• 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 President Obama Right in This?

Read the below and respond acordingly

  • Yes, I think we can discuss abortion without rancor

    Votes: 9 33.3%

  • No, I think the issue is too divisive

    Votes: 8 29.6%

  • I think we can do better, but it will always be an angry debate

    Votes: 10 37.0%
  • Total voters
    27
Again, I understand what you are saying, and a large part of me agrees. However, just looking at the debate here on this board, some very reasonable people get very hard line on this one issue. I believe this stems from the way each side frames the debate to themselves.
 
Redress said:
Again, I understand what you are saying, and a large part of me agrees. However, just looking at the debate here on this board, some very reasonable people get very hard line on this one issue. I believe this stems from the way each side frames the debate to themselves.
Click to expand...

And that is very true. It reminds me much of the Intelligent Design VS. Evolution debate. One side is focusing on beliefs as hard facts and the other is using scientific fact and theory. You can not really find much middle ground, as how does one argue against religious beliefs. The only way I have been able to do so is by utilizing the same text as those I am debating. By doing so it at least puts you on the same playing field. I cannot say such a case is possible with abortion, but unless you can find another way to frame the question, then I agree with your cynism on the subject for MOST people.
 
tlmorg02 said:
And that is very true. It reminds me much of the Intelligent Design VS. Evolution debate. One side is focusing on beliefs as hard facts and the other is using scientific fact and theory. You can not really find much middle ground, as how does one argue against religious beliefs. The only way I have been able to do so is by utilizing the same text as those I am debating. By doing so it at least puts you on the same playing field. I cannot say such a case is possible with abortion, but unless you can find another way to frame the question, then I agree with your cynism on the subject for MOST people.
Click to expand...

I think you are misunderstanding the evolution side on this one. Hardly any one argues that intelligent design could not be the case, rather that intelligent design is not science, as it cannot be disproven.

But that is an entirely different subject, so we probably should leave it alone in this thread please.
 
Redress said:
I think you are misunderstanding the evolution side on this one. Hardly any one argues that intelligent design could not be the case, rather that intelligent design is not science, as it cannot be disproven.

But that is an entirely different subject, so we probably should leave it alone in this thread please.
Click to expand...

No, I realize that and meant the argument over whether it should be taught side-by-side. But you are correct, it is for another thread.
 
tlmorg02 said:
And that is very true. It reminds me much of the Intelligent Design VS. Evolution debate. One side is focusing on beliefs as hard facts and the other is using scientific fact and theory. You can not really find much middle ground, as how does one argue against religious beliefs. The only way I have been able to do so is by utilizing the same text as those I am debating. By doing so it at least puts you on the same playing field. I cannot say such a case is possible with abortion, but unless you can find another way to frame the question, then I agree with your cynism on the subject for MOST people.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

I'm very much anti-baby-murder, and I use nothing but science and cold facts to support my position.

Ergo, you must mean the pro-baby-murder people are arguing from a position of religious belief and emotion.

I've always known this to be true. No one can be a socialist without having most of their screws loose.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Interesting.

I'm very much anti-baby-murder, and I use nothing but science and cold facts to support my position.

Ergo, you must mean the pro-baby-murder people are arguing from a position of religious belief and emotion.

I've always known this to be true. No one can be a socialist without having most of their screws loose.
Click to expand...

Enlighten me to the scientific facts that lead you to be anti-abortion.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Interesting.

I'm very much anti-baby-murder, and I use nothing but science and cold facts to support my position.

Ergo, you must mean the pro-baby-murder people are arguing from a position of religious belief and emotion.

I've always known this to be true. No one can be a socialist without having most of their screws loose.
Click to expand...

Oh, I am not a socialist, but nice try at fighting an argument with labels.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. Can't be done.

The Left refuses to admit that abortion is the wilful destruction of human life.

Until they can face the facts of the matter, they will continue to respond to the issue with the hatred and vituperation they expend on all their issues.
Click to expand...
And this is a typical "Right" response.
Man is simply not civilized enough, and by the time he is, there will be no abortion question to debate...
 
I'd say no, and this thread is proof of it. People can't even civilly discuss the topic of discussing abortion civilly. Its the reason I tend to avoid abortion threads (with a few notable exceptions).

Both sides have deeply held views that are not only in stark opposition to each other, but they both view the other side's position as deeply wrong. Naturally, there is little chance for productive debate in such a setting.

One thing I never understood is why abortion is called a religious topic. Yes, a vast majority of pro-lifers are religious, but its hardly a prerequisite. I've met several athiests/agnostics who are strongly pro-life. The view that killing a unborn child is wrong is hardly limited to those that believe in religion. There is nothing inherently religious about the argument that an unborn child is human and therefor deserves to have its life protected by the law just like the rest of us.

I think the reason the pro-life movement is largely made up of religious folks is that they are more comfortable speaking in moral absolutes. Many folks are convinced everything needs to be shades of grey. And sometimes things are, but sometimes they are not. I don't know if any polls back me up on this, but I believe most Americans are personally against abortion. Afterall the standard pro-choice candidate's position is to declare their personal dislike or opposition to abortion, but their desire to preserve choice. I've always wanted to ask them why they personally wouldn't choose abortion. If the answer is that they believe it ends a human life (which is what I suspect it is), then isn't the only correct stance then to oppose the ending of a innocent human life? For those that believe abortion is no big deal, no different than clipping your toenails or having a cyst removed or whatever, I can respect that. I disagree strongly, but its a logically consistent position. But those that try to have it both ways, I just don't get that.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Enlighten me to the scientific facts that lead you to be anti-abortion.
Click to expand...

You mean besides the obvious fact that life begins at conception?

Then there's the obvious fact that we're discussing a human life.

Gee, not too complicated is it?
 
Psychoclown said:
I'd say no, and this thread is proof of it. People can't even civilly discuss the topic of discussing abortion civilly. Its the reason I tend to avoid abortion threads (with a few notable exceptions).

Both sides have deeply held views that are not only in stark opposition to each other, but they both view the other side's position as deeply wrong. Naturally, there is little chance for productive debate in such a setting.

One thing I never understood is why abortion is called a religious topic. Yes, a vast majority of pro-lifers are religious, but its hardly a prerequisite. I've met several athiests/agnostics who are strongly pro-life. The view that killing a unborn child is wrong is hardly limited to those that believe in religion. There is nothing inherently religious about the argument that an unborn child is human and therefor deserves to have its life protected by the law just like the rest of us.

I think the reason the pro-life movement is largely made up of religious folks is that they are more comfortable speaking in moral absolutes. Many folks are convinced everything needs to be shades of grey. And sometimes things are, but sometimes they are not. I don't know if any polls back me up on this, but I believe most Americans are personally against abortion. Afterall the standard pro-choice candidate's position is to declare their personal dislike or opposition to abortion, but their desire to preserve choice. I've always wanted to ask them why they personally wouldn't choose abortion. If the answer is that they believe it ends a human life (which is what I suspect it is), then isn't the only correct stance then to oppose the ending of a innocent human life? For those that believe abortion is no big deal, no different than clipping your toenails or having a cyst removed or whatever, I can respect that. I disagree strongly, but its a logically consistent position. But those that try to have it both ways, I just don't get that.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by both ways? The fact that people believe some abortions should be allowed?
 
Thanks Psychoclown, had not really thought about this in terms of how religion affects the views of some in that way. Not being religious, I have a bad habit of assuming that the reason religious people do things is basically dogma, which is obviously simplistic at best.

I do not think most pro abortion rights people think of a fetus as a toenail or a cyst, but more as a human in potentia. We give it more standing that an inanimate object or even an animal, but it's not a fully realized human yet. That is, I think, where the quandary comes in. We are uncomfortable with ending that potential, but think it should be legal, an ethical choice that the government has no right to make for us.

I think the one good thing that has come out of this thread, which has been much less contentious for the most part than I feared when I made it, is that I have gained a better understanding of how those on the anti abortion side think. Until we can make that mental leap to understand why others believe as they do, it is almost impossible to have a civilized debate.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You mean besides the obvious fact that life begins at conception?

Then there's the obvious fact that we're discussing a human life.

Gee, not too complicated is it?
Click to expand...

At conception there is no more a human life than the skin on your arm. Simply cells dividing exponentially until a fetus is created. The body may self abort in a miscarriage and the uterous will reabsorb the cells.

Yes, a human life indeed, yet do you suffer over the live children who starve to death, or cannot afford healthcare and die? If a child is to be born into suffering and from such enters a life of crime, will you then support having to feed that prisoner and carry the cost of their incarceration. Do you support the execution of human life, or the torture of human life? Logically, it is all connected.

In certain circumstances I believe abortion should be available. For use as contraceptive, no. Late-term, no. But if a woman is raped or abused, or too disfunctional to raise a child, then the option should be on the table.
 
tlmorg02 said:
At conception there is no more a human life than the skin on your arm.
Click to expand...

And in the very next post, some one proves me wrong. I am still not sure though that this is the common view among those of us who are pro abortion rights.
 
Redress said:
And in the very next post, some one proves me wrong. I am still not sure though that this is the common view among those of us who are pro abortion rights.
Click to expand...

I do not claim to speak for the majority in any way. Nor do I feel that I misunderstand the argument of those against abortion. I realize they feel that it is wrong to claim the life of an innocent human life. And as a microbiologist, I realize that cells are cells and are not predetermined until the DNA inside them guide them to their final destination. Just as a mutation on a certain gene will cause a person to have heart problems in their 40's. Life is a complex thing and I no more claim to have the best answer than anyother. I use the facts to shape my opinion and feel that each situation may indeed be entirely different. I do not belittle the opinions of those across the aisle, but will challenge their logic and philosophy.
 
Redress said:
And in the very next post, some one proves me wrong. I am still not sure though that this is the common view among those of us who are pro abortion rights.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to claim that it was a majority view among pro-choicers. But a vocal subset do believe that. I've heard unborn children called parasites by some rabid pro-choice posters here. That view I can respect as logically consistent with the calls for on demand abortion. I find reprehensible, but at least logically consistent.

I do not think most pro abortion rights people think of a fetus as a toenail or a cyst, but more as a human in potentia. We give it more standing that an inanimate object or even an animal, but it's not a fully realized human yet. That is, I think, where the quandary comes in. We are uncomfortable with ending that potential, but think it should be legal, an ethical choice that the government has no right to make for us.
Click to expand...

Please don't take offense, but to put it bluntly it sounds like you're hiding behind semantics to help soothe your discomfort with what abortion is. You obviously recognize there is something special about a unborn life. You state its not a toenail or a cyst and has more standing than animals or objects. But you stop short of declaring it truly human because that would undermine your position.

Government has no right to make ethical choices for us if they don't undermine the liberty of others. But the first and most important liberty is life. When my ethical choices can end a life, government needs to step in protect the life of the other guy. His right to life is trumps my right to make my own choices. Afterall without life, no one can have liberty. That is why muder and manslaughter are illegal and its why abortion should be as well.
 
Psychoclown said:
I wasn't trying to claim that it was a majority view among pro-choicers. But a vocal subset do believe that. I've heard unborn children called parasites by some rabid pro-choice posters here. That view I can respect as logically consistent with the calls for on demand abortion. I find reprehensible, but at least logically consistent.



Please don't take offense, but to put it bluntly it sounds like you're hiding behind semantics to help soothe your discomfort with what abortion is. You obviously recognize there is something special about a unborn life. You state its not a toenail or a cyst and has more standing than animals or objects. But you stop short of declaring it truly human because that would undermine your position.

Government has no right to make ethical choices for us if they don't undermine the liberty of others. But the first and most important liberty is life. When my ethical choices can end a life, government needs to step in protect the life of the other guy. His right to life is trumps my right to make my own choices. Afterall without life, no one can have liberty. That is why muder and manslaughter are illegal and its why abortion should be as well.
Click to expand...

I understand your point as to public opinion determing the right to life. But a fetus is reliant upon another for survival, that is the mother. The mother is effected by the presence of the unborn child. If a mother is going to die if an abortion is not performed, do you feel that the mothers life has less worth than that of the child? Or are they equal?
 
In the case of a mother's life being endangered by the pregnancy, I would definately support the option of abortion. I don't know if I've ever met a pro-life advocate that would disagree with that provision.
 
Psychoclown said:
Please don't take offense, but to put it bluntly it sounds like you're hiding behind semantics to help soothe your discomfort with what abortion is. You obviously recognize there is something special about a unborn life. You state its not a toenail or a cyst and has more standing than animals or objects. But you stop short of declaring it truly human because that would undermine your position.

Government has no right to make ethical choices for us if they don't undermine the liberty of others. But the first and most important liberty is life. When my ethical choices can end a life, government needs to step in protect the life of the other guy. His right to life is trumps my right to make my own choices. Afterall without life, no one can have liberty. That is why muder and manslaughter are illegal and its why abortion should be as well.
Click to expand...

Here is the disconnect that has been talked about a bit here. You are not making the intuitive leap yet to see how we see things. The fundamental question to abortion as I see it is when does an egg and sperm become a human. Once it is human, then the government does have a responsibility to protect it. There is a measuring scale, that once it crosses a certain point, it is human and protected. Anti abortion people put that point at 1 second, 1 minute, 1 hour or whatever brief time from fertilization. pro abortion rights people put that point further down the timeline, at one month, or 1 trimester, or not until birth, or whatever. This is not a semantics game to justify our belief, it is a different view of this aspect of the world.
 
tlmorg02 said:
At conception there is no more a human life than the skin on your arm.
Click to expand...

You've managed to convince yourself that a human fetus is no different than a skin cell.

Good for you.

Now back it up with science.

tlmorg02 said:
Simply cells dividing exponentially until a fetus is created. The body may self abort in a miscarriage and the uterous will reabsorb the cells.
Click to expand...

Oh. I see you can't back it up, so you're resorting to nonsense.

tlmorg02 said:
Yes, a human life indeed, yet do you suffer over the live children who starve to death, or cannot afford healthcare and die?
Click to expand...

Non sequitur.

tlmorg02 said:
In certain circumstances I believe abortion should be available.
Click to expand...

Certainly. Once they come up with a genetic test to find future Democrats, we should permit abortions of those babies, right?

tlmorg02 said:
For use as contraceptive, no. Late-term, no. But if a woman is raped or abused, or too disfunctional to raise a child, then the option should be on the table.
Click to expand...

OH, MY GOD RAPE!!!!!!!!!!

Of course, in the minds of people who want as many abortions as possible to happen, there's no moral issues with destroying a person that didn't exist when the crime was committed, even though the maximum sentence for a rapist is some time in prison, but what the hell, murder the baby, it's his fault.

(Does that response resonate with your frantic emotional state over the thought that a baby might be born somewhere?)
 
Psychoclown said:
In the case of a mother's life being endangered by the pregnancy, I would definately support the option of abortion. I don't know if I've ever met a pro-life advocate that would disagree with that provision.
Click to expand...

Nope, me neither, though I'd never bet they don't exist. It's clear that real issues involving life and death do have a risk of happening during pregnancy.
 
If a human life does not begin at conception, when does it begin? What is the precise moment in the pregnancy that the fetus is endowed with humanity? What proof have we of that endowment?
 
I agree that is the fundemental difference.

However, the way I interpret your admitted discomfort with abortion even before the threshold of you believe is human life, is that you're not all sure the threshold you set is correct. If you truly believe (as some do) that before Point A a unborn child is not a human, then there should be no discomfort with abortion. As I said, that's why I can respect the logically consistent position that an unborn child is not anymore human than toenail clippings. It makes sense. I find it repugnant, but its internally consistent.

Saying, its not a human before this point, but I still feel a little uncomfortable killing it. I have to ask, why? It seems to me that you are not at all sure the threshold you've set is accurate. You even admit a child before that threshold is still somehow special - above objects and animals, even if you stop short of calling it human life. Pro-lifers on the other hand, don't have to worry about if our threshold protect all human life. The threshold of conception is a pretty safe bet. Maybe its too early. I agree that the debate of when human life begins is murky, mired in personal ethics, religious beliefs, and philosophies to go along with scientific knowledge and will probably never be resolved. That said, I feel very comfortable with the threshold I believe should be established. When it comes to protecting the most fundemental right of life, I rather err on the side of caution.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You've managed to convince yourself that a human fetus is no different than a skin cell.

Good for you.

Now back it up with science.



Oh. I see you can't back it up, so you're resorting to nonsense.



Non sequitur.



Certainly. Once they come up with a genetic test to find future Democrats, we should permit abortions of those babies, right?



OH, MY GOD RAPE!!!!!!!!!!

Of course, in the minds of people who want as many abortions as possible to happen, there's no moral issues with destroying a person that didn't exist when the crime was committed, even though the maximum sentence for a rapist is some time in prison, but what the hell, murder the baby, it's his fault.

(Does that response resonate with your frantic emotional state over the thought that a baby might be born somewhere?)
Click to expand...


Here is your evidence: Cell Cycle in the Fucus Zygote Parallels a Somatic Cell Cycle but Displays a Unique Translational Regulation of Cyclin-Dependent Kinases

If you have any questions, just ask.

It is not about a child being born, it is about whether or not a fetus takes over and supercedes the rights of the mother. Is the mother nothing more than a vessel and when she becomes one does all of her personal rights disappear for those of the fetus?
 
Psychoclown said:
I agree that is the fundemental difference.

However, the way I interpret your admitted discomfort with abortion even before the threshold of you believe is human life, is that you're not all sure the threshold you set is correct. If you truly believe (as some do) that before Point A a unborn child is not a human, then there should be no discomfort with abortion. As I said, that's why I can respect the logically consistent position that an unborn child is not anymore human than toenail clippings. It makes sense. I find it repugnant, but its internally consistent.

Saying, its not a human before this point, but I still feel a little uncomfortable killing it. I have to ask, why? It seems to me that you are not at all sure the threshold you've set is accurate. You even admit a child before that threshold is still somehow special - above objects and animals, even if you stop short of calling it human life. Pro-lifers on the other hand, don't have to worry about if our threshold protect all human life. The threshold of conception is a pretty safe bet. Maybe its too early. I agree that the debate of when human life begins is murky, mired in personal ethics, religious beliefs, and philosophies to go along with scientific knowledge and will probably never be resolved. That said, I feel very comfortable with the threshold I believe should be established. When it comes to protecting the most fundemental right of life, I rather err on the side of caution.
Click to expand...

We are getting closer. The discomfort comes not from a question about where the point lies, but in the removal of the potential for a human.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom