Total Posts:340|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion is not black and white.

Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 1:17:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
#!

This is why I am pro-choice. Even in the case of late term abortions. You cannot generalize the situations surrounding late-term abortions enough to justify a law which is blind to those individual situations. It isn't realistic and it is not ethical. It is absurd.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 1:26:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Right, pointing to one extreme case logically justifies it for all. Kinda like one extreme case for pro-life should justify an absolute pro-life legislation.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 1:29:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 1:26:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Right, pointing to one extreme case logically justifies it for all. Kinda like one extreme case for pro-life should justify an absolute pro-life legislation.

Nope. Just an example of why it is a bad idea to generalize the law, but you work from a fascist point of view. I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on most things.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 1:37:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 1:29:36 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/7/2012 1:26:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Right, pointing to one extreme case logically justifies it for all. Kinda like one extreme case for pro-life should justify an absolute pro-life legislation.

Nope. Just an example of why it is a bad idea to generalize the law, but you work from a fascist point of view. I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on most things.:

I don't understand. Does this mean that you think there are cases where abortion is (un)acceptable, based on the totality of the circumstances involved?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 1:48:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 1:37:32 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/7/2012 1:29:36 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/7/2012 1:26:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Right, pointing to one extreme case logically justifies it for all. Kinda like one extreme case for pro-life should justify an absolute pro-life legislation.

Nope. Just an example of why it is a bad idea to generalize the law, but you work from a fascist point of view. I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on most things.:

I don't understand. Does this mean that you think there are cases where abortion is (un)acceptable, based on the totality of the circumstances involved?

Yes. There could be. My point is- it isn't up to the government to decide primarily because they can't know whether it is acceptable or unacceptable. This is one of those things they do not have the power to control in the way they want to and they do more harm than good by trying to stick their noses in it.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:10:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Agreed. I have no moral qualms with people killing whatever babies they want to kill, so long as it's not against the parents' will. Why would we violate nature in such a grotesque manner? If my child will have severe disabilities that I don't want to have to deal with, it's also unfair to bring that burden to the state as well. There's absolutely no justification for wanting to preserve that life simply because it is life. The population isn't really in need of all these babies.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:14:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't understand. Does this mean that you think there are cases where abortion is (un)acceptable, based on the totality of the circumstances involved?

Yes. There could be. My point is- it isn't up to the government to decide primarily because they can't know whether it is acceptable or unacceptable. This is one of those things they do not have the power to control in the way they want to and they do more harm than good by trying to stick their noses in it.:

The crux of the argument is whether or not we are dealing with human beings or a random collocation of cells and nothing more. This will always be the crux of the debate. Because some believe we are dealing with human life, naturally those in government sense legal/moral obligations to protect the unborn from harm as they would a newborn.

With that said, even supposing we are dealing with human beings, I see no way to enforce that law without resorting to what would amount to modern-day witchhunts. Would we treat every spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) like a potential crime scene, wherein the mother is view suspiciously and thereby have her womb invaded by investigators looking for "foul play?" There is no practicality in that.

I make no bones about it. I like nothing about abortion, but I don't see any other way except to make it legal in spite of my personal feelings on the matter.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:18:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 2:14:48 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I make no bones about it. I like nothing about abortion, but I don't see any other way except to make it legal in spite of my personal feelings on the matter.

How about we just make it completely up to the mother, and that's that?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:20:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 2:18:59 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:14:48 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I make no bones about it. I like nothing about abortion, but I don't see any other way except to make it legal in spite of my personal feelings on the matter.

How about we just make it completely up to the mother, and that's that?

^And the nitty gritty details will just determine whether or not insurance pays for the procedure.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:26:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 2:22:04 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
I totally agree. Mixed raced people, asians and smurfs get abortions too.

Sure, why not? If they want their baby flushed out, I don't see an issue with it.

Although I'm not so sure about the smurfs. Don't they replicate through magic?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:43:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 2:14:48 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I don't understand. Does this mean that you think there are cases where abortion is (un)acceptable, based on the totality of the circumstances involved?

Yes. There could be. My point is- it isn't up to the government to decide primarily because they can't know whether it is acceptable or unacceptable. This is one of those things they do not have the power to control in the way they want to and they do more harm than good by trying to stick their noses in it.:

The crux of the argument is whether or not we are dealing with human beings or a random collocation of cells and nothing more. This will always be the crux of the debate. Because some believe we are dealing with human life, naturally those in government sense legal/moral obligations to protect the unborn from harm as they would a newborn.

With that said, even supposing we are dealing with human beings, I see no way to enforce that law without resorting to what would amount to modern-day witchhunts. Would we treat every spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) like a potential crime scene, wherein the mother is view suspiciously and thereby have her womb invaded by investigators looking for "foul play?" There is no practicality in that.

: I make no bones about it. I like nothing about abortion, but I don't see any other way except to make it legal in spite of my personal feelings on the matter.

Yeah, that's the thing. It's similar to why we shouldn't force certain people to be sterilized if they have a terrible tortuous disease. The government can't realistically carry out this type of enforcement and have it be ethical.

The government can't stop all unethical things from happening- but it can stop itself from causing more unethical situations.

And as ardent a pro-choice person as I am, I would be lying if I said the thought of abortion without restriction didn't make me squeamish. What makes me more squeamish, however, is the thought of me becoming pregnant, for some reason needing an abortion, and the government putting a cork in my vagina and saying- no sweetheart, we control your body now. Just... a million times fvck that. My body is not government property after I become pregnant.

I really don't understand how people can vilify China for forcing abortions without vilifying America for (their attempts at) forcing people to have children. They both are incredibly intrusive.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:21:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't feel squeamish about abortions with no restrictions. Just don't show me how "human-looking" the results are to evoke an emotional response from me. Growing a fetus is the same as growing any other thing in you, be it a tumor, a wart, etc.

I think babies are lovely, adorable, soft, cuddly, wonderful things. But then again, so are breasts, and regardless of how horrific I find the notion of a woman removing either from her body, I'm not going to pass legislation against it because it's none of my business.

It's a weak argument, but animals get to choose which of their offspring they raise and which they destroy/leave for dead. We should at least have the humane option of ending life before it is born.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:59:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 2:10:58 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Agreed. I have no moral qualms with people killing whatever babies they want to kill, so long as it's not against the parents' will. Why would we violate nature in such a grotesque manner? If my child will have severe disabilities that I don't want to have to deal with, it's also unfair to bring that burden to the state as well. There's absolutely no justification for wanting to preserve that life simply because it is life. The population isn't really in need of all these babies.

And that right should extend beyond child birth, right? I mean, if you can "want" a child, then change your mind while it is still a fetus, why not when it is 3 years old? Who is the government to say that you shouldn't be allowed it?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 5:00:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 1:29:36 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/7/2012 1:26:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Right, pointing to one extreme case logically justifies it for all. Kinda like one extreme case for pro-life should justify an absolute pro-life legislation.

Nope. Just an example of why it is a bad idea to generalize the law, but you work from a fascist point of view. I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on most things.

Maybe we should do the same for rape. I mean, the government cannot know all the various things that lead to rape, so the government should not try to outlaw it so black and white, right?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 5:48:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 5:00:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/7/2012 1:29:36 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/7/2012 1:26:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Right, pointing to one extreme case logically justifies it for all. Kinda like one extreme case for pro-life should justify an absolute pro-life legislation.

Nope. Just an example of why it is a bad idea to generalize the law, but you work from a fascist point of view. I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on most things.

Maybe we should do the same for rape. I mean, the government cannot know all the various things that lead to rape, so the government should not try to outlaw it so black and white, right?

Do people need to rape to save their own life? Do people need to rape to stop one or more people from being tortured to death or for life? Are people often quickly put in life and death situations wherein a hasty decision must be made and rape is the best possible solution for the rapist and/or the person getting raped? Rape is a violent crime done against other people for it's own sake. So, probably not.

Your question is a loaded question.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 7:20:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Seeeeeee, here's the thing.

What if there were suddenly this genetic disease going around where, if a child gets it in vitro, he or she will be born releasing a pathogen through epidermal pores that will kill the entire family? Does that make it okay to kill children?

This is why we have a judicial system. Issues like this need to be reviewed so that precedent is set to provide reasonable exceptions.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 7:32:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And that right should extend beyond child birth, right? I mean, if you can "want" a child, then change your mind while it is still a fetus, why not when it is 3 years old? Who is the government to say that you shouldn't be allowed it?:

Some Pro-Choice advocates have gone that far. How they've deduced it is they realize there's no difference between a fetus 5 minutes before it's born and a baby born 5 minutes ago. Some have stated that "abortion" is acceptable up to the point of sentience -- that is, up intil the child is self-aware. Since that can be up to about the age of 2 or 3, toddlers are on the chopping block if these sick f*cks had their way.

How they justify it is that the child is not "aware" that it's in any danger. How that's a justification is specious to me, but, hey. Of course, my response has typically been one of murdering a sleeping individual or one who is murdered in ambush. The sentience argument obviously falls apart.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 7:37:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 7:20:47 PM, Ren wrote:
Seeeeeee, here's the thing.

What if there were suddenly this genetic disease going around where, if a child gets it in vitro, he or she will be born releasing a pathogen through epidermal pores that will kill the entire family? Does that make it okay to kill children?

No. But it certainly makes it o.k. to kill that fetus.

This is why we have a judicial system. Issues like this need to be reviewed so that precedent is set to provide reasonable exceptions.

Yes. And they have failed.

But! The life/death scenario, which is what I assume you are referring to when you say "reasonable exceptions," primarily applies to late-term abortion. Early pregnancies are rarely harmful. I don't believe that it is wrong in any sense before a certain point. When you have lost your consciousness, you cease to be. Before you have gained your consciousness, you have yet to be.
Yet to be=/=ought to be.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 7:41:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 7:32:40 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
And that right should extend beyond child birth, right? I mean, if you can "want" a child, then change your mind while it is still a fetus, why not when it is 3 years old? Who is the government to say that you shouldn't be allowed it?:

Some Pro-Choice advocates have gone that far. How they've deduced it is they realize there's no difference between a fetus 5 minutes before it's born and a baby born 5 minutes ago. Some have stated that "abortion" is acceptable up to the point of sentience -- that is, up intil the child is self-aware. Since that can be up to about the age of 2 or 3, toddlers are on the chopping block if these sick f*cks had their way.

How they justify it is that the child is not "aware" that it's in any danger. How that's a justification is specious to me, but, hey. Of course, my response has typically been one of murdering a sleeping individual or one who is murdered in ambush. The sentience argument obviously falls apart.

o.O Wow, I've actually never heard that.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 8:07:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 4:59:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
And that right should extend beyond child birth, right? I mean, if you can "want" a child, then change your mind while it is still a fetus, why not when it is 3 years old? Who is the government to say that you shouldn't be allowed it?

Can't say that for after birth. Becomes a slippery slope. There's not much rationale for the difference, but I'm willing to set it as an easy marker.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 8:45:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 7:32:40 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
And that right should extend beyond child birth, right? I mean, if you can "want" a child, then change your mind while it is still a fetus, why not when it is 3 years old? Who is the government to say that you shouldn't be allowed it?:

Some Pro-Choice advocates have gone that far. How they've deduced it is they realize there's no difference between a fetus 5 minutes before it's born and a baby born 5 minutes ago. Some have stated that "abortion" is acceptable up to the point of sentience -- that is, up intil the child is self-aware. Since that can be up to about the age of 2 or 3, toddlers are on the chopping block if these sick f*cks had their way.

How they justify it is that the child is not "aware" that it's in any danger. How that's a justification is specious to me, but, hey. Of course, my response has typically been one of murdering a sleeping individual or one who is murdered in ambush. The sentience argumen obviously falls apart.

Pro-Choice advocates (in general) are not making this argument. Peter Singer makes these arguments.

Do you eat meat? Why is it wrong to abort a fetus if it is not wrong to kill a chicken (a being clearly more sentient than the fetus)?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 9:42:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 8:45:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 7:32:40 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
And that right should extend beyond child birth, right? I mean, if you can "want" a child, then change your mind while it is still a fetus, why not when it is 3 years old? Who is the government to say that you shouldn't be allowed it?:

Some Pro-Choice advocates have gone that far. How they've deduced it is they realize there's no difference between a fetus 5 minutes before it's born and a baby born 5 minutes ago. Some have stated that "abortion" is acceptable up to the point of sentience -- that is, up intil the child is self-aware. Since that can be up to about the age of 2 or 3, toddlers are on the chopping block if these sick f*cks had their way.

How they justify it is that the child is not "aware" that it's in any danger. How that's a justification is specious to me, but, hey. Of course, my response has typically been one of murdering a sleeping individual or one who is murdered in ambush. The sentience argumen obviously falls apart.

Pro-Choice advocates (in general) are not making this argument. Peter Singer makes these arguments.


Sure Pro-Choice advocates in general are not making this argument but it tends to follow inexorably, by logical implication, from their arguments. That they aren't making that argument only means they are being inconsistent or that they are unaware of the implications of their position.

See this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Do you eat meat? Why is it wrong to abort a fetus if it is not wrong to kill a chicken (a being clearly more sentient than the fetus)?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 9:47:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 9:42:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/7/2012 8:45:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 7:32:40 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
And that right should extend beyond child birth, right? I mean, if you can "want" a child, then change your mind while it is still a fetus, why not when it is 3 years old? Who is the government to say that you shouldn't be allowed it?:

Some Pro-Choice advocates have gone that far. How they've deduced it is they realize there's no difference between a fetus 5 minutes before it's born and a baby born 5 minutes ago. Some have stated that "abortion" is acceptable up to the point of sentience -- that is, up intil the child is self-aware. Since that can be up to about the age of 2 or 3, toddlers are on the chopping block if these sick f*cks had their way.

How they justify it is that the child is not "aware" that it's in any danger. How that's a justification is specious to me, but, hey. Of course, my response has typically been one of murdering a sleeping individual or one who is murdered in ambush. The sentience argumen obviously falls apart.

Pro-Choice advocates (in general) are not making this argument. Peter Singer makes these arguments.


Sure Pro-Choice advocates in general are not making this argument but it tends to follow inexorably, by logical implication, from their arguments. That they aren't making that argument only means they are being inconsistent or that they are unaware of the implications of their position.

See this thread: http://www.debate.org...

I disagree with this line of reasoning, actually. Until the child is born, it is essentially a parasite. Once it is born, it becomes an independent being and therefore gains rights.

I do see your point on the sentience position, however.
Do you eat meat? Why is it wrong to abort a fetus if it is not wrong to kill a chicken (a being clearly more sentient than the fetus)?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 9:55:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Pro-Choice advocates (in general) are not making this argument. Peter Singer makes these arguments.:

I know, I was careful to use the word "some."

Do you eat meat? Why is it wrong to abort a fetus if it is not wrong to kill a chicken (a being clearly more sentient than the fetus)?:

I don't believe sentience is a valid moral argument, at least not unto itself. There is nothing objectively wrong from a moral perspective for either. Both are subjective.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 10:49:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 9:47:38 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 9:42:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/7/2012 8:45:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 7:32:40 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
And that right should extend beyond child birth, right? I mean, if you can "want" a child, then change your mind while it is still a fetus, why not when it is 3 years old? Who is the government to say that you shouldn't be allowed it?:

Some Pro-Choice advocates have gone that far. How they've deduced it is they realize there's no difference between a fetus 5 minutes before it's born and a baby born 5 minutes ago. Some have stated that "abortion" is acceptable up to the point of sentience -- that is, up intil the child is self-aware. Since that can be up to about the age of 2 or 3, toddlers are on the chopping block if these sick f*cks had their way.

How they justify it is that the child is not "aware" that it's in any danger. How that's a justification is specious to me, but, hey. Of course, my response has typically been one of murdering a sleeping individual or one who is murdered in ambush. The sentience argumen obviously falls apart.

Pro-Choice advocates (in general) are not making this argument. Peter Singer makes these arguments.


Sure Pro-Choice advocates in general are not making this argument but it tends to follow inexorably, by logical implication, from their arguments. That they aren't making that argument only means they are being inconsistent or that they are unaware of the implications of their position.

See this thread: http://www.debate.org...

I disagree with this line of reasoning, actually. Until the child is born, it is essentially a parasite. Once it is born, it becomes an independent being and therefore gains rights.

I've heard the whole "My body" argument, which seems to contradict many liberals ideas of compensating those (through welfare) that can't get jobs.

Also, once the baby is born, why have a moral obligation to feed the baby if the mother didn't have a moral obligation to have her womb be used?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 10:52:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 10:49:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/7/2012 9:47:38 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 9:42:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/7/2012 8:45:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 7:32:40 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
And that right should extend beyond child birth, right? I mean, if you can "want" a child, then change your mind while it is still a fetus, why not when it is 3 years old? Who is the government to say that you shouldn't be allowed it?:

Some Pro-Choice advocates have gone that far. How they've deduced it is they realize there's no difference between a fetus 5 minutes before it's born and a baby born 5 minutes ago. Some have stated that "abortion" is acceptable up to the point of sentience -- that is, up intil the child is self-aware. Since that can be up to about the age of 2 or 3, toddlers are on the chopping block if these sick f*cks had their way.

How they justify it is that the child is not "aware" that it's in any danger. How that's a justification is specious to me, but, hey. Of course, my response has typically been one of murdering a sleeping individual or one who is murdered in ambush. The sentience argumen obviously falls apart.

Pro-Choice advocates (in general) are not making this argument. Peter Singer makes these arguments.


Sure Pro-Choice advocates in general are not making this argument but it tends to follow inexorably, by logical implication, from their arguments. That they aren't making that argument only means they are being inconsistent or that they are unaware of the implications of their position.

See this thread: http://www.debate.org...

I disagree with this line of reasoning, actually. Until the child is born, it is essentially a parasite. Once it is born, it becomes an independent being and therefore gains rights.

I've heard the whole "My body" argument, which seems to contradict many liberals ideas of compensating those (through welfare) that can't get jobs.

Why? Rights only exist when one is a being who does not depend on another for even the most basic life needs.
Also, once the baby is born, why have a moral obligation to feed the baby if the mother didn't have a moral obligation to have her womb be used?

Rights exact moral obligations. Babies have rights only after they are born.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 10:59:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 10:49:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/7/2012 9:47:38 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 9:42:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/7/2012 8:45:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 7:32:40 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
And that right should extend beyond child birth, right? I mean, if you can "want" a child, then change your mind while it is still a fetus, why not when it is 3 years old? Who is the government to say that you shouldn't be allowed it?:

Some Pro-Choice advocates have gone that far. How they've deduced it is they realize there's no difference between a fetus 5 minutes before it's born and a baby born 5 minutes ago. Some have stated that "abortion" is acceptable up to the point of sentience -- that is, up intil the child is self-aware. Since that can be up to about the age of 2 or 3, toddlers are on the chopping block if these sick f*cks had their way.

How they justify it is that the child is not "aware" that it's in any danger. How that's a justification is specious to me, but, hey. Of course, my response has typically been one of murdering a sleeping individual or one who is murdered in ambush. The sentience argumen obviously falls apart.

Pro-Choice advocates (in general) are not making this argument. Peter Singer makes these arguments.


Sure Pro-Choice advocates in general are not making this argument but it tends to follow inexorably, by logical implication, from their arguments. That they aren't making that argument only means they are being inconsistent or that they are unaware of the implications of their position.

See this thread: http://www.debate.org...

I disagree with this line of reasoning, actually. Until the child is born, it is essentially a parasite. Once it is born, it becomes an independent being and therefore gains rights.

I've heard the whole "My body" argument, which seems to contradict many liberals ideas of compensating those (through welfare) that can't get jobs.

How?
Also, once the baby is born, why have a moral obligation to feed the baby if the mother didn't have a moral obligation to have her womb be used?

Hmm... Do we ever have a moral obligation to feed our children? We have a desire to, an interest to, I know. Even after children are born, we can put them up for adoption if we want to. At any point, we can give them up for adoption. We choose to take responsibility for children. Well... most of us do.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:02:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 10:52:20 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 10:49:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/7/2012 9:47:38 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 9:42:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/7/2012 8:45:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 7:32:40 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
And that right should extend beyond child birth, right? I mean, if you can "want" a child, then change your mind while it is still a fetus, why not when it is 3 years old? Who is the government to say that you shouldn't be allowed it?:

Some Pro-Choice advocates have gone that far. How they've deduced it is they realize there's no difference between a fetus 5 minutes before it's born and a baby born 5 minutes ago. Some have stated that "abortion" is acceptable up to the point of sentience -- that is, up intil the child is self-aware. Since that can be up to about the age of 2 or 3, toddlers are on the chopping block if these sick f*cks had their way.

How they justify it is that the child is not "aware" that it's in any danger. How that's a justification is specious to me, but, hey. Of course, my response has typically been one of murdering a sleeping individual or one who is murdered in ambush. The sentience argumen obviously falls apart.

Pro-Choice advocates (in general) are not making this argument. Peter Singer makes these arguments.


Sure Pro-Choice advocates in general are not making this argument but it tends to follow inexorably, by logical implication, from their arguments. That they aren't making that argument only means they are being inconsistent or that they are unaware of the implications of their position.

See this thread: http://www.debate.org...

I disagree with this line of reasoning, actually. Until the child is born, it is essentially a parasite. Once it is born, it becomes an independent being and therefore gains rights.

I've heard the whole "My body" argument, which seems to contradict many liberals ideas of compensating those (through welfare) that can't get jobs.

Why? Rights only exist when one is a being who does not depend on another for even the most basic life needs.

Well extended the baby depends on the mother for lifes basic life needs.

Also, once the baby is born, why have a moral obligation to feed the baby if the mother didn't have a moral obligation to have her womb be used?

Rights exact moral obligations. Babies have rights only after they are born.

What differentiates between a non-born baby and a born baby. The difference is arbitrary.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 9:53:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:02:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/7/2012 10:52:20 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 10:49:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/7/2012 9:47:38 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 9:42:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/7/2012 8:45:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 7:32:40 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
And that right should extend beyond child birth, right? I mean, if you can "want" a child, then change your mind while it is still a fetus, why not when it is 3 years old? Who is the government to say that you shouldn't be allowed it?:

Some Pro-Choice advocates have gone that far. How they've deduced it is they realize there's no difference between a fetus 5 minutes before it's born and a baby born 5 minutes ago. Some have stated that "abortion" is acceptable up to the point of sentience -- that is, up intil the child is self-aware. Since that can be up to about the age of 2 or 3, toddlers are on the chopping block if these sick f*cks had their way.

How they justify it is that the child is not "aware" that it's in any danger. How that's a justification is specious to me, but, hey. Of course, my response has typically been one of murdering a sleeping individual or one who is murdered in ambush. The sentience argumen obviously falls apart.

Pro-Choice advocates (in general) are not making this argument. Peter Singer makes these arguments.


Sure Pro-Choice advocates in general are not making this argument but it tends to follow inexorably, by logical implication, from their arguments. That they aren't making that argument only means they are being inconsistent or that they are unaware of the implications of their position.

See this thread: http://www.debate.org...

I disagree with this line of reasoning, actually. Until the child is born, it is essentially a parasite. Once it is born, it becomes an independent being and therefore gains rights.

I've heard the whole "My body" argument, which seems to contradict many liberals ideas of compensating those (through welfare) that can't get jobs.

Why? Rights only exist when one is a being who does not depend on another for even the most basic life needs.

Well extended the baby depends on the mother for lifes basic life needs.

I already said that the baby gets rights only after it is born.
Also, once the baby is born, why have a moral obligation to feed the baby if the mother didn't have a moral obligation to have her womb be used?

Rights exact moral obligations. Babies have rights only after they are born.

What differentiates between a non-born baby and a born baby. The difference is arbitrary.