• 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!

When Should Mandatory Abortions be implemented in the United States?

When Should Mandatory Abortions be implemented in the United States?

  • As soon as possible. There are many people that shouldn't be having kids.

    Votes: 7 63.6%

  • Within 50 years. We're not quite ready but we are almost there.

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • 51-200 years. Some people are so stupid that they think aborition is wrong.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 201-1000 years. This is the most advanced dream of abortionist. It takes lots of time.

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .
I think attempting to compare the general social structure and what the public finds "acceptable" in the United States and China is a bit ridiculous, not to mention the processes in each country in which this would have to come to pass. Not to mention your ridiculously hyperbolic take on comparing the level of controversy and support for mandatory abortions, thus occuring against the INDIVIDUALS will, as it'd relate to the support for allowing abortions to be legal. In part because you, in an obvious fashion, purposefully ignore any sense of logic or reason or intellectual honesty regarding the reasons why many of those who support abortion being legal do...because they feel that the individual should have a choice of what they do to their body. FORCING abortions onto folks would actually result in a coilition of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" individuals joining together in opposition to it..."pro-life" folks opposing it because it still is taking the life of a child in their opinion, and "pro-choice" folk opposing it because it removes the ability of a woman to chose what is done to her body.

Your question isn't honest, your argument isn't intelligent, your premise is ridiculous...all this is is you being annoyed about people being pro-life and trying to put forth a retarded and over the top hypothetical and pretending that somehow it's in any way likely while ignoring the overwhelming amount of actual evidence and reason that suggests the exact opposite.
 
CanadaJohn said:
And there's a comment so over the top or under a rock that there's no justification for a serious response. My apologies for pointing out your stunning hypocrisy and touching such a sensitive nerve.
Click to expand...

I accept your retreat.
 
Mandatory abortions is the exact opposite of pro-choice.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
You should probably pick the last option. 201-1000 years.

vasuderatorrent
Click to expand...

That makes no sense and does not in any way address or respond to what I said. I have only noted that a woman should only be "forced" when she in incapable of making a choice, such as being in a coma or other similar condition. If the woman is conscious then she has the choice of what, if any, procedures are performed upon her. Now in a potential future where the transplant of a ZEF to an artificial or separate incubation environment is equal, trauma wise, to an abortion, then her choices should be limited within the scope of the father as well. But until then it rest solely on the woman.
 
The Germans got a bad name because the resorted to euthanasia. I do not think we should.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Now that the elitist have convinced the American public to accept abortion as a morally reasonable thing to do, the next step is to implement mandatory abortions to those who are unfit to be parents. This was envisioned by Plato as a way to improve the quality of the human species much in the same way that cattle are bred to improve the heard.

The question I have to ask is: When Should Mandatory Abortions be implemented in the United States?

vasuderatorrent

Below is a quote from Book V of Plato's Republic
Unsolicited Commentary: Plato’s Republic: Book Five

"The second wave regarded the communal rearing of children, closely linked to the breeding of the females by only the best men. Socrates was intent upon destroying any bond that might develop except the bonds of a person to their community. The greatest evil was that which caused factions (462b). To this end he erased the family from the lives of the guardians and auxiliaries. No marriages were to be allowed. The best warriors would be directed to mate periodically with the women and the children of those unions would be raised collectively. Not even the mother would know who her offspring were. Socrates goes so far as to insist that this is the most natural way for our best men and women to procreate and exist together. It is not unlike the fighting dogs or game cocks which Glaucon raises at his home 459a).

It is hard to imagine how this relates to the soul of a human except that, perhaps, we should look closely at the relationships to which we cling. In this light, the argument that the offspring of unwarranted intercourse should be aborted is not quite so hideous."
Click to expand...

As you rightly point out, there have been arguments to practice euthanasia and human breeding since way back. That is because it seems to make sense in every way, until you wonder, if you really want the government deciding on who is fit for further life.
 
X Factor said:
Actually, this is not exactly true. There is a very common pro abortion argument that outright says that abortion is the preferred option and usually it shows up in the form of arguing that unplanned children are "unwanted" and are sure to be abandoned/abused, and would therefore be better off if they had been aborted. There are other variations.

As far as it being mandated, I have seen that argument before but that won't ever have popular support. I do admit though, when some of the same people who call the unborn baby all sorts of awful things claim they would argue as vehemently against mandatory abortion, I'm dubious.
Click to expand...

It all boils down to choice.
The statist says the choice should be made by the state, either in the form of attempting to outlaw abortion, or attempting to mandate abortion. We don't yet have a powerful enough state to impose such a rule, but we could have one day.

The libertarian says that the choice should be made by the individual, and not the state.

It's quite clear: Pro choice, or anti choice, more accurately, anti individual choice and pro government choice.
 
joko104 said:
I accept your retreat.
Click to expand...

It's hardly surprising that someone who posts such idiocies would confuse someone deciding to ignore your idiocy going forward as some kind of retreat - retreat from idiocy? - you're right, I'm guilty as charged.
 
maquiscat said:
I have only noted that a woman should only be "forced" when she in incapable of making a choice, such as being in a coma or other similar condition.
Click to expand...

Oh my!

vasuderatorrent
 
Thrilla said:
here in the US, eugenics has been a leftist notion.. so i wouldn't worry too much about the right suddenly adopting it to eradicate "da gayz".
Click to expand...

Not really true. It was both embraced by the political left and the political right in the United States, but often for different reasons and to different degrees. There are many kinds of eugenics.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
What theory do you have?
Click to expand...

That you're slightly paranoid and should stop reading propaganda.

vasuderatorrent said:
Rand, Ayn. Philosophy: Who Needs It. New York. New American Library, 1982. Page 8
Click to expand...

Seriously. Don't take Ayn Rand that seriously. She was from a world that existed a century ago. She was an interesting, though not particularly talented, novelist who promoted herself as a philosopher. She made some interesting arguments, and that's nice, but she wasn't the philosopher that people try to make her out to be -- or that she tried to make herself out to be.

This is exactly the kind of stuff I was suggesting you ought to put away.
 
Grendel said:
That you're slightly paranoid and should stop reading propaganda.



Seriously. Don't take Ayn Rand that seriously. She was from a world that existed a century ago. She was an interesting, though not particularly talented, novelist who promoted herself as a philosopher. She made some interesting arguments, and that's nice, but she wasn't the philosopher that people try to make her out to be -- or that she tried to make herself out to be.

This is exactly the kind of stuff I was suggesting you ought to put away.
Click to expand...

Oh, by the way, Ayn Rand was strongly in favor of abortion rights.

Ayn Rand on Abortion
Abortion —Ayn Rand Lexicon
FAQ - The Ayn Rand Institute

Since we're quoting Rand:


An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?”
Click to expand...
 
Fiddytree said:
Not really true. It was both embraced by the political left and the political right in the United States, but often for different reasons and to different degrees. There are many kinds of eugenics.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has. It is actually more of a libertarian vs authoritarian issue than a left vs right one.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, it has. It is actually more of a libertarian vs authoritarian issue than a left vs right one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if you consider not just a matter of coercion being authoritarian and moral suasion or anything else being not authoritarian, you have to still implicate "libertarianism" by way of Herbert Spencer and others. Frankly, the tentacles of eugenics reach just about everywhere.
 
Fiddytree said:
Yeah, but if you consider not just a matter of coercion being authoritarian and moral suasion or anything else being not authoritarian, you have to still implicate "libertarianism" by way of Herbert Spencer and others. Frankly, the tentacles of eugenics reach just about everywhere.
Click to expand...

Spencer's philosophy re "Social Darwinism":

For many, the name of Herbert Spencer would be virtually synonymous with Social Darwinism, a social theory that applies the law of the survival of the fittest to society; humanitarian impulses had to be resisted as nothing should be allowed to interfere with nature's laws, including the social struggle for existence. Spencer desired the elimination of the unfit through their failure to reproduce, rather than coercion or state intervention to initiate their physical annihilation.[26]

Spencer's association with Social Darwinism might have its origin in a specific interpretation of his support for competition. Whereas in biology the competition of various organisms can result in the death of a species or organism, the kind of competition Spencer advocated is closer to the one used by economists, where competing individuals or firms improve the well being of the rest of society. Spencer viewed private charity positively so long as it did not encourage the procreation of the unworthy, as he believed in voluntary association and informal care as opposed to using government machinery.[27]

Focusing on the form as well as the content of Spencer's "Synthetic Philosophy", it has recently been identified as the paradigmatic case of "Social Darwinism", understood as a politically motivated metaphysic very different in both form and motivation from Darwinist science.[28]
Click to expand...

Sounds like he was in favor of just encouraging the "unfit" to cease to reproduce, rather than coercing them through the power of the state, i.e., forced abortion.
 
Fiddytree said:
That is eugenics as well.
Click to expand...

But it is not forcing anything through the power of the state. It is, therefore, not inconsistent with libertarian philosophy. Forced abortions, forced anything, in fact, is.
 
Dittohead not! said:
But it is not forcing anything through the power of the state. It is, therefore, not inconsistent with libertarian philosophy. Forced abortions, forced anything, in fact, is.
Click to expand...

You cannot ignore the eugenics connections between social darwinism and lassez faire capitalism, promoted by proto-libertarians like William G. Sumner and others.
 
Fiddytree said:
You cannot ignore the eugenics connections between social darwinism and lassez faire capitalism, promoted by proto-libertarians like William G. Sumner and others.
Click to expand...

That's so, which is one reason why libertarianism, like conservatism or liberalism breaks down when carried to extremes.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That's so, which is one reason why libertarianism, like conservatism or liberalism breaks down when carried to extremes.
Click to expand...

All I merely said was that eugenics implicates nearly every group. I hadn't even started with a small number of middle to upper class African Americans (including their intellectual class) that had supported portions of the philosophy as well. Or the religious preachers, especially the protestant ones.
 
Fiddytree said:
All I merely said was that eugenics implicates nearly every group. I hadn't even started with a small number of middle to upper class African Americans (including their intellectual class) that had supported portions of the philosophy as well. Or the religious preachers, especially the protestant ones.
Click to expand...

You make a good point.

The idea of eugenics is repugnant to most of us today, but it seems to me that we're going the other way, encouraging the less capable to reproduce via the welfare state.

Eugenics dedicated to discouraging natural selection may not have such a good result.
 
Dittohead not! said:
You make a good point.

The idea of eugenics is repugnant to most of us today, but it seems to me that we're going the other way, encouraging the less capable to reproduce via the welfare state.

Eugenics dedicated to discouraging natural selection may not have such a good result.
Click to expand...

It's not entirely repugnant to the current era. It's still a debate going on today. It was only a number of months ago that you could discuss it with a certain number of disabilities being cured or minimized in the effort to improve the human condition.

Doing more than one's fair share in encouraging or perhaps mandating certain reproductive rights tradeoffs for public assistance seems to be somewhat of a common sentiment among the population, even if policy makers won't adopt such notions.

What is largely considered repugnant is forced, coerced sterilization. Then again, maybe not. Once more, individuals with certain disabilities seem to be more targeted for the procedure, and matters of consent for the procedure produce debate.
 
Thrilla said:
it was pretty high minded stuff back in the early 1900's... but like I said, Hitler kinda soured the world on it.
Click to expand...
That's one good thing the Nazi party did then.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It's hardly surprising that someone who posts such idiocies would confuse someone deciding to ignore your idiocy going forward as some kind of retreat - retreat from idiocy? - you're right, I'm guilty as charged.
Click to expand...

Your messages in this thread are common for you. You make some absolute moral declaration as a truism. Then refuse to debate the matter and just flame insults. What that means is that generally you retreated and surrendered, but are angry at the other person for making you do so.

What is absurd in my opinion is your view that a woman's legal right to abortion is the same as a rapists right to procreate by rape - calling both the same right of "choice."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom