a dumpster to die after it's born is a matter of legality.


that is nothing more than you opinion and one thats easily defeatable in THIS instance since viability and the law are on my side and there nothing but your opinion on yours.

legality is a VERY important part LMAO

two I love how we now dropped the idea of "responsibility" from the post you originally addressed like it has no barring

and 3 how you left out the chopping off of a daughter's head

how convenient and frankly absurd LOL

Acting like those are the same is asinine and dishonest or complete ignorance. Pick one or all of them.
 
Is murder wrong? Because if it is then abortion is wrong. Abortion is the taking of a human life. Abortion is murder. Doctors who perform abortions are murderers. Abortion is legalized murder of innocent unborn human beings.
 
Is murder wrong? Because if it is then abortion is wrong. Abortion is the taking of a human life. Abortion is murder. Doctors who perform abortions are murderers. Abortion is legalized murder of innocent unborn human beings.

no such think as legalized murder LMAO

murder by definition is illegal, since abortion is not illegal it is infact not "murder" :shrug:
 
According to whom? In order for abortion to be murder, one would need to prove personhood.


:waiting:

not only that to prove MURDER a CRIME or something ILLEGAL would have to be committed also.
Since no law is broken nor is a crime committed there is in fact no "murder" committed
 
Abortion is killing for the sake of convenience.

Some people like and support that convenience.
 
Abortion is killing for the sake of convenience.

Some people like and support that convenience.

you are free to have that opinion
 
As you are.

This is true, thankfully I will never have that opinion though. Because common sense reality and logic take over and I would never make such a bias ignorant blanket statement.

but you are right, I would be free to think any ridiculous thought I wanted to if I wanted too.
 
This is true, thankfully I will never have that opinion though. Because common sense reality and logic take over and I would never make such a bias ignorant blanket statement.

but you are right, I would be free to think any ridiculous thought I wanted to if I wanted too.

Don't to talk to me of common sense, reality, and logic as though you have any actual understanding of their meanings. Don't patronize me. One man's logic is another man's delusion; who are you to say you can't be the prior?
 
Don't to talk to me of common sense, reality, and logic as though you have any actual understanding of their meanings. Don't patronize me. One man's logic is another man's delusion; who are you to say you can't be the prior?

So you are just going to try to ignore the fact that you made an inaccurate bias ignorant blanket statement.?

Fine by me I didnt expect anything different really. LOL
 
Abortion is killing for the sake of convenience.

Some people like and support that convenience.

Not all abortions are performed for the sake of 'convenience.'

'Killing' implies the existence of a human being to be killed.

Don't to talk to me of common sense, reality, and logic as though you have any actual understanding of their meanings. Don't patronize me. One man's logic is another man's delusion; who are you to say you can't be the prior?

I seem to recall you mentioning you're a Christian, therefore, there's a certain hypocrisy in these criticisms about reality and logic.
 
that's not the "natural order". the natural order of man, and most other species, is that of the male dominating the female.
when this order is disregarded like it is now? you see what happens. moral decay. social disintegration and chaos. the destruction
of the family unit. if any woman would EVER kill my child behind my back....whether born or unborn.....she better be willing to pay
quite the high price for that action. she'd be lucky to be alive afterwards.

Right. Because the past of slavery, beating, rape, rampant genocide, poverty, starvation and disease is such a wonderful thing, isn't it. Oh, and infanticide.

Your desire to re-write history to make it convenient for espousing sexism does not make it so.

Truth is, human societies are more kind, conscientious, orderly, and moral than they have ever been. It's true that much of the world hasn't gotten there yet, but most of it is better than it was a few hundreds years ago, and eventually, as society continues to march forward, the stragglers will catch up. And what's interesting about the societies with the best outcomes is that every single one of them has adopted gender equality (among other things).

In addition, matriarchies both in the wild and in human societies can and do happen. You're simply wrong on every level.
 
Last edited:
Not all abortions are performed for the sake of 'convenience.'

'Killing' implies the existence of a human being to be killed.



I seem to recall you mentioning you're a Christian, therefore, there's a certain hypocrisy in these criticisms about reality and logic.

