Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion is a moral dilemma

SoullessRobin
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 12:56:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
If you're pro-choice or pro-life. You would support a bad form of morals with the good intentions.

Good intend (pro-choice): Let the women choose.
Bad moral: Support ending a potential life.

Good intend (pro-life): Save the unborn
Bad moral: Support slavery on women.

The lesser evil: letting the women to decide.

Reasoning: Ending something that does not perceive pain, emotions, or even care whether it's born or aborted is less sever then conflicting someone who can perceive it. There be no suffering of the unborn (early pregnancy) if they were aborted. So, it would have less value to something that has that ability.

Unborn(early pregnancy)-Uncaring, no emotions, unable to perceive pain or any type of suffering.

Mother: Ability to perceive and experience of pain and suffering.

A person value of life is not the same as someone who can feel trauma. Conflicting pain/trauma is more morally bad then how you or I value life. Value has no great impact like pain/trauma can.

I am pro-choice for this very reason. It doesn't matter how I view or how I value the unborn. I'm not the one who will have to bare the unborn, even tho I personally disagree with abortion but I won't have any women obey my assets.
difference
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 3:33:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/11/2016 12:56:13 PM, SoullessRobin wrote:
If you're pro-choice or pro-life. You would support a bad form of morals with the good intentions.

Good intend (pro-choice): Let the women choose.
Bad moral: Support ending a potential life.

Good intend (pro-life): Save the unborn
Bad moral: Support slavery on women.

The lesser evil: letting the women to decide.

Reasoning: Ending something that does not perceive pain, emotions, or even care whether it's born or aborted is less sever then conflicting someone who can perceive it. There be no suffering of the unborn (early pregnancy) if they were aborted. So, it would have less value to something that has that ability.

Unborn(early pregnancy)-Uncaring, no emotions, unable to perceive pain or any type of suffering.

Mother: Ability to perceive and experience of pain and suffering.

A person value of life is not the same as someone who can feel trauma. Conflicting pain/trauma is more morally bad then how you or I value life. Value has no great impact like pain/trauma can.

I am pro-choice for this very reason. It doesn't matter how I view or how I value the unborn. I'm not the one who will have to bare the unborn, even tho I personally disagree with abortion but I won't have any women obey my assets.

Abortion is painful and can be traumatic
SoullessRobin
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 8:12:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/11/2016 3:33:36 PM, difference wrote:
At 6/11/2016 12:56:13 PM, SoullessRobin wrote:
If you're pro-choice or pro-life. You would support a bad form of morals with the good intentions.

Good intend (pro-choice): Let the women choose.
Bad moral: Support ending a potential life.

Good intend (pro-life): Save the unborn
Bad moral: Support slavery on women.

The lesser evil: letting the women to decide.

Reasoning: Ending something that does not perceive pain, emotions, or even care whether it's born or aborted is less sever then conflicting someone who can perceive it. There be no suffering of the unborn (early pregnancy) if they were aborted. So, it would have less value to something that has that ability.

Unborn(early pregnancy)-Uncaring, no emotions, unable to perceive pain or any type of suffering.

Mother: Ability to perceive and experience of pain and suffering.

A person value of life is not the same as someone who can feel trauma. Conflicting pain/trauma is more morally bad then how you or I value life. Value has no great impact like pain/trauma can.

I am pro-choice for this very reason. It doesn't matter how I view or how I value the unborn. I'm not the one who will have to bare the unborn, even tho I personally disagree with abortion but I won't have any women obey my assets.

Abortion is painful and can be traumatic
Nobody is denying that. There can be situations where the mother can regret their choice. It's usually due to having doubts and not 100% sure before they had abortion but majority people who had abortion don't feel traumatized. They feel relieved.

Abortion is not a easy choice to make. That's much is granted.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 8:24:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Thanks for putting some thought into your post. You are already a better contributor than 90% of the people on the forum.

Do you mind defining the terms. What does pro-choice and pro-life mean?

Why is murder a lesser evil than enslavement?

Is it also enslavement to require vaccination? You are also forcing somebody to do something with their body, in the attempt to save lives?

How is the pro life argument you presented any different than the pro vaccine argument.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 8:26:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Nobody is denying that. There can be situations where the mother can regret their choice. It's usually due to having doubts and not 100% sure before they had abortion but majority people who had abortion don't feel traumatized. They feel relieved.

Abortion is not a easy choice to make. That's much is granted.

I think he meant it was painful and traumatic for the baby.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 8:56:07 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I'm pretty sure "slavery" is far too harsh a word choice.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
SoullessRobin
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 11:44:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/11/2016 8:24:46 PM, Wylted wrote:
Thanks for putting some thought into your post. You are already a better contributor than 90% of the people on the forum.

Do you mind defining the terms. What does pro-choice and pro-life mean?

Why is murder a lesser evil than enslavement?

Is it also enslavement to require vaccination? You are also forcing somebody to do something with their body, in the attempt to save lives?

How is the pro life argument you presented any different than the pro vaccine argument.

Pro-choice- with legal abortion Pro-life- against abortion.

Murder is a moral opinion switch is subjective to a person outlet. Murder can be implied to anything involving forms of life. Killing a tree can be equal to the definition of murder. In the legal sense it doesn't imply. You can't use 'murder'.

I don't focus on Vaccines much but the child can't consent to any choices regarding meds. because they're not condemn responsible for their actions. How can they? they have no knowledge or have the ability to understand. This is why they can't consent and rely on the parent to make that choice for them. Vaccines situation is not comparable to mother x unborn situation. One involves growing inside someone while the other is forms medication to get rid of or prevent ---.
SoullessRobin
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 11:46:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/11/2016 8:56:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm pretty sure "slavery" is far too harsh a word choice.

But that is what exactly what it is tho. Women being controlled and used by another against one will.

Would 'force to be detained/imprisonment to the unborn' be better for you?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 12:17:28 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/11/2016 11:46:56 PM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/11/2016 8:56:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm pretty sure "slavery" is far too harsh a word choice.

But that is what exactly what it is tho. Women being controlled and used by another against one will.

Would 'force to be detained/imprisonment to the unborn' be better for you?

They're free to go anywhere they want. They just have something attached to them for 9 months and this causes varying degrees of discomfort at various points.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
SoullessRobin
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 12:41:42 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/12/2016 12:17:28 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/11/2016 11:46:56 PM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/11/2016 8:56:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm pretty sure "slavery" is far too harsh a word choice.

But that is what exactly what it is tho. Women being controlled and used by another against one will.

Would 'force to be detained/imprisonment to the unborn' be better for you?

They're free to go anywhere they want. They just have something attached to them for 9 months and this causes varying degrees of discomfort at various points.

Human using another human for nutrients and using the human to life. That is pretty much implies 'slavery' 'detaining'.

Women won't have freedom if they're not allowed to say who uses there body outside or inside of there bodies.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 12:54:28 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/12/2016 12:41:42 AM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/12/2016 12:17:28 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/11/2016 11:46:56 PM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/11/2016 8:56:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm pretty sure "slavery" is far too harsh a word choice.

But that is what exactly what it is tho. Women being controlled and used by another against one will.

Would 'force to be detained/imprisonment to the unborn' be better for you?

They're free to go anywhere they want. They just have something attached to them for 9 months and this causes varying degrees of discomfort at various points.

Human using another human for nutrients and using the human to life. That is pretty much implies 'slavery' 'detaining'.

You make it sound the nutrients thing sound lot worse than it is.

Women won't have freedom if they're not allowed to say who uses their body outside or inside of there bodies.

Whenever this freedom is exercised, somebody dies.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 12:55:18 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
*You make the nutrients thing sound a lot worse
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 1:16:12 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/11/2016 11:44:16 PM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/11/2016 8:24:46 PM, Wylted wrote:
Thanks for putting some thought into your post. You are already a better contributor than 90% of the people on the forum.

Do you mind defining the terms. What does pro-choice and pro-life mean?

Why is murder a lesser evil than enslavement?

Is it also enslavement to require vaccination? You are also forcing somebody to do something with their body, in the attempt to save lives?

How is the pro life argument you presented any different than the pro vaccine argument.

Pro-choice- with legal abortion Pro-life- against abortion.

That did not come close to answering that nor does it have anything to do with what I asked. It is a mystery to me why you would repeat your stance.

Murder is a moral opinion switch is subjective to a person outlet. Murder can be implied to anything involving forms of life. Killing a tree can be equal to the definition of murder. In the legal sense it doesn't imply. You can't use 'murder'.

Are you incapable of staying on topic? Why do you use such stupid definitions of murder and enslavement? Do you think it is appropriate to compare the harsh cruel world of slavery to carrying a child? Hell by your own definition having a tick on you could be called enslavement, because it feeds off of your nutrients and is reliant on you.

I don't focus on Vaccines much but the child can't consent to any choices regarding meds.

Sounds like child slavery. He can't make his own choices with his body. According to your definition anyway.

because they're not condemn responsible for their actions. How can they? they have no knowledge or have the ability to understand. This is why they can't consent and rely on the parent to make that choice for them. Vaccines situation is not comparable to mother x unborn situation. One involves growing inside someone while the other is forms medication to get rid of or prevent ---.

How about we take it one step further out. You force a woman to vaccinate her kids, that is the law. Why is it okay to force her against her will in one situation and not another?

Your only premise was that abortion should be legal because it forces a woman to do something with her body that she doesn't want to.

So by your own logic her using her body to acquire a vaccine for her kid is also immoral.
SoullessRobin
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 1:30:49 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/12/2016 12:54:28 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/12/2016 12:41:42 AM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/12/2016 12:17:28 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/11/2016 11:46:56 PM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/11/2016 8:56:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm pretty sure "slavery" is far too harsh a word choice.

But that is what exactly what it is tho. Women being controlled and used by another against one will.

Would 'force to be detained/imprisonment to the unborn' be better for you?

They're free to go anywhere they want. They just have something attached to them for 9 months and this causes varying degrees of discomfort at various points.

Human using another human for nutrients and using the human to life. That is pretty much implies 'slavery' 'detaining'.

You make it sound the nutrients thing sound lot worse than it is.

Women won't have freedom if they're not allowed to say who uses their body outside or inside of there bodies.

Whenever this freedom is exercised, somebody dies.
That does not sway from the woman human rights. Anyone has the right to deny anyone to use their bodies against there consent. It doesn't matter if that person dies or lives.

The woman has the right to revoke and deny there bodies being used against there will. Same thing that anyone can't use your body against your will. The unborn are not granted special rights to a woman womb. If the mother does not wish the unborn to be there. She has the right to deny.

Example: If you caused me to have a injury where I need blood or possibly a organ.
Does that mean I can use your body forcefully so I can live? No.
Does the government have that right to control your body to preserve my life? No.
Do you have the right to decide if you want to use your body to save my life? Yes.

Nobody can say or dictate what happens to your body because it's your human right.

Even, corpses have legal protection to prevent people using there bodies because they didn't give consent.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 1:42:03 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/12/2016 1:30:49 AM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/12/2016 12:54:28 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/12/2016 12:41:42 AM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/12/2016 12:17:28 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/11/2016 11:46:56 PM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/11/2016 8:56:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm pretty sure "slavery" is far too harsh a word choice.

But that is what exactly what it is tho. Women being controlled and used by another against one will.

Would 'force to be detained/imprisonment to the unborn' be better for you?

They're free to go anywhere they want. They just have something attached to them for 9 months and this causes varying degrees of discomfort at various points.

Human using another human for nutrients and using the human to life. That is pretty much implies 'slavery' 'detaining'.

You make it sound the nutrients thing sound lot worse than it is.

Women won't have freedom if they're not allowed to say who uses their body outside or inside of there bodies.

Whenever this freedom is exercised, somebody dies.
That does not sway from the woman human rights. Anyone has the right to deny anyone to use their bodies against there consent. It doesn't matter if that person dies or lives.

The woman has the right to revoke and deny there bodies being used against there will. Same thing that anyone can't use your body against your will. The unborn are not granted special rights to a woman womb. If the mother does not wish the unborn to be there. She has the right to deny.

Example: If you caused me to have a injury where I need blood or possibly a organ.
Does that mean I can use your body forcefully so I can live? No.
Does the government have that right to control your body to preserve my life? No.
Do you have the right to decide if you want to use your body to save my life? Yes.

