Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My Request to All Abortion Opponents

drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 11:33:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Out of all abortion debates, I've always seen one recurring tactic used by the pro-life side. Whenever you see an article on any pro-life website or blog of sufficiently bad taste, you will always see a lovely picture of an aborted fetus, approximately 16 weeks gestational age or more in most cases. Obviously, this is intended to make you think "oh, well all abortions must be like this". Hint: They aren't.

Only 5.6% of abortions are performed after the 20 week mark. Yet abortion opponents seem to love acting like 100% of abortions are late-term. Of course it helps their case to pretend that this is true - especially considering how their case is based entirely in emotion and not in rational thought. Must the abortion opponent go so low to defend their case?

So, on to my request: Please be honest. I'd advise you to stop using shock images as well. I know you people think "well we have to SHOW people what abortion does so they will listen!", but think about it. Wouldn't it be equally graphic if I showed a picture of a person receiving a kidney transplant on a sign with the caption "STOP KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS!"? The removed embryo or fetus shows nothing about its ability to feel, or think, or to do anything. Your argument with shock images is no better than showing a picture of a gay couple with the caption "This is icky, let's ban it!".

Thank you for your time.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 1:11:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 11:33:55 PM, drhead wrote:
Out of all abortion debates, I've always seen one recurring tactic used by the pro-life side. Whenever you see an article on any pro-life website or blog of sufficiently bad taste, you will always see a lovely picture of an aborted fetus, approximately 16 weeks gestational age or more in most cases. Obviously, this is intended to make you think "oh, well all abortions must be like this". Hint: They aren't.

Only 5.6% of abortions are performed after the 20 week mark. Yet abortion opponents seem to love acting like 100% of abortions are late-term. Of course it helps their case to pretend that this is true - especially considering how their case is based entirely in emotion and not in rational thought. Must the abortion opponent go so low to defend their case?

So, on to my request: Please be honest. I'd advise you to stop using shock images as well. I know you people think "well we have to SHOW people what abortion does so they will listen!", but think about it. Wouldn't it be equally graphic if I showed a picture of a person receiving a kidney transplant on a sign with the caption "STOP KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS!"? The removed embryo or fetus shows nothing about its ability to feel, or think, or to do anything. Your argument with shock images is no better than showing a picture of a gay couple with the caption "This is icky, let's ban it!".

Thank you for your time.

I think saying to not use shock images is a bit inappropriate. Using them isn't really about emotions, but seeing something for what it is whether then just being told it's bad.

I don't use images though. I can see where you are coming from, though. I think images are important for the visualization that better shows something more than words can, but can see why you don't like them.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 5:04:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 11:33:55 PM, drhead wrote:
Out of all abortion debates, I've always seen one recurring tactic used by the pro-life side. Whenever you see an article on any pro-life website or blog of sufficiently bad taste, you will always see a lovely picture of an aborted fetus, approximately 16 weeks gestational age or more in most cases. Obviously, this is intended to make you think "oh, well all abortions must be like this". Hint: They aren't.

Only 5.6% of abortions are performed after the 20 week mark. Yet abortion opponents seem to love acting like 100% of abortions are late-term. Of course it helps their case to pretend that this is true - especially considering how their case is based entirely in emotion and not in rational thought. Must the abortion opponent go so low to defend their case?

So, on to my request: Please be honest. I'd advise you to stop using shock images as well. I know you people think "well we have to SHOW people what abortion does so they will listen!", but think about it. Wouldn't it be equally graphic if I showed a picture of a person receiving a kidney transplant on a sign with the caption "STOP KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS!"? The removed embryo or fetus shows nothing about its ability to feel, or think, or to do anything. Your argument with shock images is no better than showing a picture of a gay couple with the caption "This is icky, let's ban it!".

Thank you for your time.

I think it's unrealistic for you to think you can decide how your opponent chooses to argue his/her case. You're going to portray the subject as something that is not human, so why expect your opponent not to do the opposite?? The fact that you consider showing the effects of your position to be "low", is just plain silly. It's as if you want that part to remain hidden. If you are going to defend and advocate that position then your opponent is fully justified in holding you responsible for defending the realities of that position, and showing your position as it really is.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 5:40:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The general problem is that many of these pictures are inaccurate (or just plain false: there have been more than a fair share of pictures used which are not actually showing an abortion, or showing an abortion resulting from a hysterectomy, or similar). Many more are usually accompanied by some distorting caption. This isn't a case of "abortion", but just a case of misrepresentation where people care more about people agreeing with them than being truthful.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 8:28:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 5:40:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The general problem is that many of these pictures are inaccurate (or just plain false: there have been more than a fair share of pictures used which are not actually showing an abortion, or showing an abortion resulting from a hysterectomy, or similar). Many more are usually accompanied by some distorting caption. This isn't a case of "abortion", but just a case of misrepresentation where people care more about people agreeing with them than being truthful.

It seems like that should be the Pro-Choice sides job to point out then, but it doesn't change the more or so honest pictures.

The idea Medic gave still fully applies. Like I said, I can understand not wanting someone to post pictures, but we shouldn't tell someone not to post his side to it's fullest. If the picture isn't honest, tell the voters.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 9:59:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is not the job of the opponent to show someone is lying, but the job of the person putting forth their case not to lie. It is not the job of the student to call their teachers liars when they make things up. To defend a liar is to remove all credibility.

So stop forcing in this being an abortion issue by saying things like "pro-choice". This isn't a case of abortion, this is a case of lying and defending people making false arguments in favour of something you agree with, a case of letting the ends justifying the means, and ultimately the devaluation of the pro-life case by having to resort to making things up to justify your beliefs.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 10:27:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 8:28:20 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 5:40:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The general problem is that many of these pictures are inaccurate (or just plain false: there have been more than a fair share of pictures used which are not actually showing an abortion, or showing an abortion resulting from a hysterectomy, or similar). Many more are usually accompanied by some distorting caption. This isn't a case of "abortion", but just a case of misrepresentation where people care more about people agreeing with them than being truthful.

