• 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!

Why do you bother?

minnie616 said:
Good idea but not practical because prenatal care is needed from the beginning of pregnancy and adoption agencies will not usually meet with a pregnant women until her last trimester of pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info--I had to give it a try.
I know couples who could not conceive safely and were chosen by the birth Mother from interviews with prospective adopting Parents.
They were able to be with the Birth Mother when the baby was delivered.

A most difficult issue for me .
 
Northern Light said:
I call it armchair activism. I read a study some months ago that said most forum users are introverts, so we don't tend to be people who go out and protest in the streets or join organized group causes, as a demographic. This leaves us with things like the internet for expressing some attempt at activism. The same is true for all other political topics but abortion is different because it's one of those topics where you can't really argue with how someone feels.

Anti-abortion proponents tend to rely on emotional reframing of the language because logical persuasion is not something that's going to shift the issue, as evidenced by the secular courts. Part of emotional word play involves repetition -- if you repeat the same flawed concept enough times it becomes a meme, and memes have some degree of
populist influence.

So... it's really a combination of strong emotional attachment and populism which keeps the cycle repeating ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

I esp. like and agree with the bold, for a large majority of pro-life supporters.
 
joG said:
That is your take on it. Some persons professionally concerned with ethics view this differently. Just as at the beginning of the last century euthanasia was viewed differently than today only goes to show, that mass murder can come home to roost no matter what the perpetrators say they were doing.
Click to expand...

No, you still cannot support your claim of mass murder (posting it again and again and again in error) except with your pseudo-intellectual diversionary tactics. You make the claim but it fails under scrutiny each time. Why do you continue to post it? Are you hoping for a different, uninitiated group of posters?
 
minnie616 said:
Good idea but not practical because prenatal care is needed from the beginning of pregnancy and adoption agencies will not usually meet with a pregnant women until her last trimester of pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Makes sense tho, for a number of reasons.

And having been involved in the foster care system through my church and through my parents (who started taking in special needs foster kids after I left for college), it is HUGELY apparent why good pre-natal care and not smoking, drinking, doing drugs are so important. Neglecting it, or continuing to abuse, contribute so many physically and mentally challenged kids into the foster care system. Unadoptable in so many cases.
 
joG said:
That is your take on it. Some persons professionally concerned with ethics view this differently. Just as at the beginning of the last century euthanasia was viewed differently than today only goes to show, that mass murder can come home to roost no matter what the perpetrators say they were doing.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that nobody here is advocating for mass murder.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Doesn't change the fact that nobody here is advocating for mass murder.
Click to expand...

Oh, but they are. They only define it as non-murder. But that doesn't change the fact.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Seriously... why do you bother? This is directed at the people that almost exclusively post in the abortion forum, or so much that when you think there name you think abortion debate. You aren't going to change anybody's minds ESPECIALLY the ones that you normally debate against 50 times a day about the same issue....
Click to expand...
*Checks post history*
*1000+ Abortion posts*
*last Abortion post in July 2015*

What bothered/bored me wasn't that people were unlikely to change their minds, it was that most posts were regurgitation of talking points rather than any actual attempt to justify those talking points. Arguing with a recording is a fruitless exercise. I still lurk, but as the "mass murder" lines above show, little seems to have changed.
 
joG said:
Oh, but they are. They only define it as non-murder. But that doesn't change the fact.
Click to expand...

Even if it was murder, which it isn't and that has been proven - heck even JD says it isn't - it isn't 'mass murder'.
 
joG said:
Oh, but they are. They only define it as non-murder. But that doesn't change the fact.
Click to expand...

What fact? Let's see it/them.

Lursa said:
No, you still cannot support your claim of mass murder (posting it again and again and again in error) except with your pseudo-intellectual diversionary tactics. You make the claim but it fails under scrutiny each time. Why do you continue to post it? Are you hoping for a different, uninitiated group of posters?
Click to expand...
 
Scrabaholic said:
Even if it was murder, which it isn't and that has been proven - heck even JD says it isn't - it isn't 'mass murder'.
Click to expand...

That demonstrates the depth of the argument y'all make.
 
joG said:
That demonstrates the depth of the argument y'all make.
Click to expand...

LESS depth than yours, which continually goes unsupported at all? Interesting. Indicates a grave lapse in perception.

Lursa said:
What fact? Let's see it/them.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
No, you still cannot support your claim of mass murder (posting it again and again and again in error) except with your pseudo-intellectual diversionary tactics. You make the claim but it fails under scrutiny each time. Why do you continue to post it? Are you hoping for a different, uninitiated group of posters?
Click to expand...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Seriously... why do you bother? This is directed at the people that almost exclusively post in the abortion forum, or so much that when you think there name you think abortion debate. You aren't going to change anybody's minds ESPECIALLY the ones that you normally debate against 50 times a day about the same issue....
Click to expand...

Abortion is a religious issue, and no one is going to change their opinion on any religious issue based on someone else's opinions or facts.

However the herding instinct dictates that you try. Hence we get street preachers and forum posters.
 
Scrabaholic said:
It demonstrates that it is not murder and it has been proven that it isn't.
Click to expand...

You can call it murder or not, if is at least wrong. And it will always be.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Seriously... why do you bother? This is directed at the people that almost exclusively post in the abortion forum, or so much that when you think there name you think abortion debate. You aren't going to change anybody's minds ESPECIALLY the ones that you normally debate against 50 times a day about the same issue....
Click to expand...

All you can do in highly emotional topics like this and the I/P forum is debate facts rather than emotion, which tends to surround "should" arguments. None of which will actually change a person's mind because to take a stand on issues like these is to be emotionally invested in them, but it's good practice if nothing else.
 
Scrabaholic said:
That is your opinion, not necessarily fact.
Click to expand...

So killing human beings is the right thing thing to do. Is that what you mean to say?

What a moral compass you must have.
 
RamFel said:
So killing human beings is the right thing thing to do. Is that what you mean to say?

What a moral compass you must have.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it is the right thing to do, sure. How is, for example, not killing a person intent on killing you (actively attacking you) not the right thing to do?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Sometimes it is the right thing to do, sure. How is, for example, not killing a person intent on killing you (actively attacking you) not the right thing to do?
Click to expand...

That is a very truthful statement. But I forgot to use the word "fetus's" to replace the word "beings" , or I could have said it differently. I could have called "Human fetus's".
 
RamFel said:
That is a very truthful statement. But I forgot to use the word "fetus's" to replace the word "beings" , or I could have said it differently. I could have called "Human fetus's".
Click to expand...

Fair enough. That is a big distinction.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Sometimes it is the right thing to do, sure. How is, for example, not killing a person intent on killing you (actively attacking you) not the right thing to do?
Click to expand...

Technically, stopping the person is the necessity (and should be the motive). That the attacker dies from the attempt to stop them (say, a couple center mass) is an unfortunate consequence of the attacker's actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom