Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My View on Abortion

DebatorJack
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 9:13:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I personally believe that Abortion is crucial right to women giving them more control over their lives and future. If abortion was to be outlawed, then women would become second class citizens just like they were before Roe v. Wade. As a libertarian I believe that there should be no governmental restrictions against abortion clinics. Republicans are wanting to create restrictions and regulations against abortion clinics so it would be more expensive for them to operate and cause them to shutdown. Doing this is immoral since the less abortion clinics there are out their, the less women have access to crucial abortion rights. I also disagree with the Democrats view on abortion. While although being pro-choice, many Democrats want to fund abortion clinics so that the cost of an abortion would be lowered. I think this is irresponsible because the cost of paying for an abortion should be not on society as a whole, but the individual who makes the choice of getting one. I say this because society is split on the subject very deeply and emotionally. Funding abortion clinics is also irresponsible when the government is practically drowning in debt. What do you guys think of my entire opinion on abortion? What parts of my opinion do you agree or disagree with? I would love to hear your thoughts and ideas
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 11:59:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why do you think abortion is a crucial right? Why can't both the man and the woman exercise some common sense and use protection? Abortions wouldn't even be necessary is people weren't so stupid. That's just me. I do think that the woman should bear THE ENTIRE financial responsibility for the abortion and shouldn't be covered by insurance because it's easily preventable and not a necessary procedure.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 4:09:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 11:59:11 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Why do you think abortion is a crucial right? Why can't both the man and the woman exercise some common sense and use protection? Abortions wouldn't even be necessary is people weren't so stupid. That's just me. I do think that the woman should bear THE ENTIRE financial responsibility for the abortion and shouldn't be covered by insurance because it's easily preventable and not a necessary procedure.

Yes. Like car accidents could be avoided by staying at home. Or skin cancer could be avoided by never going in the sun. And tooth cavities could be avoided by never eating sugar. I'm sick of people not taking responsibility for their own actions! They live like careless animals and then expect the world to pick up after them!
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 4:24:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 4:09:40 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/16/2014 11:59:11 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Why do you think abortion is a crucial right? Why can't both the man and the woman exercise some common sense and use protection? Abortions wouldn't even be necessary is people weren't so stupid. That's just me. I do think that the woman should bear THE ENTIRE financial responsibility for the abortion and shouldn't be covered by insurance because it's easily preventable and not a necessary procedure.

Yes. Like car accidents could be avoided by staying at home. Or skin cancer could be avoided by never going in the sun. And tooth cavities could be avoided by never eating sugar. I'm sick of people not taking responsibility for their own actions! They live like careless animals and then expect the world to pick up after them!

Getting the state's (ie., forcing the peoeple to) help to kill a uh...near-human thingy that's inside you is kinda different from getting the state's help you fix your leg that you broke in a car crash, Garbanza. Not that I'm going to go hardline against it or anything, but it's a touchier issue than you're mockingly making it out to be :P
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 4:58:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 4:24:49 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Getting the state's (ie., forcing the peoeple to) help to kill a uh...near-human thingy that's inside you is kinda different from getting the state's help you fix your leg that you broke in a car crash, Garbanza. Not that I'm going to go hardline against it or anything, but it's a touchier issue than you're mockingly making it out to be :P

If those hypersexual sluts would just restrict themselves to lesbian sex and masturbation, none if this would arise in the first place. I don't think it's enough for them to pay for their own abortions. They should be forced to bear those children without any pain relief. Someone has to teach them about cause and effect.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 5:25:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
No okay shouldn't come on here at night. But seriously, did you know there was a study that showed that 85 percent of all public comment about abortion is made by men? Makes all this women-choice-pay-yourself stuff ring a bit hollow.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 9:48:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 11:59:11 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Why do you think abortion is a crucial right? Why can't both the man and the woman exercise some common sense and use protection? Abortions wouldn't even be necessary is people weren't so stupid.

lol at speaking the simple truth. Not much of that these days.

That's just me. I do think that the woman should bear THE ENTIRE financial responsibility for the abortion and shouldn't be covered by insurance because it's easily preventable and not a necessary procedure.

But why 'the woman'? What about the schmuck who contributed his half of the new life?
This space for rent.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 9:29:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's funny how so few threads on the subject of abortion ever address the Constitutional rights of the children who are being targeted for the abortions.

Shouldn't a 'woman's right' begin when her life does?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 2:28:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 9:13:55 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
I personally believe that Abortion is crucial right to women giving them more control over their lives and future. If abortion was to be outlawed, then women would become second class citizens just like they were before Roe v. Wade.

Hear, hear! Although as a "libertarian" you hold this correct view for the wrong reason (the old adage about broken clocks still being capable of being right twice a day comes to mind).

As a libertarian I believe that there should be no governmental restrictions against abortion clinics.

Translation: As a "libertarian" your fundamental cognitive, psychological, and philosophical orientation, which you cloak in high-flown libertarian rationalizations, is an egoistic individualism, the essence of which is a lack of the sense of ontological, moral and spiritual connectedness to others that would make you give enough of a damn about the parties involved (fetuses and pregnant women) to either oppose a woman's right to choose, or to support abortion rights to the extent of supporting public funding of termination procedures for women who lack the financial means to exercise their moral and legal right to end an unwanted pregnancy.

Republicans are wanting to create restrictions and regulations against abortion clinics so it would be more expensive for them to operate and cause them to shutdown. Doing this is immoral since the less abortion clinics there are out their, the less women have access to crucial abortion rights.

Yes, but then I must also once again point out that the "libertarian's" perverse concept of rights is that everyone should have license to exist and operate as an atomized individual without having to participate in the social relatedness and interdependence of existence, without receiving influences from or acknowledging social responsibilities to society. In short, the ideology of "libertarianism" confuses the asocial laissez-faire state of affairs that it idealizes with freedom.

I also disagree with the Democrats view on abortion. While although being pro-choice, many Democrats want to fund abortion clinics so that the cost of an abortion would be lowered. I think this is irresponsible because the cost of paying for an abortion should be not on society as a whole, but the individual who makes the choice of getting one.

Again, this is because you think in egoistic terms of radically, atomistically individual individuals, you lack the intuition of our integrality with one another and responsibility to be our brother's and sisters keeper, to create a society that reflects life's mutual and reciprocal relations and responsibilities by organizing itself to guarantee well-being for all, including women whose social and emotional well-being may be contingent on having access to an abortion.

I say this because society is split on the subject very deeply and emotionally. Funding abortion clinics is also irresponsible when the government is practically drowning in debt.

Thanks to the kind of undertaxation of the rich that "libertarians" support; and to corporate welfare, and a multi-trillion dollar war/occupation of Iraq motivated by the special interests of capitalists, to the ongoing transfer of wealth to the one percent that's facilitated by the DDO-industrial complex, to a recession that was caused by too much unfettered capitalism in the now dominant financial sector, to the pervasive subversive influence of big business, in short to the realities of actually-existing capitalism which your ideologized and idealized view of capitalism doesn't take into account in an intellectually honest fashion.

What do you guys think of my entire opinion on abortion? What parts of my opinion do you agree or disagree with? I would love to hear your thoughts and ideas

Again, I refer you to the adage about broken clocks. Yes, don't fool yourselves "libertarians" and Ron/Rand Paul devotees, your views don't actually come from a terribly progressive or even authentically libertarian place.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
DebatorJack
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 12:40:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 2:28:10 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/16/2014 9:13:55 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
I personally believe that Abortion is crucial right to women giving them more control over their lives and future. If abortion was to be outlawed, then women would become second class citizens just like they were before Roe v. Wade.

Hear, hear! Although as a "libertarian" you hold this correct view for the wrong reason (the old adage about broken clocks still being capable of being right twice a day comes to mind).

Hmmm lets see, all you did was insult me and not offer your own opinion right around here.

As a libertarian I believe that there should be no governmental restrictions against abortion clinics.

Translation: As a "libertarian" your fundamental cognitive, psychological, and philosophical orientation, which you cloak in high-flown libertarian rationalizations, is an egoistic individualism, the essence of which is a lack of the sense of ontological, moral and spiritual connectedness to others that would make you give enough of a damn about the parties involved (fetuses and pregnant women) to either oppose a woman's right to choose, or to support abortion rights to the extent of supporting public funding of termination procedures for women who lack the financial means to exercise their moral and legal right to end an unwanted pregnancy.

Its not the governments job to get involved in matters such as that. Its not egotistical individualism. By allowing abortion the government would be giving a damn because it would be giving the women the right to an abortion. If abortion was made illegal then women would result to coat hanger abortions leading to way higher rates of death. Legalization of abortion drops the death rate for them by a lot. So if saving more lives via legalization isn't "giving a damn" then I don't know where you get your flawed sense of morality from.


Republicans are wanting to create restrictions and regulations against abortion clinics so it would be more expensive for them to operate and cause them to shutdown. Doing this is immoral since the less abortion clinics there are out their, the less women have access to crucial abortion rights.

Yes, but then I must also once again point out that the "libertarian's" perverse concept of rights is that everyone should have license to exist and operate as an atomized individual without having to participate in the social relatedness and interdependence of existence, without receiving influences from or acknowledging social responsibilities to society. In short, the ideology of "libertarianism" confuses the asocial laissez-faire state of affairs that it idealizes with freedom.

Once again, you don't offer a counter point here, you just go on randomly attacking libertarianism and not focusing on the issue of abortion. Please stay on topic.

I also disagree with the Democrats view on abortion. While although being pro-choice, many Democrats want to fund abortion clinics so that the cost of an abortion would be lowered. I think this is irresponsible because the cost of paying for an abortion should be not on society as a whole, but the individual who makes the choice of getting one.

Again, this is because you think in egoistic terms of radically, atomistically individual individuals, you lack the intuition of our integrality with one another and responsibility to be our brother's and sisters keeper, to create a society that reflects life's mutual and reciprocal relations and responsibilities by organizing itself to guarantee well-being for all, including women whose social and emotional well-being may be contingent on having access to an abortion.

Abortion is an issue that no one is going to be happy with. The libertarian view of allowing legal non-tax payer funded abortion is the greatest good. It serves the public good because it both allows people the freedom to obtain an abortion if they want too, and it allows the individual to keep more of their own money instead of being taxed more to fund abortion.

I say this because society is split on the subject very deeply and emotionally. Funding abortion clinics is also irresponsible when the government is practically drowning in debt.

Thanks to the kind of undertaxation of the rich that "libertarians" support; and to corporate welfare, and a multi-trillion dollar war/occupation of Iraq motivated by the special interests of capitalists, to the ongoing transfer of wealth to the one percent that's facilitated by the DDO-industrial complex, to a recession that was caused by too much unfettered capitalism in the now dominant financial sector, to the pervasive subversive influence of big business, in short to the realities of actually-existing capitalism which your ideologized and idealized view of capitalism doesn't take into account in an intellectually honest fashion.

I could argue economics with you but I wont. This argument is purely about abortion. You really need to stay on topic:

What do you guys think of my entire opinion on abortion? What parts of my opinion do you agree or disagree with? I would love to hear your thoughts and ideas

Again, I refer you to the adage about broken clocks. Yes, don't fool yourselves "libertarians" and Ron/Rand Paul devotees, your views don't actually come from a terribly progressive or even authentically libertarian place.

In conclusion you may have offered one or two decent arguments but the rest you just went off topic majorly. If you wanna have an actual discussion about abortion then I suggest you stay on topic. If you don't and want to just attack the idea of libertarianism tooth and nail, then this forum isn't for you
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 12:50:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 4:09:40 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/16/2014 11:59:11 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Why do you think abortion is a crucial right? Why can't both the man and the woman exercise some common sense and use protection? Abortions wouldn't even be necessary is people weren't so stupid. That's just me. I do think that the woman should bear THE ENTIRE financial responsibility for the abortion and shouldn't be covered by insurance because it's easily preventable and not a necessary procedure.

Yes. Like car accidents could be avoided by staying at home. Or skin cancer could be avoided by never going in the sun. And tooth cavities could be avoided by never eating sugar. I'm sick of people not taking responsibility for their own actions! They live like careless animals and then expect the world to pick up after them!

Car accidents can be avoided with safe driving habits.
Skin cancer is preventable with sun-screen and moderation in the sun.
Cavities are preventable by brushing your teeth and drinking water.

Notice how all of those are preventable by using common sense and an inexpensive device? An abortion is the direct result of the opposite.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 12:51:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 9:48:37 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/16/2014 11:59:11 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Why do you think abortion is a crucial right? Why can't both the man and the woman exercise some common sense and use protection? Abortions wouldn't even be necessary is people weren't so stupid.

lol at speaking the simple truth. Not much of that these days.

That's just me. I do think that the woman should bear THE ENTIRE financial responsibility for the abortion and shouldn't be covered by insurance because it's easily preventable and not a necessary procedure.

But why 'the woman'? What about the schmuck who contributed his half of the new life?

What if he's against the abortion? If he wants her to have it, sure let him contribute, but if he wants the kid to live he shouldn't have to pay.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 3:31:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If women having the right to abortion is crucial for their rights, is men having a right to cut ties with the child equally as pressing?

I'm assuming you mean the woman is basically a slave due to the child, so why must a man also be a slave to the child, in terms of support?
My work here is, finally, done.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 4:09:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 12:40:16 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
At 9/18/2014 2:28:10 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/16/2014 9:13:55 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
I personally believe that Abortion is crucial right to women giving them more control over their lives and future. If abortion was to be outlawed, then women would become second class citizens just like they were before Roe v. Wade.

Hear, hear! Although as a "libertarian" you hold this correct view for the wrong reason (the old adage about broken clocks still being capable of being right twice a day comes to mind).

Hmmm lets see, all you did was insult me and not offer your own opinion right around here.

As a libertarian I believe that there should be no governmental restrictions against abortion clinics.

Translation: As a "libertarian" your fundamental cognitive, psychological, and philosophical orientation, which you cloak in high-flown libertarian rationalizations, is an egoistic individualism, the essence of which is a lack of the sense of ontological, moral and spiritual connectedness to others that would make you give enough of a damn about the parties involved (fetuses and pregnant women) to either oppose a woman's right to choose, or to support abortion rights to the extent of supporting public funding of termination procedures for women who lack the financial means to exercise their moral and legal right to end an unwanted pregnancy.

Its not the governments job to get involved in matters such as that. Its not egotistical individualism. By allowing abortion the government would be giving a damn because it would be giving the women the right to an abortion. If abortion was made illegal then women would result to coat hanger abortions leading to way higher rates of death. Legalization of abortion drops the death rate for them by a lot. So if saving more lives via legalization isn't "giving a damn" then I don't know where you get your flawed sense of morality from.


Republicans are wanting to create restrictions and regulations against abortion clinics so it would be more expensive for them to operate and cause them to shutdown. Doing this is immoral since the less abortion clinics there are out their, the less women have access to crucial abortion rights.

Yes, but then I must also once again point out that the "libertarian's" perverse concept of rights is that everyone should have license to exist and operate as an atomized individual without having to participate in the social relatedness and interdependence of existence, without receiving influences from or acknowledging social responsibilities to society. In short, the ideology of "libertarianism" confuses the asocial laissez-faire state of affairs that it idealizes with freedom.

Once again, you don't offer a counter point here, you just go on randomly attacking libertarianism and not focusing on the issue of abortion. Please stay on topic.

I also disagree with the Democrats view on abortion. While although being pro-choice, many Democrats want to fund abortion clinics so that the cost of an abortion would be lowered. I think this is irresponsible because the cost of paying for an abortion should be not on society as a whole, but the individual who makes the choice of getting one.

Again, this is because you think in egoistic terms of radically, atomistically individual individuals, you lack the intuition of our integrality with one another and responsibility to be our brother's and sisters keeper, to create a society that reflects life's mutual and reciprocal relations and responsibilities by organizing itself to guarantee well-being for all, including women whose social and emotional well-being may be contingent on having access to an abortion.

Abortion is an issue that no one is going to be happy with. The libertarian view of allowing legal non-tax payer funded abortion is the greatest good. It serves the public good because it both allows people the freedom to obtain an abortion if they want too, and it allows the individual to keep more of their own money instead of being taxed more to fund abortion.

I say this because society is split on the subject very deeply and emotionally. Funding abortion clinics is also irresponsible when the government is practically drowning in debt.

Thanks to the kind of undertaxation of the rich that "libertarians" support; and to corporate welfare, and a multi-trillion dollar war/occupation of Iraq motivated by the special interests of capitalists, to the ongoing transfer of wealth to the one percent that's facilitated by the DDO-industrial complex, to a recession that was caused by too much unfettered capitalism in the now dominant financial sector, to the pervasive subversive influence of big business, in short to the realities of actually-existing capitalism which your ideologized and idealized view of capitalism doesn't take into account in an intellectually honest fashion.

I could argue economics with you but I wont. This argument is purely about abortion. You really need to stay on topic:

What do you guys think of my entire opinion on abortion? What parts of my opinion do you agree or disagree with? I would love to hear your thoughts and ideas

Again, I refer you to the adage about broken clocks. Yes, don't fool yourselves "libertarians" and Ron/Rand Paul devotees, your views don't actually come from a terribly progressive or even authentically libertarian place.

In conclusion you may have offered one or two decent arguments but the rest you just went off topic majorly. If you wanna have an actual discussion about abortion then I suggest you stay on topic. If you don't and want to just attack the idea of libertarianism tooth and nail, then this forum isn't for you

Firstly, I stipulated at the outset that I agree that women should have the legal right to terminate a pregnancy, we simply have no argument there. Rather, it's the cognitive-ideological mock-"libertarian" orientation underlying your position that I see fit to critically take issue with. And since you in fact identify yourself as a "libertarian" and explicitly articulate "libertarian" ideology as a rationale for your position you make your "libertarianism" relevant to the conversation and fair game for criticism.

Secondly, I apologize if I made you feel personally insulted. My intention was to criticize you as a "libertarian"; not holistically, so to speak, not the totality of your character and personhood, the contents of which I would sincerely hope exceed your "libertarianism".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 7:24:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 12:51:08 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 9/17/2014 9:48:37 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/16/2014 11:59:11 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Why do you think abortion is a crucial right? Why can't both the man and the woman exercise some common sense and use protection? Abortions wouldn't even be necessary is people weren't so stupid.

lol at speaking the simple truth. Not much of that these days.

That's just me. I do think that the woman should bear THE ENTIRE financial responsibility for the abortion and shouldn't be covered by insurance because it's easily preventable and not a necessary procedure.

But why 'the woman'? What about the schmuck who contributed his half of the new life?


What if he's against the abortion? If he wants her to have it, sure let him contribute, but if he wants the kid to live he shouldn't have to pay.

Boy, it gets complicated. Maybe people should just get properly married and be responsible adults. And maybe a lot of people can't do that unless they ask God into their life.
This space for rent.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 4:08:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 7:24:22 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/18/2014 12:51:08 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 9/17/2014 9:48:37 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/16/2014 11:59:11 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Why do you think abortion is a crucial right? Why can't both the man and the woman exercise some common sense and use protection? Abortions wouldn't even be necessary is people weren't so stupid.

lol at speaking the simple truth. Not much of that these days.

That's just me. I do think that the woman should bear THE ENTIRE financial responsibility for the abortion and shouldn't be covered by insurance because it's easily preventable and not a necessary procedure.

But why 'the woman'? What about the schmuck who contributed his half of the new life?


What if he's against the abortion? If he wants her to have it, sure let him contribute, but if he wants the kid to live he shouldn't have to pay.

Boy, it gets complicated. Maybe people should just get properly married and be responsible adults. And maybe a lot of people can't do that unless they ask God into their life.

And maybe yours is an unsophisticated moralistic mentality. Methinks so.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
DebatorJack
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 7:56:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Firstly, I stipulated at the outset that I agree that women should have the legal right to terminate a pregnancy, we simply have no argument there. Rather, it's the cognitive-ideological mock-"libertarian" orientation underlying your position that I see fit to critically take issue with. And since you in fact identify yourself as a "libertarian" and explicitly articulate "libertarian" ideology as a rationale for your position you make your "libertarianism" relevant to the conversation and fair game for criticism.

Secondly, I apologize if I made you feel personally insulted. My intention was to criticize you as a "libertarian"; not holistically, so to speak, not the totality of your character and personhood, the contents of which I would sincerely hope exceed your "libertarianism".

It seemed like you were just making personal attacks instead of debating so thank you for clearing that up and all that you weren't, I appreciate it.

Secondly, your right we seem for the most part to agree on abortion. Would you like to have a battle over political ideology? We would define our political philosophy before we even debated and then go at it and then perhaps establish a limit of times we can respond so the debate doesn't last for like weeks lol
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 8:44:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 12:50:02 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:09:40 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/16/2014 11:59:11 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Why do you think abortion is a crucial right? Why can't both the man and the woman exercise some common sense and use protection? Abortions wouldn't even be necessary is people weren't so stupid. That's just me. I do think that the woman should bear THE ENTIRE financial responsibility for the abortion and shouldn't be covered by insurance because it's easily preventable and not a necessary procedure.

Yes. Like car accidents could be avoided by staying at home. Or skin cancer could be avoided by never going in the sun. And tooth cavities could be avoided by never eating sugar. I'm sick of people not taking responsibility for their own actions! They live like careless animals and then expect the world to pick up after them!


Car accidents can be avoided with safe driving habits.
Skin cancer is preventable with sun-screen and moderation in the sun.
Cavities are preventable by brushing your teeth and drinking water.

Notice how all of those are preventable by using common sense and an inexpensive device? An abortion is the direct result of the opposite.

So do you think that car accident injuries, skin cancer and tooth cavities shouldn't be covered by insurance either?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 6:58:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 3:31:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
If women having the right to abortion is crucial for their rights, is men having a right to cut ties with the child equally as pressing?

No, it's not, because abortion is related to the woman's right over her own body during pregnancy, while the right to cut ties with a child is related to child raising, and this right applies to men and women equally.

If you think about it, laws are very strict about a person's right over their own body. Doctors can't treat patients without their permission, for example. The laws about money are different and the government takes a person's wealth in the form of taxes and fines all the time. So the difference between abortion and child support is actually very consistent with other laws.

I'm assuming you mean the woman is basically a slave due to the child, so why must a man also be a slave to the child, in terms of support?

Many single mothers (it can be fathers, but it's usually mothers) can't afford to raise children properly on their own without support. Most people, including me, think that it would be inhumane to let them starve or neglect their children because of lack of resources. There are also human rights arguments about children being entitled to healthy environments and education, etc.

If we decide to support single mothers, then the decision needs to be made about where that support comes from. I personally think that child support is not worth the bother and that support should come directly from the state. Other people object to their taxes being spent in this way, and insist that the father pays towards the support of his biological children (or the mother, if she's the one who has decided to cut ties).

I agree though. Most fathers who voluntarily decide to renounce parental rights are not worth chasing for money, and it makes no sense to put single mother in the position where they have to.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:05:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 4:58:34 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:24:49 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Getting the state's (ie., forcing the peoeple to) help to kill a uh...near-human thingy that's inside you is kinda different from getting the state's help you fix your leg that you broke in a car crash, Garbanza. Not that I'm going to go hardline against it or anything, but it's a touchier issue than you're mockingly making it out to be :P

If those hypersexual sluts would just restrict themselves to lesbian sex and masturbation, none if this would arise in the first place. I don't think it's enough for them to pay for their own abortions. They should be forced to bear those children without any pain relief. Someone has to teach them about cause and effect.
They should be taught a lesson at the cost of forcing the fetus to be born and live a childhood of likely neglect, abuse, or suicide in the foster home system? [1][2]

If an embryo or a zygote is human just because it shares human DNA (but no human bodily function), then masturbation should be banned because sperm are people too. Human DNA is no equivalent to a full-fledged human being, human capacity of thought and function does.

I agree with an abortion ban after 20 weeks, when it's proven that human recognitive abilities are in place, but you'd play with two future lives just to "slut shame?"

(https://www.childwelfare.gov...)
(https://chronicleofsocialchange.org...)
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 12:08:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 4:09:40 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/16/2014 11:59:11 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Why do you think abortion is a crucial right? Why can't both the man and the woman exercise some common sense and use protection? Abortions wouldn't even be necessary is people weren't so stupid. That's just me. I do think that the woman should bear THE ENTIRE financial responsibility for the abortion and shouldn't be covered by insurance because it's easily preventable and not a necessary procedure.

Yes. Like car accidents could be avoided by staying at home.

More like driving the speed limit, stopping at stop signs/stop lights, and being an overall responsible driver.

Or skin cancer could be avoided by never going in the sun.

Wearing sun screen.

And tooth cavities could be avoided by never eating sugar.

Eat sugar in moderation, brush your teeth often, and floss
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 12:12:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The problem with the whole abortion debate is the mindset taken on.

Abortion advocates will treat the fetus like it is a parasite that enslaves and oppresses the woman - woe to she who is pregnant!

Pro-life advocates treat the fetus as a human life, which is to be loved, cared for, and respected.
Nolite Timere
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 6:14:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 9:13:55 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
I personally believe that Abortion is crucial right to women giving them more control over their lives and future. If abortion was to be outlawed, then women would become second class citizens just like they were before Roe v. Wade. As a libertarian I believe that there should be no governmental restrictions against abortion clinics. Republicans are wanting to create restrictions and regulations against abortion clinics so it would be more expensive for them to operate and cause them to shutdown. Doing this is immoral since the less abortion clinics there are out their, the less women have access to crucial abortion rights.

I totally agree with this. The government has no business in people's bodies. Outlawing abortion denies women the fundamental right to have control over their own wombs, and makes about as much sense as compulsory organ donation - these are both occasions where people are forced to let someone/something else use their bodies. The crux of the pro-life argument is that it's "a woman's responsibility to give birth," which is a disgustingly sexist concept and an attempt to dictate a woman's role in society. It's so hypocritical that a party which goes on and on about "small government," is trying to regulate the uterus.

I also disagree with the Democrats view on abortion. While although being pro-choice, many Democrats want to fund abortion clinics so that the cost of an abortion would be lowered. I think this is irresponsible because the cost of paying for an abortion should be not on society as a whole, but the individual who makes the choice of getting one. I say this because society is split on the subject very deeply and emotionally. Funding abortion clinics is also irresponsible when the government is practically drowning in debt. What do you guys think of my entire opinion on abortion? What parts of my opinion do you agree or disagree with? I would love to hear your thoughts and ideas

And here's where we disagree. We on the left don't want state-funded abortion clinics because we want some sort of totalitarian command economy, as much as conservatives like to claim so. We want the right to management of our own bodies to be a right available to all women. If abortion clinics were all private, those who couldn't afford private treatment would either be forced to give birth or have to risk their lives getting cheap abortions in unsafe clinics, and poor women are more likely to abort because these are the ones who can't provide for their children. Sharing the burden of paying for healthcare, like all forms of mutual aid, benefits everyone. It guarantees that anyone who needs treatment has it available to them, regardless of how rich they are. Also, if someone refuses to pay for part of someone else's healthcare treatment because they themself oppose the treatment, they are imposing their will and moral values on the person who needs the treatment, and they have no right to do that.
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
DebatorJack
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:01:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I also disagree with the Democrats view on abortion. While although being pro-choice, many Democrats want to fund abortion clinics so that the cost of an abortion would be lowered. I think this is irresponsible because the cost of paying for an abortion should be not on society as a whole, but the individual who makes the choice of getting one. I say this because society is split on the subject very deeply and emotionally. Funding abortion clinics is also irresponsible when the government is practically drowning in debt. What do you guys think of my entire opinion on abortion? What parts of my opinion do you agree or disagree with? I would love to hear your thoughts and ideas

And here's where we disagree. We on the left don't want state-funded abortion clinics because we want some sort of totalitarian command economy, as much as conservatives like to claim so. We want the right to management of our own bodies to be a right available to all women. If abortion clinics were all private, those who couldn't afford private treatment would either be forced to give birth or have to risk their lives getting cheap abortions in unsafe clinics, and poor women are more likely to abort because these are the ones who can't provide for their children. Sharing the burden of paying for healthcare, like all forms of mutual aid, benefits everyone. It guarantees that anyone who needs treatment has it available to them, regardless of how rich they are. Also, if someone refuses to pay for part of someone else's healthcare treatment because they themself oppose the treatment, they are imposing their will and moral values on the person who needs the treatment, and they have no right to do that.

The government should stay out of healthcare as well. It is not the governments place, but that is a different argument I will not engage you in right now. Focusing on abortion, if the government requires tax payers to pay for abortion, then the government is punishing society as a whole for the reckless decisions of a few which isn't fair or just at all. The government would also be imposing its morals and values on the majority by requiring people to fund abortion which the government has no right to do. That goes against the American ideal of freedom of choice.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:29:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 10:05:36 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:58:34 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:24:49 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Getting the state's (ie., forcing the peoeple to) help to kill a uh...near-human thingy that's inside you is kinda different from getting the state's help you fix your leg that you broke in a car crash, Garbanza. Not that I'm going to go hardline against it or anything, but it's a touchier issue than you're mockingly making it out to be :P

If those hypersexual sluts would just restrict themselves to lesbian sex and masturbation, none if this would arise in the first place. I don't think it's enough for them to pay for their own abortions. They should be forced to bear those children without any pain relief. Someone has to teach them about cause and effect.
They should be taught a lesson at the cost of forcing the fetus to be born and live a childhood of likely neglect, abuse, or suicide in the foster home system? [1][2]

It's not really up to us to say if a life is worth living or not. This idea that foster children should have been aborted - unlike middle-class children in intact nuclear families - is actually very horrible.

If an embryo or a zygote is human just because it shares human DNA (but no human bodily function), then masturbation should be banned because sperm are people too. Human DNA is no equivalent to a full-fledged human being, human capacity of thought and function does.

You know that women don't eject sperm or even eggs when they masturbate, right? There's no risk to genetic material for female masturbation.

I agree with an abortion ban after 20 weeks, when it's proven that human recognitive abilities are in place, but you'd play with two future lives just to "slut shame?"

What if the mother's life is at risk?

(https://www.childwelfare.gov...)
(https://chronicleofsocialchange.org...)
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 9:38:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 9:29:23 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:05:36 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:58:34 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:24:49 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Getting the state's (ie., forcing the peoeple to) help to kill a uh...near-human thingy that's inside you is kinda different from getting the state's help you fix your leg that you broke in a car crash, Garbanza. Not that I'm going to go hardline against it or anything, but it's a touchier issue than you're mockingly making it out to be :P

If those hypersexual sluts would just restrict themselves to lesbian sex and masturbation, none if this would arise in the first place. I don't think it's enough for them to pay for their own abortions. They should be forced to bear those children without any pain relief. Someone has to teach them about cause and effect.
They should be taught a lesson at the cost of forcing the fetus to be born and live a childhood of likely neglect, abuse, or suicide in the foster home system? [1][2]

It's not really up to us to say if a life is worth living or not. This idea that foster children should have been aborted - unlike middle-class children in intact nuclear families - is actually very horrible.
That's not what I was trying to convey at all. Forcing a bundle of cells to be born into an extremely poor and likely difficult life just to feel better morally about having done it is horrible. Forcing women to have these children just to teach them a lesson with no regard as to how difficult that future person's life will be is immoral in itself.

In regard to the sperm thing; it's the same concept. An embryo/zygote and a sperm are both organisms that have the potential of naturally transforming into a human being; but both share a similar lack of human thought and characteristics other than raw DNA.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 8:02:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 8:44:43 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/18/2014 12:50:02 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:09:40 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/16/2014 11:59:11 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Why do you think abortion is a crucial right? Why can't both the man and the woman exercise some common sense and use protection? Abortions wouldn't even be necessary is people weren't so stupid. That's just me. I do think that the woman should bear THE ENTIRE financial responsibility for the abortion and shouldn't be covered by insurance because it's easily preventable and not a necessary procedure.

Yes. Like car accidents could be avoided by staying at home. Or skin cancer could be avoided by never going in the sun. And tooth cavities could be avoided by never eating sugar. I'm sick of people not taking responsibility for their own actions! They live like careless animals and then expect the world to pick up after them!


Car accidents can be avoided with safe driving habits.
Skin cancer is preventable with sun-screen and moderation in the sun.
Cavities are preventable by brushing your teeth and drinking water.

Notice how all of those are preventable by using common sense and an inexpensive device? An abortion is the direct result of the opposite.

So do you think that car accident injuries, skin cancer and tooth cavities shouldn't be covered by insurance either?

I'd be willing to debate the merits of tooth cavities under insurance, but skin cancer and car accident injuries are just a little bit more life threatening than an abortion.
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 8:05:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 9:01:07 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
I also disagree with the Democrats view on abortion. While although being pro-choice, many Democrats want to fund abortion clinics so that the cost of an abortion would be lowered. I think this is irresponsible because the cost of paying for an abortion should be not on society as a whole, but the individual who makes the choice of getting one. I say this because society is split on the subject very deeply and emotionally. Funding abortion clinics is also irresponsible when the government is practically drowning in debt. What do you guys think of my entire opinion on abortion? What parts of my opinion do you agree or disagree with? I would love to hear your thoughts and ideas

And here's where we disagree. We on the left don't want state-funded abortion clinics because we want some sort of totalitarian command economy, as much as conservatives like to claim so. We want the right to management of our own bodies to be a right available to all women. If abortion clinics were all private, those who couldn't afford private treatment would either be forced to give birth or have to risk their lives getting cheap abortions in unsafe clinics, and poor women are more likely to abort because these are the ones who can't provide for their children. Sharing the burden of paying for healthcare, like all forms of mutual aid, benefits everyone. It guarantees that anyone who needs treatment has it available to them, regardless of how rich they are. Also, if someone refuses to pay for part of someone else's healthcare treatment because they themself oppose the treatment, they are imposing their will and moral values on the person who needs the treatment, and they have no right to do that.

The government should stay out of healthcare as well. It is not the governments place, but that is a different argument I will not engage you in right now. Focusing on abortion, if the government requires tax payers to pay for abortion, then the government is punishing society as a whole for the reckless decisions of a few which isn't fair or just at all. The government would also be imposing its morals and values on the majority by requiring people to fund abortion which the government has no right to do. That goes against the American ideal of freedom of choice.

Reckless decisions? It's highly unlikely that getting an abortion would be a reckless decision. Women don't just wake up and think "Oh, today I think I'm going to get an abortion," because women by nature are going to want to do things that increase the chance of survival of the human species, and killing possible offspring doesn't do that. Abortion shouldn't be treated any differently to any other health treatment, and should be funded in the same way (which I think should be through taxes, so that everyone is able to get healthcare if they need it). And the government doesn't have morality in the way that individuals have morality. In this case, it is acting on behalf of the individual who needs health treatment, and who needs it regardless of whether she can afford it or whether some moralistic taxpayer says she can have it.
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.