Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Things that all abortionists have in common.

Devilry
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 8:52:31 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
Don't waste your life being a good Christian boy, mate.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 8:55:47 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

Pointing out a commonly-known quote said by a strident abortion opponent is not an argument, nor is it conducive for one.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Pigney
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 9:03:16 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 8:55:47 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

Pointing out a commonly-known quote said by a strident abortion opponent is not an argument, nor is it conducive for one.

No, i am simply stating a fact. It would be like saying, "The only people who are for slavery are those who are free."
Simple as that.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 9:14:16 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

Yea? What is your point? Do you want me to Skype you from Heaven to declare my stance on abortion?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 9:17:34 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 9:03:16 PM, Pigney wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:55:47 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

Pointing out a commonly-known quote said by a strident abortion opponent is not an argument, nor is it conducive for one.

No, i am simply stating a fact. It would be like saying, "The only people who are for slavery are those who are free."
Simple as that.

It's not a fact, it's a quote. There's a difference.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 9:44:58 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

What is your stance on Refugees? The Death Penalty? Health Insurance? Guns? Sex education? Measures to Reduce poverty? War? Stand your ground laws?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 10:30:14 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 9:17:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:03:16 PM, Pigney wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:55:47 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

Pointing out a commonly-known quote said by a strident abortion opponent is not an argument, nor is it conducive for one.

No, i am simply stating a fact. It would be like saying, "The only people who are for slavery are those who are free."
Simple as that.

It's not a fact, it's a quote. There's a difference.

It just happens to be both.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 10:30:44 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 9:44:58 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

What is your stance on Refugees? The Death Penalty? Health Insurance? Guns? Sex education? Measures to Reduce poverty? War? Stand your ground laws?

Deflect much?
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 8:09:04 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 10:30:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:17:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:03:16 PM, Pigney wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:55:47 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

Pointing out a commonly-known quote said by a strident abortion opponent is not an argument, nor is it conducive for one.

No, i am simply stating a fact. It would be like saying, "The only people who are for slavery are those who are free."
Simple as that.

It's not a fact, it's a quote. There's a difference.

It just happens to be both.

Again, fact =/= quote. That quote is not a fact. It doesn't even have enough sense to be judged as a fact.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
cameron339
Posts: 72
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 8:49:34 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

And you know what? If you were aborted, then you wouldn't exist. The nonexistent do not worry about their non existence.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 4:01:57 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
Cut the crap Pigney, What you want is for American courtship to be like it used to be i.e. a young man and a young 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.
This has been replaced by she is taking birth control pills, and if that fails she gets an abortion. So now marriage does not occur unless both people want to marry the other one. What are the chances that will happen? After they date for awhile, she gets to know him, and she thinks " C'mon, I can do better than this clown".
What bothers you is that fewer white babies are born as a result of this.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 4:58:54 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 8:09:04 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 10:30:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:17:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:03:16 PM, Pigney wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:55:47 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

Pointing out a commonly-known quote said by a strident abortion opponent is not an argument, nor is it conducive for one.

No, i am simply stating a fact. It would be like saying, "The only people who are for slavery are those who are free."
Simple as that.

It's not a fact, it's a quote. There's a difference.

It just happens to be both.

Again, fact =/= quote. That quote is not a fact. It doesn't even have enough sense to be judged as a fact.

Never said so. The quote is a fact:

"Everyone who is for abortion has already been born"

That is a factual statement. To disprove it all you have to do is show someone who isn't born who is in favour of abortion.
inferno
Posts: 10,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 5:14:09 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

Nice quote.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 7:47:02 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 4:58:54 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 8:09:04 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 10:30:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:17:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:03:16 PM, Pigney wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:55:47 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

Pointing out a commonly-known quote said by a strident abortion opponent is not an argument, nor is it conducive for one.

No, i am simply stating a fact. It would be like saying, "The only people who are for slavery are those who are free."
Simple as that.

It's not a fact, it's a quote. There's a difference.

It just happens to be both.

Again, fact =/= quote. That quote is not a fact. It doesn't even have enough sense to be judged as a fact.

Never said so. The quote is a fact:

"Everyone who is for abortion has already been born"

That is a factual statement. To disprove it all you have to do is show someone who isn't born who is in favour of abortion.

No, Reagan's quote is an anecdote and has no basis in facts or even sense. To "show someone who isn't born" is a ridiculous statement, but that doesn't mean abortion is wrong.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 8:34:43 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 7:47:02 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/22/2016 4:58:54 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 8:09:04 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 10:30:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:17:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:03:16 PM, Pigney wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:55:47 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

Pointing out a commonly-known quote said by a strident abortion opponent is not an argument, nor is it conducive for one.

No, i am simply stating a fact. It would be like saying, "The only people who are for slavery are those who are free."
Simple as that.

It's not a fact, it's a quote. There's a difference.

It just happens to be both.

Again, fact =/= quote. That quote is not a fact. It doesn't even have enough sense to be judged as a fact.

Never said so. The quote is a fact:

"Everyone who is for abortion has already been born"

That is a factual statement. To disprove it all you have to do is show someone who isn't born who is in favour of abortion.

No, Reagan's quote is an anecdote and has no basis in facts or even sense. To "show someone who isn't born" is a ridiculous statement, but that doesn't mean abortion is wrong.

So what you are saying is that you're upset that it is a factual statement and that you cannot disprove it in the same way you cannot disprove that 2+2=4 however much you desire it to be so.

And no his statement doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong, but it does show that those in favour of abortion are those who no longer have to worry about abortion being carried out on them. It is an acknowledgement of the power imbalance that exists between the youngest members of the species and those who are considered to be fully matured members of the species. And it does all that in one nice compact sentence.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 8:51:22 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 8:34:43 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 7:47:02 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/22/2016 4:58:54 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 8:09:04 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 10:30:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:17:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:03:16 PM, Pigney wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:55:47 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

Pointing out a commonly-known quote said by a strident abortion opponent is not an argument, nor is it conducive for one.

No, i am simply stating a fact. It would be like saying, "The only people who are for slavery are those who are free."
Simple as that.

It's not a fact, it's a quote. There's a difference.

It just happens to be both.

Again, fact =/= quote. That quote is not a fact. It doesn't even have enough sense to be judged as a fact.

Never said so. The quote is a fact:

"Everyone who is for abortion has already been born"

That is a factual statement. To disprove it all you have to do is show someone who isn't born who is in favour of abortion.

No, Reagan's quote is an anecdote and has no basis in facts or even sense. To "show someone who isn't born" is a ridiculous statement, but that doesn't mean abortion is wrong.


So what you are saying is that you're upset that it is a factual statement and that you cannot disprove it in the same way you cannot disprove that 2+2=4 however much you desire it to be so.

And no his statement doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong, but it does show that those in favour of abortion are those who no longer have to worry about abortion being carried out on them. It is an acknowledgement of the power imbalance that exists between the youngest members of the species and those who are considered to be fully matured members of the species. And it does all that in one nice compact sentence.

Calling that quote a fact on par with the statement "2+2=4" is absurd. For one thing, the statement "2+2=4" is a logical equation and cannot possibly be wrong. But that's beside the point. Fetuses aren't capable of being in favor of abortion, nor are they even, in any reasonable sense, "alive" (particularly during the first trimester, when the vast majority of abortions are carried out), so it's senseless to make a statement assuming that they do.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 9:03:58 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 8:51:22 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/22/2016 8:34:43 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 7:47:02 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/22/2016 4:58:54 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 8:09:04 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 10:30:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:17:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:03:16 PM, Pigney wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:55:47 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

Pointing out a commonly-known quote said by a strident abortion opponent is not an argument, nor is it conducive for one.

No, i am simply stating a fact. It would be like saying, "The only people who are for slavery are those who are free."
Simple as that.

It's not a fact, it's a quote. There's a difference.

It just happens to be both.

Again, fact =/= quote. That quote is not a fact. It doesn't even have enough sense to be judged as a fact.

Never said so. The quote is a fact:

"Everyone who is for abortion has already been born"

That is a factual statement. To disprove it all you have to do is show someone who isn't born who is in favour of abortion.

No, Reagan's quote is an anecdote and has no basis in facts or even sense. To "show someone who isn't born" is a ridiculous statement, but that doesn't mean abortion is wrong.


So what you are saying is that you're upset that it is a factual statement and that you cannot disprove it in the same way you cannot disprove that 2+2=4 however much you desire it to be so.

And no his statement doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong, but it does show that those in favour of abortion are those who no longer have to worry about abortion being carried out on them. It is an acknowledgement of the power imbalance that exists between the youngest members of the species and those who are considered to be fully matured members of the species. And it does all that in one nice compact sentence.

Calling that quote a fact on par with the statement "2+2=4" is absurd. For one thing, the statement "2+2=4" is a logical equation and cannot possibly be wrong.

And Regan's statement was a logical statement that cannot be wrong.

But that's beside the point.

It is the point.

Fetuses aren't capable of being in favor of abortion, nor are they even, in any reasonable sense, "alive" (particularly during the first trimester, when the vast majority of abortions are carried out), so it's senseless to make a statement assuming that they do.

They are in every sense alive, saying otherwise is an unsubstantiated bias on your part.

And we can show that they do not desire abortion. The nature of life is that it continues until it no longer can survive. Thus life has a passive will to continue to exist. By extension the will of the unborn is to continue to live and thus contrary to abortion.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 10:05:55 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 9:03:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 8:51:22 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/22/2016 8:34:43 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 7:47:02 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/22/2016 4:58:54 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 8:09:04 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 10:30:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:17:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:03:16 PM, Pigney wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:55:47 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

Pointing out a commonly-known quote said by a strident abortion opponent is not an argument, nor is it conducive for one.

No, i am simply stating a fact. It would be like saying, "The only people who are for slavery are those who are free."
Simple as that.

It's not a fact, it's a quote. There's a difference.

It just happens to be both.

Again, fact =/= quote. That quote is not a fact. It doesn't even have enough sense to be judged as a fact.

Never said so. The quote is a fact:

"Everyone who is for abortion has already been born"

That is a factual statement. To disprove it all you have to do is show someone who isn't born who is in favour of abortion.

No, Reagan's quote is an anecdote and has no basis in facts or even sense. To "show someone who isn't born" is a ridiculous statement, but that doesn't mean abortion is wrong.


So what you are saying is that you're upset that it is a factual statement and that you cannot disprove it in the same way you cannot disprove that 2+2=4 however much you desire it to be so.

And no his statement doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong, but it does show that those in favour of abortion are those who no longer have to worry about abortion being carried out on them. It is an acknowledgement of the power imbalance that exists between the youngest members of the species and those who are considered to be fully matured members of the species. And it does all that in one nice compact sentence.

Calling that quote a fact on par with the statement "2+2=4" is absurd. For one thing, the statement "2+2=4" is a logical equation and cannot possibly be wrong.

And Regan's statement was a logical statement that cannot be wrong.

No, Reagan's statement was not logical. It was empirical. There's a huge difference.
But that's beside the point.

It is the point.

No, this is not a debate on the validity of logical vs. empirical statements.
Fetuses aren't capable of being in favor of abortion, nor are they even, in any reasonable sense, "alive" (particularly during the first trimester, when the vast majority of abortions are carried out), so it's senseless to make a statement assuming that they do.

They are in every sense alive, saying otherwise is an unsubstantiated bias on your part.

And we can show that they do not desire abortion. The nature of life is that it continues until it no longer can survive. Thus life has a passive will to continue to exist. By extension the will of the unborn is to continue to live and thus contrary to abortion.

At best, I'm wrong. It doesn't show any bias on my part to make such an assertion. And your analysis assumes that, one, fetuses are alive (which is murky at the very best, and, by all biological definitions, is not true), and two, that fetuses have desires, which they can't, because fetuses aren't "alive".
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 10:15:26 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 10:05:55 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/22/2016 9:03:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 8:51:22 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/22/2016 8:34:43 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 7:47:02 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/22/2016 4:58:54 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 8:09:04 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 10:30:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:17:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:03:16 PM, Pigney wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:55:47 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

Pointing out a commonly-known quote said by a strident abortion opponent is not an argument, nor is it conducive for one.

No, i am simply stating a fact. It would be like saying, "The only people who are for slavery are those who are free."
Simple as that.

It's not a fact, it's a quote. There's a difference.

It just happens to be both.

Again, fact =/= quote. That quote is not a fact. It doesn't even have enough sense to be judged as a fact.

Never said so. The quote is a fact:

"Everyone who is for abortion has already been born"

That is a factual statement. To disprove it all you have to do is show someone who isn't born who is in favour of abortion.

No, Reagan's quote is an anecdote and has no basis in facts or even sense. To "show someone who isn't born" is a ridiculous statement, but that doesn't mean abortion is wrong.


So what you are saying is that you're upset that it is a factual statement and that you cannot disprove it in the same way you cannot disprove that 2+2=4 however much you desire it to be so.

And no his statement doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong, but it does show that those in favour of abortion are those who no longer have to worry about abortion being carried out on them. It is an acknowledgement of the power imbalance that exists between the youngest members of the species and those who are considered to be fully matured members of the species. And it does all that in one nice compact sentence.

Calling that quote a fact on par with the statement "2+2=4" is absurd. For one thing, the statement "2+2=4" is a logical equation and cannot possibly be wrong.

And Regan's statement was a logical statement that cannot be wrong.

No, Reagan's statement was not logical. It was empirical. There's a huge difference.

If it isn't logical it should be pretty easy to refute. If I said, "From what I can see all modern computers use microchips," all you would have to do is show me a modern computer that used something other than microchips to show it to be an erroneous opinion rather than fact.

But that's beside the point.

It is the point.

No, this is not a debate on the validity of logical vs. empirical statements.

One does not necessarily deny the other.

Fetuses aren't capable of being in favor of abortion, nor are they even, in any reasonable sense, "alive" (particularly during the first trimester, when the vast majority of abortions are carried out), so it's senseless to make a statement assuming that they do.

They are in every sense alive, saying otherwise is an unsubstantiated bias on your part.

And we can show that they do not desire abortion. The nature of life is that it continues until it no longer can survive. Thus life has a passive will to continue to exist. By extension the will of the unborn is to continue to live and thus contrary to abortion.

At best, I'm wrong. It doesn't show any bias on my part to make such an assertion. And your analysis assumes that, one, fetuses are alive (which is murky at the very best, and, by all biological definitions, is not true), and two, that fetuses have desires, which they can't, because fetuses aren't "alive".

Please show me one biological definition that shows the unborn are not unique living organisms. I can logically show that they are alive. I pull up esteemed biologists and embryologists that say they are. Heck I can pull up major pro-choice advocates that will say they are.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 11:26:20 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
I have noticed that everyone who is for gun rights hasn't been killed by gun violence.
I have noticed that everyone who is for capitalism hasn't starved to death.
I have noticed that everyone who is against universal healthcare hasn't died due to lack of medical care.
I have noticed that everyone who is for the death penalty hasn't been executed.

See how easy it is to make similar (bad) arguments?

Anyway, to discuss abortion more generally, the fetus is alive, biologically speaking, from a very early point. When that life is morally equivalent to a human life is the matter of debate, as well as how we balance the rights of two distinct lives with competing interests. Thus, the argument usually comes down to the bodily autonomy of the mother vs. the unborn's right to life. The issue is that no matter what, an unwanted pregnancy is either going to violate the unborn's right to life or the mother's right to bodily autonomy--after all, until fetal viability, the fetus depends on the mother for life and cannot survive apart from her, so for all intents and purposes, the mother is essentially forced to provide life support.

Now, it's easy to instinctively say that the right to life trumps all, but upon closer inspection, that argument falls apart. If the right to life is truly the most crucial in all cases, if it is absolute, then we as a society should be valuing it above everything else. In practice, if the right to life has perfect priority, then we must support the abridgment of privacy (after all, it is only because the government does not engage in perfect and thorough surveillance that crime can possibly happen), for instance. I don't recall which Supreme Court justice(s) said this, but they got it right when they said that protecting rights is a balancing act, and we must attempt to protect all rights, not just one right to the exclusion of others.

So, how do we balance the mother's right to privacy with the unborn's right to life? Some say that abortion is permissible while the fetus cannot feel pain--after all, there is no "harm" done in that case. However, all organisms have a vested interest in living, whether they can feel pain or not, and whether they can consciously realize it or not. Killing someone who is in, say, a coma, is still murder. That argument fails, imo.

I favor the line that likens a pregnancy to life support for a child, along the lines of the violinist analogy. Abortion, until the point of fetal viability, is essentially terminating the life support that a mother provides for her child. There is no special moral obligation for the mother to bring that child to term--the burden is on those who say there is a special obligation, and I've never heard a good argument for this. It might be a moral good (depending on your definition) to bring the child to term, but in no case is the opposite true (abortion is NOT a moral bad); there is no moral requirement for everyone to support others (pregnancy), only to not infringe on their rights.

Let's take a thought experiment for a moment to illustrate this last point. Imagine that your best friend develops a strange disorder in which they must suck on someone's thumb for 1 hour every day, or they will die. Your friend has no one else who is willing to let them suck on their thumb, so your friend turns to you. Are you morally obligated to let them suck on your thumb? What if they have to suck on it for 2 hours a day? 24/7? What if that friend instead needs to eat a person's toe at least once a day? The point is that there is not a duty to protect others' negative rights to the detriment of your own; there is only the duty to not infringe on their rights. When forced protection of others' rights would infringe upon your own rights, we cannot credibly call it moral to force that protection. Making abortion illegal before the point of fetal viability is forcing protection of the fetus's rights to the detriment of the mother's rights, and is immoral.

When out of the womb, there is an obligation to take care of the child created by the willingness to bring the child to term (children cannot take care of themselves, and the choice to bring a child to term creates an implicit social contract; this can be fulfilled through adoption as well, but it must be fulfilled; I'd also note that the government has a moral responsibility to ensure conditions where children can be raised humanely), but not before that.

tl;dr Safe, legal, and rare until viability.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
mc9
Posts: 1,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 11:37:50 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
I've noticed that everyone that wants to allow ants to be stepped on hasn't been stepped on
mc9
Posts: 1,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 11:38:44 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 10:15:26 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 10:05:55 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/22/2016 9:03:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 8:51:22 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/22/2016 8:34:43 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 7:47:02 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/22/2016 4:58:54 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 8:09:04 AM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 10:30:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:17:34 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 9:03:16 PM, Pigney wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:55:47 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/21/2016 8:47:53 PM, Pigney wrote:
"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Regan

Pointing out a commonly-known quote said by a strident abortion opponent is not an argument, nor is it conducive for one.

No, i am simply stating a fact. It would be like saying, "The only people who are for slavery are those who are free."
Simple as that.

It's not a fact, it's a quote. There's a difference.

It just happens to be both.

Again, fact =/= quote. That quote is not a fact. It doesn't even have enough sense to be judged as a fact.

Never said so. The quote is a fact:

"Everyone who is for abortion has already been born"

That is a factual statement. To disprove it all you have to do is show someone who isn't born who is in favour of abortion.