It seems like that should be the Pro-Choice sides job to point out then, but it doesn't change the more or so honest pictures.

The idea Medic gave still fully applies. Like I said, I can understand not wanting someone to post pictures, but we shouldn't tell someone not to post his side to it's fullest. If the picture isn't honest, tell the voters.

I'd just want to point out here that the ostensible "pro-choice bloc" here (or at least "CON to pro-life") is indeed pointing it out for you.

drhead already fully rebutted Medic's point...most abortions are not mid-term or late-term.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 10:30:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd also like to point out that ROE V WADE has rather strict guidelines on late-term abortions, and that according to ROE V WADE, late-term abortions (i.e. when the fetus is "viable") are only valid in the case of endangerment to the mother's health.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 1:50:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, these posters are not given to those who are generally adamant or wholly rational about their belief, but easily swayed by rhetoric. To ignore trying to reason with these people and therefore educate them to the best side of your argument, and instead resort to lying, is tantamount to denying the freedom of an individual to their own opinion, by forcing propaganda down their throat in a vain attempt that lies somehow make you right. I'd rather hope that instead you have enough self-reliance in your argument to not have to resort to dishonesty to make your point.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 1:53:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 10:27:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 8:28:20 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 5:40:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The general problem is that many of these pictures are inaccurate (or just plain false: there have been more than a fair share of pictures used which are not actually showing an abortion, or showing an abortion resulting from a hysterectomy, or similar). Many more are usually accompanied by some distorting caption. This isn't a case of "abortion", but just a case of misrepresentation where people care more about people agreeing with them than being truthful.

It seems like that should be the Pro-Choice sides job to point out then, but it doesn't change the more or so honest pictures.

The idea Medic gave still fully applies. Like I said, I can understand not wanting someone to post pictures, but we shouldn't tell someone not to post his side to it's fullest. If the picture isn't honest, tell the voters.

I'd just want to point out here that the ostensible "pro-choice bloc" here (or at least "CON to pro-life") is indeed pointing it out for you.

drhead already fully rebutted Medic's point...most abortions are not mid-term or late-term.

And if the topic is about mid-late term? That's what I'm saying, that it's okay when the picture honestly represents the topic. If it's "Should Late-Term Abortions be legal" then the picture would be an honest depiction of Con's premise.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 1:58:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 1:53:40 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 10:27:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 8:28:20 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 5:40:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The general problem is that many of these pictures are inaccurate (or just plain false: there have been more than a fair share of pictures used which are not actually showing an abortion, or showing an abortion resulting from a hysterectomy, or similar). Many more are usually accompanied by some distorting caption. This isn't a case of "abortion", but just a case of misrepresentation where people care more about people agreeing with them than being truthful.

It seems like that should be the Pro-Choice sides job to point out then, but it doesn't change the more or so honest pictures.

The idea Medic gave still fully applies. Like I said, I can understand not wanting someone to post pictures, but we shouldn't tell someone not to post his side to it's fullest. If the picture isn't honest, tell the voters.

I'd just want to point out here that the ostensible "pro-choice bloc" here (or at least "CON to pro-life") is indeed pointing it out for you.

drhead already fully rebutted Medic's point...most abortions are not mid-term or late-term.

And if the topic is about mid-late term? That's what I'm saying, that it's okay when the picture honestly represents the topic. If it's "Should Late-Term Abortions be legal" then the picture would be an honest depiction of Con's premise.

And the answer is, "Late Term Abortions are NOT legal, per ROE V WADE". Pro-life thus distorts the issue and the argument at hand, which is about early-term abortions, hence their position about life beginning at conception.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 2:03:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 1:58:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 1:53:40 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 10:27:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 8:28:20 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 5:40:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The general problem is that many of these pictures are inaccurate (or just plain false: there have been more than a fair share of pictures used which are not actually showing an abortion, or showing an abortion resulting from a hysterectomy, or similar). Many more are usually accompanied by some distorting caption. This isn't a case of "abortion", but just a case of misrepresentation where people care more about people agreeing with them than being truthful.

It seems like that should be the Pro-Choice sides job to point out then, but it doesn't change the more or so honest pictures.

The idea Medic gave still fully applies. Like I said, I can understand not wanting someone to post pictures, but we shouldn't tell someone not to post his side to it's fullest. If the picture isn't honest, tell the voters.

I'd just want to point out here that the ostensible "pro-choice bloc" here (or at least "CON to pro-life") is indeed pointing it out for you.

drhead already fully rebutted Medic's point...most abortions are not mid-term or late-term.

And if the topic is about mid-late term? That's what I'm saying, that it's okay when the picture honestly represents the topic. If it's "Should Late-Term Abortions be legal" then the picture would be an honest depiction of Con's premise.

And the answer is, "Late Term Abortions are NOT legal, per ROE V WADE". Pro-life thus distorts the issue and the argument at hand, which is about early-term abortions, hence their position about life beginning at conception.

If the issue is whether or not it should be though, than saying it's not legal isn't really important. If someone argues with me that Late Term Abortions should be Legal, then I'm going to show them what a Late-Term Abortion looks like.

This thread is simply saying not to use them in an Abortion debate, and I'm saying to use them if they accurately display your case. If they do not accurately display your case in that specific Abortion debate, than use it.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 2:05:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 2:03:53 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 1:58:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 1:53:40 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 10:27:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 8:28:20 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 5:40:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The general problem is that many of these pictures are inaccurate (or just plain false: there have been more than a fair share of pictures used which are not actually showing an abortion, or showing an abortion resulting from a hysterectomy, or similar). Many more are usually accompanied by some distorting caption. This isn't a case of "abortion", but just a case of misrepresentation where people care more about people agreeing with them than being truthful.

It seems like that should be the Pro-Choice sides job to point out then, but it doesn't change the more or so honest pictures.

The idea Medic gave still fully applies. Like I said, I can understand not wanting someone to post pictures, but we shouldn't tell someone not to post his side to it's fullest. If the picture isn't honest, tell the voters.

I'd just want to point out here that the ostensible "pro-choice bloc" here (or at least "CON to pro-life") is indeed pointing it out for you.

drhead already fully rebutted Medic's point...most abortions are not mid-term or late-term.

And if the topic is about mid-late term? That's what I'm saying, that it's okay when the picture honestly represents the topic. If it's "Should Late-Term Abortions be legal" then the picture would be an honest depiction of Con's premise.

And the answer is, "Late Term Abortions are NOT legal, per ROE V WADE". Pro-life thus distorts the issue and the argument at hand, which is about early-term abortions, hence their position about life beginning at conception.

If the issue is whether or not it should be though, than saying it's not legal isn't really important. If someone argues with me that Late Term Abortions should be Legal, then I'm going to show them what a Late-Term Abortion looks like.

This thread is simply saying not to use them in an Abortion debate, and I'm saying to use them if they accurately display your case. If they do not accurately display your case in that specific Abortion debate, than use it.

I don't see a single person here defending late term abortions.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 2:08:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 2:05:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 2:03:53 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 1:58:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 1:53:40 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 10:27:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 8:28:20 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 5:40:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The general problem is that many of these pictures are inaccurate (or just plain false: there have been more than a fair share of pictures used which are not actually showing an abortion, or showing an abortion resulting from a hysterectomy, or similar). Many more are usually accompanied by some distorting caption. This isn't a case of "abortion", but just a case of misrepresentation where people care more about people agreeing with them than being truthful.

It seems like that should be the Pro-Choice sides job to point out then, but it doesn't change the more or so honest pictures.

The idea Medic gave still fully applies. Like I said, I can understand not wanting someone to post pictures, but we shouldn't tell someone not to post his side to it's fullest. If the picture isn't honest, tell the voters.

I'd just want to point out here that the ostensible "pro-choice bloc" here (or at least "CON to pro-life") is indeed pointing it out for you.

drhead already fully rebutted Medic's point...most abortions are not mid-term or late-term.

And if the topic is about mid-late term? That's what I'm saying, that it's okay when the picture honestly represents the topic. If it's "Should Late-Term Abortions be legal" then the picture would be an honest depiction of Con's premise.

And the answer is, "Late Term Abortions are NOT legal, per ROE V WADE". Pro-life thus distorts the issue and the argument at hand, which is about early-term abortions, hence their position about life beginning at conception.

If the issue is whether or not it should be though, than saying it's not legal isn't really important. If someone argues with me that Late Term Abortions should be Legal, then I'm going to show them what a Late-Term Abortion looks like.

This thread is simply saying not to use them in an Abortion debate, and I'm saying to use them if they accurately display your case. If they do not accurately display your case in that specific Abortion debate, than use it.

I don't see a single person here defending late term abortions.

You're not looking hard enough.

http://www.debate.org...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 2:09:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 2:08:13 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 2:05:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 2:03:53 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 1:58:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 1:53:40 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 10:27:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 8:28:20 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 5:40:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The general problem is that many of these pictures are inaccurate (or just plain false: there have been more than a fair share of pictures used which are not actually showing an abortion, or showing an abortion resulting from a hysterectomy, or similar). Many more are usually accompanied by some distorting caption. This isn't a case of "abortion", but just a case of misrepresentation where people care more about people agreeing with them than being truthful.

It seems like that should be the Pro-Choice sides job to point out then, but it doesn't change the more or so honest pictures.

The idea Medic gave still fully applies. Like I said, I can understand not wanting someone to post pictures, but we shouldn't tell someone not to post his side to it's fullest. If the picture isn't honest, tell the voters.

I'd just want to point out here that the ostensible "pro-choice bloc" here (or at least "CON to pro-life") is indeed pointing it out for you.

drhead already fully rebutted Medic's point...most abortions are not mid-term or late-term.

And if the topic is about mid-late term? That's what I'm saying, that it's okay when the picture honestly represents the topic. If it's "Should Late-Term Abortions be legal" then the picture would be an honest depiction of Con's premise.

And the answer is, "Late Term Abortions are NOT legal, per ROE V WADE". Pro-life thus distorts the issue and the argument at hand, which is about early-term abortions, hence their position about life beginning at conception.

If the issue is whether or not it should be though, than saying it's not legal isn't really important. If someone argues with me that Late Term Abortions should be Legal, then I'm going to show them what a Late-Term Abortion looks like.

This thread is simply saying not to use them in an Abortion debate, and I'm saying to use them if they accurately display your case. If they do not accurately display your case in that specific Abortion debate, than use it.

I don't see a single person here defending late term abortions.

You're not looking hard enough.

http://www.debate.org...

That poll is irrelevant to the participants of this discussion proper.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 2:14:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 2:09:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 2:08:13 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 2:05:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 2:03:53 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 1:58:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 1:53:40 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 10:27:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 8:28:20 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 5:40:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The general problem is that many of these pictures are inaccurate (or just plain false: there have been more than a fair share of pictures used which are not actually showing an abortion, or showing an abortion resulting from a hysterectomy, or similar). Many more are usually accompanied by some distorting caption. This isn't a case of "abortion", but just a case of misrepresentation where people care more about people agreeing with them than being truthful.

It seems like that should be the Pro-Choice sides job to point out then, but it doesn't change the more or so honest pictures.

The idea Medic gave still fully applies. Like I said, I can understand not wanting someone to post pictures, but we shouldn't tell someone not to post his side to it's fullest. If the picture isn't honest, tell the voters.

I'd just want to point out here that the ostensible "pro-choice bloc" here (or at least "CON to pro-life") is indeed pointing it out for you.

drhead already fully rebutted Medic's point...most abortions are not mid-term or late-term.

And if the topic is about mid-late term? That's what I'm saying, that it's okay when the picture honestly represents the topic. If it's "Should Late-Term Abortions be legal" then the picture would be an honest depiction of Con's premise.

And the answer is, "Late Term Abortions are NOT legal, per ROE V WADE". Pro-life thus distorts the issue and the argument at hand, which is about early-term abortions, hence their position about life beginning at conception.

If the issue is whether or not it should be though, than saying it's not legal isn't really important. If someone argues with me that Late Term Abortions should be Legal, then I'm going to show them what a Late-Term Abortion looks like.

This thread is simply saying not to use them in an Abortion debate, and I'm saying to use them if they accurately display your case. If they do not accurately display your case in that specific Abortion debate, than use it.

I don't see a single person here defending late term abortions.

You're not looking hard enough.

http://www.debate.org...

That poll is irrelevant to the participants of this discussion proper.

If you are talking about no one in this thread supporting it, then you're right. But I'm talking about when debating someone on the topic, it's going to be someone who does support it, and he/she will likely not have been from this thread.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 2:20:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 2:14:56 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 2:09:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 2:08:13 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 2:05:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 2:03:53 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 1:58:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 1:53:40 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 10:27:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 8:28:20 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 5:40:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The general problem is that many of these pictures are inaccurate (or just plain false: there have been more than a fair share of pictures used which are not actually showing an abortion, or showing an abortion resulting from a hysterectomy, or similar). Many more are usually accompanied by some distorting caption. This isn't a case of "abortion", but just a case of misrepresentation where people care more about people agreeing with them than being truthful.

It seems like that should be the Pro-Choice sides job to point out then, but it doesn't change the more or so honest pictures.

The idea Medic gave still fully applies. Like I said, I can understand not wanting someone to post pictures, but we shouldn't tell someone not to post his side to it's fullest. If the picture isn't honest, tell the voters.

I'd just want to point out here that the ostensible "pro-choice bloc" here (or at least "CON to pro-life") is indeed pointing it out for you.

drhead already fully rebutted Medic's point...most abortions are not mid-term or late-term.

And if the topic is about mid-late term? That's what I'm saying, that it's okay when the picture honestly represents the topic. If it's "Should Late-Term Abortions be legal" then the picture would be an honest depiction of Con's premise.

And the answer is, "Late Term Abortions are NOT legal, per ROE V WADE". Pro-life thus distorts the issue and the argument at hand, which is about early-term abortions, hence their position about life beginning at conception.

If the issue is whether or not it should be though, than saying it's not legal isn't really important. If someone argues with me that Late Term Abortions should be Legal, then I'm going to show them what a Late-Term Abortion looks like.

This thread is simply saying not to use them in an Abortion debate, and I'm saying to use them if they accurately display your case. If they do not accurately display your case in that specific Abortion debate, than use it.

I don't see a single person here defending late term abortions.

You're not looking hard enough.

http://www.debate.org...

That poll is irrelevant to the participants of this discussion proper.

If you are talking about no one in this thread supporting it, then you're right. But I'm talking about when debating someone on the topic, it's going to be someone who does support it, and he/she will likely not have been from this thread.

Right, that will depend upon the resolution or the intent of the OP. In this case, the OP is pretty clear that he finds the debate surrounding late-term abortions to be largely irrelevant to the discussion, as 95% of abortions are not late-term. This would strongly suggest that the OP is finding fault in a pro-life proclivity to apply late-term abortion imagery to the rest of the 95% of abortions that are not late term, calling it dishonest.

If pro-life only has a complaint about the 5% of abortions that are already illegal anyway, then they don't really have any reason to politicize the issue. However, we all know this is not true. Pro-life politicizes this issue because according to them, ALL abortions should be illegal, since life begins at conception. This does smack of dishonesty, if what the OP is saying is sound.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 3:01:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 1:53:40 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 10:27:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 8:28:20 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 5:40:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The general problem is that many of these pictures are inaccurate (or just plain false: there have been more than a fair share of pictures used which are not actually showing an abortion, or showing an abortion resulting from a hysterectomy, or similar). Many more are usually accompanied by some distorting caption. This isn't a case of "abortion", but just a case of misrepresentation where people care more about people agreeing with them than being truthful.

It seems like that should be the Pro-Choice sides job to point out then, but it doesn't change the more or so honest pictures.

The idea Medic gave still fully applies. Like I said, I can understand not wanting someone to post pictures, but we shouldn't tell someone not to post his side to it's fullest. If the picture isn't honest, tell the voters.

I'd just want to point out here that the ostensible "pro-choice bloc" here (or at least "CON to pro-life") is indeed pointing it out for you.

drhead already fully rebutted Medic's point...most abortions are not mid-term or late-term.

And if the topic is about mid-late term? That's what I'm saying, that it's okay when the picture honestly represents the topic. If it's "Should Late-Term Abortions be legal" then the picture would be an honest depiction of Con's premise.

Even in that case, a shock picture of a fetus doesn't really tell viewers much other than that late-term abortions don't look pretty, hence my "Stop Kidney Transplants" example. It is not specified what level of consciousness the fetus has achieved, nor do we know the circumstances of the abortion. It could have been that the fetus would have had a birth defect or severe genetic disorder, or that giving birth could have had a significant impact on the mother's health. A lot of people wait until it is very late since it is difficult to tell their loved ones, because they are pressured not to have an abortion early on, or because they find it hard to make arrangements for an abortion. Bottom line: it doesn't show us anything that is actually objectively useful to the debate.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Mrs.lynch
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 6:13:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 5:04:20 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/10/2013 11:33:55 PM, drhead wrote:
Out of all abortion debates, I've always seen one recurring tactic used by the pro-life side. Whenever you see an article on any pro-life website or blog of sufficiently bad taste, you will always see a lovely picture of an aborted fetus, approximately 16 weeks gestational age or more in most cases. Obviously, this is intended to make you think "oh, well all abortions must be like this". Hint: They aren't.

Only 5.6% of abortions are performed after the 20 week mark. Yet abortion opponents seem to love acting like 100% of abortions are late-term. Of course it helps their case to pretend that this is true - especially considering how their case is based entirely in emotion and not in rational thought. Must the abortion opponent go so low to defend their case?

So, on to my request: Please be honest. I'd advise you to stop using shock images as well. I know you people think "well we have to SHOW people what abortion does so they will listen!", but think about it. Wouldn't it be equally graphic if I showed a picture of a person receiving a kidney transplant on a sign with the caption "STOP KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS!"? The removed embryo or fetus shows nothing about its ability to feel, or think, or to do anything. Your argument with shock images is no better than showing a picture of a gay couple with the caption "This is icky, let's ban it!".

Thank you for your time.

I think it's unrealistic for you to think you can decide how your opponent chooses to argue his/her case. You're going to portray the subject as something that is not human, so why expect your opponent not to do the opposite?? The fact that you consider showing the effects of your position to be "low", is just plain silly. It's as if you want that part to remain hidden. If you are going to defend and advocate that position then your opponent is fully justified in holding you responsible for defending the realities of that position, and showing your position as it really is.

Great quote.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 10:27:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 11:33:55 PM, drhead wrote:
Out of all abortion debates, I've always seen one recurring tactic used by the pro-life side. Whenever you see an article on any pro-life website or blog of sufficiently bad taste, you will always see a lovely picture of an aborted fetus, approximately 16 weeks gestational age or more in most cases. Obviously, this is intended to make you think "oh, well all abortions must be like this". Hint: They aren't.

Only 5.6% of abortions are performed after the 20 week mark. Yet abortion opponents seem to love acting like 100% of abortions are late-term. Of course it helps their case to pretend that this is true - especially considering how their case is based entirely in emotion and not in rational thought. Must the abortion opponent go so low to defend their case?

So, on to my request: Please be honest. I'd advise you to stop using shock images as well. I know you people think "well we have to SHOW people what abortion does so they will listen!", but think about it. Wouldn't it be equally graphic if I showed a picture of a person receiving a kidney transplant on a sign with the caption "STOP KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS!"? The removed embryo or fetus shows nothing about its ability to feel, or think, or to do anything. Your argument with shock images is no better than showing a picture of a gay couple with the caption "This is icky, let's ban it!".

Thank you for your time.

No, but imagery is the best way to persuade. I went to Catholic school, and we all had to watch videos of three abortions, from inside the uterus, using three different techniques (one was vacuum, one was the cutting up method, and one was chemical, I think). It was absolutely horrific, and I'll never forget it.

I'm pro-choice nowadays. But really, no argument in the world could rival the impact of those videos. And some abortions do occur at 16 weeks. It's legal at sixteen weeks. As long as they're showing legal abortions, as long as the videos are there with the permission of the woman involved, then I don't see a problem with it.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2013 11:54:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 10:27:58 PM, rross wrote:
At 9/10/2013 11:33:55 PM, drhead wrote:
Out of all abortion debates, I've always seen one recurring tactic used by the pro-life side. Whenever you see an article on any pro-life website or blog of sufficiently bad taste, you will always see a lovely picture of an aborted fetus, approximately 16 weeks gestational age or more in most cases. Obviously, this is intended to make you think "oh, well all abortions must be like this". Hint: They aren't.

Only 5.6% of abortions are performed after the 20 week mark. Yet abortion opponents seem to love acting like 100% of abortions are late-term. Of course it helps their case to pretend that this is true - especially considering how their case is based entirely in emotion and not in rational thought. Must the abortion opponent go so low to defend their case?

So, on to my request: Please be honest. I'd advise you to stop using shock images as well. I know you people think "well we have to SHOW people what abortion does so they will listen!", but think about it. Wouldn't it be equally graphic if I showed a picture of a person receiving a kidney transplant on a sign with the caption "STOP KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS!"? The removed embryo or fetus shows nothing about its ability to feel, or think, or to do anything. Your argument with shock images is no better than showing a picture of a gay couple with the caption "This is icky, let's ban it!".

Thank you for your time.

No, but imagery is the best way to persuade. I went to Catholic school, and we all had to watch videos of three abortions, from inside the uterus, using three different techniques (one was vacuum, one was the cutting up method, and one was chemical, I think). It was absolutely horrific, and I'll never forget it.

I'm pro-choice nowadays. But really, no argument in the world could rival the impact of those videos. And some abortions do occur at 16 weeks. It's legal at sixteen weeks. As long as they're showing legal abortions, as long as the videos are there with the permission of the woman involved, then I don't see a problem with it.

Well, that's kind of my point... abortion opponents don't really have much substance to their arguments when you take out the "life begins at conception" assertion and all of the shock images. This thread eliminates half of the frequently used arguments.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 12:13:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 5:04:20 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/10/2013 11:33:55 PM, drhead wrote:
Out of all abortion debates, I've always seen one recurring tactic used by the pro-life side. Whenever you see an article on any pro-life website or blog of sufficiently bad taste, you will always see a lovely picture of an aborted fetus, approximately 16 weeks gestational age or more in most cases. Obviously, this is intended to make you think "oh, well all abortions must be like this". Hint: They aren't.

Only 5.6% of abortions are performed after the 20 week mark. Yet abortion opponents seem to love acting like 100% of abortions are late-term. Of course it helps their case to pretend that this is true - especially considering how their case is based entirely in emotion and not in rational thought. Must the abortion opponent go so low to defend their case?

So, on to my request: Please be honest. I'd advise you to stop using shock images as well. I know you people think "well we have to SHOW people what abortion does so they will listen!", but think about it. Wouldn't it be equally graphic if I showed a picture of a person receiving a kidney transplant on a sign with the caption "STOP KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS!"? The removed embryo or fetus shows nothing about its ability to feel, or think, or to do anything. Your argument with shock images is no better than showing a picture of a gay couple with the caption "This is icky, let's ban it!".

Thank you for your time.

I think it's unrealistic for you to think you can decide how your opponent chooses to argue his/her case.

It's not as much telling you what to do as it is saying "Your argument is a load of crap, so we might as well get it out of the way before you waste your breath using it."

You're going to portray the subject as something that is not human, so why expect your opponent not to do the opposite??

I use relevant facts which actually allow conclusions to be drawn from them with the expectation that my opponent would do the same. In other words, I don't use shock images to win people over with emotion, and instead, I use actual logic to make my case. It seems that abortion opponents like you have boundless emotion and little to no logic.

In addition, I expect for my opponent not to simply represent 5% of the entire issue, while pretending the other 95% is just like the 5% they are actually acknowledging.

The fact that you consider showing the effects of your position to be "low", is just plain silly. It's as if you want that part to remain hidden. If you are going to defend and advocate that position then your opponent is fully justified in holding you responsible for defending the realities of that position, and showing your position as it really is.

And I have defended it. As I said, I could employ the same technique to go against surgery. I have no trouble going up against it, since shock images prove absolutely nothing of objective value to the debate.

Then again, preference of emotion over logic tends to be a personality trait. In that respect, you shouldn't have too much trouble recruiting clueless people off the street with or without shock images. It's almost like their position is predetermined.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 1:57:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 11:54:18 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/11/2013 10:27:58 PM, rross wrote:
At 9/10/2013 11:33:55 PM, drhead wrote:
Out of all abortion debates, I've always seen one recurring tactic used by the pro-life side. Whenever you see an article on any pro-life website or blog of sufficiently bad taste, you will always see a lovely picture of an aborted fetus, approximately 16 weeks gestational age or more in most cases. Obviously, this is intended to make you think "oh, well all abortions must be like this". Hint: They aren't.

Only 5.6% of abortions are performed after the 20 week mark. Yet abortion opponents seem to love acting like 100% of abortions are late-term. Of course it helps their case to pretend that this is true - especially considering how their case is based entirely in emotion and not in rational thought. Must the abortion opponent go so low to defend their case?

But it is true. And it is an extremely emotive issue. There's nothing wrong with trying to persuade with emotion as long as you don't misrepresent facts. In this case, abortions are regularly performed after 16 weeks (although it's less common than before 13 weeks), at which point the fetus does look a lot like a baby. Of course it does. It's only months away from becoming a baby, and - if left alone - it would have become a baby, a child, an adult etc. And not only any baby, but someone's son or daughter, niece or nephew etc. Is it possible not to be a bit emotional about this - and should we even try not to be?

Consider this. Why do we have laws to protect infants? Why shouldn't parents be able to "put them down" in the same way they put pets down, if they're not working out? Maybe you can come up with some rational arguments, but to my mind the main argument against infanticide is a strongly emotional one. We love the little babies. We have a strong instinct to protect them, and if the parents won't do it, we'll step in and do it for them...because they're gorgeous, precious little babies!

Perhaps you're feeling a bit ambivalent about abortion, if you feel that showing aborted fetuses is unfair. You feel better seeing an aborted fetus at 12 weeks because it looks less human than it does a month later. But it is equally as human, of course.

Sorry. This answer is inappropriately long, but I just want to add that I think it's normal and right to bit horrified by abortion, and saddened by it. I don't think we need to live in denial about what it entails.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 9:04:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 1:57:35 AM, rross wrote:
At 9/11/2013 11:54:18 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/11/2013 10:27:58 PM, rross wrote:
At 9/10/2013 11:33:55 PM, drhead wrote:
Out of all abortion debates, I've always seen one recurring tactic used by the pro-life side. Whenever you see an article on any pro-life website or blog of sufficiently bad taste, you will always see a lovely picture of an aborted fetus, approximately 16 weeks gestational age or more in most cases. Obviously, this is intended to make you think "oh, well all abortions must be like this". Hint: They aren't.

Only 5.6% of abortions are performed after the 20 week mark. Yet abortion opponents seem to love acting like 100% of abortions are late-term. Of course it helps their case to pretend that this is true - especially considering how their case is based entirely in emotion and not in rational thought. Must the abortion opponent go so low to defend their case?

But it is true. And it is an extremely emotive issue. There's nothing wrong with trying to persuade with emotion as long as you don't misrepresent facts. In this case, abortions are regularly performed after 16 weeks (although it's less common than before 13 weeks), at which point the fetus does look a lot like a baby. Of course it does. It's only months away from becoming a baby, and - if left alone - it would have become a baby, a child, an adult etc. And not only any baby, but someone's son or daughter, niece or nephew etc. Is it possible not to be a bit emotional about this - and should we even try not to be?

Consider this. Why do we have laws to protect infants? Why shouldn't parents be able to "put them down" in the same way they put pets down, if they're not working out? Maybe you can come up with some rational arguments, but to my mind the main argument against infanticide is a strongly emotional one. We love the little babies. We have a strong instinct to protect them, and if the parents won't do it, we'll step in and do it for them...because they're gorgeous, precious little babies!

Perhaps you're feeling a bit ambivalent about abortion, if you feel that showing aborted fetuses is unfair. You feel better seeing an aborted fetus at 12 weeks because it looks less human than it does a month later. But it is equally as human, of course.

Sorry. This answer is inappropriately long, but I just want to add that I think it's normal and right to bit horrified by abortion, and saddened by it. I don't think we need to live in denial about what it entails.

I'm not trying to argue against the emotional reaction to graphic images of abortions, I'm mainly arguing against their use to attempt to substitute emotion for logic. In addition, I'm trying to point out how disproportionately late term abortion images are used, and the lack of context - why don't we see any images of innocent little blastocysts, or videos of women taking abortion pills? If this were an honest tactic, portraying any side of the issue would be equally effective.

Infanticide can be argued against with logic, too - by the point the baby is born, it is much easier to put it up for adoption than it is to kill it. With a pregnancy, it is currently physically impossible to transfer a pregnancy, so abortion is the only immediately available option. In the late term, it can be argued that it is easier to give birth in most cases than it is to abort. Then again, I'm not a woman, I've never been pregnant, I've never given birth, and I've never had a late-term abortion, so take that with a grain of salt.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 11:08:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 1:57:35 AM, rross wrote:
At 9/11/2013 11:54:18 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/11/2013 10:27:58 PM, rross wrote:
At 9/10/2013 11:33:55 PM, drhead wrote:
Out of all abortion debates, I've always seen one recurring tactic used by the pro-life side. Whenever you see an article on any pro-life website or blog of sufficiently bad taste, you will always see a lovely picture of an aborted fetus, approximately 16 weeks gestational age or more in most cases. Obviously, this is intended to make you think "oh, well all abortions must be like this". Hint: They aren't.

Only 5.6% of abortions are performed after the 20 week mark. Yet abortion opponents seem to love acting like 100% of abortions are late-term. Of course it helps their case to pretend that this is true - especially considering how their case is based entirely in emotion and not in rational thought. Must the abortion opponent go so low to defend their case?

But it is true. And it is an extremely emotive issue. There's nothing wrong with trying to persuade with emotion as long as you don't misrepresent facts.

Do you believe that most images are portrayed without context, and most images used are done with the aim to shock, and not portray things factually? Here's three truths:

1) Abortion procedures look no worse than kidney transplants or other major pieces of surgery. Both of course look horrible, but abortion is not unique. Moreover, other acts, such as animal farming is much more vivid and shocking, yet the images are not shown with such vigour by the same people. This is because the images are used to persuade people of your side regardless of the actual facts.

2) Abortion procedures that are the most vivid are the most commonly displayed. This means that the most accurate representation is not. Most are done of 20-week abortions or even just plain lies (http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org...), when in reality the result of an abortion is generally a lot of clumped up blood (because the fetus is so small compared to the rest of the body that needs moving about).

3) When it comes to a great moral issue, to trivialise it to something as base and easily manipulated away from truth as using shock tactics and vivid imagery is childish. I very much doubt one would support it if it were used by others to argue against your position.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 11:20:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 1:57:35 AM, rross wrote:
At 9/11/2013 11:54:18 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/11/2013 10:27:58 PM, rross wrote:
At 9/10/2013 11:33:55 PM, drhead wrote:
Out of all abortion debates, I've always seen one recurring tactic used by the pro-life side. Whenever you see an article on any pro-life website or blog of sufficiently bad taste, you will always see a lovely picture of an aborted fetus, approximately 16 weeks gestational age or more in most cases. Obviously, this is intended to make you think "oh, well all abortions must be like this". Hint: They aren't.

Only 5.6% of abortions are performed after the 20 week mark. Yet abortion opponents seem to love acting like 100% of abortions are late-term. Of course it helps their case to pretend that this is true - especially considering how their case is based entirely in emotion and not in rational thought. Must the abortion opponent go so low to defend their case?

But it is true. And it is an extremely emotive issue. There's nothing wrong with trying to persuade with emotion as long as you don't misrepresent facts. In this case, abortions are regularly performed after 16 weeks (although it's less common than before 13 weeks), at which point the fetus does look a lot like a baby. Of course it does. It's only months away from becoming a baby, and - if left alone - it would have become a baby, a child, an adult etc. And not only any baby, but someone's son or daughter, niece or nephew etc. Is it possible not to be a bit emotional about this - and should we even try not to be?

Consider this. Why do we have laws to protect infants? Why shouldn't parents be able to "put them down" in the same way they put pets down, if they're not working out? Maybe you can come up with some rational arguments, but to my mind the main argument against infanticide is a strongly emotional one. We love the little babies. We have a strong instinct to protect them, and if the parents won't do it, we'll step in and do it for them...because they're gorgeous, precious little babies!

Perhaps you're feeling a bit ambivalent about abortion, if you feel that showing aborted fetuses is unfair. You feel better seeing an aborted fetus at 12 weeks because it looks less human than it does a month later. But it is equally as human, of course.

Sorry. This answer is inappropriately long, but I just want to add that I think it's normal and right to bit horrified by abortion, and saddened by it. I don't think we need to live in denial about what it entails.

I think the ROE V WADE language surrounding "viability" is appropriate. Before a fetus is viable, it is incapable of life on its own. Also, to my knowledge, it cannot be removed from the mother and sustained or transplanted to another "host". If, during this stage of inviability, if the parents choose to abort it, I think it is appropriate. However, once it is viable, none of this reasoning or logic applies, and thus ROE V WADE is appropriately extremely strict in regards to what can be done at that point.

Basically, if you don't draw the line at viability, where do you draw the line at then? At conception? That seems ridiculously restrictive. Accidents do happen. While it may be unsettling to think that one's child was a product of numerous abortions, would it also be unsettling to think that one's child was a product of an unwanted and accidental happenstance?

Is sex supposed to only be for the purpose of procreation? Do you truly believe that?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 6:05:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 12:13:35 AM, drhead wrote:

I think it's unrealistic for you to think you can decide how your opponent chooses to argue his/her case.

It's not as much telling you what to do as it is saying "Your argument is a load of crap, so we might as well get it out of the way before you waste your breath using it."

In a debate setting, you simply "saying" that does not make it so. If that's part of your argument then your goal is to convince your opponent, and the audience that his argument is not valid. You don't get to impose invalidity of an opposing argument by fiat.

You're going to portray the subject as something that is not human, so why expect your opponent not to do the opposite??

I use relevant facts which actually allow conclusions to be drawn from them

You start out at a disadvantage. It is obviously alive since the cells are dividing and it is doing exactly what it is suppose to be doing at that particular stage in its development. Being formed of human beings and gestating inside a human, by definition makes it human. So your opponent starts out way ahead on the relevant fact that, at any stage, abortion ends a human life.

Now, if you have even more relevant facts than those, then winning should be no problem for you. It should be easy for your relevant facts to overcome the emotional argument, thus no need to complain about his/her tactic.

with the expectation that my opponent would do the same. In other words, I don't use shock images to win people over with emotion, and instead, I use actual logic to make my case. It seems that abortion opponents like you have boundless emotion and little to no logic.

I'd be willing to bet money that if the images supported your position then you'd be using them. What you actually use is arguments that attempt to convince the audience that a pre-born child is something that is less than human. I think your opponent is presenting your position in a much more honest way, by showing the reality and outcome of that which you advocate for.

In addition, I expect for my opponent not to simply represent 5% of the entire issue, while pretending the other 95% is just like the 5% they are actually acknowledging.

There is a simple fix for that. If you don't want images used that show heads and limbs being ripped off, then specify in the debate that you are arguing for abortion before a particular stage in gestation, where those things would not be present yet. Problem fixed.

The fact that you consider showing the effects of your position to be "low", is just plain silly. It's as if you want that part to remain hidden. If you are going to defend and advocate that position then your opponent is fully justified in holding you responsible for defending the realities of that position, and showing your position as it really is.

And I have defended it. As I said, I could employ the same technique to go against surgery.

Are there really people who would be convinced by that comparison??

I have no trouble going up against it, since shock images prove absolutely nothing of objective value to the debate.

Then again, preference of emotion over logic tends to be a personality trait. In that respect, you shouldn't have too much trouble recruiting clueless people off the street with or without shock images. It's almost like their position is predetermined.

You lose any claim to "logic" when you try to argue that ending the life of a human being, at any stage, should not involve human emotion. That sounds like an argument that a robot would make, something that is devoid of emotion thus not human. Even many animals show emotion at the loss of others of their kind, so for a human to not feel emotion for ending a human life just seems inherently evil, to me.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 6:11:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 5:40:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The general problem is that many of these pictures are inaccurate (or just plain false: there have been more than a fair share of pictures used which are not actually showing an abortion, or showing an abortion resulting from a hysterectomy, or similar). Many more are usually accompanied by some distorting caption. This isn't a case of "abortion", but just a case of misrepresentation where people care more about people agreeing with them than being truthful.

They can have value, such as showing what a baby looks like at a particular stage of development. Overall though, I would agree that if the person is using it to show the result of an abortion then there needs to be some form of verification that it is indeed from an abortion procedure, if the validity of the image is challenged.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 6:18:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 9:59:49 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It is not the job of the opponent to show someone is lying, but the job of the person putting forth their case not to lie. It is not the job of the student to call their teachers liars when they make things up. To defend a liar is to remove all credibility.

So stop forcing in this being an abortion issue by saying things like "pro-choice". This isn't a case of abortion, this is a case of lying and defending people making false arguments in favour of something you agree with, a case of letting the ends justifying the means, and ultimately the devaluation of the pro-life case by having to resort to making things up to justify your beliefs.

If you have evidence that they're lying then just bring that evidence forth rather than making it an issue of who has to prove what. If you can't produce any evidence that it's a lie then it's just a matter of you making a claim and forcing the opponent to spend time on that issue. To me that seems like a fundamentally dishonest tactic, and one that is easily avoided by simply producing the evidence that convinces you that it is a lie.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 6:20:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/11/2013 10:27:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/11/2013 8:28:20 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/11/2013 5:40:19 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The general problem is that many of these pictures are inaccurate (or just plain false: there have been more than a fair share of pictures used which are not actually showing an abortion, or showing an abortion resulting from a hysterectomy, or similar). Many more are usually accompanied by some distorting caption. This isn't a case of "abortion", but just a case of misrepresentation where people care more about people agreeing with them than being truthful.

It seems like that should be the Pro-Choice sides job to point out then, but it doesn't change the more or so honest pictures.

The idea Medic gave still fully applies. Like I said, I can understand not wanting someone to post pictures, but we shouldn't tell someone not to post his side to it's fullest. If the picture isn't honest, tell the voters.

I'd just want to point out here that the ostensible "pro-choice bloc" here (or at least "CON to pro-life") is indeed pointing it out for you.

drhead already fully rebutted Medic's point...most abortions are not mid-term or late-term.

If that's his argument then the debate rules need to specify the timing aspect, otherwise abortion as a whole, is fair game.