Total Posts:153|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion. Help me decide which side I'm on.

Quadrunner
Posts: 1,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 2:41:55 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

I definitely have a personal problem with late term abortions, how late I'm not sure. the partial birth abortions are particularly disturbing, though they changed the name and no longer called partial birth, it's still the same thing. There are so many variables it's difficult to take a general stance for the most part since many of the individual instances have their unique issues.
so look at the development of the unborn baby over time, how early can a child be born and have whatever % chance of survival that you think is a good enough chance, then what % chance of birth defects, long term hospitalization and complications etc. How many people are looking to adopt a child, there is a lot of things to consider I guess.
Fernyx
Posts: 309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 2:52:15 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

I'm pretty much on the same side as you, my personal side is wait until scientists prove when life begins and there is a conscious organism.
difference
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 3:07:12 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

If a person is interested in doing the right thing, but don't know what it is, yet thinks he can come to know it, then I think all he's missing is conviction in whatever he decides.
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 4:11:33 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 2:52:15 PM, Fernyx wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

I'm pretty much on the same side as you, my personal side is wait until scientists prove when life begins and there is a conscious organism.

The thing is that its kind of hard to draw the line of where consciousness begins and where life begins, since those are two different things, and on top of that getting a consensus among all scientists on where to draw the line is even more unlikely than determining the line in the first place.

Quad: I think that your position is that you are okay with abortion when it endangers the life of the mother or if it was conceived through rape. To really understand where your position on abortion is, you should ask yourself if you would support abortion of a baby that has severe mental or developmental illnesses that do not have a present cure or treatment...... There are embryo's/fetuses that are aborted because they have so many ailments they would live for only hours or minutes after being born, or would not be able to truly be compatible with modern life due to their illnesses (Babies born with Zika for example)

If you adopt the stance that its morally okay to abort when the embryo/fetus has severe mental or physical disabilities, then I believe you would be pro-choice lite, meaning you believe abortion is okay as long as you have a reason for having one..... If you dont think abortion is morally okay when an embryo/fetus has severe mental or physical disabilities, then you would be pro-life lite, meaning you are against abortion most of the time, but are willing to make certain exceptions and would allow abortion if there was a solid moral reasoning to get one, which you suggest are cases that do exist.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 4:20:10 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 2:41:55 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

I definitely have a personal problem with late term abortions, how late I'm not sure. the partial birth abortions are particularly disturbing, though they changed the name and no longer called partial birth, it's still the same thing. There are so many variables it's difficult to take a general stance for the most part since many of the individual instances have their unique issues.
so look at the development of the unborn baby over time, how early can a child be born and have whatever % chance of survival that you think is a good enough chance, then what % chance of birth defects, long term hospitalization and complications etc. How many people are looking to adopt a child, there is a lot of things to consider I guess.

Well, you must know that there is no "partial birth" abortion, right? The exceeding rare 22-24 week abortion is nothing close to "partial birth", and as we should be well aware is much less than 40 weeks. The narrative of detractors, that the fetus in question, is just moments away from a happy birth is complete garbage.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 4:31:03 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

Under this reasoning we can ban anything and everything....

Who is to say when self defense is justified killing vs murder ?

Who is to say what an acceptable risk of collateral damage is when dropping bombs and drone strikes ?
kevin24018
Posts: 1,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 4:49:16 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 4:20:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:41:55 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

I definitely have a personal problem with late term abortions, how late I'm not sure. the partial birth abortions are particularly disturbing, though they changed the name and no longer called partial birth, it's still the same thing. There are so many variables it's difficult to take a general stance for the most part since many of the individual instances have their unique issues.
so look at the development of the unborn baby over time, how early can a child be born and have whatever % chance of survival that you think is a good enough chance, then what % chance of birth defects, long term hospitalization and complications etc. How many people are looking to adopt a child, there is a lot of things to consider I guess.

Well, you must know that there is no "partial birth" abortion, right? The exceeding rare 22-24 week abortion is nothing close to "partial birth", and as we should be well aware is much less than 40 weeks. The narrative of detractors, that the fetus in question, is just moments away from a happy birth is complete garbage.

I am not aware actually, Nine states and the District of Columbia do not have specific laws prohibiting abortion after a certain point in pregnancy.
Three states ban third-trimester abortions.
http://www.nytimes.com...;
there's a chart toward the bottom
https://www.guttmacher.org...
fact or fiction, I'm not 100% certain but.
1) Myth: Third trimester abortions are illegal

Currently, federal law makes it legal to abort babies into the ninth month of pregnancy.

While some states have restrictions on abortion, all states permit abortion into the ninth month for certain exceptions" and eight states allow abortion until birth for any reason (Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington State).
http://liveactionnews.org...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 4:51:10 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

Only you can decide that position.

Personally I was once virulently pro-choice. Raising a kid modified that position immeasurably. While I wouldn't outlaw the procedure, I definitely view it much differently.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 5:02:42 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 4:49:16 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/11/2016 4:20:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:41:55 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

I definitely have a personal problem with late term abortions, how late I'm not sure. the partial birth abortions are particularly disturbing, though they changed the name and no longer called partial birth, it's still the same thing. There are so many variables it's difficult to take a general stance for the most part since many of the individual instances have their unique issues.
so look at the development of the unborn baby over time, how early can a child be born and have whatever % chance of survival that you think is a good enough chance, then what % chance of birth defects, long term hospitalization and complications etc. How many people are looking to adopt a child, there is a lot of things to consider I guess.

Well, you must know that there is no "partial birth" abortion, right? The exceeding rare 22-24 week abortion is nothing close to "partial birth", and as we should be well aware is much less than 40 weeks. The narrative of detractors, that the fetus in question, is just moments away from a happy birth is complete garbage.

I am not aware actually, Nine states and the District of Columbia do not have specific laws prohibiting abortion after a certain point in pregnancy.
Three states ban third-trimester abortions.
http://www.nytimes.com...;
there's a chart toward the bottom
https://www.guttmacher.org...
fact or fiction, I'm not 100% certain but.
1) Myth: Third trimester abortions are illegal

Currently, federal law makes it legal to abort babies into the ninth month of pregnancy.

While some states have restrictions on abortion, all states permit abortion into the ninth month for certain exceptions" and eight states allow abortion until birth for any reason (Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington State).
http://liveactionnews.org...

The issue at hand is, are there any partial births abortions, right? There simply aren't any. The entire notion is only an appeal to emotion from pro-life supporters. Asking for new laws to protect something that does not now, and never has happened is not productive. Surely not when the only real impact is PR. IF a child were "partly birthed" there are other laws that already protect the child, so.... No, this is a worthless effort with nothing more than the intent to muddy the waters in a debate that is so damn muddy to begin with.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 5:09:21 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 5:02:42 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/11/2016 4:49:16 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/11/2016 4:20:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:41:55 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

I definitely have a personal problem with late term abortions, how late I'm not sure. the partial birth abortions are particularly disturbing, though they changed the name and no longer called partial birth, it's still the same thing. There are so many variables it's difficult to take a general stance for the most part since many of the individual instances have their unique issues.
so look at the development of the unborn baby over time, how early can a child be born and have whatever % chance of survival that you think is a good enough chance, then what % chance of birth defects, long term hospitalization and complications etc. How many people are looking to adopt a child, there is a lot of things to consider I guess.

Well, you must know that there is no "partial birth" abortion, right? The exceeding rare 22-24 week abortion is nothing close to "partial birth", and as we should be well aware is much less than 40 weeks. The narrative of detractors, that the fetus in question, is just moments away from a happy birth is complete garbage.

I am not aware actually, Nine states and the District of Columbia do not have specific laws prohibiting abortion after a certain point in pregnancy.
Three states ban third-trimester abortions.
http://www.nytimes.com...;
there's a chart toward the bottom
https://www.guttmacher.org...
fact or fiction, I'm not 100% certain but.
1) Myth: Third trimester abortions are illegal

Currently, federal law makes it legal to abort babies into the ninth month of pregnancy.