No, Reagan's quote is an anecdote and has no basis in facts or even sense. To "show someone who isn't born" is a ridiculous statement, but that doesn't mean abortion is wrong.


So what you are saying is that you're upset that it is a factual statement and that you cannot disprove it in the same way you cannot disprove that 2+2=4 however much you desire it to be so.

And no his statement doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong, but it does show that those in favour of abortion are those who no longer have to worry about abortion being carried out on them. It is an acknowledgement of the power imbalance that exists between the youngest members of the species and those who are considered to be fully matured members of the species. And it does all that in one nice compact sentence.

Calling that quote a fact on par with the statement "2+2=4" is absurd. For one thing, the statement "2+2=4" is a logical equation and cannot possibly be wrong.

And Regan's statement was a logical statement that cannot be wrong.

No, Reagan's statement was not logical. It was empirical. There's a huge difference.

If it isn't logical it should be pretty easy to refute. If I said, "From what I can see all modern computers use microchips," all you would have to do is show me a modern computer that used something other than microchips to show it to be an erroneous opinion rather than fact.

But that's beside the point.

It is the point.

No, this is not a debate on the validity of logical vs. empirical statements.

One does not necessarily deny the other.

Fetuses aren't capable of being in favor of abortion, nor are they even, in any reasonable sense, "alive" (particularly during the first trimester, when the vast majority of abortions are carried out), so it's senseless to make a statement assuming that they do.

They are in every sense alive, saying otherwise is an unsubstantiated bias on your part.

And we can show that they do not desire abortion. The nature of life is that it continues until it no longer can survive. Thus life has a passive will to continue to exist. By extension the will of the unborn is to continue to live and thus contrary to abortion.

At best, I'm wrong. It doesn't show any bias on my part to make such an assertion. And your analysis assumes that, one, fetuses are alive (which is murky at the very best, and, by all biological definitions, is not true), and two, that fetuses have desires, which they can't, because fetuses aren't "alive".

Please show me one biological definition that shows the unborn are not unique living organisms. I can logically show that they are alive. I pull up esteemed biologists and embryologists that say they are. Heck I can pull up major pro-choice advocates that will say they are.

Ants are alive, trees are alive, should we banniilling those too
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 11:41:50 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 11:38:44 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 11/22/2016 10:15:26 PM, Geogeer wrote:

Please show me one biological definition that shows the unborn are not unique living organisms. I can logically show that they are alive. I pull up esteemed biologists and embryologists that say they are. Heck I can pull up major pro-choice advocates that will say they are.

Ants are alive, trees are alive, should we banniilling those too

At least a new person has readily acknowledged the truth that the unborn are alive. Progress.

Well are ants or trees human? If not why would we be willing to give them the same moral agency?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 11:54:10 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 11:37:50 PM, mc9 wrote:
I've noticed that everyone that wants to allow ants to be stepped on hasn't been stepped on

That's not true. My brother repeated stepped on me when I was young. I still favour the rights of people to step on ants.
mc9
Posts: 1,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 1:15:38 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 11:54:10 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 11:37:50 PM, mc9 wrote:
I've noticed that everyone that wants to allow ants to be stepped on hasn't been stepped on

That's not true. My brother repeated stepped on me when I was young. I still favour the rights of people to step on ants.

But you haven't been killed by being stepped on and I'm sorry about your brother
mc9
Posts: 1,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 1:16:33 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/22/2016 11:41:50 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/22/2016 11:38:44 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 11/22/2016 10:15:26 PM, Geogeer wrote:

Please show me one biological definition that shows the unborn are not unique living organisms. I can logically show that they are alive. I pull up esteemed biologists and embryologists that say they are. Heck I can pull up major pro-choice advocates that will say they are.

Ants are alive, trees are alive, should we banniilling those too

At least a new person has readily acknowledged the truth that the unborn are alive. Progress.

Well are ants or trees human? If not why would we be willing to give them the same moral agency?

that same question could apply to fetuses