Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

List of anti-abortion arguments

elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 5:11:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've been scouring the Internet to construct this list.
If anyone here can add to it, I would appreciate it.
Thank you, in advance!

--------------

1. "All life is special. It is unfortunate that we have to kill other things to survive, but killing any other thing at any other time should be avoided."

2. "Human life is special."

3. "Human life is intrinsically valuable."

4. "Each human life is unique."

5. "Unborn humans are persons."

6. "Personhood is an innate characteristic of the human species; therefore unborn humans are persons."

7. "An unborn human is a person because there is no way to determine that it is not a person."

8. "Personhood is associated with the human body, and since unborn humans have human bodies, they are persons."

9. "Abortion might kill an Einstein."

10. "Human minds are special."

11. "Unborn humans have capacities that ordinary animals lack."

12. "Unborn humans are equivalent to ordinary humans who might be asleep or in a coma, because eventually they can wake up and act like persons."

13. "Unborn humans are human beings."

14. "Facts that disqualify unborn humans from personhood also disqualify newborns from personhood, and therefore infanticide should be moral."

15. "Abortion is immoral."

16. "The Biblical Sixth Commandment forbids murder, and thereby also forbids abortion."

17. "Children are a gift from God."

18. "Unborn humans are persons because God gives them souls at conception."

19. "Abortion is dangerous."

20. "Abortion encourages discrimination against handicapped unborn humans."

21. "Terms such as 'embryo' and 'fetus' are de-humanizing."

22. "Unborn humans are innocent."

23. "There is no significant difference between an unborn human just prior to birth, and a newborn human."

24. "In cultures that subscribe to the idea that souls can 'reincarnate', abortion interferes with the long-term growth of a soul."

25. "Abortion is unethical."

26. "Abortion gives a woman bad karma."

27. "A woman may have the right to decide what happens to her body, but it is not her body that gets aborted."

28. "An unborn human is a baby or a child."

29. "Because it is not permissible to refuse temporary accommodation for a guest, to protect them from physical harm (per, for example, an ice storm), it is not permissible to refuse the temporary accommodation which is a pregnancy."

30. "Sex causes pregnancy, which forces responsibilities upon the participants."

31. "Abortion denies choice to a man who wants to be a father."

32. "It was absurd to link a Constitutional right to privacy with legalization of abortion."

33. "Modern technology allows premature babies to survive (be 'viable'); therefore abortions should be prohibited for unborn humans that become viable per technical means, since they could be forcibly born and thereby acquire legal person status."

34. "Government should have the power to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term."

35. "In killing ordinary animals we attempt to do so in a painless manner, but abortion subjects the unborn human to extreme pain."

36. "Abortion increases the chance of a future miscarriage."

37. "The Hippocratic Oath forbids a doctor from performing an abortion."

38. "The U.S. Declaration of Independence specifies a Right to Life, which therefore forbids abortion."

39. "Abortion is a poor substitute for birth control."

40. "Behind the scenes of the abortion-legalization movement are those who would profit from it, such as abortion doctors."

41. "Abortion in America is preferentially (genocidally) being used to abort blacks over whites."

42. "Abortion is being used to kill more girls than boys in certain countries."

43. "Abortion causes psychological harm to the formerly pregnant woman."

44. "Abortion increases the chance of breast cancer."

45. "The world needs more people."

46. "Abortion is wrong because it results in the loss of a future of value."

47. "Abortion makes it more difficult for childless people to adopt a baby."
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 5:39:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

Right... and if you were using a condom and/or taking birth control, the fetus still resided in you with "your consent"? You can't just say that the fetus has the mother's consent when it clearly does not.
: : :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
6/27/2012 5:39:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

That's assuming that the fetus has a right to life. You had a stand alone statement " you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions".

I just showed the absurdity of the statement. This implies that no medical intervention should be done, even if no harm is done.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 5:41:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:39:01 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

Right... and if you were using a condom and/or taking birth control, the fetus still resided in you with "your consent"? You can't just say that the fetus has the mother's consent when it clearly does not.

Lol of course.

Birth control and condoms all have a risk of failure which you accept when you use them.

Anyways, being responsible for one's actions is pretty axiomatic. If a person goes onto your property and you let them (knowingly), they are not violating your property rights. Same goes for abortion. That is, unless you want to argue that people don't think that sex might equal pregnancy.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 5:42:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:41:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:39:01 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

Right... and if you were using a condom and/or taking birth control, the fetus still resided in you with "your consent"? You can't just say that the fetus has the mother's consent when it clearly does not.

Lol of course.

Birth control and condoms all have a risk of failure which you accept when you use them.

Anyways, being responsible for one's actions is pretty axiomatic. If a person goes onto your property and you let them (knowingly), they are not violating your property rights. Same goes for abortion. That is, unless you want to argue that people don't think that sex might equal pregnancy.

If I get on a train, it might derail. Does that mean that I accept my death?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 5:43:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:39:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

That's assuming that the fetus has a right to life.

The argument assumes that. That sentence didn't.

You had a stand alone statement " you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions".

I just showed the absurdity of the statement. This implies that no medical intervention should be done, even if no harm is done.

Wording was bad.

If you are going to criticize the argument, criticize the second version.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 5:44:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:42:37 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:41:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:39:01 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

Right... and if you were using a condom and/or taking birth control, the fetus still resided in you with "your consent"? You can't just say that the fetus has the mother's consent when it clearly does not.

Lol of course.

Birth control and condoms all have a risk of failure which you accept when you use them.

Anyways, being responsible for one's actions is pretty axiomatic. If a person goes onto your property and you let them (knowingly), they are not violating your property rights. Same goes for abortion. That is, unless you want to argue that people don't think that sex might equal pregnancy.

If I get on a train, it might derail. Does that mean that I accept my death?

First of all, pregnant is in no way similar to death. In cases of life-or-death pregnancies, the right to life of the mother would supersede that of the child.

Furthermore, yes. You accept the risk that the train might derail by boarding it.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 5:46:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:43:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:39:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

That's assuming that the fetus has a right to life.

The argument assumes that. That sentence didn't.

You had a stand alone statement " you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions".

I just showed the absurdity of the statement. This implies that no medical intervention should be done, even if no harm is done.

Wording was bad.

If you are going to criticize the argument, criticize the second version.

I'm pro-life and don't believe in property rights. I just wanted to critize the first version.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 5:47:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:41:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:39:01 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

Right... and if you were using a condom and/or taking birth control, the fetus still resided in you with "your consent"? You can't just say that the fetus has the mother's consent when it clearly does not.

Lol of course.

Birth control and condoms all have a risk of failure which you accept when you use them.

Anyways, being responsible for one's actions is pretty axiomatic. If a person goes onto your property and you let them (knowingly), they are not violating your property rights. Same goes for abortion. That is, unless you want to argue that people don't think that sex might equal pregnancy.

Hahaha... well, some people are pretty damn stupid, but that's beside the point.

This analogy still isn't correct though. A better analogy would be having a house where one of the latches on an upper story window is broken. You know the rest of your doors and windows are secured, but there is a very small chance that someone could climb up the tree and open up the tiny bathroom window. And if and when they do- is it your fault? No, it isn't. And you have every right to kick them out.

Anyway, there are a lot of problems with the robber analogy because obviously a fetus has no bad intentions. However, even if an oblivious mentally handicapped person were hanging out on a tree branch by your upper-story window, fell in on accident, felt hungry and started eating your food, wearing your clothes, watching your t.v. etc. you would still have a right to kick them out.
: : :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
6/27/2012 5:50:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:46:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:43:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:39:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

That's assuming that the fetus has a right to life.

The argument assumes that. That sentence didn't.

You had a stand alone statement " you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions".

I just showed the absurdity of the statement. This implies that no medical intervention should be done, even if no harm is done.

Wording was bad.

If you are going to criticize the argument, criticize the second version.

I'm pro-life and don't believe in property rights. I just wanted to critize the first version.

Do you have your justification for being pro-life somewhere on the site? Or would you mind telling me here? I'm curious to know yours as our views on morality are fairly similar.
: : :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.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 5:51:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:47:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:41:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:39:01 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

Right... and if you were using a condom and/or taking birth control, the fetus still resided in you with "your consent"? You can't just say that the fetus has the mother's consent when it clearly does not.

Lol of course.

Birth control and condoms all have a risk of failure which you accept when you use them.

Anyways, being responsible for one's actions is pretty axiomatic. If a person goes onto your property and you let them (knowingly), they are not violating your property rights. Same goes for abortion. That is, unless you want to argue that people don't think that sex might equal pregnancy.

Hahaha... well, some people are pretty damn stupid, but that's beside the point.

This analogy still isn't correct though. A better analogy would be having a house where one of the latches on an upper story window is broken. You know the rest of your doors and windows are secured, but there is a very small chance that someone could climb up the tree and open up the tiny bathroom window. And if and when they do- is it your fault? No, it isn't. And you have every right to kick them out.

That assumes that the fetus would endanger the women. I already responded to this argument by saying that in some cases, abortion is permissible. A robber directly endangers somebody, while a pregnancy (in most cases) does not.

Furthermore, you are not justified to kill the robber. You can kick him out, but not kill him. However, with an abortion, the two are mutual so the analogy fails.

Anyway, there are a lot of problems with the robber analogy because obviously a fetus has no bad intentions. However, even if an oblivious mentally handicapped person were hanging out on a tree branch by your upper-story window, fell in on accident, felt hungry and started eating your food, wearing your clothes, watching your t.v. etc. you would still have a right to kick them out.

Right to kick out=/=Right to kill. In a pregnancy, the two are twined together.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 5:52:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:51:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:47:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:41:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:39:01 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

Right... and if you were using a condom and/or taking birth control, the fetus still resided in you with "your consent"? You can't just say that the fetus has the mother's consent when it clearly does not.

Lol of course.

Birth control and condoms all have a risk of failure which you accept when you use them.

Anyways, being responsible for one's actions is pretty axiomatic. If a person goes onto your property and you let them (knowingly), they are not violating your property rights. Same goes for abortion. That is, unless you want to argue that people don't think that sex might equal pregnancy.

Hahaha... well, some people are pretty damn stupid, but that's beside the point.

This analogy still isn't correct though. A better analogy would be having a house where one of the latches on an upper story window is broken. You know the rest of your doors and windows are secured, but there is a very small chance that someone could climb up the tree and open up the tiny bathroom window. And if and when they do- is it your fault? No, it isn't. And you have every right to kick them out.

That assumes that the fetus would endanger the women. I already responded to this argument by saying that in some cases, abortion is permissible. A robber directly endangers somebody, while a pregnancy (in most cases) does not.

Furthermore, you are not justified to kill the robber. You can kick him out, but not kill him. However, with an abortion, the two are mutual so the analogy fails.

Anyway, there are a lot of problems with the robber analogy because obviously a fetus has no bad intentions. However, even if an oblivious mentally handicapped person were hanging out on a tree branch by your upper-story window, fell in on accident, felt hungry and started eating your food, wearing your clothes, watching your t.v. etc. you would still have a right to kick them out.

Right to kick out=/=Right to kill. In a pregnancy, the two are twined together.

So I take it you're not a fan of the stand-your-ground law?
: : :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.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 5:54:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:52:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:51:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:47:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:41:21 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:39:01 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

Right... and if you were using a condom and/or taking birth control, the fetus still resided in you with "your consent"? You can't just say that the fetus has the mother's consent when it clearly does not.

Lol of course.

Birth control and condoms all have a risk of failure which you accept when you use them.

Anyways, being responsible for one's actions is pretty axiomatic. If a person goes onto your property and you let them (knowingly), they are not violating your property rights. Same goes for abortion. That is, unless you want to argue that people don't think that sex might equal pregnancy.

Hahaha... well, some people are pretty damn stupid, but that's beside the point.

This analogy still isn't correct though. A better analogy would be having a house where one of the latches on an upper story window is broken. You know the rest of your doors and windows are secured, but there is a very small chance that someone could climb up the tree and open up the tiny bathroom window. And if and when they do- is it your fault? No, it isn't. And you have every right to kick them out.

That assumes that the fetus would endanger the women. I already responded to this argument by saying that in some cases, abortion is permissible. A robber directly endangers somebody, while a pregnancy (in most cases) does not.

Furthermore, you are not justified to kill the robber. You can kick him out, but not kill him. However, with an abortion, the two are mutual so the analogy fails.

Anyway, there are a lot of problems with the robber analogy because obviously a fetus has no bad intentions. However, even if an oblivious mentally handicapped person were hanging out on a tree branch by your upper-story window, fell in on accident, felt hungry and started eating your food, wearing your clothes, watching your t.v. etc. you would still have a right to kick them out.

Right to kick out=/=Right to kill. In a pregnancy, the two are twined together.

So I take it you're not a fan of the stand-your-ground law?

Assuming they directly endanger your life, I fully support the law.

Otherwise (are there really any other circumstances?), no.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 5:58:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:50:02 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:46:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:43:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:39:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

That's assuming that the fetus has a right to life.

The argument assumes that. That sentence didn't.

You had a stand alone statement " you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions".

I just showed the absurdity of the statement. This implies that no medical intervention should be done, even if no harm is done.

Wording was bad.

If you are going to criticize the argument, criticize the second version.

I'm pro-life and don't believe in property rights. I just wanted to critize the first version.

Do you have your justification for being pro-life somewhere on the site? Or would you mind telling me here? I'm curious to know yours as our views on morality are fairly similar.

I don't need to justify my preference. Morality doesn't really have justification. Any morality system, using infinite regression analysis is just an assertion. I have a preference for the pro-life system. Just like I don't need to justify why i like pizza. I just say "I prefer pizza". "I prefer that women not get abortions, and I prefer that the state to enforce this".

If you came up with some super awesome argument that's pro-choice will it change my mind. Probably not because the reason I'm pro-life is completely emotive based. I can come up with some ad hoc rationalization, but the morality system just regresses to an assertion.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 6:02:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:58:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:50:02 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:46:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:43:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:39:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

That's assuming that the fetus has a right to life.

The argument assumes that. That sentence didn't.

You had a stand alone statement " you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions".

I just showed the absurdity of the statement. This implies that no medical intervention should be done, even if no harm is done.

Wording was bad.

If you are going to criticize the argument, criticize the second version.

I'm pro-life and don't believe in property rights. I just wanted to critize the first version.

Do you have your justification for being pro-life somewhere on the site? Or would you mind telling me here? I'm curious to know yours as our views on morality are fairly similar.

I don't need to justify my preference. Morality doesn't really have justification. Any morality system, using infinite regression analysis is just an assertion. I have a preference for the pro-life system. Just like I don't need to justify why i like pizza. I just say "I prefer pizza". "I prefer that women not get abortions, and I prefer that the state to enforce this".

If you came up with some super awesome argument that's pro-choice will it change my mind. Probably not because the reason I'm pro-life is completely emotive based. I can come up with some ad hoc rationalization, but the morality system just regresses to an assertion.

Then I don't need to justify why I think that killing small school children is perfectly fine.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 6:03:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 6:02:08 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:58:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:50:02 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:46:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:43:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:39:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

That's assuming that the fetus has a right to life.

The argument assumes that. That sentence didn't.

You had a stand alone statement " you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions".

I just showed the absurdity of the statement. This implies that no medical intervention should be done, even if no harm is done.

Wording was bad.

If you are going to criticize the argument, criticize the second version.

I'm pro-life and don't believe in property rights. I just wanted to critize the first version.

Do you have your justification for being pro-life somewhere on the site? Or would you mind telling me here? I'm curious to know yours as our views on morality are fairly similar.

I don't need to justify my preference. Morality doesn't really have justification. Any morality system, using infinite regression analysis is just an assertion. I have a preference for the pro-life system. Just like I don't need to justify why i like pizza. I just say "I prefer pizza". "I prefer that women not get abortions, and I prefer that the state to enforce this".

If you came up with some super awesome argument that's pro-choice will it change my mind. Probably not because the reason I'm pro-life is completely emotive based. I can come up with some ad hoc rationalization, but the morality system just regresses to an assertion.

Then I don't need to justify why I think that killing small school children is perfectly fine.

Of course you don't have to, but if you want to avoid looking like a narcissistic psychopathic serial killer with a fetish for young children, it's recommended.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 6:03:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 6:02:08 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:58:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:50:02 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:46:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:43:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:39:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

That's assuming that the fetus has a right to life.

The argument assumes that. That sentence didn't.

You had a stand alone statement " you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions".

I just showed the absurdity of the statement. This implies that no medical intervention should be done, even if no harm is done.

Wording was bad.

If you are going to criticize the argument, criticize the second version.

I'm pro-life and don't believe in property rights. I just wanted to critize the first version.

Do you have your justification for being pro-life somewhere on the site? Or would you mind telling me here? I'm curious to know yours as our views on morality are fairly similar.

I don't need to justify my preference. Morality doesn't really have justification. Any morality system, using infinite regression analysis is just an assertion. I have a preference for the pro-life system. Just like I don't need to justify why i like pizza. I just say "I prefer pizza". "I prefer that women not get abortions, and I prefer that the state to enforce this".

If you came up with some super awesome argument that's pro-choice will it change my mind. Probably not because the reason I'm pro-life is completely emotive based. I can come up with some ad hoc rationalization, but the morality system just regresses to an assertion.

Then I don't need to justify why I think that killing small school children is perfectly fine.

Exactly. If you prefer the killing of small school children and its emotive based, then there's no reason to justify for it. It's just a subjective opinion/preference.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 6:04:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 5:58:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:50:02 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:46:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:43:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:39:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

That's assuming that the fetus has a right to life.

The argument assumes that. That sentence didn't.

You had a stand alone statement " you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions".

I just showed the absurdity of the statement. This implies that no medical intervention should be done, even if no harm is done.

Wording was bad.

If you are going to criticize the argument, criticize the second version.

I'm pro-life and don't believe in property rights. I just wanted to critize the first version.

Do you have your justification for being pro-life somewhere on the site? Or would you mind telling me here? I'm curious to know yours as our views on morality are fairly similar.

I don't need to justify my preference. Morality doesn't really have justification. Any morality system, using infinite regression analysis is just an assertion. I have a preference for the pro-life system. Just like I don't need to justify why i like pizza. I just say "I prefer pizza". "I prefer that women not get abortions, and I prefer that the state to enforce this".

If you came up with some super awesome argument that's pro-choice will it change my mind. Probably not because the reason I'm pro-life is completely emotive based. I can come up with some ad hoc rationalization, but the morality system just regresses to an assertion.

Hm, well, I assume that if you were a woman (assume) with your idea of morality, you would probably have a different viewpoint. I have a problem with the government forcing abortions or pregnancy on people.

Abortions, in some cases, seem indecent to me, but killing an unfeeling, unconscious being which is feeding off my body doesn't ruffle my moral feathers in the slightest if I did everything in my power to prevent it. The government telling me I don't have control over what happens to my own body does.
: : :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.
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 6:06:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Please, folks, don't argue about the arguments; just list them.

LordKnuckle, it seems to me that what you originally wrote has two different interpretations. For one of them, see #26. For the other, see #30.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 6:06:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 6:04:30 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:58:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:50:02 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:46:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:43:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:39:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

That's assuming that the fetus has a right to life.

The argument assumes that. That sentence didn't.

You had a stand alone statement " you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions".

I just showed the absurdity of the statement. This implies that no medical intervention should be done, even if no harm is done.

Wording was bad.

If you are going to criticize the argument, criticize the second version.

I'm pro-life and don't believe in property rights. I just wanted to critize the first version.

Do you have your justification for being pro-life somewhere on the site? Or would you mind telling me here? I'm curious to know yours as our views on morality are fairly similar.

I don't need to justify my preference. Morality doesn't really have justification. Any morality system, using infinite regression analysis is just an assertion. I have a preference for the pro-life system. Just like I don't need to justify why i like pizza. I just say "I prefer pizza". "I prefer that women not get abortions, and I prefer that the state to enforce this".

If you came up with some super awesome argument that's pro-choice will it change my mind. Probably not because the reason I'm pro-life is completely emotive based. I can come up with some ad hoc rationalization, but the morality system just regresses to an assertion.

Hm, well, I assume that if you were a woman (assume) with your idea of morality, you would probably have a different viewpoint. I have a problem with the government forcing abortions or pregnancy on people.

Abortions, in some cases, seem indecent to me, but killing an unfeeling, unconscious being which is feeding off my body doesn't ruffle my moral feathers in the slightest if I did everything in my power to prevent it. The government telling me I don't have control over what happens to my own body does.

By that logic, you should be able to immediately kill anybody that wonders onto your property using the property rights justification.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 6:11:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 6:04:30 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:58:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:50:02 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:46:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:43:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:39:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

That's assuming that the fetus has a right to life.

The argument assumes that. That sentence didn't.

You had a stand alone statement " you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions".

I just showed the absurdity of the statement. This implies that no medical intervention should be done, even if no harm is done.

Wording was bad.

If you are going to criticize the argument, criticize the second version.

I'm pro-life and don't believe in property rights. I just wanted to critize the first version.

Do you have your justification for being pro-life somewhere on the site? Or would you mind telling me here? I'm curious to know yours as our views on morality are fairly similar.

I don't need to justify my preference. Morality doesn't really have justification. Any morality system, using infinite regression analysis is just an assertion. I have a preference for the pro-life system. Just like I don't need to justify why i like pizza. I just say "I prefer pizza". "I prefer that women not get abortions, and I prefer that the state to enforce this".

If you came up with some super awesome argument that's pro-choice will it change my mind. Probably not because the reason I'm pro-life is completely emotive based. I can come up with some ad hoc rationalization, but the morality system just regresses to an assertion.

Hm, well, I assume that if you were a woman (assume) with your idea of morality, you would probably have a different viewpoint. I have a problem with the government forcing abortions or pregnancy on people.

Abortions, in some cases, seem indecent to me, but killing an unfeeling, unconscious being which is feeding off my body doesn't ruffle my moral feathers in the slightest if I did everything in my power to prevent it. The government telling me I don't have control over what happens to my own body does.

I don't know If my opinion would be different If I was a woman. There are pro-life woman and pro-choice males.

I'd essentially be a different person If I was a woman so my value system would be completely different from my current value system.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 6:11:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 6:06:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 6:04:30 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:58:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:50:02 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:46:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:43:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:39:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:34:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:25:43 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 5:20:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Maybe it's there but I can't find.

How about the argument that as a rational human being, you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions (assuming they were done with a rational mind)?

argument doesn't make sense. Your telling me that If you can get medical treatment you ought not to take it because one ought to suffer the consequences for your actions. So If one is doing something stupid and breaks their arm, they shouldn't go to the hospital?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Think of it this way: By engaging in a voluntary activity (sex), you cannot say that the activity was "not your fault" or that "it violates your rights" because by just engaging in the act, you are allowing the fetus residence in your body as a result of your permissibility. In other words, its violation of property is justified because of your consent. That pretty much eliminates 99% of the pro-abortion arguments.

That's assuming that the fetus has a right to life.

The argument assumes that. That sentence didn't.

You had a stand alone statement " you ought to suffer the consequences for your actions".

I just showed the absurdity of the statement. This implies that no medical intervention should be done, even if no harm is done.

Wording was bad.

If you are going to criticize the argument, criticize the second version.

I'm pro-life and don't believe in property rights. I just wanted to critize the first version.

Do you have your justification for being pro-life somewhere on the site? Or would you mind telling me here? I'm curious to know yours as our views on morality are fairly similar.

I don't need to justify my preference. Morality doesn't really have justification. Any morality system, using infinite regression analysis is just an assertion. I have a preference for the pro-life system. Just like I don't need to justify why i like pizza. I just say "I prefer pizza". "I prefer that women not get abortions, and I prefer that the state to enforce this".

If you came up with some super awesome argument that's pro-choice will it change my mind. Probably not because the reason I'm pro-life is completely emotive based. I can come up with some ad hoc rationalization, but the morality system just regresses to an assertion.

Hm, well, I assume that if you were a woman (assume) with your idea of morality, you would probably have a different viewpoint. I have a problem with the government forcing abortions or pregnancy on people.

Abortions, in some cases, seem indecent to me, but killing an unfeeling, unconscious being which is feeding off my body doesn't ruffle my moral feathers in the slightest if I did everything in my power to prevent it. The government telling me I don't have control over what happens to my own body does.

By that logic, you should be able to immediately kill anybody that wonders onto your property using the property rights justification.

haha Well, you can pretty much do whatever you want, in reality. Whether that unconscious, unfeeling embryo is a person worthy of moral consideration is another debate altogether.

There is a big difference between my front yard and the inside of my body, sorry. It's just not an analogy that makes sense. Abortion is not really something you can make analogies for and expect to be able to generalize moral rules.
: : :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
6/27/2012 6:13:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 6:06:14 PM, elvroin_vonn_trazem wrote:
Please, folks, don't argue about the arguments; just list them.

LordKnuckle, it seems to me that what you originally wrote has two different interpretations. For one of them, see #26. For the other, see #30.

dude, a forum topic on whether Obama will become president got derailed into a discussion on quantum mechanics.

Just realize that people won't stick to your forum topic and it will get derailed. Its just something you have to deal with.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 6:16:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 6:06:14 PM, elvroin_vonn_trazem wrote:
Please, folks, don't argue about the arguments; just list them.

LordKnuckle, it seems to me that what you originally wrote has two different interpretations. For one of them, see #26. For the other, see #30.

It definitely has nothing to do with "karma."

It is somewhat like "30" but not really. Go with the second interpretation.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 6:39:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 6:13:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/27/2012 6:06:14 PM, elvroin_vonn_trazem wrote:
Please, folks, don't argue about the arguments; just list them.

dude, a forum topic on whether Obama will become president got derailed into a discussion on quantum mechanics.

Just realize that people won't stick to your forum topic and it will get derailed. Its just something you have to deal with.

It never hurts to ask. I really want as complete a list as possible, and all these other comments get in the way of finding them.

Actually, I know of some arguments that are far more certain to start a controversy, then the one mentioned by Lordknuckle.

For example, "I oppose abortion because I like the idea of raping women into pregnancy, or tricking them into pregnancy, and then running away to spread my wild oats far and wide, leaving lots of women with the task of raising offspring that carry my valuable genes."
That argument comes from various porno stories. I wonder how many male abortion opponents actually silently agree with that argument. There's a study indicating that a significant percentage of men would be willing to commit rape if they thought they could get away with it.
htt.....ww.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html

Well, I don't care how controversial an anti-abortion argument might be. I simply want a complete list, without wading through controversy to find new items to add to it.

Thanks, all!
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 6:43:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Best argument ever:

Banning abortion prevents stem cell research. Stem cell research would extend the life of old people. If old people live longer, Medicare and Social Security are fvcked. Banning abortion solves our entitlement crisis. Let old people die sooner.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 6:45:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have a question: if abortion is murder, is freezing a fetus, assuming we had the technology to thaw and reimplant it later, also murder?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)