• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

What would it take...?

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What would it take for me to consider abortion morally acceptable? It would take any and all of the following:

#1 Proof that God doesn't exist

#2 My own death and God telling me to my face--"Yo' what's the big deal? You got it all wrong--I gave you free will so you could be a self-obsessed little twit with a freaky-live sex life of irresponsible hedonism and meaninglessness, not because I wanted you to be able to freely choose to love me and follow my commandments--Duh....:roll: "

#3 A lobotomy

#4 An alternate universe where evil is good and good is evil

#5 An army of zygote/embryo/fetus' armed to the umbilicus with weapons of mass destruction threatening world domination and subjugation


So.....
What would it take for you to change your mind on the abortion issue?:mrgreen:
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
God has nothing to do with it. God is not against abortions. For me to change my mind, ... Well, as my opinion is based on the woman's right to the same freedom as the rest of us, it can only be changed if we all face the same burden of being forced to give up our bodily resources against our will. If the same enslavement is present for all of us, then it is not more unfair for abortion to be restricted than for you to be forced to give up your extra kidney to a kidney patient, f.ex.

So if it is equally restrictive for the rest of us, and we all have the right to control our own bodies taken away, THEN I guess that the woman being forced to give her bodily resources to the fetus or embryo is no worse than what everybody else are facing.
 

cherith

New member
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So.....
What would it take for you to change your mind on the abortion issue?
Felicity, it is not about one changing their mind about their view(s) on abortion. You are pro-life and you should not change your stance on that for anything in the world. Likewise, someone who is pro-choice has their reasons for being so.

In the Bible God says for us to obey the laws of the land. The United States Constitution is full of laws of the land that we are to obey. There are some laws in the Constitution that:

1. gave women the right to vote
2. blacks the right to vote
3. women the right to have an abortion
4. etc.....

There are a lot of people who choose not to vote even though they have a right to vote if they want to. Likewise, there are people like you choose not to have any abortions, even thought you have the right to do so if you choose to.

The Constitution gives us rights, and some of those rights are nothing more than "choices" The ones that are not choices are those that have to do with things like abolishing slavery, although many people are still making people be their slaves in and around the U.S.

To force someone to be pro-life like you are; is forcing them into your religion and that is not a good thing because God does not force anyone to come to Jesus. One does it on their own. That's why there are a lot of older women who had one or two abortions when they were younger, but now that they are older like Harriet they are pro-life.

To force someone to be pro-choice like I am; is forcing them to go against their religious beliefs and to rob of their choice to choose. I believe women can decide what is best for them at certain times in their lives.

People in this world love their pets more than they do other humans, likewise, they also believe the embroy has more rights than the woman who's carrying it. It get confusing that why the woman/female should have a talk with her God and make the decision that is best for her.
 

Technocratic_Utilitarian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
What would it take for me to consider abortion morally acceptable? It would take any and all of the following:

#1 Proof that God doesn't exist
It is logically impossible to prove a universal or metaphysical negative. Asking someone to do this is basically admitting that the criteria for your concession is unattainble: this means there is no debate--this means your belief is unfalsifiable.

That's illogical. Do you dig it?

#2 My own death and God telling me to my face--"Yo' what's the big deal? You got it all wrong--I gave you free will so you could be a self-obsessed little twit with a freaky-live sex life of irresponsible hedonism and meaninglessness, not because I wanted you to be able to freely choose to love me and follow my commandments--Duh.... "
Again, you set up a scenario that's proves your belief is illogically unfalsifiable. That's not a suitable position.

#3 A lobotomy
Never too late. Expand your horizons.

#4 An alternate universe where evil is good and good is evil
Evil and Good are "subjective" value statements, so evil according to one system could and is, in many cases, different according to the ethical paradigm you are using. Objectivism will not give the same maxims as Kantianism, and Kantianism will not always give the same maxims as Utilitarianism.

Since God is unfalsifiable and there's no evidence he exists, we already know it is invalid to appeal to him, since you could just as easily appeal to another fictional literary character.

This thread is merely promulgation of your position's inherent unfalsifiability.


This post is Rand Approved. :2wave:
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Nice job, Technocratic_Utilitarian. All I had was a Klondike Bar and a hanger. :mrgreen:
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
cherith said:
Felicity, it is not about one changing their mind about their view(s) on abortion. You are pro-life and you should not change your stance on that for anything in the world. Likewise, someone who is pro-choice has their reasons for being so.

In the Bible God says for us to obey the laws of the land. The United States Constitution is full of laws of the land that we are to obey. There are some laws in the Constitution that:

1. gave women the right to vote
2. blacks the right to vote
3. women the right to have an abortion
4. etc.....

There are a lot of people who choose not to vote even though they have a right to vote if they want to. Likewise, there are people like you choose not to have any abortions, even thought you have the right to do so if you choose to.

The Constitution gives us rights, and some of those rights are nothing more than "choices" The ones that are not choices are those that have to do with things like abolishing slavery, although many people are still making people be their slaves in and around the U.S.

To force someone to be pro-life like you are; is forcing them into your religion and that is not a good thing because God does not force anyone to come to Jesus. One does it on their own. That's why there are a lot of older women who had one or two abortions when they were younger, but now that they are older like Harriet they are pro-life.

To force someone to be pro-choice like I am; is forcing them to go against their religious beliefs and to rob of their choice to choose. I believe women can decide what is best for them at certain times in their lives.

People in this world love their pets more than they do other humans, likewise, they also believe the embroy has more rights than the woman who's carrying it. It get confusing that why the woman/female should have a talk with her God and make the decision that is best for her.
You identify yourself as being pro-choice. Would you kindly explain your understanding of what the choices are?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
M14 Shooter said:
How, exactly, do you know THAT?
How do I know God doesn't speak against abortions? Because nowhere in the Bible are abortions opposed.

We are told to not wear clothes of blended fabric, and to stone our teenagers if they are beligerant. But nowhere, despite such detailed instructions, are we told to not have abortions.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
steen said:
How do I know God doesn't speak against abortions? Because nowhere in the Bible are abortions opposed.

We are told to not wear clothes of blended fabric, and to stone our teenagers if they are beligerant. But nowhere, despite such detailed instructions, are we told to not have abortions.
Forget the religious aspect and stick to biology.

Where in the great expanse of biological fact do we find anything that justifies the killing of unborn children because their minds are not fully developed?

That "reason" is simply unfounded opinion over which you have struggled with many posts, but have never once provided a fact, only arguments based upon "privacy" and emotion.

If that was a valid criteria for ending a life, I know quite a few teen-agers who qualify for a really, really, really, late term abortion.
 
Last edited:

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Fantasea said:
Where in the great expanse of biological fact do we find anything that justifies the killing of unborn children because their minds are not fully developed?

That "reason" is simply unfounded opinion over which you have struggled with many posts, but have never once provided a fact, only arguments based upon "privacy" and emotion.

If that was a valid criteria for ending a life, I know quite a few teen-agers who qualify for a really, really, really, late term abortion.
Not having an fully developed brain and choosing not to use your fully developed brain are two totally different things.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Gibberish said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Where in the great expanse of biological fact do we find anything that justifies the killing of unborn children because their minds are not fully developed?

That "reason" is simply unfounded opinion over which you have struggled with many posts, but have never once provided a fact, only arguments based upon "privacy" and emotion.

If that was a valid criteria for ending a life, I know quite a few teen-agers who qualify for a really, really, really, late term abortion.
Not having an fully developed brain and choosing not to use your fully developed brain are two totally different things.
The first sentence is a question. Are you able to answer it?

The second sentence is a statement. Are you able to refute it?

The third sentence is simply an observation for which no response is expected.

The ball is in your court. Can you handle it?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Fantasea said:
The first sentence is a question. Are you able to answer it?

The second sentence is a statement. Are you able to refute it?
Biological facts do not answer ethical questions. The ethical answers are derived from facts and can be interpreted by the individual user. Should one believe that a fetus is a parasite since it fits the biological fact and said definition, the ethical treatment of the destruction of parasites could be warranted. Taking it further down the line, one could argue against the fact that it's a living sentient being and as such, does not deserve ethical destruction, one could extrapolate that biological fact and apply it to cattle or chicken eggs. The line drawn is by the person and their emotions, beliefs, and (possibly) relevent facts. However, since we're going to "Forget the religious aspect and stick to biology", we can eschew the emotions and beliefs and stick straight to the facts.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
steen said:
How do I know God doesn't speak against abortions? Because nowhere in the Bible are abortions opposed.

We are told to not wear clothes of blended fabric, and to stone our teenagers if they are beligerant. But nowhere, despite such detailed instructions, are we told to not have abortions.
Thou Shall Not (Murder)?

Of course, you'll say He didnt mean unborn babies.

How do you know THAT?
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
M14 Shooter said:
Thou Shall Not (Murder)?

Of course, you'll say He didnt mean unborn babies.

How do you know THAT?

Sorry Shooter...But, it would seem the burden of proof would fall in your lap on this one, as defined by the very question you ask. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" , as with virtually all aspects of scripture, is subject to interpretation by the individual.Thus, should you wish to extrapolate the definition of said statement to include a fetus.....you will need to provide the proof of "Gods Intent".

Good luck in that.....You will need it, as the very nature of Biblical scripture defies any logical attempt to be accepted as Fact in the eyes of physical reality. One can make all the claims they wish that they "Know Gods Will", but in the end......I ask you a simple question:

How do you prove to me , what I hear from "God", is wrong?

*The above is a rhetorical question*
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
M14 Shooter said:
Thou Shall Not (Murder)?

Of course, you'll say He didnt mean unborn babies.

How do you know THAT?
You could go on forever with that kind of questioning.

We don't know God meant only people either. Maybe Thou shall not kill could mean all of God's creatures, so we all should be Vegetarians or only eat animals that have died a natural death? Some people believe plants have souls and are created by God also so we should only eat plants also that have died natural deaths? You can go on and on.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Fantasea said:
Forget the religious aspect and stick to biology.
Sure. However, you have an ongoing problem with that, making claims about "biological facts" that turn out not to be so, thus emphasizing your ongoing flat-out lying. lets see if you continue them below, shall we? :lol:
Where in the great expanse of biological fact do we find anything that justifies the killing of unborn children because their minds are not fully developed?
in BIOLOGICAL FACTS, there are no such thingsas "unborn children." "Child" is a stage beginning after birth, and thus your terminology is, biologically, as much nonsense as calling yourself an undead corpse.

That aside, the justification for abortions is a legal one dealing with the woman's right to control her own bodily resources. hence, the talk about how developed their mind is, is unrelated to Roe vs Wade.

It is, however, well-researched. And the BIOLOGICAL FACTS from that research contradicts most of your false claims about the embryonic and fetal development, as well as your many claims regarding the zygote.
That "reason" is simply unfounded opinion over which you have struggled with many posts, but have never once provided a fact, only arguments based upon "privacy" and emotion.
Huh? We were talking about biological facts, not legal rights here. Why the attempt at substituting and misrepresenting one as the other. Is this ANOTHER thing you have decided to be dishonest about?:roll:
If that was a valid criteria for ending a life, I know quite a few teen-agers who qualify for a really, really, really, late term abortion.
Biologically (which is what you keep claiming to argue from), the abortion is a termination of a pregnancy. Thus, babbling silly and stupid stuff about aborting teens merely show how ignorant and un-biological your stupid arguments are.:doh
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
M14 Shooter said:
Thou Shall Not (Murder)?
"Murder" is the illegal killing of a person. Abortions are legal and fetuses and embryos are not persons. Even Exodus 21:22-25 distinguishes between harm to a fetus through miscarriage and harm to a woman as the difference between damage of property vs a person.
Of course, you'll say He didnt mean unborn babies.
God said so very specifically in Exodus 21:22, where God shows the miscarriage of a fetus to merely be a loss of a property item, a thing.
How do you know THAT?
Because it is in the Bible. How do you know that it is not?
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
shuamort said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Where in the great expanse of biological fact do we find anything that justifies the killing of unborn children because their minds are not fully developed?

That "reason" is simply unfounded opinion over which you have struggled with many posts, but have never once provided a fact, only arguments based upon "privacy" and emotion.
Biological facts do not answer ethical questions.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.
The ethical answers are derived from facts and can be interpreted by the individual user.
Herein lies the crux.

The genesis is a well established biological fact, which is then bent, twisted, distorted, and otherwise tortured in an attempt to reshape it to conform to the requirements necessary to validate an opinion which has no otherwise factual underpinnings.

The well established biological fact is that the combining of sperm and the egg create a new, distinct, unique human life, separate from that of the mother, which, unless interrupted by a natural or deliberate event, will grow and develop seamlessly. In the fullness of time, the unborn child announces its readiness to leave the womb, does so, and takes its rightful place among us.

The opinion is based solely on the ephemeral considerations of ethical standards. What this means is that a self-appointed group of like-minded individuals have arrived at a consensus, through discussion, which deliberately alters, ignores, or denies any facts which might get in the way. The result is akin to saying, "Yes, we know what the astronomers have determined about the workings of the solar system, but we have decided that the earth revolves around the moon.

In this case, proponents of abortion, understanding the difficulty in promoting the killing of live unborn children in the womb, adopted the tactic of de-humanizing the occupant of the womb. They do this by crafting a concept which declares that for the first six months of its life the occupant of the womb, although alive and human, is nevertheless not a person, which, therefore, makes it fair game for an abortionist. They stand biological fact on its head and introduce a "test" for personhood.
Should one believe that a fetus is a parasite since it fits the biological fact and said definition, the ethical treatment of the destruction of parasites could be warranted.
Biologically, the unborn child, being a separate and distinct human person, is by no stretch of the imagination a parasite. This is just another attempt to de-humanize an unborn child.
Taking it further down the line, one could argue against the fact that it's a living sentient being and as such, does not deserve ethical destruction, one could extrapolate that biological fact and apply it to cattle or chicken eggs.
One who does not differentiate between humans, animals, and fowl might, indeed, engage in such extrapolation, as might one who is addle pated.
The line drawn is by the person and their emotions, beliefs, and (possibly) relevant facts. However, since we're going to "Forget the religious aspect and stick to biology", we can eschew the emotions and beliefs and stick staight to the facts.
Great idea. Facts only. Just keep in mind what you wrote, " "Biological facts do not answer ethical questions. The ethical answers are derived from facts and can be interpreted by the individual user."

Facts are in and "fluid" ethical answers are out.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
M14 Shooter said:
Thou Shall Not (Murder)?

Of course, you'll say He didnt mean unborn babies.

How do you know THAT?
Felicity, I know you started this thread, but, respectfully, you are a lightweight (you too Fantasea) compared to this man on the abortion issue. He is more consistent from conception to abortion to execution than anyone I've ever spoken to about this subject, except one, who may be his equal, and one runner-up.

I don't agree with his stance, but would like to continue to talk with him and look for other people with similar views, and those at the opposite spectrum.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
tryreading said:
Felicity, I know you started this thread, but, respectfully, you are a lightweight (you too Fantasea) compared to this man on the abortion issue. He is more consistent from conception to abortion to execution than anyone I've ever spoken to about this subject, except one, who may be his equal, and one runner-up.

I don't agree with his stance, but would like to continue to talk with him and look for other people with similar views, and those at the opposite spectrum.
Geez...I didn't know it was a competition.....:doh
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
steen said:
Sure. However, you have an ongoing problem with that, making claims about "biological facts" that turn out not to be so, thus emphasizing your ongoing flat-out lying. lets see if you continue them below, shall we? :lol:
in BIOLOGICAL FACTS, there are no such thingsas "unborn children." "Child" is a stage beginning after birth, and thus your terminology is, biologically, as much nonsense as calling yourself an undead corpse.

That aside, the justification for abortions is a legal one dealing with the woman's right to control her own bodily resources. hence, the talk about how developed their mind is, is unrelated to Roe vs Wade.

It is, however, well-researched. And the BIOLOGICAL FACTS from that research contradicts most of your false claims about the embryonic and fetal development, as well as your many claims regarding the zygote.
Huh? We were talking about biological facts, not legal rights here. Why the attempt at substituting and misrepresenting one as the other. Is this ANOTHER thing you have decided to be dishonest about?:roll:
Biologically (which is what you keep claiming to argue from), the abortion is a termination of a pregnancy. Thus, babbling silly and stupid stuff about aborting teens merely show how ignorant and un-biological your stupid arguments are.:doh
Forgive me for not addressing you directly. It seems there is a defect in my keyboard. Everytime I type in this sequence of letters, s,t,e,e,n, what appears on my screen is the letter sequence, s,c,h,m,u,c,k. Not wishing to appear loud-mouthed, loutish, lowbred, obscene, raunchy, rude, smutty, tacky, tactless, uncouth, crude, crass, or insensitive, I simply hit the delete key so as not to offend you.

I have a call into the "GEEK SQUAD". When a technician arrives, I trust he'll be able to remedy the situation. I hope I won't have to spring for a new keyboard. This one is comfortably broken-in. My middle fingers know exactly how to respond; "k" "i" "8" "," and "d" "e" "3" "c" or shift "K" "I" "*" "<" and "D" "E" "#" "C".

If you look carefully, you will discover within the letters an excellent anagramic alternative to "steen". Once in lower case; once in upper case.

In the meantime, see post #100 in the "Continuation" thread. It responds to the nonsense you posted above.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Felicity said:
Geez...I didn't know it was a competition.....:doh
See 'The Andy Griffith Show', Episode #131, wherein Barney Fife invokes the use of the word 'facetious.' (Hope I spelled that right).
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
me or you? :confused: I am now utterly lost between Andy and anagrams....;)


...I know I was being a tad facetious...
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Fantasea said:
Forgive me for not addressing you directly. It seems there is a defect in my keyboard. Everytime I type in this sequence of letters, s,t,e,e,n, what appears on my screen is the letter sequence, s,c,h,m,u,c,k. Not wishing to appear loud-mouthed, loutish, lowbred, obscene, raunchy, rude, smutty, tacky, tactless, uncouth, crude, crass, or insensitive, I simply hit the delete key so as not to offend you.

I have a call into the "GEEK SQUAD". When a technician arrives, I trust he'll be able to remedy the situation. I hope I won't have to spring for a new keyboard. This one is comfortably broken-in. My middle fingers know exactly how to respond; "k" "i" "8" "," and "d" "e" "3" "c" or shift "K" "I" "*" "<" and "D" "E" "#" "C".

If you look carefully, you will discover within the letters an excellent anagramic alternative to "steen". Once in lower case; once in upper case.

In the meantime, see post #100 in the "Continuation" thread. It responds to the nonsense you posted above.
I may have to abondon this thread due to the profanity. What's next Fantasea? Will it be dork? Or worse, putz? I'm sure the Yiddish have already left.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
tryreading said:
I may have to abondon this thread due to the profanity. What's next Fantasea? Will it be dork? Or worse, putz? I'm sure the Yiddish have already left.
You'd think that's hilarious if you knew steen's last name! The man thinks he's a "God.";) :cool:
 
Top Bottom