Nobody can say or dictate what happens to your body because it's your human right.

Even, corpses have legal protection to prevent people using there bodies because they didn't give consent.

1. In my opinion, the utilitarian approach wins out here. That is, the "putting of a parasite" on a woman for 9 months without her consent is a lesser evil than murder.
2. Assuming that we're not talking about rape here, if a woman has sex with the knowledge that a pregnancy could probably ensue (once this human organism is formed it is entitled to the right to life), then she is consenting to taking responsibility in the event that she "loses" the gamble and pregnancy occurs. You can't create an organism with rights and then strip it of this right by killing it. That's like convincing a man in the wild west to relinquish his gun by promising him "instead of defending yourself, we the police will protect you" and the police then doing nothing to prevent his murder or hunting down the perpetrator.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
SoullessRobin
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 1:48:16 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/12/2016 1:16:12 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/11/2016 11:44:16 PM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/11/2016 8:24:46 PM, Wylted wrote:
Thanks for putting some thought into your post. You are already a better contributor than 90% of the people on the forum.

Do you mind defining the terms. What does pro-choice and pro-life mean?

Why is murder a lesser evil than enslavement?

Is it also enslavement to require vaccination? You are also forcing somebody to do something with their body, in the attempt to save lives?

How is the pro life argument you presented any different than the pro vaccine argument.

Pro-choice- with legal abortion Pro-life- against abortion.

That did not come close to answering that nor does it have anything to do with what I asked. It is a mystery to me why you would repeat your stance.

Murder is a moral opinion switch is subjective to a person outlet. Murder can be implied to anything involving forms of life. Killing a tree can be equal to the definition of murder. In the legal sense it doesn't imply. You can't use 'murder'.

Are you incapable of staying on topic? Why do you use such stupid definitions of murder and enslavement? Do you think it is appropriate to compare the harsh cruel world of slavery to carrying a child? Hell by your own definition having a tick on you could be called enslavement, because it feeds off of your nutrients and is reliant on you.

I don't focus on Vaccines much but the child can't consent to any choices regarding meds.

Sounds like child slavery. He can't make his own choices with his body. According to your definition anyway.

because they're not condemn responsible for their actions. How can they? they have no knowledge or have the ability to understand. This is why they can't consent and rely on the parent to make that choice for them. Vaccines situation is not comparable to mother x unborn situation. One involves growing inside someone while the other is forms medication to get rid of or prevent ---.

How about we take it one step further out. You force a woman to vaccinate her kids, that is the law. Why is it okay to force her against her will in one situation and not another?

Your only premise was that abortion should be legal because it forces a woman to do something with her body that she doesn't want to.

So by your own logic her using her body to acquire a vaccine for her kid is also immoral.

1. You asked me "Do you mind defining the terms. What does pro-choice and pro-life mean?" Perhaps you should re-read your post.

2. I am very much on topic. I explained murder can be used to anything involving forms of life as I gave example of a tree base on personal outlet. The legal definition disagree with your statement as the definition of murder under the law is 'illegal killing'.

The subject doesn't change that pro-life support taking a women human rights away to be forced to be used for another human (by their standards). Whether it's considered slavery or not. It doesn't matter. What matters is that pro-life are willing to violate and ignore women rights because 'they had sex. So therefore the unborn gets a free ticket to use her'.

3. How can a child make any decision regarding there bodies if they don't understand how to take care of themselves nor understand the choices of making legal actions? They're incapable mentally. It's not slavery.

4. I never stated women should be forced to vaccines there kids. Re-read my post please. I stated 'kids can't consent due to ----' I have no idea why you think I stated 'women should force there kids to vaccine'.

5.You're making no sense at all. I never implied or said a woman should be forced into abortion nor should force vaccines on kids. Please, read my post properly.
SoullessRobin
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 2:04:48 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/12/2016 1:42:03 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/12/2016 1:30:49 AM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/12/2016 12:54:28 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/12/2016 12:41:42 AM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/12/2016 12:17:28 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/11/2016 11:46:56 PM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/11/2016 8:56:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm pretty sure "slavery" is far too harsh a word choice.

But that is what exactly what it is tho. Women being controlled and used by another against one will.

Would 'force to be detained/imprisonment to the unborn' be better for you?

They're free to go anywhere they want. They just have something attached to them for 9 months and this causes varying degrees of discomfort at various points.

Human using another human for nutrients and using the human to life. That is pretty much implies 'slavery' 'detaining'.

You make it sound the nutrients thing sound lot worse than it is.

Women won't have freedom if they're not allowed to say who uses their body outside or inside of there bodies.

Whenever this freedom is exercised, somebody dies.
That does not sway from the woman human rights. Anyone has the right to deny anyone to use their bodies against there consent. It doesn't matter if that person dies or lives.

The woman has the right to revoke and deny there bodies being used against there will. Same thing that anyone can't use your body against your will. The unborn are not granted special rights to a woman womb. If the mother does not wish the unborn to be there. She has the right to deny.

Example: If you caused me to have a injury where I need blood or possibly a organ.
Does that mean I can use your body forcefully so I can live? No.
Does the government have that right to control your body to preserve my life? No.
Do you have the right to decide if you want to use your body to save my life? Yes.

Nobody can say or dictate what happens to your body because it's your human right.

Even, corpses have legal protection to prevent people using there bodies because they didn't give consent.

1. In my opinion, the utilitarian approach wins out here. That is, the "putting of a parasite" on a woman for 9 months without her consent is a lesser evil than murder.
2. Assuming that we're not talking about rape here, if a woman has sex with the knowledge that a pregnancy could probably ensue (once this human organism is formed it is entitled to the right to life), then she is consenting to taking responsibility in the event that she "loses" the gamble and pregnancy occurs. You can't create an organism with rights and then strip it of this right by killing it. That's like convincing a man in the wild west to relinquish his gun by promising him "instead of defending yourself, we the police will protect you" and the police then doing nothing to prevent his murder or hunting down the perpetrator.

1. Never stated they were parasites. Forcing pregnancy is more evil then ending the development of cells.

How can you justify something with more value that does not perceive nor experience over something that does?

Pregnancy can cause poverty, abuse, loss of job, loss of education and other things. While aborting a 8 week fetus effects no one then the mother because the unborn is not capable of caring.

2. Thing is consent under the law can be revoked. Consent is not a permanent contract. It's someone who is willing and until he or she no longer gave it. If you had sex with someone and decided in the middle of act you no longer want it. Your partner has to stop or he or she be raping you.

Sex is not a legal contract either. What your doing is simply punishing a women for engaging in sex, then advocating for the unborn life. If the unborn life is considered 'equal' .Then you can't support abortion in cases of rape. The unborn didn't cause rape, the unborn is no different then any other unborn that came from casual sex. So, unborn who came from rape is some how unequal?

If she is irresponsible by your standards. Then she can't be responsible for a child nor trusted with pregnancy for that matter. Some women take abortions for reasons like they're not equipped enough for the child. Not only that pregnancy interferes with other responsibilities like career, children they already have, education ect...

Consent to sex is just a consent to sex, not consent to pregnancy. Pregnancy is just a consequence.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 2:10:21 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
1. You asked me "Do you mind defining the terms. What does pro-choice and pro-life mean?" Perhaps you should re-read your post.

Yep, and perhaps you should reread yours. You merely stated your position on the issues, you did not define then. You said pro life, but think pro choice should be the law.

2. I am very much on topic. I explained murder can be used to anything involving forms of life as I gave example of a tree base on personal outlet. The legal definition disagree with your statement as the definition of murder under the law is 'illegal killing'.

Obviously the law disagrees, but I am asking you what is worse. Somebody walking up and blowing your brains out, or somebody walking up and enslaving you for 9 months.

The subject doesn't change that pro-life support taking a women human rights away to be forced to be used for another human (by their standards).

Human by scientific standards, and rights are limited as is, nobody has an absolute right to anything, though you would think life wpuld be valued a bit higher than the rest.

Whether it's considered slavery or not. It doesn't matter. What matters is that pro-life are willing to violate and ignore women rights because 'they had sex. So therefore the unborn gets a free ticket to use her'.

You said it was immoral because it was slavery. Are you saying that is not the reason, but in fact you have a deifferent reason why having pro life laws in some instances are unethical? If the slavery premise is gone and you are using a new premise, what is that premise?

3. How can a child make any decision regarding there bodies if they don't understand how to take care of themselves nor understand the choices of making legal actions? They're incapable mentally. It's not slavery.

You could argue that nobody has perfect knowledge on hpw to make the right choices or take care of themselves, but that is veside the point.


4. I never stated women should be forced to vaccines there kids. Re-read my post please. I stated 'kids can't consent due to ----' I have no idea why you think I stated 'women should force there kids to vaccine'.

I never said you stated that. I assumed you would be for forcing somebody to do things against their will in some circumstances. Are you against ever forcing people to do things?

5.You're making no sense at all. I never implied or said a woman should be forced into abortion nor should force vaccines on kids. Please, read my post properly.

I never said you did. Your lack of ability to comlrehend easy to comprehend things baffles mr
SoullessRobin
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 2:34:05 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/12/2016 2:10:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
First off, if you can't have a intellectual debate with me then be passive-aggressive with me. Don't bother replying. I'm not going to agrue with some with a attitude.
1. Go back to the sentence of 'Pro-choice- with legal abortion Pro-life- against abortion'
2. someone blowing my face up is not the same as if I were unborn being aborted. Being shot in the face. I would experience and perceive something happening to me. If I were 8 week fetus. I won't know what happened because my sensory ability (comes 19-10weeks) is not yet there. My sentient ability won't even exist.
3. Skipped.
4. I just stated about 'whether or not it's considered slavery. Pro-life is willing to force..." I still think it's slavery.
5. Ya nobody has perfect knowledge but a child mind is not developed enough to understand anything about medication. Infants for example. Unable to communicate or give anything regarding legal actions but moving on.
6. Before I answer that question. The unborn don't make any choices. They're forced into abortion and forced into birth. I don't believe people should be forced into things that violate there rights.
7. Thing is you did state this
"You force a woman to vaccinate her kids, that is the law. Why is it okay to force her against her will in one situation and not another?

Your only premise was that abortion should be legal because it forces a woman to do something with her body that she doesn't want to."
I can easily say the exact same thing to you.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 2:42:46 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/12/2016 2:34:05 AM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/12/2016 2:10:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
First off, if you can't have a intellectual debate with me then be passive-aggressive with me. Don't bother replying. I'm not going to agrue with some with a attitude.
1. Go back to the sentence of 'Pro-choice- with legal abortion Pro-life- against abortion'

In what way is that a definition? That is just you telling me your stance.

2. someone blowing my face up is not the same as if I were unborn being aborted. Being shot in the face. I would experience and perceive something happening to me. If I were 8 week fetus. I won't know what happened because my sensory ability (comes 19-10weeks) is not yet there. My sentient ability won't even exist.

Okay so how about if you get shot to death in your sleep? You would not feel it or know it was coming. Just like a pre born baby.

3. Skipped.
4. I just stated about 'whether or not it's considered slavery. Pro-life is willing to force..." I still think it's slavery.

No, thay was literally the only premise you provided for why you are pro choice, and then you defined slavery in such a way that it can literally apply to the organisms in your body.

5. Ya nobody has perfect knowledge but a child mind is not developed enough to understand anything about medication. Infants for example. Unable to communicate or give anything regarding legal actions but moving on.

6. Before I answer that question. The unborn don't make any choices. They're forced into abortion and forced into birth. I don't believe people should be forced into things that violate there rights.

Like death? Does killing somebody violate their rights?

7. Thing is you did state this
"You force a woman to vaccinate her kids, that is the law. Why is it okay to force her against her will in one situation and not another?

Your only premise was that abortion should be legal because it forces a woman to do something with her body that she doesn't want to."
I can easily say the exact same thing to you.

I don't think forcing people to do stuff is unethical. So no it doesn't apply to me
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 2:44:15 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/11/2016 11:46:56 PM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/11/2016 8:56:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm pretty sure "slavery" is far too harsh a word choice.

But that is what exactly what it is tho.
No it's not.

Unless you want to characterize each and every restriction l'etat imposes on human behavior as "slavery". Which would not be specific to the matter at hand.

To say it makes her a slave to the fetus is even more absurd.

Women being controlled and used by another against one will.
Controlled by whom? A fetus that can't even move?
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
SoullessRobin
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 2:56:57 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/12/2016 2:42:46 AM, Wylted wrote:
1. You asked me what my definition ways and I gave a simple way explaining it.
2. If I were a sleep. I am still a sentient being. The unborn is not sentient. Who we are, what our personalities are comes from being conscious and sentient. If you killed me in my sleep you would end my sentient life. If I was a 8 week fetus you won't end a sentient life. Just ending cells. If we weren't sentient beings, then all we would be is meat on bones.
3. Doesn't change a thing that pro-life advocate in forcing women into pregnancy against there will. Point was that pro-life has a bad moral with there good intention like pro-choice has good intentions that has a bad moral to it.
4. Not all killing is the same. Killing something to stop using your body is not the same as someone who kills out of rage or jealousy.
5. Forcing your morals onto someone that would interfere with their rights is unethical.
SoullessRobin
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 3:03:21 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/12/2016 2:44:15 AM, someloser wrote:
At 6/11/2016 11:46:56 PM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/11/2016 8:56:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm pretty sure "slavery" is far too harsh a word choice.

But that is what exactly what it is tho.
No it's not.

Unless you want to characterize each and every restriction l'etat imposes on human behavior as "slavery". Which would not be specific to the matter at hand.

To say it makes her a slave to the fetus is even more absurd.

Women being controlled and used by another against one will.
Controlled by whom? A fetus that can't even move?

Doesn't change the fact that the women body would be forcefully be used against her will for 9 months.

If a woman can't dictate her own body by law. She is being controlled by the law to become a incubator for the unborn and people like you who are also advocating to take control over women body to preserve the unborn.

I should've went that route then saying 'women is a slave to the unborn'.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 3:05:33 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/12/2016 2:56:57 AM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/12/2016 2:42:46 AM, Wylted wrote:
1. You asked me what my definition ways and I gave a simple way explaining it.

You failed, because you merely explained your stance, not defined your terms.

2. If I were a sleep. I am still a sentient being. The unborn is not sentient. Who we are, what our personalities are comes from being conscious and sentient. If you killed me in my sleep you would end my sentient life. If I was a 8 week fetus you won't end a sentient life. Just ending cells. If we weren't sentient beings, then all we would be is meat on bones.

Why didn't you say sentience matters to start with? Even if sentience matters, certainly when a fetus is one day prior to birth it is just as sentient as the day after.

Also why does sentience matter?

3. Doesn't change a thing that pro-life advocate in forcing women into pregnancy against there will. Point was that pro-life has a bad moral with there good intention like pro-choice has good intentions that has a bad moral to it.

People often make choices they know cpuld end up in pregnancy. Pregnancy is not forced on anyone.

4. Not all killing is the same. Killing something to stop using your body is not the same as someone who kills out of rage or jealousy.

Why os it not all the same? So if I have a siamese twin it is okay to kill them because they arebusing my body?

5. Forcing your morals onto someone that would interfere with their rights is unethical.

How so? What do you mean by rights and unethical?

Since when do people have the right to murder?
SoullessRobin
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 3:24:38 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/12/2016 2:42:46 AM, Wylted wrote:
1. I didn't fail. I just simplified it but moving on. Just a curlier disagreement.
2. I did say it, just didn't mention the word. I more less used the meaning of sentient (capable to feel and perceive ect..). Nobody aborts a day before birth. That's not a really good example. Average time of abortion is 8-12 weeks. Later term is used for complications since some countries ban late term unless there is a health risk.

Sentient does matter because sentient is what makes us unique, what makes us more then just meat on bones. Without sentience, we would be nothing.

3. In some cases pregnancy is forced on women. Rape, sabotage, prepressure ect... even, if it wasn't forced. The women still has the right to dictate her body.

4. Killing someone because they pissed you off is not the same as someone who enjoy killing. Someone who kills you to get a hype out of it is far worse then someone who is blinded by there rage. There is a doctor who explain 22 different levels of murder.

http://serial-killers.tumblr.com...

5. Your basing murder on your own moral set. Murder can be used to anything involving life (plants for example). It's merely subjective and how you look at it but when it comes to the law. It disagree with you.

Anyways, it's 11;23pm here. Going to bed. You can either agree or disagree with me. I'm done debating.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 3:32:24 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
It's not only an ethical quandary, it's also an efficiency dilemma. For example, it's of utmost efficiency to abort children of those in low income families, as well as children with disabilities predetermined before the child is born. Whether this is ethical or not is the real question.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 3:32:40 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/11/2016 8:56:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm pretty sure "slavery" is far too harsh a word choice.

Agreed
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 3:38:12 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/12/2016 3:24:38 AM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/12/2016 2:42:46 AM, Wylted wrote:
1. I didn't fail. I just simplified it but moving on. Just a curlier disagreement.
2. I did say it, just didn't mention the word. I more less used the meaning of sentient (capable to feel and perceive ect..). Nobody aborts a day before birth. That's not a really good example

That is why I asked you to define pro life or pro choice. That way you could tell me you were not referring to abortions a day before birth and in uncomplicated pregnancies. I still have no ideal if you know what the word definition means.

. Average time of abortion is 8-12 weeks. Later term is used for complications since some countries ban late term unless there is a health risk.

So please let's work on definitions. Can somebody be prochoice but be against late term abortions that are not for medical reasons?

Sentient does matter because sentient is what makes us unique, what makes us more then just meat on bones. Without sentience, we would be nothing.

Poor explanation. Why sentience anyway? Why not consciousness?

3. In some cases pregnancy is forced on women. Rape, sabotage, prepressure ect... even, if it wasn't forced. The women still has the right to dictate her body.

How are you defining rights? If we are talking about the legal rights, than yes generally speaking she does to a certIn extent. If we are referring to what rights a person should have, then the term does not apply.

4. Killing someone because they pissed you off is not the same as someone who enjoy killing. Someone who kills you to get a hype out of it is far worse then someone who is blinded by there rage. There is a doctor who explain 22 different levels of murder.

http://serial-killers.tumblr.com...


Not an explanation. I think you are assuming certain things are worse, just because you feel that way.

5. Your basing murder on your own moral set. Murder can be used to anything involving life (plants for example). It's merely subjective and how you look at it but when it comes to the law. It disagree with you.

Yeah chopping down a plant or killing a cow is not murder. Even if it were, you are evading what I say by nitpicking about how a word could be abused.

Anyways, it's 11;23pm here. Going to bed. You can either agree or disagree with me. I'm done debating.

You haven't debated. You have just made bare assertions and otgerwise have been evasive
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 4:15:41 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/12/2016 3:03:21 AM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/12/2016 2:44:15 AM, someloser wrote:
At 6/11/2016 11:46:56 PM, SoullessRobin wrote:
At 6/11/2016 8:56:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I'm pretty sure "slavery" is far too harsh a word choice.

But that is what exactly what it is tho.
No it's not.

Unless you want to characterize each and every restriction l'etat imposes on human behavior as "slavery". Which would not be specific to the matter at hand.

To say it makes her a slave to the fetus is even more absurd.

Women being controlled and used by another against one will.
Controlled by whom? A fetus that can't even move?

Doesn't change the fact that the women body would be forcefully be used against her will for 9 months.
What "doesn't change the fact" Soulless? Why does such a fact matter?

There is a question that's yet to be answered.

I'm waiting...

If a woman can't dictate her own body by law. She is being controlled by the law to become a incubator for the unborn
No she doesn't. The law restricts the permissible range of human behavior all the time.

That's the point!

Anti-abortion laws don't force people to get pregnant either. "being controlled to become an incubator for the unborn" is rhetorical rot.

and people like you who are also advocating to take control over women body to preserve the unborn.
I'm not controlling anyone Soulless. I don't write the law.

You're the only person here in favor of letting someone take control of someone else. What better example of control is there than legally-sanctioned killing?

I should've went that route then saying 'women is a slave to the unborn'.
No because that's even more absurd.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw