Total Posts:90|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Was this abortion moral?

GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 9:58:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.

So then, in your opinion, what is the morality of someone who kills a fetus in order to stop providing bodily resources for it?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 10:08:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 9:58:26 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.

So then, in your opinion, what is the morality of someone who kills a fetus in order to stop providing bodily resources for it?

Abortion does not necessarily entail directly killing the fetus. Techniques such as induced labor expel the fetus without killing it; the fetus dies due to lack of resources (which is fine since the fetus is not entitled to the bodily resources of others).

I would say, however, that killing the fetus is perfectly acceptable if there is no other option for expelling it. Refusal to leave on its part constitutes theft, and just as I can kill a burglar or someone who resides within my home but refuses to leave, so too can I kill the fetus if it continues to steal from my body without my permission.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 10:13:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 10:08:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:58:26 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.

So then, in your opinion, what is the morality of someone who kills a fetus in order to stop providing bodily resources for it?

Abortion does not necessarily entail directly killing the fetus. Techniques such as induced labor expel the fetus without killing it; the fetus dies due to lack of resources (which is fine since the fetus is not entitled to the bodily resources of others).

I would say, however, that killing the fetus is perfectly acceptable if there is no other option for expelling it. Refusal to leave on its part constitutes theft, and just as I can kill a burglar or someone who resides within my home but refuses to leave, so too can I kill the fetus if it continues to steal from my body without my permission.

Whenever there is a heartbeat or any signs of life for this zygote-fetus, it is considered a life. Period.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 10:18:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 10:08:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Abortion does not necessarily entail directly killing the fetus. Techniques such as induced labor expel the fetus without killing it; the fetus dies due to lack of resources (which is fine since the fetus is not entitled to the bodily resources of others).

I see...

I would say, however, that killing the fetus is perfectly acceptable if there is no other option for expelling it.

I see...

Refusal to leave on its part constitutes theft, and just as I can kill a burglar or someone who resides within my home but refuses to leave, so too can I kill the fetus if it continues to steal from my body without my permission.

A fetus cannot refuse to leave. It wouldn't even be able to realize that the mother wants it out.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 10:22:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 10:18:31 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/1/2012 10:08:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Abortion does not necessarily entail directly killing the fetus. Techniques such as induced labor expel the fetus without killing it; the fetus dies due to lack of resources (which is fine since the fetus is not entitled to the bodily resources of others).

I see...

I would say, however, that killing the fetus is perfectly acceptable if there is no other option for expelling it.

I see...

Refusal to leave on its part constitutes theft, and just as I can kill a burglar or someone who resides within my home but refuses to leave, so too can I kill the fetus if it continues to steal from my body without my permission.

A fetus cannot refuse to leave. It wouldn't even be able to realize that the mother wants it out.

For instance, if a very young child crawled into my house somehow, found its way to my pantry, and started to eat some of my food and I yelled at it to GTFO and it didn't, can I shoot it?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 10:42:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 10:08:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:58:26 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.

So then, in your opinion, what is the morality of someone who kills a fetus in order to stop providing bodily resources for it?

Abortion does not necessarily entail directly killing the fetus. Techniques such as induced labor expel the fetus without killing it; the fetus dies due to lack of resources (which is fine since the fetus is not entitled to the bodily resources of others).

Is this murder or arbortion? - http://www.priestsforlife.org...

I would say, however, that killing the fetus is perfectly acceptable if there is no other option for expelling it. Refusal to leave on its part constitutes theft, and just as I can kill a burglar or someone who resides within my home but refuses to leave, so too can I kill the fetus if it continues to steal from my body without my permission.
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 11:04:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

There is nothing moral about any pro-babykilling position. At conception, the human cells are alive and the organism is doing what it's suppose to be doing at that age, and stage of development. It's parasitic.

All pro-babykillers do is impose their preferred stage of development. Morally there is nothing stopping them from killing a 6 month old baby either. It's still parasitic.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 11:09:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 10:42:51 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
At 10/1/2012 10:08:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:58:26 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.

So then, in your opinion, what is the morality of someone who kills a fetus in order to stop providing bodily resources for it?

Abortion does not necessarily entail directly killing the fetus. Techniques such as induced labor expel the fetus without killing it; the fetus dies due to lack of resources (which is fine since the fetus is not entitled to the bodily resources of others).

Is this murder or arbortion? - http://www.priestsforlife.org...

Murder

I would say, however, that killing the fetus is perfectly acceptable if there is no other option for expelling it. Refusal to leave on its part constitutes theft, and just as I can kill a burglar or someone who resides within my home but refuses to leave, so too can I kill the fetus if it continues to steal from my body without my permission.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:20:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.