It's not hypocrisy if you acknowledge all beliefs cannot be absolutely proven. I believe my belief and acknowledge it as unable to be scientifically proven.It is faith. Unlike the other, I don't claim my belief as common sense, logic, or reality.

With abortion one issue is the point when a developing human is a human, if there even is a point. It's a matter of opinion.
 
that is nothing more than you opinion and one thats easily defeatable in THIS instance since viability and the law are on my side and there nothing but your opinion on yours.

legality is a VERY important part LMAO

two I love how we now dropped the idea of "responsibility" from the post you originally addressed like it has no barring

and 3 how you left out the chopping off of a daughter's head

how convenient and frankly absurd LOL

Acting like those are the same is asinine and dishonest or complete ignorance. Pick one or all of them.

yes. legality. i've already been over the "legality" of dehumanizing a certain segment of the population
for reasons of convenience. it was done with the blacks during slavery in america and with the jews
in nazi germany. these people were defined legally sub-human, as has been the unborn child in
contemporary times. legality.
 
yes. legality. i've already been over the "legality" of dehumanizing a certain segment of the population
for reasons of convenience. it was done with the blacks during slavery in america and with the jews
in nazi germany. these people were defined legally sub-human, as has been the unborn child in
contemporary times. legality.

*Waits for someone to scream Godwin while ignoring your decent points*
 
It's not hypocrisy if you acknowledge all beliefs cannot be absolutely proven.

Not so fast. Yes, admittedly, true objectivity is impossible, as we cannot go outside the brain. However, presumably you have reconciled this.

Also, there is a fundamental difference between these two scientific claims;

A: Jesus Christ is the savior and the son of god.

B: The melting point of Cobalt is 1768K.

I believe my belief and acknowledge it as unable to be scientifically proven.It is faith. Unlike the other, I don't claim my belief as common sense, logic, or reality.

With abortion one issue is the point when a developing human is a human, if there even is a point. It's a matter of opinion.

Oh, it absolutely could be scientifically proven, if it were true. The proposition that Jesus Christ is the savior, and son of the one true god, and all the other propositions made in scripture are scientific claims; they are exceptionally bad ones. To state that anything actually represents the world is to make a scientific claim.
 
According to whom? In order for abortion to be murder, one would need to prove personhood.


:waiting:

It is a person. Liberals are always saying that the joined egg & sperm isn't life, but this is merely an excuse so that they can support abortion.

Aren't liberals supposed to be the compassionate ones?
 
It is a person. Liberals are always saying that the joined egg & sperm isn't life, but this is merely an excuse so that they can support abortion.

I have no interest in defending anyone's position, other than my own. As an atheist, I believe that humans are entirely biological, therefore, I define a human being based on biological sufficient conditions. The biological sufficient conditions of a human being are human DNA, and a minimum of functional neural hardware. Virtually all of aborted embyos fail to meet these criteria, therefore, they should not be considered human.

This really is the main crux of the issue, revolving around morality, and the definition of what constitutes a human being. The Pro-Choice side is more secular, defining human beings by biological criteria, the Pro-Life side defines human beings by a magical essence. Pro-Choicers are almost universally consequentialists, utilitarians, whereas Pro-Lifers tend to be deontologists, believing in an absolute morality derived from scripture.

Aren't liberals supposed to be the compassionate ones?

Liberals aren't the only ones who are Pro-Choice. I'm not a Liberal, and I'm Pro-Choice.

While we're talking about compassion, it's worth noting that Pro-Lifers are significantly more enthusiastic about war, capital punishment, and torture, than Pro-Choicers. Since you mentioned it.
 
I have no interest in defending anyone's position, other than my own. As an atheist, I believe that humans are entirely biological, therefore, I define a human being based on biological sufficient conditions. The biological sufficient conditions of a human being are human DNA, and a minimum of functional neural hardware. Virtually all of aborted embyos fail to meet these criteria, therefore, they should not be considered human.

This really is the main crux of the issue, revolving around morality, and the definition of what constitutes a human being. The Pro-Choice side is more secular, defining human beings by biological criteria, the Pro-Life side defines human beings by a magical essence. Pro-Choicers are almost universally consequentialists, utilitarians, whereas Pro-Lifers tend to be deontologists, believing in an absolute morality derived from scripture.



Liberals aren't the only ones who are Pro-Choice. I'm not a Liberal, and I'm Pro-Choice.

While we're talking about compassion, it's worth noting that Pro-Lifers are significantly more enthusiastic about war, capital punishment, and torture, than Pro-Choicers. Since you mentioned it.

I find it interesting that since the left wants abortion, suddenly it's not a human.

As for compassion, war may be unavoidable, capital punishment seeks justice against the guilty, and what you call torture, may be necessary in order to save lives. But you forget that those involved in war, and crime, are hardly innocent, as are the babies that the left refuse to acknowledge, and are all too willing to kill.
 
I find it interesting that since the left wants abortion, suddenly it's not a human.

As for compassion, war may be unavoidable, capital punishment seeks justice against the guilty, and what you call torture, may be necessary in order to save lives. But you forget that those involved in war, and crime, are hardly innocent, as are the babies that the left refuse to acknowledge, and are all too willing to kill.

Suddenly not human? It never was. Back in "the old days," even an infant wasn't a human. They didn't even get names until they had survived for a month or two after birth. It's even in the Bible, which anti-choicers love to use. There's no "suddenly," and our ancestors had good reasons for thinking that way - an infant is not self-aware, and is completely helpless and vulnerable to everything. Human infants are pre-mature compared to most mammals. We've actually gotten a lot kinder. Now infanticide is illegal - even late-term abortion is illegal, since the fetus can feel pain and live outside the womb.

You have a justification for every type of violence except the violence against something that isn't even alive - a fetus.

War is avoidable, and kills tons of civilians. Capital punishment isn't justice, it's just government-sanctioned murder, which in turn makes the society think murder is ok rather than detering it, AND they sometimes murder the wrong person. Torture is a lousy interrogation method in addition to its general cruelty.

It's just amazing how you can look at unjust violence against genuine human beings, often innocent, and see no problem at all. In those cases, you think humans in their violence are infallible and an eye for an eye renders you just, not blind.

But then you look at a sack of cells swirling around in a transparent membrance that's vaguely mammal-shaped and rail about how we're "killing babies." Oh brother.
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting that since the left wants abortion, suddenly it's not a human.

The Left is not a unified front. Also, there are right-wing Pro-Choicers, however, they are a minority.

As for compassion, war may be unavoidable,

War is always avoidable. The common man has absolutely no stake in it, and never has. Wars are virtually, universally squabbles between elites, regardless who wins, the common man always loses.

capital punishment seeks justice against the guilty,

Capital punishment necessitates, by nature, a certain percentage of individuals will be wrongfully executed. In either case, I don't see anything just about it.

and what you call torture, may be necessary in order to save lives. But you forget that those involved in war, and crime, are hardly innocent, as are the babies that the left refuse to acknowledge, and are all too willing to kill.

This skirts the central issue; What are the sufficient conditions of a human being? You believe it's a magic essence. I call that nonsense.
 
Last edited:
I have no interest in defending anyone's position, other than my own. As an atheist, I believe that humans are entirely biological, therefore, I define a human being based on biological sufficient conditions. The biological sufficient conditions of a human being are human DNA, and a minimum of functional neural hardware. Virtually all of aborted embyos fail to meet these criteria, therefore, they should not be considered human.

Why is function part of the formula? Its not, its a qualifier that you picked and nothing else.

This really is the main crux of the issue, revolving around morality, and the definition of what constitutes a human being. The Pro-Choice side is more secular, defining human beings by biological criteria, the Pro-Life side defines human beings by a magical essence. Pro-Choicers are almost universally consequentialists, utilitarians, whereas Pro-Lifers tend to be deontologists, believing in an absolute morality derived from scripture.

While we're talking about compassion, it's worth noting that Pro-Lifers are significantly more enthusiastic about war, capital punishment, and torture, than Pro-Choicers. Since you mentioned it.

Generalizations are generally not helpful.

War is always avoidable. The common man has absolutely no stake in it, and never has. Wars are virtually, universally squabbles between elites, regardless who wins, the common man always loses.

Another generalization. War can be helpful to the common man, and have been a few times in history.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom