Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pro-choice question

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 6:54:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you believe in abortion before the 2nd trimester?
Do you believe in abortion after the 2nd trimester?
Do you believe in abortion after the 42nd trimester?
When does it become arbitrary?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 6:57:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't see anything wrong with abortion, but that is mostly because I value the quality of life for a functioning member of society over a future life. I tend to fall on either side of the fence on this issue at one point or another, but it has always been an absolute; either I support abortion at all stages, or I don't support it at all.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 6:57:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Question to Pro-Life:

Why does life have value?

Inb4 Natural rights bs.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 6:59:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 6:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Question to Pro-Life:

Why does life have value?

We value life, because we want people to value our lives.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 7:11:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 6:59:22 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Question to Pro-Life:

Why does life have value?

We value life, because we want people to value our lives.

Correct. Since we (society) don't believe that fetuses have value, they don't have value, effectively making all pro-life arguments moot from this ethical POV.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 7:15:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 6:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Question to Pro-Life:

Why does life have value?

Inb4 Natural rights bs.

It's self-evident that a man is entitled to his life. When you see someone stab a guy on the streets, are you;
a.) disgusted
b.) pleased
or
c.) indifferent?

When you kill someone, you don't just kill that person, you also kill his seed. You murder him and his descendants. The person you killed could have invented a cure for AIDs, or his descendants could have created peace in the middle east.

What if Aristotle, or John Locke was never born? What if MLK was aborted, or his great grandfather was hung by the Klan? What if sir Issac newton's father was smothered by his grandmother as an infant?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 7:18:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 7:15:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Question to Pro-Life:

Why does life have value?

Inb4 Natural rights bs.

It's self-evident that a man is entitled to his life. When you see someone stab a guy on the streets, are you;
a.) disgusted
b.) pleased
or
c.) indifferent?


When you kill someone, you don't just kill that person, you also kill his seed. You murder him and his descendants. The person you killed could have invented a cure for AIDs, or his descendants could have created peace in the middle east.

What if Aristotle, or John Locke was never born? What if MLK was aborted, or his great grandfather was hung by the Klan? What if sir Issac newton's father was smothered by his grandmother as an infant?

Useless appeal to emotion rhetoric. I don't like it when people kill other people because of an emotional response and the social indoctrination that killing people is bad- it doesn't mean that killing people is objectively bad.

All that you said is complete and utter nonsense. What if abortion stopped another Hitler? Stalin? Useless examples are fvcktarded.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 7:19:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 7:11:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:59:22 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Question to Pro-Life:

Why does life have value?

We value life, because we want people to value our lives.

Correct. Since we (society) don't believe that fetuses have value, they don't have value, effectively making all pro-life arguments moot from this ethical POV.

A.) Not what he said
B.) are you saying if you could travel back in time, you would allow your mother to abort you? (provided the butterfly effect is in play and she chose to abort)
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 7:20:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 7:19:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:11:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:59:22 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Question to Pro-Life:

Why does life have value?

We value life, because we want people to value our lives.

Correct. Since we (society) don't believe that fetuses have value, they don't have value, effectively making all pro-life arguments moot from this ethical POV.

A.) Not what he said

It is. He stated that rights are relative to the wishes of society. I inferred that if you take this POV as correct, then there is no metaphysical basis for saying abortion is wrong because of X or Y.

B.) are you saying if you could travel back in time, you would allow your mother to abort you? (provided the butterfly effect is in play and she chose to abort)

Grandfather paradox.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 7:21:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'd love to argue with you about objective morality, but I have to go. Toodles.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 7:28:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 7:18:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:15:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Question to Pro-Life:

Why does life have value?

Inb4 Natural rights bs.

It's self-evident that a man is entitled to his life. When you see someone stab a guy on the streets, are you;
a.) disgusted
b.) pleased
or
c.) indifferent?


When you kill someone, you don't just kill that person, you also kill his seed. You murder him and his descendants. The person you killed could have invented a cure for AIDs, or his descendants could have created peace in the middle east.

What if Aristotle, or John Locke was never born? What if MLK was aborted, or his great grandfather was hung by the Klan? What if sir Issac newton's father was smothered by his grandmother as an infant?

Useless appeal to emotion rhetoric. I don't like it when people kill other people because of an emotional response and the social indoctrination that killing people is bad- it doesn't mean that killing people is objectively bad.

Pro-choice is not pro-objective abortion it's pro-arbitrary abortion. It's pro-choice, meaning they don't need a reason, they just need to be willing to have an abortion.

If you were pro-choice in regards to murder, you would be in favor of the murderer deciding what warrants a murder.

All that you said is complete and utter nonsense. What if abortion stopped another Hitler? Stalin? Useless examples are fvcktarded.

But you did not allow them the chance to become a Hitler or Gandhi, so you cannot punish them for the possibility of becoming a Hitler when they may have turned out to be a Gandhi. Both roads are possible.

Do you think we should execute someone because there is a possibility they could become a mass murderer? That would be a paradox, because were would end up mass murdering people in order to prevent them from becoming mass murderers.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 7:31:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 7:20:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:19:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:11:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:59:22 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Question to Pro-Life:

Why does life have value?

We value life, because we want people to value our lives.

Correct. Since we (society) don't believe that fetuses have value, they don't have value, effectively making all pro-life arguments moot from this ethical POV.

A.) Not what he said

It is. He stated that rights are relative to the wishes of society. I inferred that if you take this POV as correct, then there is no metaphysical basis for saying abortion is wrong because of X or Y.

What he said was do onto others as you would want them to do on to you.

B.) are you saying if you could travel back in time, you would allow your mother to abort you? (provided the butterfly effect is in play and she chose to abort)

Grandfather paradox.
You still didn't answer my question
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 9:24:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 7:28:36 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:18:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:15:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Question to Pro-Life:

Why does life have value?

Inb4 Natural rights bs.

It's self-evident that a man is entitled to his life. When you see someone stab a guy on the streets, are you;
a.) disgusted
b.) pleased
or
c.) indifferent?


When you kill someone, you don't just kill that person, you also kill his seed. You murder him and his descendants. The person you killed could have invented a cure for AIDs, or his descendants could have created peace in the middle east.

What if Aristotle, or John Locke was never born? What if MLK was aborted, or his great grandfather was hung by the Klan? What if sir Issac newton's father was smothered by his grandmother as an infant?

Useless appeal to emotion rhetoric. I don't like it when people kill other people because of an emotional response and the social indoctrination that killing people is bad- it doesn't mean that killing people is objectively bad.

Pro-choice is not pro-objective abortion it's pro-arbitrary abortion. It's pro-choice, meaning they don't need a reason, they just need to be willing to have an abortion.

People don't have abortions for absolutely no reason, there is always an underlying reason behind it. As a result, there is no such thing as an "arbitrary abortion."

If you were pro-choice in regards to murder, you would be in favor of the murderer deciding what warrants a murder.

The difference is that murder violates rights, while abortion doesn't.


All that you said is complete and utter nonsense. What if abortion stopped another Hitler? Stalin? Useless examples are fvcktarded.

But you did not allow them the chance to become a Hitler or Gandhi, so you cannot punish them for the possibility of becoming a Hitler when they may have turned out to be a Gandhi. Both roads are possible.

Exactly. That is why the argument that you posed is crap; I would just taking it to its logical conclusion.

Do you think we should execute someone because there is a possibility they could become a mass murderer? That would be a paradox, because were would end up mass murdering people in order to prevent them from becoming mass murderers.

Exactly. That is why the argument that you posed is crap; I would just taking it to its logical conclusion.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 9:26:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 7:31:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:20:48 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:19:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:11:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:59:22 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Question to Pro-Life:

Why does life have value?

We value life, because we want people to value our lives.

Correct. Since we (society) don't believe that fetuses have value, they don't have value, effectively making all pro-life arguments moot from this ethical POV.

A.) Not what he said

It is. He stated that rights are relative to the wishes of society. I inferred that if you take this POV as correct, then there is no metaphysical basis for saying abortion is wrong because of X or Y.

What he said was do onto others as you would want them to do on to you.

Yes, but it therefore means that there is no objective right to life other than what society deems to be mutually beneficial to all of its members.

B.) are you saying if you could travel back in time, you would allow your mother to abort you? (provided the butterfly effect is in play and she chose to abort)

Grandfather paradox.
You still didn't answer my question

That assumes that my mother wanted to abort me in the first place, and someone/something stopped her. If the time sequence is exactly the same, there is no reason that my mother would abort me as the future would be exactly the same.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 11:24:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 6:54:23 PM, DanT wrote:
Do you believe in abortion before the 2nd trimester?
Yes.
Do you believe in abortion after the 2nd trimester?
Yes.
After 3rd, no unless in case of risk/ect
Do you believe in abortion after the 42nd trimester?
Isn't this a South Park reference?
When does it become arbitrary?
Never.

turn down for h'what
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 1:16:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 7:11:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:59:22 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Question to Pro-Life:

Why does life have value?

We value life, because we want people to value our lives.

Correct. Since we (society) don't believe that fetuses have value, they don't have value, effectively making all pro-life arguments moot from this ethical POV.

That is not necessaarily "society" we also do it on an individual level.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 1:54:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 9:24:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:28:36 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:18:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:15:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Question to Pro-Life:

Why does life have value?

Inb4 Natural rights bs.

It's self-evident that a man is entitled to his life. When you see someone stab a guy on the streets, are you;
a.) disgusted
b.) pleased
or
c.) indifferent?


When you kill someone, you don't just kill that person, you also kill his seed. You murder him and his descendants. The person you killed could have invented a cure for AIDs, or his descendants could have created peace in the middle east.

What if Aristotle, or John Locke was never born? What if MLK was aborted, or his great grandfather was hung by the Klan? What if sir Issac newton's father was smothered by his grandmother as an infant?

Useless appeal to emotion rhetoric. I don't like it when people kill other people because of an emotional response and the social indoctrination that killing people is bad- it doesn't mean that killing people is objectively bad.

Pro-choice is not pro-objective abortion it's pro-arbitrary abortion. It's pro-choice, meaning they don't need a reason, they just need to be willing to have an abortion.

People don't have abortions for absolutely no reason, there is always an underlying reason behind it. As a result, there is no such thing as an "arbitrary abortion."

But it's not objective reasons, it's based on individual discretion, preferences, and bias. If the women's life is threatened Pro-lifers usually have no complaint with allowing abortions. What Pro-choicers are advocating is for abortion to be based on the mother's choices, rather than objective reasons.

(adj) arbitrary (based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(adj) subjective (taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(adj) objective (undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

If you were pro-choice in regards to murder, you would be in favor of the murderer deciding what warrants a murder.

The difference is that murder violates rights, while abortion doesn't.

Why doesn't a fetus have rights? What grants you the authority to determine that?


All that you said is complete and utter nonsense. What if abortion stopped another Hitler? Stalin? Useless examples are fvcktarded.

But you did not allow them the chance to become a Hitler or Gandhi, so you cannot punish them for the possibility of becoming a Hitler when they may have turned out to be a Gandhi. Both roads are possible.

Exactly. That is why the argument that you posed is crap; I would just taking it to its logical conclusion.

No my argument is not crap, your argument is crap. My argument proposes that you should not take away their opportunity to be Gandhi, because you don't know what their future may hold, and what impact they may have on the future.
Your argument proposes that because it's possible they might be the next Hitler, taking away their opportunity to become the next Gandhi is justified.

Do you think we should execute someone because there is a possibility they could become a mass murderer? That would be a paradox, because were would end up mass murdering people in order to prevent them from becoming mass murderers.

Exactly. That is why the argument that you posed is crap; I would just taking it to its logical conclusion.

That does not prove my argument is crap, it proves your argument is crap, and also proves that your argument is not the logical conclusion of my argument.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 2:25:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 6:54:23 PM, DanT wrote:
Do you believe in abortion before the 2nd trimester?
Do you believe in abortion after the 2nd trimester?
Do you believe in abortion after the 42nd trimester?
When does it become arbitrary?



The question is: what kind of abortion should there be?

Is a fetus more worthy of rights in the 2nd trimester than the 1st?

Personally, I think that's a stupid way to go about things.

I agree with Sandra Day O'Conner. It is at the point of viability that a fetus/child/bun-in-the-oven merits rights.

Why?

If fetus/child/bun-in-the-oven is incapable of sustaining life on its own, then it is absurd to grant it "individualized" rights. If the fetus/child/bun-in-the-oven is capable of living on it's own, then it should stand that the state has an interest in preserving its life... (under most circumstances).

Personally, I can more easily support post birth abortion (i.e. the death penalty) then I can support late-term abortion, but that's just me. It's one of those morally queazy questions I never have to personally deal with -but I'm not going to tell others what they should/should not do. It's their decision.

(Btw. The Supreme Court presently thinks the trimester framework is stupid... and it is. Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey all the way, baby!)

If you get the irony of that which is in parenthesis, directly above this sentence, then your sense of humor is as dry/dark as mine. lol
Tsar of DDO
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 2:33:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'd say that until a fetus is born, we can't legally defend its right to life. However aborting it is pretty morally problematic at any point, with later and later points becoming more obviously immoral.

I am a moral absolutist and I believe greed is purely immoral. Greed=selfishness... Aborting a fetus to save your own hide is about as selfish an act as one could possibly carry through; it's against nature for a mother to kill her offspring. Unless. There is a good reason for it. I often turn to nature to find moral answers because animals are mostly exempt from morality, not having the benefit of sentience to offset the responsibility of morals. I had a cat who had a litter of kittens and she killed one of them (after it was born of course). Why? I'm not sure; she refused to feed it and kept sitting on it while the others fed. I was troubled by this and kept removing the runt from behind her and putting it in front of her to feed. It died despite my best efforts because I couldn't force the mother to feed it.

Pro-lifers are wrong. They are doubly wrong, in fact. First off, letting the police into the womb is about the sickest thing you can possibly do. Pro-life legislation, as backwards as it is, would put police officers in charge of making sure abortions don't happen. Officers are sworn to uphold the law and I don't even want to guess what exactly that would mean. And don't try to placate me with thoughts of moderation because I've been through enough of the legal system to know that if horrors are legal, then they will become reality despite your best intentions.

Second, you are ignoring nature. Your philosophy blinds you to the truth about what it really is to raise a child. Children don't burst onto the scene independently and raise themselves, it takes a LOT of work from at least one, usually two parents to raise that kid and if those efforts are nonexistent then the child isn't produced. You would say the only effort is ejaculation and then God does the rest, but it actually takes 9 months of biological pregnancy to create an infant. Without those 9 months of work from the mother (and to some degree the father), the child is NOT produced. You can't just dictate that the child has its own spiritual inertia and is being sent to Earth from heaven like God wound up and pitched it over here. Sometimes things, tragically, DON'T work out. If there isn't enough food/resources to raise a child and it needs to be killed then it's not selfish to kill it because bringing it into the world means threatening the lives of other people already born. Sure that's not really a reality in the modern USA but it does illustrate an example of how it's not absolutely immoral to abort a pregnancy. I've heard some cultures have been known to kill female infants because they were counting on a boy to work the fields (or something of that nature). This is not immoral or selfish, it is a harsh reality of life that yes, we don't have to face so much here and now but you have to accept that it isn't absolutely wrong/immoral to abort because there are circumstances where it is. It hurts us all to see abortions carried out for such petty reasons but unless you are going to volunteer your body to produce that child then you have no right to insist someone else does. Maybe in the future, pro-lifers will get the ultimate chance to practice their beliefs and can offer their women to people who are about to abort and transfer the fetus!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 2:47:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe if a woman becomes preganant then the child should be born....Plain & simple. The elimates obvious natural means they are not...as miscarriages.
TheAsylum
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 10:27:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 1:54:42 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 9:24:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:28:36 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:18:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:15:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Question to Pro-Life:

Why does life have value?

Inb4 Natural rights bs.

It's self-evident that a man is entitled to his life. When you see someone stab a guy on the streets, are you;
a.) disgusted
b.) pleased
or
c.) indifferent?


When you kill someone, you don't just kill that person, you also kill his seed. You murder him and his descendants. The person you killed could have invented a cure for AIDs, or his descendants could have created peace in the middle east.

What if Aristotle, or John Locke was never born? What if MLK was aborted, or his great grandfather was hung by the Klan? What if sir Issac newton's father was smothered by his grandmother as an infant?

Useless appeal to emotion rhetoric. I don't like it when people kill other people because of an emotional response and the social indoctrination that killing people is bad- it doesn't mean that killing people is objectively bad.

Pro-choice is not pro-objective abortion it's pro-arbitrary abortion. It's pro-choice, meaning they don't need a reason, they just need to be willing to have an abortion.

People don't have abortions for absolutely no reason, there is always an underlying reason behind it. As a result, there is no such thing as an "arbitrary abortion."

But it's not objective reasons, it's based on individual discretion, preferences, and bias. If the women's life is threatened Pro-lifers usually have no complaint with allowing abortions. What Pro-choicers are advocating is for abortion to be based on the mother's choices, rather than objective reasons.

There are no such thing as "objective reasons" beyond the mother's own reasons. Objective reason presupposes some kind of entity that gives people permission to have abortion based on some SPECIFIC reasons, while not others. This is clearly false.

(adj) arbitrary (based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(adj) subjective (taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(adj) objective (undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

k.

If you were pro-choice in regards to murder, you would be in favor of the murderer deciding what warrants a murder.

The difference is that murder violates rights, while abortion doesn't.

Why doesn't a fetus have rights? What grants you the authority to determine that?

Society's view on the lack of rights for potentiality.


All that you said is complete and utter nonsense. What if abortion stopped another Hitler? Stalin? Useless examples are fvcktarded.

But you did not allow them the chance to become a Hitler or Gandhi, so you cannot punish them for the possibility of becoming a Hitler when they may have turned out to be a Gandhi. Both roads are possible.

Exactly. That is why the argument that you posed is crap; I would just taking it to its logical conclusion.

No my argument is not crap, your argument is crap. My argument proposes that you should not take away their opportunity to be Gandhi, because you don't know what their future may hold, and what impact they may have on the future.
Your argument proposes that because it's possible they might be the next Hitler, taking away their opportunity to become the next Gandhi is justified.

If you're going to bring up the "They can be Isaac Newton" argument then arguing with you is completely fruitless and nonsensical.

Do you think we should execute someone because there is a possibility they could become a mass murderer? That would be a paradox, because were would end up mass murdering people in order to prevent them from becoming mass murderers.

Exactly. That is why the argument that you posed is crap; I would just taking it to its logical conclusion.

That does not prove my argument is crap, it proves your argument is crap, and also proves that your argument is not the logical conclusion of my argument.

Lol k.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 11:09:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 6:54:23 PM, DanT wrote:
Do you believe in abortion before the 2nd trimester?
Do you believe in abortion after the 2nd trimester?
Do you believe in abortion after the 42nd trimester?
When does it become arbitrary?

There's a squillion questions like this. If you keep adding grains of sand, when does it become a pile? If you give a man £10 every day, when does he become rich? If a fetus develops everyday, when does it gain a right to life? None of these questions are meaningless because the dividing line must from necessity be arbitrary. It's still arbitrary within certain limits.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 11:13:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 7:15:57 PM, DanT wrote:
What if Aristotle, or John Locke was never born? What if MLK was aborted, or his great grandfather was hung by the Klan? What if sir Issac newton's father was smothered by his grandmother as an infant?

There are potential people who could have been born who were greater philosophers than Aristotle, greater scientists than Einstein, more effective activists than Ghandi or MLK. Do we mourn the fact that they never existed? Potential people are not a promising target for assigning moral worth.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 11:23:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 11:13:49 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:15:57 PM, DanT wrote:
What if Aristotle, or John Locke was never born? What if MLK was aborted, or his great grandfather was hung by the Klan? What if sir Issac newton's father was smothered by his grandmother as an infant?

There are potential people who could have been born who were greater philosophers than Aristotle, greater scientists than Einstein, more effective activists than Ghandi or MLK. Do we mourn the fact that they never existed? Potential people are not a promising target for assigning moral worth.

This refers to a specific dilemma that Drafter once mentioned and could remind me of if he weren't so dammed mean to me, as it's a brilliant concept.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 11:44:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 2:47:23 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
I believe if a woman becomes preganant then the child should be born....Plain & simple. The elimates obvious natural means they are not...as miscarriages.

Well yeah the child should be born... I think we can all agree on that. But it's another thing entirely to make it illegal for it not to be born!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 11:57:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 10:27:33 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/15/2012 1:54:42 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 9:24:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:28:36 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:18:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:15:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Question to Pro-Life:

Why does life have value?

Inb4 Natural rights bs.

It's self-evident that a man is entitled to his life. When you see someone stab a guy on the streets, are you;
a.) disgusted
b.) pleased
or
c.) indifferent?


When you kill someone, you don't just kill that person, you also kill his seed. You murder him and his descendants. The person you killed could have invented a cure for AIDs, or his descendants could have created peace in the middle east.

What if Aristotle, or John Locke was never born? What if MLK was aborted, or his great grandfather was hung by the Klan? What if sir Issac newton's father was smothered by his grandmother as an infant?

Useless appeal to emotion rhetoric. I don't like it when people kill other people because of an emotional response and the social indoctrination that killing people is bad- it doesn't mean that killing people is objectively bad.

Pro-choice is not pro-objective abortion it's pro-arbitrary abortion. It's pro-choice, meaning they don't need a reason, they just need to be willing to have an abortion.

People don't have abortions for absolutely no reason, there is always an underlying reason behind it. As a result, there is no such thing as an "arbitrary abortion."

But it's not objective reasons, it's based on individual discretion, preferences, and bias. If the women's life is threatened Pro-lifers usually have no complaint with allowing abortions. What Pro-choicers are advocating is for abortion to be based on the mother's choices, rather than objective reasons.

There are no such thing as "objective reasons" beyond the mother's own reasons. Objective reason presupposes some kind of entity that gives people permission to have abortion based on some SPECIFIC reasons, while not others. This is clearly false.

(n) cause, reason, grounds (a justification for something existing or happening)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(adj) objective (undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

In other words an objective reason is a justification that is undistorted by emotion or personal bias.

If the mother's life is threaten, that is an objective reason. The mother is not deciding to have an abortion, but rather the fact the fetus is killing the mother has created an objective reason for abortion.

(adj) arbitrary (based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(adj) subjective (taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(adj) objective (undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

k.

So you are accepting the very definitions that proves your argument crap?
If you were pro-choice in regards to murder, you would be in favor of the murderer deciding what warrants a murder.

The difference is that murder violates rights, while abortion doesn't.

Why doesn't a fetus have rights? What grants you the authority to determine that?

Society's view on the lack of rights for potentiality.

A.) cultural morality does not determine whether someone has rights.
B.) if you believe that you would be pro-slavery in the 1860s.
C.) society does not say a fetus has no rights, only 41% of Americans are pro-choice, 50% are pro-life. That would imply a fetus does have rights by societal standards.
http://www.gallup.com...

All that you said is complete and utter nonsense. What if abortion stopped another Hitler? Stalin? Useless examples are fvcktarded.

But you did not allow them the chance to become a Hitler or Gandhi, so you cannot punish them for the possibility of becoming a Hitler when they may have turned out to be a Gandhi. Both roads are possible.

Exactly. That is why the argument that you posed is crap; I would just taking it to its logical conclusion.

No my argument is not crap, your argument is crap. My argument proposes that you should not take away their opportunity to be Gandhi, because you don't know what their future may hold, and what impact they may have on the future.
Your argument proposes that because it's possible they might be the next Hitler, taking away their opportunity to become the next Gandhi is justified.

If you're going to bring up the "They can be Isaac Newton" argument then arguing with you is completely fruitless and nonsensical. What gives the mother the right to deny all of her decedents their right to life? A single act of murder is a crime against millions, and a single act of abortion is a crime against millions.

That argument is the same moral argument used against the act of murder. Murder is considered immoral because it snuffs out the life of an innocent individual, and takes away not only his opportunity, but his descendants opportunity to do good in the world. What every contribution either the victim of his descendants could have contributed has been made impossible.

To kill a fetus that has done nothing wrong, is not only the murder of the fetus, but also the murder of any decedents the kid may have had.

Do you think we should execute someone because there is a possibility they could become a mass murderer? That would be a paradox, because were would end up mass murdering people in order to prevent them from becoming mass murderers.

Exactly. That is why the argument that you posed is crap; I would just taking it to its logical conclusion.

That does not prove my argument is crap, it proves your argument is crap, and also proves that your argument is not the logical conclusion of my argument.

Lol k.

You you laugh, than you agree?

(adv) OK, alright (an expression of agreement normally occurring at the beginning of a sentence)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

You have yet to make an counter argument that sticks.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 12:02:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No-one has answered my question yet. At what point does the child gain the right to life?

One does not fully develop until after the age of 18, an 18 year olds have the right to vote. So you can't say "when they have reached full development", because even after they are born they have yet to reach full development.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 12:33:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 11:57:24 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/15/2012 10:27:33 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/15/2012 1:54:42 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 9:24:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:28:36 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:18:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:15:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/14/2012 6:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But it's not objective reasons, it's based on individual discretion, preferences, and bias. If the women's life is threatened Pro-lifers usually have no complaint with allowing abortions. What Pro-choicers are advocating is for abortion to be based on the mother's choices, rather than objective reasons.

There are no such thing as "objective reasons" beyond the mother's own reasons. Objective reason presupposes some kind of entity that gives people permission to have abortion based on some SPECIFIC reasons, while not others. This is clearly false.

(n) cause, reason, grounds (a justification for something existing or happening)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(adj) objective (undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

In other words an objective reason is a justification that is undistorted by emotion or personal bias.

That doesn't exist, otherwise the reason would be rooted in the metaphysical.

If the mother's life is threaten, that is an objective reason. The mother is not deciding to have an abortion, but rather the fact the fetus is killing the mother has created an objective reason for abortion.

Nope. You think that it is an objective reason because the mother dying is supposedly bad, but the only reason that you think this is because you have been trained by society to have a negative emotional response to death and try to prevent it from happening. Everything is rooted in the emotional.

(adj) arbitrary (based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(adj) subjective (taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(adj) objective (undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

k.

So you are accepting the very definitions that proves your argument crap?
If you were pro-choice in regards to murder, you would be in favor of the murderer deciding what warrants a murder.

The difference is that murder violates rights, while abortion doesn't.

Why doesn't a fetus have rights? What grants you the authority to determine that?

Society's view on the lack of rights for potentiality.

A.) cultural morality does not determine whether someone has rights.

Yeah, it kind of does. Rights are a man-made fictional entity.

B.) if you believe that you would be pro-slavery in the 1860s.

Nope. Just because what society deems to be correct is not necessarily what I deem to be correct. Both of the decisions just have no metaphysical basis.

C.) society does not say a fetus has no rights, only 41% of Americans are pro-choice, 50% are pro-life. That would imply a fetus does have rights by societal standards.
http://www.gallup.com...

Societal rights are dictated by laws, more so than public opinion.

You have a deep tendency for conformational bias. That is solely one of the polls done on the subjects, while there have been others done that show different results:

http://en.wikipedia.org...


All that you said is complete and utter nonsense. What if abortion stopped another Hitler? Stalin? Useless examples are fvcktarded.

But you did not allow them the chance to become a Hitler or Gandhi, so you cannot punish them for the possibility of becoming a Hitler when they may have turned out to be a Gandhi. Both roads are possible.

Exactly. That is why the argument that you posed is crap; I would just taking it to its logical conclusion.

No my argument is not crap, your argument is crap. My argument proposes that you should not take away their opportunity to be Gandhi, because you don't know what their future may hold, and what impact they may have on the future.
Your argument proposes that because it's possible they might be the next Hitler, taking away their opportunity to become the next Gandhi is justified.

If you're going to bring up the "They can be Isaac Newton" argument then arguing with you is completely fruitless and nonsensical.

What gives the mother the right to deny all of her decedents their right to life?

The fact that they don't have that right in the first place.

A single act of murder is a crime against millions, and a single act of abortion is a crime against millions.

Lol wut?

That argument is the same moral argument used against the act of murder. Murder is considered immoral because it snuffs out the life of an innocent individual, and takes away not only his opportunity, but his descendants opportunity to do good in the world. What every contribution either the victim of his descendants could have contributed has been made impossible.

To kill a fetus that has done nothing wrong, is not only the murder of the fetus, but also the murder of any decedents the kid may have had.

Stop using the word "murder." It is not the equivalent of murder because rights are only given to those entities that are viable, not to those that are potential. For example, property rights are not given to a potential house, they are given to a viable house.

Murder is not objectively bad because there is no such thing as "objectively bad." What is bad is determined by society.

Do you think we should execute someone because there is a possibility they could become a mass murderer? That would be a paradox, because were would end up mass murdering people in order to prevent them from becoming mass murderers.

Exactly. That is why the argument that you posed is crap; I would just taking it to its logical conclusion.

That does not prove my argument is crap, it proves your argument is crap, and also proves that your argument is not the logical conclusion of my argument.

Lol k.

You you laugh, than you agree?

(adv) OK, alright (an expression of agreement normally occurring at the beginning of a sentence)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

You have yet to make an counter argument that sticks.

.....

http://www.zgeek.com...
......
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 12:36:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/15/2012 12:02:55 PM, DanT wrote:
No-one has answered my question yet. At what point does the child gain the right to life?

One does not fully develop until after the age of 18, an 18 year olds have the right to vote. So you can't say "when they have reached full development", because even after they are born they have yet to reach full development.

When society deems it so.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."