• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The pro choice philosophy... (1 Viewer)

Cloud9;
"This response will be short, not for a lack of interest in discussing moral philosophy... we've actually never gotten to Kant, etc. and I get the impression that we won't be heading in that direction as it seems that moral philosophy and religion and/or belief in God are one and the same for you.

For me they are mutually exclusive. One can be moral (and immoral) without belief in God, and believe in God and be immoral (and moral). Belief in God is not a requirement for morality
.


Exactly. You possess the same moral core as I do rather you are an agnostic, atheist, Christian, tribesman or what ever. It is this common moral core which dictates the fact that anyone, regardless of religious convictions, can live a moral life.
Romans 2: 13-15;
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them

Cloud9;
"It's not a question of whether God gave them a chance or not. It's a question of whether an infinitely omnipotent and omnipresent being could arrive at a better solution than simply flooding the earth."
If that is what God did, then that was the perfect solution. Don't forget about the whole omnipotent thing. God knew that He was going to flood the earth long before He put His plan for our creation in motion.

One benefit to being eternal and timeless is that even if God ever did make a mistake, he could go back to that point and keep executing alternative solutions until the optimum outcome materialized.

Cloud9;
"You have kids, so we can think of it this way, I can tell my kids to do X or else get a spanking (for example). Is that the best solution I can come up with? No. Surely our minds are a bit more sophisticated than a 2, 3, 4, 5 yr old, etc."
I tell my kids that if they climb on the chair they will fall. My sons would not learn why they are not suppose to climb on the chair if I keep it from them, so I warn them and let them climb it any way (which drives my wife crazy). When they fall and cry, I say "I told you what would happen if you chose to disobey my rule".

I get so much crap for homeschooling my children, with one such accusation being that I am trying to shelter them. If sheltering one's children is bad, then why should God do it?

With respect to the flood, God gathered all of his kids and put them in the family SUV. God kept his children safe in the SUV while he killed all of the (literal) monsters that had run amuck in the house.

I was listening to a technology interview of Charles Ostman and Katherine Albrecht on Coast to Coast AM the other day, and they mentioned something about scientists discovering a new, more efficient and compleat methid to program their creations. They would give their creations a base programing (= common moral core) and let them loose in a structured environment so as to experience it for them selves.

That sounds like what God is doing with us.

Cloud9;
"Now, here we have an infinite and omnipotent mind. His best solution (out of an infinite number of solutions) was to flood the earth? Seems like a silly solution to me."
I believe that it is safe to assume that the infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent intelligence knows better then you, His creation, does.

C-
"Fear is a not a good basis for any relationship. I do not subscribe to a concept of an omnipotent God where fear is a requirement."
B-
You are not suppose to know the path before you walk the path. If you did, you would not get the lesson of the path.
C-
Your response does not negate that God (as taught in Christianity) is one to be feared.
That's correct. God is to be feared.
Until you open yourself to that fear you will not understand it.
It is not an iron fist.

2 miscellaneous points:
*I did not give evidence of God, I gave evidence of a higher reality.
*The logic problem- My kneejerk reaction was to say that God could create such a rock in space....thus nullifying it's waite and a lifting motion all together.....or that God could create such a rock and then turn gravity off, thus creating a rock that He could not lift, and then lifting it anyway.
I did not answer "yes" or "no" because the question has a false premise: that God would contradict his own law. Though the question seems clever, it is pure, refined sophistry.

I am sorry to say that at this point I must bow out of our conversation. I have personal happenings which need my attention.
I will let you have the last word between us (for now ;) ).
Again, it is nice to see an abortion debate that did not come to blows.
Thank you for that.
I look forward to speaking with you in the future.
 
Oh, and if GOD told me to jump off of a bridge, I would without hesitation or question. It's about trust. Trusting someone is not illogical, especially when they have allready proven their trustworthiness.
 
“If this is the analsysis for the decision, and "the moral determination lies with the mother alone" why cannot a mother kill a one month old (or one year old) baby if she decides that she wants to reserve her resources? If the test of whether entitlement to life is whether the entity has developed "sentience, dreams, goals, pursuits, and needs" there is no reason why a mother making the moral determination cannot decide to abort her one month old baby.’

Good question for pro-abortion people. Why not allow the mother to kill her child?
Certainly this would be before any goals or dreams were met. Why not allow her to murder her child like Iriemon says?

Ngdawg……….one question and please answer with a yes or no.

You said, “That does NOT give me the right to tell someone else what they should do with their own bodies and lives. We all have to live with our choices-I'm just glad we're here with rights to make them.”

Bottom line do you as being pro-abortion, allow a woman to abort her unborn child 2 weeks before her due date?
Certainly you would not take away her right and choice…….or to interfere?

Jallman…………question???????????

You said, “The father's rights are worthy of note, but not nearly as worthy of consideration as the mother's rights. The father does not have to contribute his own body to the development of the fetus. The mother has to make a commitment to the fetus that guarantees an attachment to the offspring. The father isnt even under a guarantee to provide for the mother.”

So after the birth the child is really more the mothers since she has more invested right? Custody should be more hers and all rights and decisions concerning the child. She carried it remember? In fact really ya don’t even need the name of the fathers on the birth certificate………..since he of course did nothing to help in the childs development in the womb.

How many fathers would agree with this one?

Do you agree? Yes or NO

And Jallman you said, “However, for abortion, there is no child to be killed to start with.”

Another question. Your married and your wife is in the ninth month. She decides to abort. She simply doesn’t want it. She is afraid of delivery and she is not ready to be a mother. You would of course allow her to abort because the “thing” as you call it isn’t a child. All those ultrasounds you went to see during the third trimester,,,,,where you saw the heart beating and your “thing” move inside the womb………mean nothing cause she has the right to abort and its not a child anyway.

So, Jallman think you could drive her to the abortion?
 
doughgirl said:
Good question for pro-abortion people. Why not allow the mother to kill her child?
What pro-abortion people? Hmm, do you belong to the pro-slavery people?

That aside, as a prochoice person, my answer is that the point of the abortion is to terminate unwanted use of bodily resources. Once birth has occurred, no such use exists. The agreement to take the neonate home is the taking on responsibility to meet its need. Pregnancy is no such thing. Pregnancy is not something done voluntarily (As f.ex. the use of contraception proves in the vast majority of abortion situations).
 
steen said:
The point of the abortion is to terminate unwanted use of bodily resources. Once birth has occured, no such use exists. The agreement to take the neonate home is the taking on responsibility to meet its need. Pregnancy is no such thing. Pregnancy is not something done voluntarily (As f.ex. the use of contraception proves in the vast majority of abortion situations).
Isn't agreeing to have sex--KNOWING that sex leads to pregnancy and that BC CAN and DOES fail--the same sort of "taking on responsibility to meet its need" as taking a neonate home.

You know--new parents rarely understand the effects of sleep deprivation until a few days in....around the same amount time it takes from conception to being aware one is pregnant (two weeks give or take) the new parents discover babies is more than they bargained for!
 
Felicity said:
Isn't agreeing to have sex--KNOWING that sex leads to pregnancy and that BC CAN and DOES fail--the same sort of "taking on responsibility to meet its need" as taking a neonate home.
Nope, no more than knowing that driving has a risk for accidents and thus not receive treatment if the accuient occurs, because you should "take responsibility" for your actions. There is no responsibility to non-sensate, non-sentient tissue.
You know--new parents rarely understand the effects of sleep deprivation until a few days in....around the same amount time it takes from conception to being aware one is pregnant (two weeks give or take) the new parents discover babies is more than they bargained for!
And then they can go to a hospital, fire station, police station etc and drop it off if they so desire. You obviously have never heard of the "Moses laws"?
 
steen said:
Nope, no more than knowing that driving has a risk for accidents and thus not receive treatment if the accuient occurs, because you should "take responsibility" for your actions.
You get a ticket...you have to "suffer" the pain of the injuries....you have to get a new car or at least repair it....these are "responsibilities." The pregnant woman SHOULD get "treatment"--it's called prenatal care.
 
Felicity said:
You get a ticket...
Not if you weren't at fault.
you have to "suffer" the pain of the injuries....you have to get a new car or at least repair it....these are "responsibilities."
No, they are consequenses.
The pregnant woman SHOULD get "treatment"--it's called prenatal care.
Or abortion.
 
steen said:
Not if you weren't at fault.
No, they are consequenses.
Or abortion.


When you decide to drive you are aware you could get in an accident.
When you decide to have sex you are aware you could get pregnant.

When you decide to drive you are aware that you could still have an accident regardless of how many precautions you take.
When you decide to have sex you are aware that you could still get pregnant regardless of how many precautions you take.

When you get behind the wheel, you assume the responsibility of accepting the consequences of a possible accident that may occur as a result of driving.
When you engage in intercourse, you assume the responsibility of accepting the consequences of a possible pregnancy that may occur as a result of sex.


Suffering the pain that occurs from an accident that is the result of driving is an unintended, but foreseen possible consequence.
Enduring a pregnancy that occurs from an accident that is the result of intercourse is an unintended, but foreseen possible consequence.

You made the choice to accept that fact when you decided to drive.
You made the choice to accept that fact when you decided to have sex.

To abort, is to deny personal responsibility for one's premeditated CHOICE to have sex. No such "get out of jail free card" exists for car accidents.
 
And when you make the choice to have sex, you can always have the choice to undo its consequences due to the wonders of modern medical technology. Bye-bye fetus pie! Problem sovled. No responsibility required.

And that's a good thing, to quote martha stewart.


The whole "punishment for sex" philosophy is absurd. Stop bitching and moaning. I'd volunteer to abort fetuses just to get your panties in a twist. Your position is absured; you aren't going to win. Face reality honnygirl. :lol: Christian Hegemony is comming to an end in this New World Order. Praise be jeeebus!


To abort, is to deny personal responsibility for one's premeditated CHOICE to have sex. No such "get out of jail free card" exists for car accidents.

Oh you silly girl. Of course there is. It's called lawyers and lawsuits. Oh, and healthcare.
 
Last edited:
Felicity said:
When you decide to drive you are aware you could get in an accident.
When you decide to have sex you are aware you could get pregnant.

When you decide to drive you are aware that you could still have an accident regardless of how many precautions you take.
When you decide to have sex you are aware that you could still get pregnant regardless of how many precautions you take.
So far, so good.
When you get behind the wheel, you assume the responsibility of accepting the consequences of a possible accident that may occur as a result of driving.
When you engage in intercourse, you assume the responsibility of accepting the consequences of a possible pregnancy that may occur as a result of sex.
And you accept that there are medical treatments available to rectify any unwanted outcome.
Suffering the pain that occurs from an accident that is the result of driving is an unintended, but foreseen possible consequence.
Enduring a pregnancy that occurs from an accident that is the result of intercourse is an unintended, but foreseen possible consequence.
False analogy. Unwanted Pain can be treated. Unwanted pregnancy can be treated. Foreseen consequences are that you might have to undergo medical treatment to rectify the unwanted outcome, should it occur.
You made the choice to accept that fact when you decided to drive.
You made the choice to accept that fact when you decided to have sex.
And you accept the risks, as well as the possible need for medical treatment to rectify the unwanted outcome, should it occur.
To abort, is to deny personal responsibility for one's premeditated CHOICE to have sex.
False claim. Personal responsibility means dealing with an outcome yourself instead of dumping the burden on society instead. Seeking an abortion is to assume responsibility. It is an outcome that is different than what you find moral, but that doesn't mean it isn't responsible.
No such "get out of jail free card" exists for car accidents.
Sure it does. You go to the ER and get your cuts sutured up.
 
"And you accept that there are medical treatments available to rectify any unwanted outcome."

Well what if your driving and you're in an accident and you kill someone? How is that fixed Steen? You're driving and you hit someone and they end up having a leg amputated? The accident is your fault. How do you rectify this? What treatment makes it alright?

You said, "Personal responsibility means dealing with an outcome yourself instead of dumping the burden on society instead."

So how you make amends to get the situation back to how it was if you happen to kill?
How does one deal with that? Society is always involved. If a woman gets pregnant and wishes to abort, the doctor who performs it who is a member of society is involved. The staff is involved. If you kill someone most likely the courts will be involved. Members of families are involved.


Technocratic_Utilitarian says, "And when you make the choice to have sex, you can always have the choice to undo its consequences due to the wonders of modern medical technology. Bye-bye fetus pie! Problem solved. No responsibility required."

Ok how does one who contracts HIV/AIDS get out of the situation they get themselves into? Especially if that person who contracted it spread it to others? Do people die from this disease? Have innocent people died from this disease? There are some things that are done that can NEVER BE CHANGED.
Are all abortions paid for by the woman getting them? NO Society foots the bill for woman who can't afford abortions.

Yours is a horrible statement. Pathetic. Fetus Pie????????? I don't know who you are but man oh man........:( With an attitude like yours I just pray you never are blessed with children of your own.
 
doughgirl said:
With an attitude like yours I just pray you never are blessed with children of your own.
Maybe he would "get it" then....everyone who is blessed should receive the blessing with humility and be thankful--no matter what that blessing is. I would never begrudge anyone blessings and so I hope he is blessed as is fitting.
 
Busta said:
Exactly. You possess the same moral core as I do rather you are an agnostic, atheist, Christian, tribesman or what ever. It is this common moral core which dictates the fact that anyone, regardless of religious convictions, can live a moral life.
Romans 2: 13-15;
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them

Busta, no offense intended, but any response based on religion, the Bible, God, etc. is not in the least bit persuasive to an agnostic, atheist, buddhist, etc.

Actually, many would find such a response offensive because your response simply outright ignores their beliefs.

In addition, empirical evidence suggests that there is no such common moral core as your beliefs indicate. There are volumes of philosophers on all sides of the issue of morality. Many views which are perfectly legitimate and whose basis does not rely upon a belief in God.

Cloud9;
"It's not a question of whether God gave them a chance or not. It's a question of whether an infinitely omnipotent and omnipresent being could arrive at a better solution than simply flooding the earth."
If that is what God did, then that was the perfect solution. Don't forget about the whole omnipotent thing. God knew that He was going to flood the earth long before He put His plan for our creation in motion.

This is a good example of a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning. A list can be found here: http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical Fallacies.htm

For yourself or a theist, they have no alternative but to believe that statement, but for the rest of us, it holds no water.


One benefit to being eternal and timeless is that even if God ever did make a mistake, he could go back to that point and keep executing alternative solutions until the optimum outcome materialized.

Not possible for a theist to accept. God does not make mistakes. If He did, then He would no longer be God.



Cloud9;
"Now, here we have an infinite and omnipotent mind. His best solution (out of an infinite number of solutions) was to flood the earth? Seems like a silly solution to me."
I believe that it is safe to assume that the infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent intelligence knows better then you, His creation, does.

"His creation?" - That is a belief that you, and millions of Christians hold. It is not one that I share.

Busta said:
I am sorry to say that at this point I must bow out of our conversation.

I look forward to speaking with you in the future.

Likewise Busta. If you'd like to bring forth a non-religious philosophical perspective at a future time, I'd be open to debating it.
 
Felicity said:
Maybe he would "get it" then....

Get what? I have 3 kids don't agree with many of the positions taken on this forum, and certainly not "pro-life" under all circumstances.

Some of the folks that I know became pro-choice AFTER they had kids - go figure.
 
Cloud9 said:
Get what? I have 3 kids don't agree with many of the positions taken on this forum, and certainly not "pro-life" under all circumstances.

Some of the folks that I know became pro-choice AFTER they had kids - go figure.
I said "maybe"....

...some people don't look at their children as "blessings" either.
 
Felicity said:
I said "maybe"....

...some people don't look at their children as "blessings" either.

Well, when you consider that "blessings" is a religious conceptualization, and that there are millions around the world that are not religious, then it stands to reason that some people wouldn't look at their children as any sort of "blessing".
 
Felicity said:
When you decide to drive you are aware you could get in an accident.
When you decide to have sex you are aware you could get pregnant.

When you decide to drive you are aware that you could still have an accident regardless of how many precautions you take.
When you decide to have sex you are aware that you could still get pregnant regardless of how many precautions you take.

When you get behind the wheel, you assume the responsibility of accepting the consequences of a possible accident that may occur as a result of driving.
When you engage in intercourse, you assume the responsibility of accepting the consequences of a possible pregnancy that may occur as a result of sex.


Suffering the pain that occurs from an accident that is the result of driving is an unintended, but foreseen possible consequence.
Enduring a pregnancy that occurs from an accident that is the result of intercourse is an unintended, but foreseen possible consequence.

You made the choice to accept that fact when you decided to drive.
You made the choice to accept that fact when you decided to have sex.

To abort, is to deny personal responsibility for one's premeditated CHOICE to have sex. No such "get out of jail free card" exists for car accidents.



I'm Calling Geico tonight....I needs me some sex Insurance.....and since I'm exceptionally good at it, I will get a lower rate.
 
tecoyah said:
I'm Calling Geico tonight....I needs me some sex Insurance.....and since I'm exceptionally good at it, I will get a lower rate.
Now THAT'S funny!:rofl
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom