Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 270
  1. #221
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your desire for laws is subjective, the fact that they would apply to others is not. The desire disappears, the nature of the law does not.
    My desire does not necessarily apply to others so it's not a fact that it would apply to others.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That "rights being..." is a separate, unstated premise.
    No it's not. To accept MY premise you must accept MY definition of words. If you reject MY definition of words within my premise then you reject my premise. Now of course if you are unclear on the definitions I am using, you can ask for clarification but clarifying the definitions of words within the premise is still within the premise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Of course it is relevant. If P1 and P2 are talking about two different sets of objects then the conclusion doesn't follow.
    Right. IF they were. But they are not. Again, if that's not clear then ask for clarification. But to reject my usage of the words is to reject one or both of my premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not at all. The original conclusion expressed a desire to establish a rule that applied to others, making it objective. This conclusion only expresses a preference for a rule and avoids the need to have an objective tie to the premises. There should be more ice cream is a different statement to I prefer ice cream right?
    Not inherently. There are different definitions of "should" and one of the definitions is definitely the "I desire" version. THAT is the one I meant. If that was unclear before I hope it's been cleared up now.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And nothing in your premises says that if I accept that you are defining X as within the category of rights that the Government's definition of that category is the same. Nothing about saying "the government should protect human rights" implies or necessitates that they have to accept my particular view of human rights. You are getting confused by using a term for a set of things, "rights" twice, but in two different contexts. "Rights" in P1 refers to the set of things you are defining as human rights. "Rights" in P2 is referring to the set of things defined as rights to the Government.
    And I mean that they are one and the same. That's why I used the same word in both instances. It's possible to think of them as two different sets of "rights" but that is not what I meant. Now you know what I mean.

    If you reject my word usage in either instance, then you reject my premise.
    Last edited by mican333; April 26th, 2013 at 03:34 PM.

  2. #222
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,711
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    My desire does not necessarily apply to others so it's not a fact that it would apply to others.
    The fact that your desire might not has no effect on the inherent nature of the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    No it's not. To accept MY premise you must accept MY definition of words.
    Why? The word "rights" you are using here relates to the government, not to your personal view. There is nothing in premise 2 to define those rights as your subjective view of rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Right. IF they were. But they are not. Again, if that's not clear then ask for clarification. But to reject my usage of the words is to reject one or both of my premises.
    They are not inherently talking about the same set of objects. That is an assumption you impart to the argument, not inherent in the argument itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Not inherently. There are different definitions of "should" and one of the definitions is definitely the "I desire" version. THAT is the one I meant. If that was unclear before I hope it's been cleared up now.
    Which definition would that be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And I mean that they are one and the same. That's why I used the same word in both instances. It's possible to think of them as two different sets of "rights" but that is not what I meant. Now you know what I mean.
    Fine, then you have to submit that as a premise. You cannot posit that rights are subjective (which you do by phrasing P1 and P2 subjectively), then magically not subjective. If it is a subjective set in P1 based on your belief, it has to be a subjective set in P2 based on the Government's belief.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. #223
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The fact that your desire might not has no effect on the inherent nature of the law.
    But my desire has no effect on whether a law exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why? The word "rights" you are using here relates to the government, not to your personal view. There is nothing in premise 2 to define those rights as your subjective view of rights.
    I forward 2 subjectively. That means that it is relative to me and nothing else. So when I say "I want the government to do X" X is no more and no less than what I want the government to do. So when I say "rights" I mean what I consider to be rights. If I am referencing some kind of objective source then I am no longer making a subjective statement and therefore no longer forwarding 2 subjectively.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    They are not inherently talking about the same set of objects. That is an assumption you impart to the argument, not inherent in the argument itself.
    And now I've made it clear what I mean. Again, a subjective statement is entirely based on what the arguer is forwarding. It can be unclear on what I mean to others which requires a further explanation of my argument. But if you reject my explanation then you reject my premise. So it means what I say it means.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Which definition would that be?
    The one that imparts a desire.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Fine, then you have to submit that as a premise. You cannot posit that rights are subjective (which you do by phrasing P1 and P2 subjectively), then magically not subjective. If it is a subjective set in P1 based on your belief, it has to be a subjective set in P2 based on the Government's belief.
    No, P2 is based on MY beliefs.
    Last edited by mican333; April 29th, 2013 at 11:01 AM.

  4. #224
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,711
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But my desire has no effect on whether a law exists.
    Agreed, but that isn't what makes the law objective. Its nature as a law is what makes it objective. You cannot remove that objective reality simply by arguing that your preference for it is subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I forward 2 subjectively. That means that it is relative to me and nothing else.
    This is not a condition of subjective claims. You are adding this caveat inappropriately. The fact is that P2 relates the subject (government) to an object (rights). The fact that it is a subjective claim means that you are proposing this object subjectively. Given that, the object is subjective to the subject. Arguing that it is subjective to you is unsupported given the premises forwarded. You might as well say they are subjective to me, no such claim is made or supported.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So when I say "I want the government to do X" X is no more and no less than what I want the government to do.
    Yes, you want it to protect rights. Subjective rights. But why would this argument necessarily imply that subjective rights are yours and yours alone? That sounds objective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And now I've made it clear what I mean. Again, a subjective statement is entirely based on what the arguer is forwarding. It can be unclear on what I mean to others which requires a further explanation of my argument. But if you reject my explanation then you reject my premise. So it means what I say it means.
    And the arguer made a statement that did not agree with his intent. Given your clarification, you must restate the premises to state that intent.

    P1. I believe that people have the right to life
    P2. I believe that the state has an obligation to protect rights.
    P3. The state should recognize my definition of rights.
    C. Therefore the state should have laws against murder.

    This conclusion does follow because P3 is an objective claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    The one that imparts a desire.
    Perhaps you could provide the text of that definition. I don't see that definition here. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    No, P2 is based on MY beliefs.
    Yes, your beliefs concerning the moral obligation of the government to act. Not your beliefs about what rights the government recognizes. No premise you've forwarded supports what rights they must or should recognize.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #225
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Agreed, but that isn't what makes the law objective. Its nature as a law is what makes it objective. You cannot remove that objective reality simply by arguing that your preference for it is subjective.
    But that does not change the fact that my desire is subjective and therefore the statement is subjective. My desire for ice cream does not change the objective fact that ice cream is made with milk. But my desire for it is a subjective and the object of my desire being objective does not alter the fact that my desire is subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is not a condition of subjective claims. You are adding this caveat inappropriately. The fact is that P2 relates the subject (government) to an object (rights). The fact that it is a subjective claim means that you are proposing this object subjectively. Given that, the object is subjective to the subject. Arguing that it is subjective to you is unsupported given the premises forwarded.
    A premise needs no support. It is either accepted or it is rejected.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes, you want it to protect rights. Subjective rights. But why would this argument necessarily imply that subjective rights are yours and yours alone? That sounds objective.
    So it's an objective fact that I subjectively want to protect rights? If so, then the premise is accepted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And the arguer made a statement that did not agree with his intent. Given your clarification, you must restate the premises to state that intent.

    P1. I believe that people have the right to life
    P2. I believe that the state has an obligation to protect rights.
    P3. The state should recognize my definition of rights.
    C. Therefore the state should have laws against murder.
    P3 is included in P2. If the state is going to protect rights as I have defined then it has to agree with my definition of rights. To reject my definition of rights is to reject my desire that such rights be protected and therefore is to reject P2.

    This conclusion does follow because P3 is an objective claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Perhaps you could provide the text of that definition. I don't see that definition here. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should
    I will not get into a semantic debates over this. Clearly you understand when someone says something like "You should wash the dishes" they could be saying "I would like you to wash the dishes" therefore imparting a desire that you wash the dishes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes, your beliefs concerning the moral obligation of the government to act. Not your beliefs about what rights the government recognizes. No premise you've forwarded supports what rights they must or should recognize.
    When I say one must recognize rights, I mean ALL rights. If it's a right, they should recognize it.

  6. #226
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,711
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But that does not change the fact that my desire is subjective and therefore the statement is subjective. My desire for ice cream does not change the objective fact that ice cream is made with milk. But my desire for it is a subjective and the object of my desire being objective does not alter the fact that my desire is subjective.
    So if a statement is subject, must all words within that statement likewise be subjective? Is "is" subjective here? Is "government" subjective?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    A premise needs no support. It is either accepted or it is rejected.
    This isn't about the premises acceptance or rejection or support for its truth statement. I believe you misread my objection. I said there is no language within the premise that supports that the object of the sentence doesn't apply to the subject, it applies to a subject of another sentence. You are maintaining a linguistic connection that the phrasing of the premise does not support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So it's an objective fact that I subjectively want to protect rights? If so, then the premise is accepted.
    We agree the premise is accepted, that you want the government to protect subjective rights. Nothing about subjective rights implies that the government agrees with your definition of that. Rather the contrary, by arguing that rights are subjective you are implying that the government would also have its own set of subjective rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    P3 is included in P2. If the state is going to protect rights as I have defined then it has to agree with my definition of rights.
    Why? What in the argument makes this logical leap? You seem to have a very curious definition of subjective. That is applies to your personal opinion, but that no one else can have a personal opinion. If you are defining rights as subjective here, there is no reason to believe that the state should forgo its subjective definition of rights for yours unless you are going to support that as a premise.

    In essence you are trying to maintain that "the state should protect rights" is an equivilant statement to "the state must accept my definition of rights." That is clearly not a valid position to hold.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I will not get into a semantic debates over this. Clearly you understand when someone says something like "You should wash the dishes" they could be saying "I would like you to wash the dishes" therefore imparting a desire that you wash the dishes.
    I don't think you understand the word here. It doesn't mean I would like you to wash the dishes, it implies that you have a moral obligation to do so. It is beyond a "please," it implies that not doing so would be wrong on your part. Again, you cannot simply define words the way you personally wish for your own benefit. They have meanings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    When I say one must recognize rights, I mean ALL rights. If it's a right, they should recognize it.
    Yes, and you state that position subjectively, so it is within their subjective opinion to decide the question of "if it's a right."
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #227
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So if a statement is subject, must all words within that statement likewise be subjective? Is "is" subjective here? Is "government" subjective?
    No. If I say "I like Ice Cream", Ice Cream objectively exists but it is a subjective statement regardless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I said there is no language within the premise that supports that the object of the sentence doesn't apply to the subject, it applies to a subject of another sentence. You are maintaining a linguistic connection that the phrasing of the premise does not support.
    Sorry. I don't understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We agree the premise is accepted, that you want the government to protect subjective rights. Nothing about subjective rights implies that the government agrees with your definition of that.
    How can the government protect what I consider to be rights without agreeing with me on what rights are?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Rather the contrary, by arguing that rights are subjective you are implying that the government would also have its own set of subjective rights.
    It may. But I'm saying that I want it to protect what I consider to be rights. If I have to re-word the premise so that is clear, then consider it re-worded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is applies to your personal opinion, but that no one else can have a personal opinion. If you are defining rights as subjective here, there is no reason to believe that the state should forgo its subjective definition of rights for yours unless you are going to support that as a premise.
    But the point is I am forwarding what I think is morally correct. So of course I mean rights as I have defined them when I say "rights". And if you can't get past that, then I will just add "as I have defined rights" to P2 so it's a little longer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes, and you state that position subjectively, so it is within their subjective opinion to decide the question of "if it's a right."
    And the only relevant right to this discussion is the right to life and P1 states that it's a right.

  8. #228
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,711
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No. If I say "I like Ice Cream", Ice Cream objectively exists but it is a subjective statement regardless.
    So you agree with my point that "laws" is not a subjective here. Law is not a subjective idea by its very nature, it applies, by its nature across subjects, making it objective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Sorry. I don't understand.
    When you read premise 2 by itself, absent the other sentences, there is nothing in that premise that suggests the term "rights" is subjectively linked no to the subject of that sentence "Government," but to some other party.

    Likewise if I were to say "Steve should do well on his test" nothing about that sentence says that the definition of "well" is determined by Mike, or Rob or anyone else. It requires a modifier if you wish to make that presumption. "Steve should do what I consider as well on his test." That modifier is lacking in your structure, and is not automatic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    How can the government protect what I consider to be rights without agreeing with me on what rights are?
    By using its own judgement, just as when I say Steve should do well on his test. The problem with the quote I'm responding to here is that there is nothing in the argument itself that supports that the government should "protect what I consider to be rights." That is solely an assumption on your part, an inferred meaning not in the actual text.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    It may. But I'm saying that I want it to protect what I consider to be rights. If I have to re-word the premise so that is clear, then consider it re-worded.
    That would then necessitate two separate premises.

    P2: The Government should protect rights.
    P2.5: The government should accept my definition of rights.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #229
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    How to solve the controversy? How about people mind their own business. For those against a woman choosing to abort a fetus, which has NO EMOTIONS AND CANNOT YET FEEL PAIN, no one is forcing you to abort. Let people choose for themselves what to do with their own lives, including those not even living yet.

  10. #230
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by METALHUMAN
    How to solve the controversy? How about people mind their own business. For those against a woman choosing to abort a fetus, which has NO EMOTIONS AND CANNOT YET FEEL PAIN, no one is forcing you to abort. Let people choose for themselves what to do with their own lives, including those not even living yet.
    Response fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Abortion is difficult and painful for the unborn child. Surgeon Robert P. N. Shearin states that: [1]

    As early as eight to ten weeks after conception, and definitely by thirteen-and-a-half weeks, the unborn experiences organic pain…. First, the unborn child's mouth, at eight weeks, then her hands at ten weeks, then her face, arms, and legs at eleven weeks become sensitive to touch. By thirteen-and-a-half weeks, she responds to pain at all levels of her nervous system in an integrated response which cannot be termed a mere reflex. She can now experience pain.
    http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/13


    So will you join me in making abortions after 8 weeks illegal, because by your own standard they qualify for consideration?
    To serve man.

  11. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  12. #231
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    614
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by metalhuman67 View Post
    Let people choose for themselves what to do with their own lives, including those not even living yet.
    I agree with you 100%. We must outlaw abortion so those who are now in their mother's wombs will have the chance to choose how they will live their lives.
    The brutal, soul-shaking truth is that we are so earthly minded we are of no heavenly use.
    Leonard Ravenhill

    Blog

  13. #232
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by metalhuman67 View Post
    How to solve the controversy? How about people mind their own business. For those against a woman choosing to abort a fetus, which has NO EMOTIONS AND CANNOT YET FEEL PAIN, no one is forcing you to abort. Let people choose for themselves what to do with their own lives, including those not even living yet.
    So... you are saying it is ok to rape a mentally retarded, autistic girl provided you do not physically harm her???

    As we transition from sperm to zygote to embryo to fetus to infant there must be some point where abortion is no longer acceptable, right? Is a embryo a non-living thing? How about a fetus? Is a fetus at 8 weeks the same as a fetus at 12 weeks? How about at 36 weeks?

    What I am pointing out here is that your argument is simplistic at best and a lie if we are being cynical. I believe both sides of this debate tends towards extremism and this is one of the few times where I am in the middle and sympathize with both. There is no definitive, objective truth where we can say where life starts. For some it is at conception. For some it is not until birth. Then there are all sorts of places in between. So, if we recognize that for those who view abortion as murder, that there is no valid argument to compel them to let people choose for themselves and if we recognize that women who are the carriers will often believe they are justified in choosing, then we must find a middle ground which satisfies most people. Not all people. But most. And I think most people would be satisfied if abortion had a cut-off date. Some number of weeks after gestation. I think most people would be satisfied if the federal government offered no subsidies going towards this practice. So, abortion would be a protected right up until some cut-off point unless there was a medically urgent reason (i.e. mother's life at risk) to extend the cut-off. I think doctors should be absolutely protected in providing abortions prior to the cut-off date.

    Now.... will we ever get to this pragmatic type of policy? Hell no. Democrats and Republicans need this third rail to galvanize the troops and the crazies on both sides will never accept compromise from their own party. The whores will be whores and they'll quickly shame any would-be whore who refuses to open his/her legs. So, I am going to prognosticate that we will be fighting over abortions for the next 100 years... until some smart guy develops a home abortion kit using a non-surgical procedure involving nano-technology and Martian space eggs.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  14. #233
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    So, abortion would be a protected right up until some cut-off point unless there was a medically urgent reason (i.e. mother's life at risk)
    Just as a note, i think 30 years ago this may have been a relevant caviot (IE "mothers life at risk") However, I think that today there simply is no need to actually kill the unborn to save the mothers life.
    Sure, terminate the pregnancy by C section, or by induced birth.. but all of the abortion procedures add risk to those two options.. at least as far as I can tell.

    What I am saying is, that Mothers life at risk =/= need to kill the unborn. Medicine has advanced to the point that those who forward that it does need to explian the conditions they are speaking of.
    For example, what situation in the mothers life could cause a doctor to pause the birth of the child while the head is still inside the birth canal and insert medical device to suck the brains out.
    ... or pick your abortion procedure, and explain.

    Another angle, if the mother simply had induced labor and the child was born naturally.. we all recognize (I think) that the newborn would have the right to certain medical care.
    So, what situation could threaten the mothers life so as to deny the unborn that opportunity when equally safe, or MORE safe process could be used?


    lastly, I am very much on board with your middle ground approach. I would rather see the consensus of "life begins at X weeks gestation, based on ABC criteria" be used. Like the pain approach.. you(not you specifically) want to use that, great.. I can agree lets outlaw abortions after 8 weeks gestation when the unborn child can feel pain. Yea, I'm for a conception approach, but no reason for our laws not to protect them in areas we agree so that I can hold out for conception protection laws.
    To serve man.

  15. Thanks theophilus thanked for this post
  16. #234
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Just as a note, i think 30 years ago this may have been a relevant caviot (IE "mothers life at risk") However, I think that today there simply is no need to actually kill the unborn to save the mothers life.
    Sure, terminate the pregnancy by C section, or by induced birth.. but all of the abortion procedures add risk to those two options.. at least as far as I can tell.

    What I am saying is, that Mothers life at risk =/= need to kill the unborn. Medicine has advanced to the point that those who forward that it does need to explian the conditions they are speaking of.
    For example, what situation in the mothers life could cause a doctor to pause the birth of the child while the head is still inside the birth canal and insert medical device to suck the brains out.
    ... or pick your abortion procedure, and explain.

    Another angle, if the mother simply had induced labor and the child was born naturally.. we all recognize (I think) that the newborn would have the right to certain medical care.
    So, what situation could threaten the mothers life so as to deny the unborn that opportunity when equally safe, or MORE safe process could be used?


    lastly, I am very much on board with your middle ground approach. I would rather see the consensus of "life begins at X weeks gestation, based on ABC criteria" be used. Like the pain approach.. you(not you specifically) want to use that, great.. I can agree lets outlaw abortions after 8 weeks gestation when the unborn child can feel pain. Yea, I'm for a conception approach, but no reason for our laws not to protect them in areas we agree so that I can hold out for conception protection laws.
    Since I am not a doctor, even though I have stayed at a Holiday Inn, I cannot speak intelligently regarding life-threatening emergencies that may or may not occur during child birth. However, if such a situation occurs, then I cannot imagine denying a woman the right to live. I guess, if the doctor says the chances are 50/50 that the mother would live or 20/80 we could argue whether there must be a certain threshold of risk. Those are details well beyond anything I am trying to present here. So, I appreciate your willingness to compromise and I think that is the entire point of my post. I am generally pro-choice, however, I respect the anti-abortion position. Furthermore, I believe most Americans, like yourself, generally support some sort of compromise in this area. So, for politicians, this problem should be relatively simple to solve. The fact that there has been no solution leads me to conclude that politicians have no desire for one. As such, we are stuck with hack politicians, like Huckabee, who use the abortion issue for their own ends. We have to listen on and on about stupid topics like Planned Parenthood during presidential debates. How many times did Hillary remind us she's a woman during the DNC debate? Just another identity political issue created by politicians for politicians.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  17. #235
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    Since I am not a doctor, even though I have stayed at a Holiday Inn, I cannot speak intelligently regarding life-threatening emergencies that may or may not occur during child birth. However, if such a situation occurs, then I cannot imagine denying a woman the right to live.
    Well, my point is really limited to the fact that the plausibility of it actually occurring as a real situation has drastically changed. Much like lobotomies for the insane.
    Sure it may occur and have a place in medicine, and I don't intend to deny doctors it's proper use but we should no longer debate it as though it is a common concern or bears major weight in the debate on this topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    So, I appreciate your willingness to compromise and I think that is the entire point of my post. I am generally pro-choice, however, I respect the anti-abortion position. Furthermore, I believe most Americans, like yourself, generally support some sort of compromise in this area. So, for politicians, this problem should be relatively simple to solve. The fact that there has been no solution leads me to conclude that politicians have no desire for one. As such, we are stuck with hack politicians, like Huckabee, who use the abortion issue for their own ends. We have to listen on and on about stupid topics like Planned Parenthood during presidential debates. How many times did Hillary remind us she's a woman during the DNC debate? Just another identity political issue created by politicians for politicians.
    Yea, your right. I don't think politicians on either side want to solve this issue.. or even reasonably address it. It's like the national debt, or the tax code. The issue is too beneficial to the party in power to demonize opponents.

    Anyway, we don't disagree.
    To serve man.

  18. #236
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Just as a note, i think 30 years ago this may have been a relevant caviot (IE "mothers life at risk") However, I think that today there simply is no need to actually kill the unborn to save the mothers life.
    if the fetus is not viable, then it is necessary to kill it if it must be removed from the womb. Even if it is removed unharmed, removing it will kill it.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yea, your right. I don't think politicians on either side want to solve this issue.. or even reasonably address it. It's like the national debt, or the tax code. The issue is too beneficial to the party in power to demonize opponents.
    I don't see how the issue can be solved, as in I don't think it's possible to enact a set of laws that will generally please everyone.

    If you were King (as in you got to set the laws with no interference from anyone else) how would you solve this?

  19. #237
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't see how the issue can be solved, as in I don't think it's possible to enact a set of laws that will generally please everyone.

    If you were King (as in you got to set the laws with no interference from anyone else) how would you solve this?
    If by solved you mean there is no solution that will please everyone, then you are correct. Name any major issue where there is a solution which does please everyone. However, there are reasonable solutions which would satisfy most people. For a democracy, satisfying most of the people is usually a pretty good benchmark for a solution. So, any solution which placed some reasonable limits on abortion based on trimester, limited or removed federal funding, and also protected its legality within those constraints, would probably please most people. Not to say all of those people would 100% happy, but it would be a solution all but the most fervent radicals from the left and right would get behind.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  20. #238
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    if the fetus is not viable, then it is necessary to kill it if it must be removed from the womb. Even if it is removed unharmed, removing it will kill it.
    That is not what abortions are, so it is not a relevant point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I don't see how the issue can be solved, as in I don't think it's possible to enact a set of laws that will generally please everyone.
    I have to echo IBELSD, that is simply too high and unrealistic a goal for any law or solution to any issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you were King (as in you got to set the laws with no interference from anyone else) how would you solve this?
    Put all abortion doctors to death for murder of the most gruesome sort, and sterilize women who seek abortions for clearly failing at a fundamental and inherent obligation between parent and child.

    Yea, I'm a cruel dictator, we probably shouldn't make anyone a king.

    But seriously, anyone who is king would "solve" the problem, as everyone would have to fall in line.
    ---
    O.k O.k. I get your real meaning of the question.. i was just having a bit of fun.
    So, I think the most reasonable standard would be to say Lets apply the same rule of thumb that we would to any other human that we happen upon.
    If you are in a car accident, i would check for your breathing.. barring that I would check for a heart beat. If I find it, then I act as though you are a person.

    So, make abortions after 21 days illegal.
    As for a woman's right to choose, for the most part, the woman did choose already when they choose sex. The idea that having a baby is separate from sex is asinine IMO. Having sex is called "trying to have a child". It's what sex is for.
    To serve man.

  21. #239
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is not what abortions are, so it is not a relevant point.
    So removing a fetus from the womb and it dying as a result of the removal would not qualify as an abortion?



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have to echo IBELSD, that is simply too high and unrealistic a goal for any law or solution to any issue.
    Right. It's IMPOSSIBLE to solve. So the issue is not that the politicians are too lazy to solve the issue. It's that it cannot be solved so they don't bother trying.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, I think the most reasonable standard would be to say Lets apply the same rule of thumb that we would to any other human that we happen upon.
    And that's apparently because you think that the unborn and the born should be treated more or less as legal equals.

    If one rejects that premise (and I do reject it) then your standard does not sound reasonable.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As for a woman's right to choose, for the most part, the woman did choose already when they choose sex. The idea that having a baby is separate from sex is asinine IMO. Having sex is called "trying to have a child".
    But that's just your opinion. Most people, I'm sure, hold a different opinion as evidenced by the fact that most sexual encounters are not for the purpose of procreation. Even couples who intentionally have children will often have sex even when they aren't trying to conceive so even they recognize that sex is not just for making babies.

    But either way, we are just stating opposing OPINIONS and merely stating one's opinion does inform others about they think but it doesn't really provide support for any position.


    So my succinct answer to the issue is "How to solve the Controversy" is that "You can't solve it". To cut to the chase of any debate between us, we will almost certainly have to agree to disagree and therefore we will not "solve" our disagreement.

    But feel free to try. I'm game.
    Last edited by mican333; October 28th, 2015 at 11:41 AM.

  22. #240
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Right. It's IMPOSSIBLE to solve. So the issue is not that the politicians are too lazy to solve the issue. It's that it cannot be solved so they don't bother trying.
    Did anyone suggest inaction was due to being lazy? If this was MT's claim and I missed it, then I'll apologize in advance. However, he said he was echoing my claim and I do not believe my claim indicated politicians are being lazy. Rather, they are being whores. They are keeping this issue alive in order to use it as bait for prospective donors.

    The issue is not an impossible political problem. The solution involves a degree of compromise which could easily occur if the parties were willing. Most Americans agree that some limits to abortion should exist. Most Americans agree that some form of abortion should be legal. Sounds like the foundation for an easy compromise to me. So, if the solution is tenable and it has not occurred, then something must be preventing it. I suggest that the thing preventing it is politicians looking to get reach-arounds from wealthy donors. Of course, it is easier to squeeze money out of a client if you can attach some amount of crisis. So..... ooooohhhh, Republicans are waging a war on women and Democrats are baby-killers. It is just so absurd that we allow these clowns to continue to earn their money on the streets like this.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

 

 
Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: May 13th, 2009, 05:11 AM
  2. Righteous Controversy
    By minorwork in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 19th, 2008, 09:55 AM
  3. Please solve this mystery
    By Snoop in forum Community Advice Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 15th, 2007, 06:35 AM
  4. Solve this mystery
    By Snoop in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 19th, 2006, 08:20 AM
  5. Which Branch Should Step In And Solve This Problem?
    By ophelia in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: April 8th, 2005, 05:01 PM

Members who have read this thread in the last 45 days : 1

You do not have permission to view the list of names.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •