• 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!

There is a knock at his door....

Simpletruther said:
Ted lives alone in the remote subarctic. A few scattered natives live in the area. One family is in such a difficult survival mode they drop their 6 year old off in his yard and leaving, hoping ted will take her in.

It’s in the middle of a blizzard in early winter. Ted answers the door and finds the cold little girl. It’s 30 below and she has minutes before dangerous hypothermia takes hold.

Ted ponders what taking this child in means. It means a major inconvenience. She will require feeding though he has a large stockpile more than enough. She will make a mess and he will be cleaning more. She could (though it seems a remote chance) even have a mental problem and kill him in his sleep. He would have till keep her until the late spring thaw at least 6 months before it would be feasible to take her to authorities.

Ted decides it’s his house, his food his labor and he has a right to use them how he sees fit and slams the door as she comes forward hoping for salvation. She cries for help but within 20 minutes she dies.

The questions on the table are is ted morally ok in this decision? Do you approve of ted? Should ted be held accountable in any way?
Click to expand...
This post is a total waste of bandwidth
 
Gordy327 said:
You must be confused, as I never said I was pro-abortion. And I see you still didn't explain the (poir) analogy or what it has to do with abortion.
Click to expand...
In both cases a human being needs help or they will die.

In both cases there is only one person who can help.

In both there is a small but deadly risk to oneself for helping.
(She could potentially have an infectious disease and bob has no way to get treatment if he catches it: or she could be delusional all and kill Bob in his sleep etc etc)

And in both cases it's morally wrong to let them die.
 
Lursa said:
The bold red is still ludicrous. You said a 6 yr old girl. :rolleyes: He wouldnt necessarily die from some infectious disease (she's running around, isnt she?) and he could lock his door, etc etc.

86,700 women/yr in the US die or nearly die from severe health consequences from pregnancy/childbirth, some of which cause disabilities for the rest of their lives. That's a significant risk for anyone. Every single pregnancy risks a woman's life and there's not always a way to predict or prevent it, since at least 1000 do die/yr.

Abortion is an intentional medical procedure that the woman needs for many reasons, none of which she has to share with anyone...she's the one who must assume all the risks and consequences and no one else knows what those are (except maybe her Dr) and how much it will affect ALL the other people she has responsibilities and obligations to.

The pregnant woman isnt even the only person affected...strangers dont know who else she has responsibilities and commitments to.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, many infectious diseases can be deadly without antibiotics, or other treatments, and if Bob is older, even a clue could be deadly and turn to Pneumonia which kills thousands of elderly.
The risk for Bob is real and tangible, but low statistically.
 
Simpletruther said:
Ted lives alone in the remote subarctic. A few scattered natives live in the area. One family is in such a difficult survival mode they drop their 6 year old off in his yard and leaving, hoping ted will take her in.

It’s in the middle of a blizzard in early winter. Ted answers the door and finds the cold little girl. It’s 30 below and she has minutes before dangerous hypothermia takes hold.

Ted ponders what taking this child in means. It means a major inconvenience. She will require feeding though he has a large stockpile more than enough. She will make a mess and he will be cleaning more. She could (though it seems a remote chance) even have a mental problem and kill him in his sleep. He would have till keep her until the late spring thaw at least 6 months before it would be feasible to take her to authorities.

Ted decides it’s his house, his food his labor and he has a right to use them how he sees fit and slams the door as she comes forward hoping for salvation. She cries for help but within 20 minutes she dies.

The questions on the table are is ted morally ok in this decision? Do you approve of ted? Should ted be held accountable in any way?
Click to expand...
I mean that is the Libertarian view isn't it. My stuff, my rights. And so on. From a Libertarian point of view definitely did the right thing to defend his property.

What does this has to do with abortion? Oh, right. Nothing.
 
joluoto said:
I mean that is the Libertarian view isn't it. My stuff, my rights. And so on. From a Libertarian point of view definitely did the right thing to defend his property.

What does this has to do with abortion? Oh, right. Nothing.
Click to expand...
It counters the libertarian argument of the left on this "my body" etc.
 
BirdinHand said:
1. This scenario is ridiculous

2. Pregnancy literally kills women. And causes lifelong complications for others.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous how?

Bob could be killed by a disease the girl gives him.
 
BirdinHand said:
She’s not literally sharing HIS BODY.

Like inside HIS BODY reliant upon his heart, lungs, kidneys…
Click to expand...
That is true, but not sure how it's relevant morally. She is sharing his means of survival (food) and poses a real threat to him.
 
BirdinHand said:
Because they aren't comparable.

Sharing possessions vs. sharing your actual physical body are two completely different things.
Click to expand...
They are different obviously, but you didn't explain why this difference has moral relevance.

I gave my reasoning why they are morally analogous. What is your reasoning?
 
Simpletruther said:
Ted lives alone in the remote subarctic. A few scattered natives live in the area. One family is in such a difficult survival mode they drop their 6 year old off in his yard and leaving, hoping ted will take her in.

It’s in the middle of a blizzard in early winter. Ted answers the door and finds the cold little girl. It’s 30 below and she has minutes before dangerous hypothermia takes hold.

Ted ponders what taking this child in means. It means a major inconvenience. She will require feeding though he has a large stockpile more than enough. She will make a mess and he will be cleaning more. She could (though it seems a remote chance) even have a mental problem and kill him in his sleep. He would have till keep her until the late spring thaw at least 6 months before it would be feasible to take her to authorities.

Ted decides it’s his house, his food his labor and he has a right to use them how he sees fit and slams the door as she comes forward hoping for salvation. She cries for help but within 20 minutes she dies.

The questions on the table are is ted morally ok in this decision? Do you approve of ted? Should ted be held accountable in any way?
Click to expand...
Somebody needs to lock ted outta his house and watch him freeze. Then they need to track down the family who abandoned the kid and do the same.

None of this has anything to do with abortion, which is the forum you are in.
 
Simpletruther said:
In both cases a human being needs help or they will die.

In both cases there is only one person who can help.

In both there is a small but deadly risk to oneself for helping.
(She could potentially have an infectious disease and bob has no way to get treatment if he catches it: or she could be delusional all and kill Bob in his sleep etc etc)

And in both cases it's morally wrong to let them die.
Click to expand...
In abortion, there is only the woman in question. A clump of cells is not yet a person and will not starve or freeze, as its feeding off the woman. So your analogy fails on that alone. And no one is required or obligated to offer assistance, just as a woman is not obligated to continue a pregnancy against her will. Morality is subjective anyway.
 
Why the is entire analogy is stupid:

Because a woman’s uterus isn’t like sharing an apartment.

Pregnancy means morning sickness (which itself is a damn lie…it is all day sickness for like 4 months for those women lucky enough to wind up with morning sickness). For those not familiar, imagine a hang over without the night out…that last for months. And you still have to go to work, raise kids, go to school, etc while ALSO growing a human.

Oh…and then there’s a list of things you can’t eat, drink, do. Lunch meat? Nope. Fish? Nope. Alcohol? Absolutely not. Caffeine? Nope.

And guess what? Completely random things…like the smell of ketchup? Or a dish detergent? Yeah…suddenly they make you sick.

Then, there are hormones. Anger, sadness, melancholy - all OUT OF CONTROL - because your body is pumping out an incredible amount of hormones for two humans.

Oh, your hair falls out and your teeth become incredibly sensitive. (You also are advised to go to the dentist and get them cleaned…but you can’t get any real dental work done because you are growing a human…and no one wants to risk harming that human)

Oh…do you pee maybe 3-4 times a day? Well…now you pee 25 times a day.

Your clothes and shoes don’t fit - so you have to go buy different clothes and shoes - that you’ll only wear for a short period of time - so you can keep going to work, school, out in public…and keep doing ALL the things you typically do…while growing a human.

At some point, you have to go drink a completely nasty “glucose” drink and sit in a doctors office having your blood drawn X number of times to determine if growing a human is causing you to be diabetic. If it is, you’ll now have to eliminate foods from your diet, potentially take insulin…all while continuing to do all the things you did before growing a human, losing mobility (and sleep) due to growing a human…and wearing clothes that fit weird.

If you’re lucky, growing a human won’t impact your heart and circulatory system - but for some women it does. They get to start taking blood pressure medication and having to attend a bunch of doctor appointments where they get blood work and hooked up to machines - to monitor just how well their body is doing growing a human while doing all the other things they did before growing a human.

If their body isn’t doing so well, then the woman has to take off from a job and do “bed rest” or “modified bed rest”…which means no income while growing the human unless they qualify for govt assistance.

Oh…and when you get to the end of the “9 months”, you either get the painful experience of childbirth OR you get your abdomen sliced open. Joy of all joys there! Nothing says fun like either having 5 people staring at your vagina and probing it OR being basically tied down to a table and sliced open through every layer or fat and muscle in your abdomen. Yay!

Then you get to bleed for WEEKS and experience your uterus contracting in an attempt to going back to its original size and all of your internal organs settling back into old (new) places after having been shoved around for months while growing a human. PLUS while going through all of this? You now have a TINY human that is 100% dependent on you for everything, still, and doesn’t know what sleeping is.





I’ve had PLENTY of roommates in my life - and two were completely awful.

There is absolutely NOTHING in this world that compares to pregnancy and childbirth. Or the “4th trimester” with an infant.

So…your analogy is stupid. Anyone using that kind of analogy has absolutely ZERO idea what pregnancy means.

Keep the government out of women’s uterus. Pregnancy isn’t nice or fun or even simply inconvenient. Pregnancy can flat out be awful, permanently damaging and even deadly. Even the easiest pregnancies are hard.

If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, that is HER choice and her choice alone. Considering not a single biological man has ever or will ever experience it - It’s a joke that so many have opinions about it.

If men were the ones that had to carry babies, there would be as many abortion clinics as there are Starbucks or McDonalds.
 
BirdinHand said:
Why the is entire analogy is stupid:

Because a woman’s uterus isn’t like sharing an apartment.

Pregnancy means morning sickness (which itself is a damn lie…it is all day sickness for like 4 months for those women lucky enough to wind up with morning sickness). For those not familiar, imagine a hang over without the night out…that last for months. And you still have to go to work, raise kids, go to school, etc while ALSO growing a human.

Oh…and then there’s a list of things you can’t eat, drink, do. Lunch meat? Nope. Fish? Nope. Alcohol? Absolutely not. Caffeine? Nope.

And guess what? Completely random things…like the smell of ketchup? Or a dish detergent? Yeah…suddenly they make you sick.

Then, there are hormones. Anger, sadness, melancholy - all OUT OF CONTROL - because your body is pumping out an incredible amount of hormones for two humans.

Oh, your hair falls out and your teeth become incredibly sensitive. (You also are advised to go to the dentist and get them cleaned…but you can’t get any real dental work done because you are growing a human…and no one wants to risk harming that human)

Oh…do you pee maybe 3-4 times a day? Well…now you pee 25 times a day.

Your clothes and shoes don’t fit - so you have to go buy different clothes and shoes - that you’ll only wear for a short period of time - so you can keep going to work, school, out in public…and keep doing ALL the things you typically do…while growing a human.

At some point, you have to go drink a completely nasty “glucose” drink and sit in a doctors office having your blood drawn X number of times to determine if growing a human is causing you to be diabetic. If it is, you’ll now have to eliminate foods from your diet, potentially take insulin…all while continuing to do all the things you did before growing a human, losing mobility (and sleep) due to growing a human…and wearing clothes that fit weird.

If you’re lucky, growing a human won’t impact your heart and circulatory system - but for some women it does. They get to start taking blood pressure medication and having to attend a bunch of doctor appointments where they get blood work and hooked up to machines - to monitor just how well their body is doing growing a human while doing all the other things they did before growing a human.

If their body isn’t doing so well, then the woman has to take off from a job and do “bed rest” or “modified bed rest”…which means no income while growing the human unless they qualify for govt assistance.

Oh…and when you get to the end of the “9 months”, you either get the painful experience of childbirth OR you get your abdomen sliced open. Joy of all joys there! Nothing says fun like either having 5 people staring at your vagina and probing it OR being basically tied down to a table and sliced open through every layer or fat and muscle in your abdomen. Yay!

Then you get to bleed for WEEKS and experience your uterus contracting in an attempt to going back to its original size and all of your internal organs settling back into old (new) places after having been shoved around for months while growing a human. PLUS while going through all of this? You now have a TINY human that is 100% dependent on you for everything, still, and doesn’t know what sleeping is.





I’ve had PLENTY of roommates in my life - and two were completely awful.

There is absolutely NOTHING in this world that compares to pregnancy and childbirth. Or the “4th trimester” with an infant.

So…your analogy is stupid. Anyone using that kind of analogy has absolutely ZERO idea what pregnancy means.

Keep the government out of women’s uterus. Pregnancy isn’t nice or fun or even simply inconvenient. Pregnancy can flat out be awful, permanently damaging and even deadly. Even the easiest pregnancies are hard.

If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, that is HER choice and her choice alone. Considering not a single biological man has ever or will ever experience it - It’s a joke that so many have opinions about it.

If men were the ones that had to carry babies, there would be as many abortion clinics as there are Starbucks or McDonalds.
Click to expand...
Most women are fine during a pregnancy, and Bob may be in for a lot more headache than he would realize at first, could get real difficult for Bob, up to loosing his life. Could be vastlly worse on bob than most all pregnancies potentially.

I was with a woman twice during whole pregnancies, and know a lot of other women personally as well sharing their experience. She was fine We all like to complain but at the end of the day it isn't a big deal for most women.


Yes they are different, but the basic elements are there for both.

It's stupid to so some committed to abortion sure.
 
Gateman_Wen said:
Somebody needs to lock ted outta his house and watch him freeze. Then they need to track down the family who abandoned the kid and do the same.

None of this has anything to do with abortion, which is the forum you are in.
Click to expand...
Analogy
 
Simpletruther said:
was with a woman twice during whole pregnancies, and know a lot of other women personally as well sharing their experience. She was fine We all like to complain but at the end of the day it isn't a big deal for most women.
Click to expand...
😂😂😂😂

There you have it folks.

A guy flatly saying pregnancy isn’t a big deal.
 
BirdinHand said:
1. This scenario is ridiculous

2. Pregnancy literally kills women. And causes lifelong complications for others.
Click to expand...
Well, pregnancy DEFINITELY kills babies, I'll give you that.
 
Simpletruther said:
That is true, but not sure how it's relevant morally. She is sharing his means of survival (food) and poses a real threat to him.
Click to expand...
Very relevant morally.

Abortion is a moral decision.
And for a pregnant Jewish woman whose long term health is in jeopardy an abortion is her religious tenet/law.

THE HORSE IS DEAD.

PLEASE LET IT Rest In Peace FOR A FINAL TIME.
 
Simpletruther said:
In both cases a human being needs help or they will die.

In both cases there is only one person who can help.

In both there is a small but deadly risk to oneself for helping.
(She could potentially have an infectious disease and bob has no way to get treatment if he catches it: or she could be delusional all and kill Bob in his sleep etc etc)
Click to expand...

Again, it's devastatingly painful and causes health issues for every single pregnant woman. And kills or nearly kills 86,700/yr/US. That's significant. It's disturbing how you just minimize the effects of pregnancy on women. That they have other kids, responsibilities, obligations that they need to maintain.

Simpletruther said:
And in both cases it's morally wrong to let them die.
Click to expand...

Who says it's immoral to kill the unborn?
 
Simpletruther said:
Incorrect, many infectious diseases can be deadly without antibiotics, or other treatments, and if Bob is older, even a clue could be deadly and turn to Pneumonia which kills thousands of elderly.
The risk for Bob is real and tangible, but low statistically.
Click to expand...

And as I wrote, it's real and significant for every single woman. Painful, and makes them sick. Everyone has health issues during pregnancy and a significant number of those cause permanent damage and even death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom