• 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!

Why Abortion should be ILLEGAL

Then why the seemingly 100's of posts prattling on and on and on and on about morality?????

Someone or some institution has come up with the crazy idea that abortion is a moral issue. :shrug:

Some other folks say abortion is a legal issue. :yes:

But in my opinion abortion is neither. :no:
 
Look, I get why many people fight over this subject, but I want to let you guys know how I feel. I support the right to choose. The baby's right to choose if they want to die or not. According to doctors, all life begins at the moment of conception. So doesn't that mean aborting an unborn child is terminating life? If a woman has a baby she doesn't want, why did she get pregnant in the first place. And don't say it was an accident, because if the woman really cared, she would have taken birth control and made sure a protective piece was worn. No matter what, ending a life is ending a life, it doesn't matter if your unborn or a 30 year old man. The worst part is the person dying has no control whatsoever, so until anybody can convince me otherwise, these are my beliefs.


the abortion issue (in the US) IMO was settled over 40 years ago via Roe v. Wade
 
Life is a mystery,
A BOOK CAN BE A MYSTERY. So? There are different sorts of mysteries. We know that life evolved its complexity, and we suspect life is older than the Earth itself, and we know that the main thing associated with the persistence and spread of life is the fact that a living thing usually has the feature of being able to make (sometimes in cooperation with another living thing) imperfect copies of itself. The ONLY "mystery of life" is the details of the original self-copying thing, yet that is getting researched, too.

The basic assumption of my argument is sound,
IT IS NOT YOUR ONLY ASSUMPTION. You are also assuming that life somehow matters. And since you have not supported that positive assumption with any evidence, why should anyone else accept that assumption?

and there should be no need, in a good faith discussion, to defend it.
SEE ABOVE. Not only have you failed to be precise when claiming "life is a mystery", you have arbitrarily assigned that mystery a philosophical "weight" without explanation (why does life matter?).

Life is a mystery
WHOOP-TE-DO.

Moral agents must not make moral choices in ignorance
THAT CLAIM INTRODUCES A WHOLE NEW FLAW IN YOUR LOGIC. You have not explained how, when one life-form kills and eats another (which they have been doing for billions of years), often to obtain materials so that it can selfishly make another imperfect copy of itself --how does that correlate to anything called "moral"?

Abortion ends a life
SO DOES ACQUIRING/EATING THE FOOD THAT ALLOWS A FEMALE TO HAVE THE RESOURCES THAT GET USED BY AN UNBORN LIFE, TO CONSTRUCT ITSELF. When you consider how many life-forms must die just so the unborn one can live, It Logically Follows that abortion saves lots more life-forms than it kills.

THEREFORE:
Your "logic" includes an unexplained assumption.
Your "logic" skips a step.
Your conclusion, when seen as part of the Big Picture, is self-contradictory.
 
Last edited:
None of those things equate to killing a human.
KILLING A FLY DOES NOT EQUATE TO KILLING A MOSQUITO. They are two different life-forms. Yet they are equivalent in that they are both mere-animal life-forms, and nothing more than mere-animal life-forms. That equivalency is perfectly true for an unborn human, too, and for a human hydatidiform mole, and even for a human adult that is brain-dead-on-full-life-support.

OTHER HUMANS are not equivalent to a fly or a mosquito or a hydatidiform mole or an unborn human or a brain-dead adult, because of the minds associated with those other humans.

If you want to claim that an unborn human, AS IT IS, is somehow more than just a mere-animal life-form, in a some manner that somehow makes it not equivalent to any of many ordinary mere-animal life-forms, Let's See Your Evidence Supporting That Claim!
 
Not according to science. You should look into embryology sometime.
Quite clearly according to science. You should read posts before replying to them.

Post #153

How Did Life Arise on Earth?
But despite knowing approximately when life first appeared on Earth, scientists are still far from answering how it appeared.

"The solution of a mystery of this magnitude is totally unpredictable," said Freeman Dyson, a professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University in New Jersey. "It might happen next week or it might take a thousand years."

How Did Life Arise on Earth?
Mystery Behind Origin Of Life On Earth May Have Finally Been Solved -
Scientists do not have concrete evidence to support their work but the findings are significant in understanding the possible origin of life on Earth. If the theory is proven, it can be one of the biggest achievements in the scientific field.
Mystery Behind Origin Of Life On Earth May Have Finally Been Solved : SCIENCE : Tech Times

The Secret of how life on Earth Began
How did life begin? There can hardly be a bigger question. For much of human history, almost everyone believed some version of "the gods did it". Any other explanation was inconceivable.

That is no longer true. Over the last century, a few scientists have tried to figure out how the first life might have sprung up. They have even tried to recreate this Genesis moment in their labs: to create brand-new life from scratch.

So far nobody has managed it,
BBC - Earth - The secret of how life on Earth began


The mystery behind the origin of life
"Many investigators feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit they are baffled." — Paul Davies (The Fifth Miracle)
The mystery behind the origin of life

More News Sources Admit the “Mystery” of Life’s Origin
It’s time for a little reality check here: origin-of-life theorists need to explain how a myriad of complex proteins and features arose and self-assembled into a self-replicating life-form by unguided processes, but they are still scraping for mechanisms to explain how an inert primordial soup of organic molecules could have arisen in the first place.

I wish them the best of luck in their efforts, because they’ll need it. They are a long way from explaining how life arose. It looks like Nature was right after all: “How life began is one of nature’s enduring mysteries.”
https://evolutionnews.org/2012/02/more_news_sourc/

Top 10 Unsolved Mysteries of Science
How did life begin?

Where did life on Earth come from? How did it happen? Those who believe in the Primordial Soup model believe that a nutrient-rich early Earth eventually formed increasingly-complex molecules that gave rise to life. This could have taken place in the deep ocean vents, in clay, or under ice. Different models also give variable levels of importance to the presence of lightning or volcanic activity for the spawn of life. While DNA is the predominant basis for life on Earth now, it has been suggested that RNA could have dominated the first lifeforms. Additionally, other scientists question whether other nucleic acids aside from RNA or DNA may have once existed. Did life spawn just once, or is it possible that is was created, wiped out, and then restarted? Some believe in panspermia, in which microbial life was brought to Earth via meteorites or comets. Even if that is true, it doesn’t answer the question of how that life originated.
Error | IFLScience

How Did Life Begin?
The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance.
PBS: Public Broadcasting System | 404


Life is a mystery
Moral agents must not make moral choices in ignorance
Abortion ends a life
 
If you want to claim that an unborn human, AS IT IS, is somehow more than just a mere-animal life-form, in a some manner that somehow makes it not equivalent to any of many ordinary mere-animal life-forms, Let's See Your Evidence Supporting That Claim!
It is evident from your very own post -- assuming you were once yourself "an unborn human." That is, unborn humans, if left to be born, eventually post on DP. No other animal life form does that.

KILLING A FLY DOES NOT EQUATE TO KILLING A MOSQUITO. They are two different life-forms. Yet they are equivalent in that they are both mere-animal life-forms, and nothing more than mere-animal life-forms.
Let's See Your Evidence Supporting That Claim!

That equivalency is perfectly true for an unborn human, too, and for a human hydatidiform mole, and even for a human adult that is brain-dead-on-full-life-support.
Let's See Your Evidence Supporting That Claim!

OTHER HUMANS are not equivalent to a fly or a mosquito or a hydatidiform mole or an unborn human or a brain-dead adult, because of the minds associated with those other humans.
Let's See Your Evidence Supporting That Claim!

:)
 
A BOOK CAN BE A MYSTERY. So? There are different sorts of mysteries. We know that life evolved its complexity, and we suspect life is older than the Earth itself, and we know that the main thing associated with the persistence and spread of life is the fact that a living thing usually has the feature of being able to make (sometimes in cooperation with another living thing) imperfect copies of itself. The ONLY "mystery of life" is the details of the original self-copying thing, yet that is getting researched, too.
Buried under a mound of misdirection, you acknowledge, as you must willy-nilly in the end, that my basic assumption, that life is a mystery, is sound; but you seem unable to admit this outright, so that we can get on with a discussion. Yours is an interesting psychology, but that's neither here nor there. Life is a mystery. Please acknowledge as much, and then we can discuss whether life matters or not. ;)
 
There are lots of people who find abortion to be immoral but do not want to impose that on others.
Thanks again, Scrabaholic. You are a breath of fresh air in this forum! :)

So pro-choice folks, are arguing with pro-choice folks, about the morality of making choices...:doh
See what you miss when you don't read the posts?

Here's my "pro-choice" argument in a nutshell:

Abortion must be and remain LEGAL because it is IMMORAL.
 
Thanks again, Scrabaholic. You are a breath of fresh air in this forum! :)


See what you miss when you don't read the posts?

Here's my "pro-choice" argument in a nutshell:

Abortion must be and remain LEGAL because it is IMMORAL.

I don't have enough time in the day to read every word of every post.
Especially when it's kind-of the same post over and over and over again, but with different words.

You'd be better off starting a new thread about morality specifically if that's what you wish to discuss.
 
Someone or some institution has come up with the crazy idea that abortion is a moral issue. :shrug:

Some other folks say abortion is a legal issue. :yes:

But in my opinion abortion is neither. :no:

And some folks think that simply because they are entitled to an opinion, their opinion is entitled to serious consideration. :yawn:
 
You may consider it a mystery but that does it make it so. The origin of life or how life came about is not life in itself and while I will concur that there are still some unanswered questions about the "mechanics" of life that hardly makes it a mystery. Moreover, unknown aspects of life, whether physical or philosophical do not render life sacred. Even moral actions have to be as you said informed and thus can only be made on what we do know.
As for abortion ending life, well of course it does. The real argument is whether fetal life is important and if so to what degree and what makes it so?
Science considers it a mystery. Does that not make it so?
The existence of life on earth is inexplicable. Yes, I think that qualifies as a mystery.
It's the other way around, as I see it. The mystery bestows the "sacredness."
I can not see it that way.

Are you saying that we routinely accept immoral things?

But that does not address my point about sacredness and all the lives, innocent lives I might add, that are lost unnecessarily.
I use "sacred" in a non-religious sense, to mean inviolable.
Yes, we do routinely accept immoral things.
Man is by and large an immoral animal, and that only because Man is singularly a moral animal.

Your category "important" seems itself important. Could you please refine it for the purpose of our discussion. Importance = Value?
 
You'd be better off starting a new thread about morality specifically if that's what you wish to discuss.
I have no particular wish to discuss morality. I posted my argument for the legality, and everybody jumped all over the morality business. I'm merely fending off otiose attacks on an obvious truth.
 
If women want equal rights they cannot always be looked at in the lense of a victim.

Who said we wanted to be looked at like we're all victims? Because I certainly don't go around acting like a victim.
 
I'm merely fending off otiose attacks on an obvious truth.
ancient-aliens-1_0.png
 
I have no particular wish to discuss morality. I posted my argument for the legality, and everybody jumped all over the morality business. I'm merely fending off otiose attacks on an obvious truth.

And yet you insist that abortion is immoral even though we have presented that the very definition of morally varies between different religions, different cultures etc.
 
I have no particular wish to discuss morality. I posted my argument for the legality, and everybody jumped all over the morality business. I'm merely fending off otiose attacks on an obvious truth.

Your opinion is not "truth". Sorry.
 
And yet you insist that abortion is immoral even though we have presented that the very definition of morally varies between different religions, different cultures etc.
Your post has it backwards, minnie. My insistence follows from your presentation. Your post suggests that my insistence is somehow in spite of your presentation. :)
 
Your post has it backwards, minnie. My insistence follows from your presentation. Your post suggests that my insistence is somehow in spite of your presentation. :)

So just to clear you acknowledge that you no longer view that abortions are immoral unless to save the life of the pregnant woman?

Because in your previous post you stated:

Please note:

[Bolding Mine]

I am a Catholic too, brother.

Abortion is immoral, unless to save the life of the mother. But that immorality must remain the choice of the pregnant woman. To make abortion illegal is to attempt to make the moral choice for the moral agent, and that is not how morality works.

We are all free to be immoral if we so choose. Law must not take that choice away from us. To take that choice away is to deny us the status of moral agent, which is to deny our humanity.

The fetus is parasitic on the pregnant woman, and although alive, although a potential human being, a fetus is not a moral agent.

Prohibition should have taught us the futility and wrongheadedness of attempting to legislate morality.

In sum, abortion is immoral, unless to save the mother,
but it must remain legal. :)
 
Then according to you truth is inexpressible.

Nope. Truth can be expressed all the time.

EX: The American Civil War began in 1865.
EX #2: Water is wet.

Those are things that are both objectively true.

For expressed, it becomes opinion. And according to you opinion is not truth.

It's not. Opinions are based on personal observations that may or may not be true. EX: Star Wars is the best movie series in history.

But then the truth of your opinion that opinion is not truth is just your opinion and so not truth. ;)

It can be objectively true that you hold a specific opinion. Like for example, I hold the opinion that unpopular forms of free speech should be protected by the government. Obviously, the fact that I hold that opinion is an objective truth. But that doesn't make my opinion itself objectively true.

Get it now?
 
Back
Top Bottom