Lol, I'm not one to argue from morality; but how can you ever point your finger @ anyone in condemnation, when you believe it is moral to abandon your children..

So, you believe, you can be irresponsible, perform an act that will surely produce another human, and kill before it can feel, so you don't have to deal with your mistake?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:27:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:20:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.


Lol, I'm not one to argue from morality; but how can you ever point your finger @ anyone in condemnation, when you believe it is moral to abandon your children..

So, you believe, you can be irresponsible, perform an act that will surely produce another human, and kill before it can feel, so you don't have to deal with your mistake?

So...you cannot answer the question?
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:28:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
By the way, I realize I never answered the question.

No.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:31:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 10:22:07 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/1/2012 10:18:31 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/1/2012 10:08:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Abortion does not necessarily entail directly killing the fetus. Techniques such as induced labor expel the fetus without killing it; the fetus dies due to lack of resources (which is fine since the fetus is not entitled to the bodily resources of others).

I see...

I would say, however, that killing the fetus is perfectly acceptable if there is no other option for expelling it.

I see...

Refusal to leave on its part constitutes theft, and just as I can kill a burglar or someone who resides within my home but refuses to leave, so too can I kill the fetus if it continues to steal from my body without my permission.

A fetus cannot refuse to leave. It wouldn't even be able to realize that the mother wants it out.

For instance, if a very young child crawled into my house somehow, found its way to my pantry, and started to eat some of my food and I yelled at it to GTFO and it didn't, can I shoot it?

There is an alternative solution that does not cost it its life, namely calling the police. If the police are unable to remove the child, however, then you are justified in killing him/her.
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:33:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Royal, it had to have been taken out of context. But what did you say about 2 year olds being aborted? I couldn't find what you really said, just what others were saying about you.
kfc
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:34:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:27:36 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:20:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.


Lol, I'm not one to argue from morality; but how can you ever point your finger @ anyone in condemnation, when you believe it is moral to abandon your children..

So, you believe, you can be irresponsible, perform an act that will surely produce another human, and kill before it can feel, so you don't have to deal with your mistake?

So...you cannot answer the question?


Sorry Genesis, I didn't even read the article.. I was mostly commenting on Royal's post.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:34:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 10:42:51 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
At 10/1/2012 10:08:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:58:26 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.

So then, in your opinion, what is the morality of someone who kills a fetus in order to stop providing bodily resources for it?

Abortion does not necessarily entail directly killing the fetus. Techniques such as induced labor expel the fetus without killing it; the fetus dies due to lack of resources (which is fine since the fetus is not entitled to the bodily resources of others).

Is this murder or arbortion? - http://www.priestsforlife.org...
Showing me pictures in order to appeal to my emotions does not change the fact that abortion is perfectly justifiable. If I show you pictures of dead/starving homeless people, does the fact that you do not give money to them and/or oppose welfare mean that you are acting in an immoral manner?

For example, does the fact that you have refused to help people like this mean you are acting in an immoral manner? Have you murdered this person? http://www.google.com...


I would say, however, that killing the fetus is perfectly acceptable if there is no other option for expelling it. Refusal to leave on its part constitutes theft, and just as I can kill a burglar or someone who resides within my home but refuses to leave, so too can I kill the fetus if it continues to steal from my body without my permission.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:35:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:20:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.


Lol, I'm not one to argue from morality; but how can you ever point your finger @ anyone in condemnation, when you believe it is moral to abandon your children..

So, you believe, you can be irresponsible, perform an act that will surely produce another human, and kill before it can feel, so you don't have to deal with your mistake?

I have no obligation to provide for any individual against my will. This is why forced welfare is immoral.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:36:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:33:33 PM, Koopin wrote:
Royal, it had to have been taken out of context. But what did you say about 2 year olds being aborted? I couldn't find what you really said, just what others were saying about you.

I made that statement a very long time ago. I have since revised my views on the subject.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:36:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:35:38 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:20:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.


Lol, I'm not one to argue from morality; but how can you ever point your finger @ anyone in condemnation, when you believe it is moral to abandon your children..

So, you believe, you can be irresponsible, perform an act that will surely produce another human, and kill before it can feel, so you don't have to deal with your mistake?

I have no obligation to provide for any individual against my will. This is why forced welfare is immoral.

Even an individual for whose creation you are at least in part responsible?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:37:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:36:16 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:33:33 PM, Koopin wrote:
Royal, it had to have been taken out of context. But what did you say about 2 year olds being aborted? I couldn't find what you really said, just what others were saying about you.

I made that statement a very long time ago. I have since revised my views on the subject.

Alright, good.
kfc
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:39:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:34:26 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 10:42:51 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
At 10/1/2012 10:08:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:58:26 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.

So then, in your opinion, what is the morality of someone who kills a fetus in order to stop providing bodily resources for it?

Abortion does not necessarily entail directly killing the fetus. Techniques such as induced labor expel the fetus without killing it; the fetus dies due to lack of resources (which is fine since the fetus is not entitled to the bodily resources of others).

Is this murder or arbortion? - http://www.priestsforlife.org...
Showing me pictures in order to appeal to my emotions does not change the fact that abortion is perfectly justifiable. If I show you pictures of dead/starving homeless people, does the fact that you do not give money to them and/or oppose welfare mean that you are acting in an immoral manner?

For example, does the fact that you have refused to help people like this mean you are acting in an immoral manner? Have you murdered this person? http://www.google.com...


I would say, however, that killing the fetus is perfectly acceptable if there is no other option for expelling it. Refusal to leave on its part constitutes theft, and just as I can kill a burglar or someone who resides within my home but refuses to leave, so too can I kill the fetus if it continues to steal from my body without my permission.

That is an outstanding failure of common sense! Wow....my nostrils hurt. I just projected half a cup of Coffee through them.

Are you actually saying that we shouldn't use emotional appeal to fully understand abortion?.....

What does a picture of a starving child have to do with 1,000,000 dead babies in a fully developed nation like the United States?

I wish they had 2x4s that could reach through the internet.
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:41:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:36:45 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:35:38 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:20:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.


Lol, I'm not one to argue from morality; but how can you ever point your finger @ anyone in condemnation, when you believe it is moral to abandon your children..

So, you believe, you can be irresponsible, perform an act that will surely produce another human, and kill before it can feel, so you don't have to deal with your mistake?

I have no obligation to provide for any individual against my will. This is why forced welfare is immoral.

Even an individual for whose creation you are at least in part responsible?

Why does this give that person any right to use me?

Should my parents have to provide for me my entire life just because they are responsible for my creation? Like, suppose they stopped paying my college tuition and giving me money. More likely than not, I would starve to death. Are they under any obligation to provide for me just because I am going to die?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:43:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:39:08 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:34:26 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 10:42:51 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
At 10/1/2012 10:08:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:58:26 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.

So then, in your opinion, what is the morality of someone who kills a fetus in order to stop providing bodily resources for it?

Abortion does not necessarily entail directly killing the fetus. Techniques such as induced labor expel the fetus without killing it; the fetus dies due to lack of resources (which is fine since the fetus is not entitled to the bodily resources of others).

Is this murder or arbortion? - http://www.priestsforlife.org...
Showing me pictures in order to appeal to my emotions does not change the fact that abortion is perfectly justifiable. If I show you pictures of dead/starving homeless people, does the fact that you do not give money to them and/or oppose welfare mean that you are acting in an immoral manner?

For example, does the fact that you have refused to help people like this mean you are acting in an immoral manner? Have you murdered this person? http://www.google.com...


I would say, however, that killing the fetus is perfectly acceptable if there is no other option for expelling it. Refusal to leave on its part constitutes theft, and just as I can kill a burglar or someone who resides within my home but refuses to leave, so too can I kill the fetus if it continues to steal from my body without my permission.

That is an outstanding failure of common sense! Wow....my nostrils hurt. I just projected half a cup of Coffee through them.

Are you actually saying that we shouldn't use emotional appeal to fully understand abortion?.....

An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy. Debate is about logic and argumentation, and not about using emotional appeals. If you are making an argument, use reason and not emotion.
What does a picture of a starving child have to do with 1,000,000 dead babies in a fully developed nation like the United States?

You obviously missed the point of my example and of the photograph. Please reread what I wrote. I was using an example from another scenario to disprove your point.
I wish they had 2x4s that could reach through the internet.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:46:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:41:35 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why does this give that person any right to use me?

Um, maybe because they wouldn't be trapped in a position where they exist as a parasite if it wasn't for you?

Should my parents have to provide for me my entire life just because they are responsible for my creation? Like, suppose they stopped paying my college tuition and giving me money. More likely than not, I would starve to death. Are they under any obligation to provide for me just because I am going to die?

They are obligated to provide for you up until the point that you are able to survive by yourself.

For instance, if you were mentally crippled, they would have to support you as long as they lived.

Depends on why you're going to die. If you're going to die because of crap luck or because you're not trying to survive, then tough luck. If you're going to die because somehow they've trapped you in a position where you cannot survive without them, then yes I would say they must support you.

I mean, if I crack someone over the head with a baseball bat and screw them up so that the only way they can continue to survive is by being attached to me until their brain regrows (not medically sound, but bear with me here), I think I would be decisively obligated to be attached to them.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:47:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:35:38 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:20:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.


Lol, I'm not one to argue from morality; but how can you ever point your finger @ anyone in condemnation, when you believe it is moral to abandon your children..

So, you believe, you can be irresponsible, perform an act that will surely produce another human, and kill before it can feel, so you don't have to deal with your mistake?

I have no obligation to provide for any individual against my will. This is why forced welfare is immoral.


You lose that right, when you produced a being against it's will. It never asked to be made and then killed right away.. that's f*cked up, and there is no way around it.

(Whats really sad, is that you're actually searching for a way around it...)

I have no doubt that the human race's selfishness is unparalleled, but those who aren't convicted of it, really trip me out.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:50:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:46:32 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:41:35 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Why does this give that person any right to use me?

Um, maybe because they wouldn't be trapped in a position where they exist as a parasite if it wasn't for you?

It's not my fault that they are trapped in that condition. That is nature's fault. I did not create them that way; this is "crap luck" (as you so aptly put it below) due to nature.

Should my parents have to provide for me my entire life just because they are responsible for my creation? Like, suppose they stopped paying my college tuition and giving me money. More likely than not, I would starve to death. Are they under any obligation to provide for me just because I am going to die?

They are obligated to provide for you up until the point that you are able to survive by yourself.

For instance, if you were mentally crippled, they would have to support you as long as they lived.

This doesn't make any sense. It's not their fault if I am mentally crippled. It's not their fault that I cannot care for myself. That is either society's fault (work laws) or the fault of nature. My parents did not create me the way I am.
Depends on why you're going to die. If you're going to die because of crap luck
See above
or because you're not trying to survive
How is this even quantified or measured?
, then tough luck. If you're going to die because somehow they've trapped you in a position where you cannot survive without them, then yes I would say they must support you.

I mean, if I crack someone over the head with a baseball bat and screw them up so that the only way they can continue to survive is by being attached to me until their brain regrows (not medically sound, but bear with me here), I think I would be decisively obligated to be attached to them.

See above. This is active responsibility for the condition, whereas the fetus scenario does not involve active responsibility. They didn't will me to be that way; nature did.
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:51:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:41:35 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:36:45 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:35:38 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:20:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.


Lol, I'm not one to argue from morality; but how can you ever point your finger @ anyone in condemnation, when you believe it is moral to abandon your children..

So, you believe, you can be irresponsible, perform an act that will surely produce another human, and kill before it can feel, so you don't have to deal with your mistake?

I have no obligation to provide for any individual against my will. This is why forced welfare is immoral.

Even an individual for whose creation you are at least in part responsible?

Why does this give that person any right to use me?
Need, not use. And the right is granted when you bring the child into being without the child's permission.

Should my parents have to provide for me my entire life just because they are responsible for my creation? Like, suppose they stopped paying my college tuition and giving me money. More likely than not, I would starve to death. Are they under any obligation to provide for me just because I am going to die?

Bwahahahaha.....you would starve. You're a parody. You did well....have a cookie and go outside.
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:52:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 12:47:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:35:38 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 12:20:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.


Lol, I'm not one to argue from morality; but how can you ever point your finger @ anyone in condemnation, when you believe it is moral to abandon your children..

So, you believe, you can be irresponsible, perform an act that will surely produce another human, and kill before it can feel, so you don't have to deal with your mistake?

I have no obligation to provide for any individual against my will. This is why forced welfare is immoral.


You lose that right, when you produced a being against it's will. It never asked to be made and then killed right away.. that's f*cked up, and there is no way around it.

The being does not exist prior to its creation, so it's projected desires prior to conception are entirely irrelevant and nonexistent. Plus, if it doesn't want to exist (the only scenario in which the creation is against its will), I am providing it with an avenue to die.
(Whats really sad, is that you're actually searching for a way around it...)

I have no doubt that the human race's selfishness is unparalleled, but those who aren't convicted of it, really trip me out.

Selfishness is not immoral.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:53:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 9:50:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 10/1/2012 9:40:13 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
If the Pro-Choice agenda advocates for a womans reproductive freedom, is this "late-term" abortion considered moral?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is not an abortion. She had every right to abandon the child after she delivered it (since nobody has an obligation to provide for others), but what she did was actively kill the child. This was murder.

Abortion is simply choosing not to provide bodily resources for another. She went beyond making that simple choice.

Oh, well, if someone is in US airspace and the US technically owns the air, I guess they would be justified in cutting off his air supply and allowing him to choke to death.

The principle of non-aggression doesn't work without easement laws. The baby will die without the mother's body and thus has a right to it.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)