While some states have restrictions on abortion, all states permit abortion into the ninth month for certain exceptions" and eight states allow abortion until birth for any reason (Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington State).
http://liveactionnews.org...

The issue at hand is, are there any partial births abortions, right? There simply aren't any. The entire notion is only an appeal to emotion from pro-life supporters. Asking for new laws to protect something that does not now, and never has happened is not productive. Surely not when the only real impact is PR. IF a child were "partly birthed" there are other laws that already protect the child, so.... No, this is a worthless effort with nothing more than the intent to muddy the waters in a debate that is so damn muddy to begin with.

"dilation and extraction," or D&X, and "intact D&E," it involves removing the fetus intact by dilating a pregnant woman's cervix, then pulling the entire body out through the birth canal.
In the year 2000, the court struck down a Nebraska law banning any abortion procedure that "partially evacuates fetal material through the cervix into the birth canal."
http://www.npr.org...
Intact dilation and extraction (Intact D&E) is a surgical procedure that removes an intact fetus from the uterus. The procedure is used both after late-term miscarriages and in late-term abortions.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

a rose by any other name.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 5:20:12 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 5:09:21 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/11/2016 5:02:42 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/11/2016 4:49:16 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/11/2016 4:20:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:41:55 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

I definitely have a personal problem with late term abortions, how late I'm not sure. the partial birth abortions are particularly disturbing, though they changed the name and no longer called partial birth, it's still the same thing. There are so many variables it's difficult to take a general stance for the most part since many of the individual instances have their unique issues.
so look at the development of the unborn baby over time, how early can a child be born and have whatever % chance of survival that you think is a good enough chance, then what % chance of birth defects, long term hospitalization and complications etc. How many people are looking to adopt a child, there is a lot of things to consider I guess.

Well, you must know that there is no "partial birth" abortion, right? The exceeding rare 22-24 week abortion is nothing close to "partial birth", and as we should be well aware is much less than 40 weeks. The narrative of detractors, that the fetus in question, is just moments away from a happy birth is complete garbage.

I am not aware actually, Nine states and the District of Columbia do not have specific laws prohibiting abortion after a certain point in pregnancy.
Three states ban third-trimester abortions.
http://www.nytimes.com...;
there's a chart toward the bottom
https://www.guttmacher.org...
fact or fiction, I'm not 100% certain but.
1) Myth: Third trimester abortions are illegal

Currently, federal law makes it legal to abort babies into the ninth month of pregnancy.

While some states have restrictions on abortion, all states permit abortion into the ninth month for certain exceptions" and eight states allow abortion until birth for any reason (Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington State).
http://liveactionnews.org...

The issue at hand is, are there any partial births abortions, right? There simply aren't any. The entire notion is only an appeal to emotion from pro-life supporters. Asking for new laws to protect something that does not now, and never has happened is not productive. Surely not when the only real impact is PR. IF a child were "partly birthed" there are other laws that already protect the child, so.... No, this is a worthless effort with nothing more than the intent to muddy the waters in a debate that is so damn muddy to begin with.

"dilation and extraction," or D&X, and "intact D&E," it involves removing the fetus intact by dilating a pregnant woman's cervix, then pulling the entire body out through the birth canal.
In the year 2000, the court struck down a Nebraska law banning any abortion procedure that "partially evacuates fetal material through the cervix into the birth canal."
http://www.npr.org...
Intact dilation and extraction (Intact D&E) is a surgical procedure that removes an intact fetus from the uterus. The procedure is used both after late-term miscarriages and in late-term abortions.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

a rose by any other name.

Read your link. It is saying basically what I am saying. There is no such thing as partial birth abortion. It is a bullsh1t term coined by pro-life to describe an event that never takes place.

The procedure that was at issue, well, no live birth happens. The use for the procedure is very limited regardless, and what we have is a huge bickering fest in a very complex issue (abortion) with no benefit to either side of the divide.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 6:16:39 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 3:07:12 PM, difference wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.


If a person is interested in doing the right thing, but don't know what it is, yet thinks he can come to know it, then I think all he's missing is conviction in whatever he decides.

Or more information.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 6:27:15 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 4:31:03 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

Under this reasoning we can ban anything and everything....

Not really....This is only applied in the context of human life. Innocent until proven guilty. A life until proven otherwise. The weight of human life with a known morally acceptable outcome and an unknown leads me to this reasoning.

Who is to say when self defense is justified killing vs murder ?

Self defense is justified in cases of risk of severe bodily harm, or death, when there are no other reasonable options. Abortion would follow similar measures, but its complicated because the baby is in the situation involuntarily, and in cases outside of rape, the 'victim' (mother) is not. Risk of severe bodily harm would have to be weighed with the baby's right (whenever it has rights) and probability to survive, a decision I do not think should be hindered through rigid legality.

However, I do believe a potentially viable fetus with possibility of survival definitely deserves full human rights, and should be treated as equal to the mother or any other human being.

So we do have grounds for general medical principle, and that can be backed with a loose legal safety net without infringing on sane decisions.


Who is to say what an acceptable risk of collateral damage is when dropping bombs and drone strikes ?

That's between the doctor and parents in high risk situations.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 8:12:21 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

I have finally came to the conclusion that consent is the only reasonable argument.

Biology says that if you have sex babies are possible. There is no 100% effective birth control. If you consent to sex you consent to the care of a being you have created. That being didn't ask to be brought into this world. You created a dependent being and you are morally obligated to care for it.

If you didn't consent to the act all that goes away. Is that a fair position?
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 6:30:08 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

This should make it an easy decision:
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 6:52:40 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

I did a debate on this a while back, and I still think it's one of the best debates I've ever done. My opponent did really well too.
Read it, and perhaps it'll influence your decision one way or another:
http://www.debate.org...
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

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

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 7:03:23 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

Without suffering morality cannot exist. It is contingent. I can't do anything immoral to a rock since a rock can't feel pain or anything, likewise, I can't do anything immoral to a scab since it doesn't feel anything. Even a living thing, I can't do anything immoral to something that doesn't feel pain. Corn doesn't feel pain, so eating it isn't an immoral thing to do. Fetus don't feel pain, thus I can't do anything immoral to it. The fact that it is alive, or that I am killing it, or that it looks like a human are all empty emotional appeals, sophistry. All that logically matters is if it feels pain, it doesn't, so abortion is okay
missbailey8
Posts: 1,881
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 8:00:57 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 4:31:03 PM, illegalcombat wrote:

Self defense is justified in cases of risk of severe bodily harm, or death, when there are no other reasonable options. Abortion would follow similar measures, but its complicated because the baby is in the situation involuntarily, and in cases outside of rape, the 'victim' (mother) is not. Risk of severe bodily harm would have to be weighed with the baby's right (whenever it has rights) and probability to survive, a decision I do not think should be hindered through rigid legality.

Yes, the victim isn't inherently at risk of severe bodily harm, but you don't acknowledge the psychological trauma from a situation like this. Not only would the victim have to deal with the rape she went through, but also caring for the child of that rapist. However, assuming that abortion is out of the question and the victim decides the route of adoption, that still poses the risk of whether or not she will be able to handle it emotionally. Even some women who choose to have a child go through unimaginable stress and become unhealthy emotionally; it is almost an entirely different story if the woman was raped and forced to carry that child to term.
~missbailey8~

Me: What is the weirdest thing I have ever done?
Solon: Agreeing to date me.

Skep: Bailey, you have sardonic written all over your face.
Annie: She has gorgeous written all over her face!

"[M]en are weak. All of us are weak."
-Fatihah

If you ever just want someone to vent, rant, or discuss anything troubling you, my PMs are always open. Have a fabulous day!

The Clown Queen of DDO
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 8:18:34 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

Whatever you think, you should be pro-choice on demand by the woman.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 3:34:52 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 8:12:21 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

I have finally came to the conclusion that consent is the only reasonable argument.

Biology says that if you have sex babies are possible. There is no 100% effective birth control. If you consent to sex you consent to the care of a being you have created. That being didn't ask to be brought into this world. You created a dependent being and you are morally obligated to care for it.

If you didn't consent to the act all that goes away. Is that a fair position?

I'm good with this.
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 3:36:53 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 7:03:23 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

Without suffering morality cannot exist. It is contingent. I can't do anything immoral to a rock since a rock can't feel pain or anything, likewise, I can't do anything immoral to a scab since it doesn't feel anything. Even a living thing, I can't do anything immoral to something that doesn't feel pain. Corn doesn't feel pain, so eating it isn't an immoral thing to do. Fetus don't feel pain, thus I can't do anything immoral to it. The fact that it is alive, or that I am killing it, or that it looks like a human are all empty emotional appeals, sophistry. All that logically matters is if it feels pain, it doesn't, so abortion is okay

This is completely idiotic. Someone who is unconscious or in a comma doesn't feel pain. By your logic, it'd be okay to rape someone in a comma I guess.

Sicko.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 5:28:02 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 3:36:53 AM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 11/12/2016 7:03:23 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

Without suffering morality cannot exist. It is contingent. I can't do anything immoral to a rock since a rock can't feel pain or anything, likewise, I can't do anything immoral to a scab since it doesn't feel anything. Even a living thing, I can't do anything immoral to something that doesn't feel pain. Corn doesn't feel pain, so eating it isn't an immoral thing to do. Fetus don't feel pain, thus I can't do anything immoral to it. The fact that it is alive, or that I am killing it, or that it looks like a human are all empty emotional appeals, sophistry. All that logically matters is if it feels pain, it doesn't, so abortion is okay

This is completely idiotic. Someone who is unconscious or in a comma doesn't feel pain. By your logic, it'd be okay to rape someone in a comma I guess.

Sicko.

Insults are not required here. We are all guilty of failure to do so, but should still strive to acknowledge in times of disagreeance, the possibility that either we, or the 'sicko' may not have the perspective required for judgement, nor labeling of character.

Thank you all for your cool headed and thought out responses on such a sensitive subject. It's a big decision for me, and one I can't form overnight. The conclusion of course has direct impact on the way we can interact with one of the most important and intimate people of our lives, potentially two. It is something I'll lose sleep over, a gaping hole in principle on my part, as I hold the responsibility of putting those in power of making the right decision, one that is much larger then myself and in my opinion, one the greatest and most consequential human rights decisions in our nation's history.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 7:00:43 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
That pro-life stuff is propaganda. In most abortions what is inside the pregnant woman is definitely not a baby.
The real issue is white woman chose when they have a baby, and abortion makes that possible.
Those lesbians in the feminist movement have got woman to believe that it is a bad thing to be a mother, or a housewife. Girls have been convinced that they must get a good education and a good job. So it is only after they become a yuppy and marry another yuppy, and are getting close to menopause age that she has a baby while she still can.
I don't know why, but people of other races do things differently.
This lifestyle has replaced the traditional American way of courtship, which is a man and a woman would date for awhile, then she would get pregnant, and he would step up to the plate and show everyone what a good man he was by marrying her.
So what we have now are fewer white children and many Black and Latino children.
Prolifers blame abortion for helping to bring about this situation.
Remember, the supreme court is on their side, not ours.
Dujec
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 7:34:12 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

It's not legal to force me to use my kidneys to filter blood for someone else even if they will die without it. This does not change if it's my child. Even assuming fetuses are people the argument falls apart here.

No one has a responsibility to use their body to keep someone else alive. Anti-choice advocates miss the fundamental point. I don't exist to keep someone else alive.

trumped.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 12:11:03 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Why assume it's wrong?

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

My arguments for being pro-choice stem from the standard of living for the mother. Generally speaking women who get abortions are better off economically as they are not burdened by child care costs [http://www.usnews.com...] [http://www.borgenmagazine.com...].

Abortion has existed as long as recorded history, it's even used in the Bible to prevent infidelity (Numbers 5:11-31); and other animals have the ability to self abort for their own survival [http://www.alternet.org...].

Also pro-life laws actually put woman at risk. Some times they are necessary, and if you make the infrastructure and training illegal then some women will die [http://www.chicagotribune.com...]. Unfortunately roughly 1 in 5 pregnancies end in miscarriages, and there have been cases where pro-life governments force the women to carry a dead fetus to term [http://www.patheos.com...]. That's pretty messed up IMO.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 12:22:48 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 6:27:15 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/11/2016 4:31:03 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

Under this reasoning we can ban anything and everything....

Not really....This is only applied in the context of human life. Innocent until proven guilty. A life until proven otherwise. The weight of human life with a known morally acceptable outcome and an unknown leads me to this reasoning.

Once again, we can ban all dropping of bombs and drone strikes under this reasoning.

I hate to break it to ya, but your just looking for a reason to ban abortion.

It never ceases to amaze me, people can justify dropping a nucular bomb (hey its war) but suggest that in the earliest stages of pregnancy the women has some sort of body rights not to be forced to continue with the cost and risks of pregnancy...............OMG THATS MURDER.

It's a f*Cking sick joke.


Who is to say when self defense is justified killing vs murder ?

Self defense is justified in cases of risk of severe bodily harm, or death, when there are no other reasonable options. Abortion would follow similar measures, but its complicated because the baby is in the situation involuntarily, and in cases outside of rape, the 'victim' (mother) is not. Risk of severe bodily harm would have to be weighed with the baby's right (whenever it has rights) and probability to survive, a decision I do not think should be hindered through rigid legality.

However, I do believe a potentially viable fetus with possibility of survival definitely deserves full human rights, and should be treated as equal to the mother or any other human being.

So we do have grounds for general medical principle, and that can be backed with a loose legal safety net without infringing on sane decisions.



Who is to say what an acceptable risk of collateral damage is when dropping bombs and drone strikes ?

That's between the doctor and parents in high risk situations.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 2:20:31 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/13/2016 12:22:48 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 11/11/2016 6:27:15 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/11/2016 4:31:03 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

Under this reasoning we can ban anything and everything....

Not really....This is only applied in the context of human life. Innocent until proven guilty. A life until proven otherwise. The weight of human life with a known morally acceptable outcome and an unknown leads me to this reasoning.

Once again, we can ban all dropping of bombs and drone strikes under this reasoning.

I hate to break it to ya, but your just looking for a reason to ban abortion.

It never ceases to amaze me, people can justify dropping a nucular bomb (hey its war) but suggest that in the earliest stages of pregnancy the women has some sort of body rights not to be forced to continue with the cost and risks of pregnancy...............OMG THATS MURDER.

It's a f*Cking sick joke.

I won't have that I'm looking for reasons to ban abortion be projected. It's simply not true. The libertarian side of me want's to instill as much freedom in our sexual decisions as morrally possible. The progressive side of me wants to extend human rights to as many people as morally possible. Both are strong but I've picked the libertarian side as my default position as I usually do and test it's limits, sculpting it through morality. I'm looking for information because I've come to realize my Intel is insufficient to maintain stereotypical pro choice for much longer. I want sufficient reasons for pro choice. Freedom is one of my highest priorities. Without a defined time/situation at which a fetus is acceptable to kill, I'm at a loss as it's situation is inflicted by the will of its parents, I hold responsibility for the parents to make the right call. With only one certain morally sound position, in the interest of human life I feel myself leaning pro-life. I don't want to though. It's just what I feel I can sleep with at night lately.

The war analogy is good in that we should avoid lethal conflict in the first place if possible within our nation's principle, but poor otherwise, as war has an offending party, and the decision to drop an atomic bomb to save more lives in a time of forced confiCT isn't directly relatelable.

Who is to say when self defense is justified killing vs murder ?

Self defense is justified in cases of risk of severe bodily harm, or death, when there are no other reasonable options. Abortion would follow similar measures, but its complicated because the baby is in the situation involuntarily, and in cases outside of rape, the 'victim' (mother) is not. Risk of severe bodily harm would have to be weighed with the baby's right (whenever it has rights) and probability to survive, a decision I do not think should be hindered through rigid legality.

However, I do believe a potentially viable fetus with possibility of survival definitely deserves full human rights, and should be treated as equal to the mother or any other human being.

So we do have grounds for general medical principle, and that can be backed with a loose legal safety net without infringing on sane decisions.



Who is to say what an acceptable risk of collateral damage is when dropping bombs and drone strikes ?

That's between the doctor and parents in high risk situations.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 5:09:43 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

Seems like you've actually made up your mind, but are refusing to acknowledge the implications of that decision.

You believe the unborn to be humans (which is what science says they are). However, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

So you have no convictions in your belief? You are unsure, but choose not to delve deeper? One side says there are over a million people being slaughtered in your country every year, the other believes that it is nothing more significant than picking your nose. This is really something you should consider more deeply.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Why? Something either is or is not. It is a human with inalienable rights or it is not. That is really the only question. Everything else is a smoke screen. You'd still have slavery if people said, I'm against people owning people, but I'm not going to intrude on their rights to own other people. It sounds absurd right?

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

From here I would say that you are at the beginning of a Pro-Life stance. You have strong moral qualms with abortion. Your conscience won't let you ignore the fact that abortion kills human beings. However, you have to deal with the fact that you accepted it and that you are living in a nation where many otherwise likeable people have legally killed their own children. We like to believe that we live in a moral nation and can be hesitant to deal with the facts otherwise.

As to how to resolve the morality of the question you have to start with basic moral reasoning.

1. Are the unborn human? Yes. Science has conclusively shown that you begin your life at fertilization. That single cell zygote is the very same human organism as the baby, teenager, and adult that it will mature into.

2. Are human rights inalienable? If you believe that human rights are inalienable then the same organism must, by definition, possess those rights at every stage of life. This is the pro-life stance and it is perfectly aligned with a libertarian belief. Telling someone they cannot have an abortion is not a removal of their rights, because they don't have the right to murder in the first place.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 5:15:40 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 7:03:23 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 11/11/2016 2:14:22 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
I've always been a lifer, who votes Pro-Choice.

A man's got to know his limitations. Even though I think its probably okay, I'm not a great philosopher nor a medical expert and don't hold confidence in my ability to gauge whether or not its moral to have an abortion, and therefore am unwilling to have an abortion, and refuse to have sex with a partner I wouldn't be willing to raise a child with. I think that's the right thing to do. After all, we are talking about a human life here. One night of pleasure doesn't trump the possibility of losing life.

However, my personal reasoning doesn't make abortion immoral in my opinion. And so I have maintained a Pro-Choice view politically, as I respect that my reasoning is not the gold standard, and other people might be more sure of themselves then I am.

However, this last year, I've been leaning more and more towards life, repeatedly falling back to my personal justification, that if we don't have the ability to judge with certainty whether it is truly right or wrong, we should assume its wrong in respect of human life. I am extremely hesitant to exact my own measures onto others though.

Now I'm wondering, do we have the ability? If so, what is the methodology for determining the time/situation at which we can safely say it is truly moral to have an abortion.

Without suffering morality cannot exist. It is contingent. I can't do anything immoral to a rock since a rock can't feel pain or anything, likewise, I can't do anything immoral to a scab since it doesn't feel anything. Even a living thing, I can't do anything immoral to something that doesn't feel pain. Corn doesn't feel pain, so eating it isn't an immoral thing to do. Fetus don't feel pain, thus I can't do anything immoral to it. The fact that it is alive, or that I am killing it, or that it looks like a human are all empty emotional appeals, sophistry. All that logically matters is if it feels pain, it doesn't, so abortion is okay

So you don't believe in rights?

Additionally, it wouldn't be murder if you were at ground zero of a nuke because you'd be incinerated faster than any physical transmission of pain could possibly be received.

Poor moral reasoning.