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 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 268
  1. #241
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So removing a fetus from the womb and it dying as a result of the removal would not qualify as an abortion?
    Removing it for the purpose of killing it ,would I think, especially in cases where no action to preserve it's life once it is born alive is taken.

    A possible solution I would not be against is technology increases so that we can care for the early gestation child. So.. say someone wants to not be pregnant at 3 weeks, you go the local hospital and have the baby put in intensive care to grow to proper weight. That wouldn't be that much different than the baby abandonment drop offs that we have.. though it would cost more. Probably look Matrix-y, or Borg-ish as a process.

    Who knows we could just advance our way to a solution. Yes?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    Of course it is not impossible to solve.. we could have another civil war over it.
    Lets measure dedication real quick.. I'm willing to die to make all abortions illegal.
    ... Your turn. How dedicated are you? Are you willing to die in order to maintain your position?
    Now which side do you think has more?

    At worst this issue is like the Holocaust, and war was able to fix that disagreement.
    So there is a solution. Personally I think 10million armed citizens at the capital would get er done without need for bloodshed.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    I'm not really interested in pleasing everyone, that is just about the only thing that is not possible.
    I mean, take my example of tec advancement.. there will be some who demand to have their childs brains sucked out of it's head before it leaves her body.
    Some people are sick that way.. don't need to even try to please them.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    O there are other reasons to have sex, but there is one thing that can not be divorced from sex, and that is that its purpose and function is to have children and pro create.

    I may not eat a whole cake everyday with the goal of getting fat, but it is kind of a side effect that to ignore would be an act of foolishness. Doing otherwise is simply irresponsible.

    That is what your advocating, irresponsible sex. People engaging in an action and ignoring or pretending that a side effect doesn't exist simply because they choose to "not agree" with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    I'm not stating an opinion, I'm stating an observable fact. Sex = Making babies.
    Does anyone tell their kids that if they have sex they are not engaging in an act that creates babies? Or do you think that because it can be fun, then if you are just doing it for fun then it's not for making babies?
    That even trying to not have a baby, if you become pregnant.. your responsible for that pregnancy?

    I'm seriously confused by this cherry picking realities you seem to advocate.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    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.
    cool beans.
    Summary, there are several absolutely viable possible options that would "solve" the problem
    1) go to war over it. Sure it's bad, but it has happened for other issues and is possible (not probable) but it alone makes your statement false.
    2) Pendulum swing/ revival/heart change of the nation. People change their minds all the time. Link the rate of abortions is going down and the legality of it hasn't changed. There could be many factors, but some could argue that it is because many who were pro abortion, don't recommend it to others because of it's negative effects (IE regret). Point being.. not that it is actually occurring, but heart change can occur for the nation.
    3) Dictatorship... one day we vote in a guy to "take care of everything" and he solves the issue in the same manner he solves all others.
    4) Re-Tech solution
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  2. #242
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    A possible solution I would not be against is technology increases so that we can care for the early gestation child. So.. say someone wants to not be pregnant at 3 weeks, you go the local hospital and have the baby put in intensive care to grow to proper weight. That wouldn't be that much different than the baby abandonment drop offs that we have.. though it would cost more. Probably look Matrix-y, or Borg-ish as a process.

    Who knows we could just advance our way to a solution. Yes?
    As I've argued in the past, a very rationale line is when the fetus is viable. If we create technology that makes the fetus viable at any stage of development, then of course it can be reasonably posited that there is never a need for abortion as the fetus is always viable.

    But this is "what if" territory and doesn't really have any relevance to the current situation.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Of course it is not impossible to solve.. we could have another civil war over it.
    Lets measure dedication real quick.. I'm willing to die to make all abortions illegal.
    ... Your turn. How dedicated are you? Are you willing to die in order to maintain your position?
    Now which side do you think has more?

    At worst this issue is like the Holocaust, and war was able to fix that disagreement.
    So there is a solution. Personally I think 10million armed citizens at the capital would get er done without need for bloodshed.
    I think just like the advanced technology argument, you are likewise relying on "what if" fiction for this argument.

    I see no indication that ten million citizens are willing to take up arms to forcefully overturn the law of the land. The acts of violence and lawlessness from pro-lifers is few and far between. That's a good thing, IMO.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm not really interested in pleasing everyone, that is just about the only thing that is not possible.
    I mean, take my example of tec advancement.. there will be some who demand to have their childs brains sucked out of it's head before it leaves her body.
    Some people are sick that way.. don't need to even try to please them.
    Really? IF advanced tech is developed so that every fetus can be removed safely and brought to term, there will still be people arguing that the fetus should die anyway?

    With a large enough sample population, I guess you can always find someone who will advocate something ridiculous but the notion that this would be at all typical amongst pro-choicers is ridiculous.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    O there are other reasons to have sex, but there is one thing that can not be divorced from sex, and that is that its purpose and function is to have children and pro create.

    I may not eat a whole cake everyday with the goal of getting fat, but it is kind of a side effect that to ignore would be an act of foolishness. Doing otherwise is simply irresponsible.

    That is what your advocating, irresponsible sex. People engaging in an action and ignoring or pretending that a side effect doesn't exist simply because they choose to "not agree" with it.
    I was just challenging your statement that "Having sex is called 'trying to have a child'"

    And nowhere in my argument did I advocate irresponsible sex or excuse people for not taking responsibility for the results of their sexual activity. Don't go attributing straw men arguments to me, please.


    Please don't twist my arguments into something that they are not. Nowhere in my argument did I actually advocate that people have irresponsible sex.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm not stating an opinion, I'm stating an observable fact. Sex = Making babies. Does anyone tell their kids that if they have sex they are not engaging in an act that creates babies? Or do you think that because it can be fun, then if you are just doing it for fun then it's not for making babies?
    Your argument seems to ignore the fact that USUALLY sex does not result in pregnancy. A responsible parent does not tell his child that sex WILL result in pregnancy but that sex CAN result in pregnancy.

    And yes, if you are doing it for fun and no pregnancy results, it can be safely be said that in that particular instance, the sex was not for making babies.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That even trying to not have a baby, if you become pregnant.. your responsible for that pregnancy?
    I certainly don't argue that if a pregnancy happens, no one has any responsibility for it.

    And btw, in this debate I'm not advocating the parents give any particular sex advice to their child beyond stating what is true. So again, don't go charging me with advocating irresponsible sex. I forward NOTHING in regards to what to tell a child (beyond certain facts). That's ju


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm seriously confused by this cherry picking realities you seem to advocate.
    If you think I'm cherry picking realities, then you are confused. Perhaps reading my responses more carefully will help clear up your confusion.






    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    cool beans.
    Summary, there are several absolutely viable possible options that would "solve" the problem
    1) go to war over it. Sure it's bad, but it has happened for other issues and is possible (not probable) but it alone makes your statement false.
    2) Pendulum swing/ revival/heart change of the nation. People change their minds all the time. Link the rate of abortions is going down and the legality of it hasn't changed. There could be many factors, but some could argue that it is because many who were pro abortion, don't recommend it to others because of it's negative effects (IE regret). Point being.. not that it is actually occurring, but heart change can occur for the nation.
    3) Dictatorship... one day we vote in a guy to "take care of everything" and he solves the issue in the same manner he solves all others.
    4) Re-Tech solution
    Well, the OP seems to indicate the "problem" is that people disagree on whether abortion should be legal. I don't see any real solutions to that particular problem listed.

    1. Even after a war, people will still disagree on abortion regardless of who wins.
    2. "What if" fiction
    3. Same as 1. People will still disagree with the dictator
    4. "What if" fiction.

    Now, I get the impression that you are not seeking to find a solution to the "problem" of controversy over abortion but the "problem" of abortion being legal. In that situation, then I suppose 3 would work. A dictator could solve the "problem" of legal abortions by outlawing them all. But then I don't agree that there's a problem in the first place so I likewise hold that there's no need for a solution.

    ---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    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.
    But then there are some limits to abortion. Late-term abortions are restricted. Personally, I feel that that is where the grey area is and it's likewise the appropriate place for the political/legal jockeying to take place.

    And to some extent, there can be no compromise. Abortion was made uniformly legal by a SCOTUS decision so any compromise that would violate Roe v. Wade is legally invalid. We can't violate constitutional rights just to make some feel better via a compromise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    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.
    I don't view abortion as the money issue. It's usually the issue of business regulations (or more to the point lack of business regulations) that draw big money from wealthy donors.

    Abortion is more about playing to the masses.
    Last edited by mican333; October 29th, 2015 at 08:41 AM.

  3. #243
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Read to the end first. A few things I want from you before we continue.

    Mican, I understand your point about "if" statements.
    But your rejection of them as not relevant to the current situation is simply far too narrow.

    By rejecting if situations, you limit the discussion to what is, and what is, is that the situation is not currently "solved".

    Now, my response was directed at your claim that it wasn't solvable, or that a solution is IMPOSSIBLE. I gave a few totally possible solutions.

    .... so, that is that portion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I was just challenging your statement that "Having sex is called 'trying to have a child'"

    And nowhere in my argument did I advocate irresponsible sex or excuse people for not taking responsibility for the results of their sexual activity. Don't go attributing straw men arguments to me, please.


    Please don't twist my arguments into something that they are not. Nowhere in my argument did I actually advocate that people have irresponsible sex.
    No you did not come out and say "people should have irresponsible sex", but that is not what I said.
    I said that by advocating the position you have, you are infact and in effect advocating irresponsible sex.
    I say it is a consiquence of your argument.

    But let me check and see, if your answer is no then I retract the charge.

    Do you advocate that people can have sex, and divorce that act from the consiquence of possibly producing a child?

    I'll assume you say no, and thus retract my charge (but if your answer is yes.. then by all means address the charge).

    If producing a child is not seperated, then in what way can you challenge my claim that having sex is the same thing as "trying" to some degree to have a child?
    Do you think that people who ignore blaitantly obvious and inherent side effects are being responsible?
    Do you think wishful thinking (IE thouse who wish their actions wouldn't result in a child) are acting responsibly?

    If not, then you have no grounds to reject my point.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Your argument seems to ignore the fact that USUALLY sex does not result in pregnancy. A responsible parent does not tell his child that sex WILL result in pregnancy but that sex CAN result in pregnancy.

    And yes, if you are doing it for fun and no pregnancy results, it can be safely be said that in that particular instance, the sex was not for making babies.
    O.k. just to be clear you have made my case. Because by your own reasoning, when sex does produce a pregnancy, then they were "trying" to get pregnant.

    Because you said if it doesn't result in a pregnancy and you only have fun.. then we can say it was just for fun.

    Lastly, No, it can't be said that the sex was not for making babies. It can only be said that a baby was not produced that time.
    Because the entire process, is part of the making baby process.. and it alwasy is.

    It's like you go to a canning factory, where all the matchinary does is make cans..
    You turn the matchine on, and a can doesn't come out that particular time. You may have just thought it was fun to run the matchine... but the purpose of the matchine is painfully obvious.

    That people enjoy it doesn't make the factory a "fun house"... it's a canning factory, where people have fun. Same with sex.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Now, I get the impression that you are not seeking to find a solution to the "problem" of controversy over abortion but the "problem" of abortion being legal. In that situation, then I suppose 3 would work. A dictator could solve the "problem" of legal abortions by outlawing them all. But then I don't agree that there's a problem in the first place so I likewise hold that there's no need for a solution.
    Well.. if there is no problem.. why would you say a solution is impossible?

    This is not a my reading comprehension problem, this is a "your position is contradictory and confusing" problem.
    Which.. I also advocate there is a solution too

    I categorically reject your "what if fiction" response as closed minded. If you don't want to discuss this issue, that is fine. If you don't think there is a problem to be solved, that is fine as well.
    If you choose to respond, and you would like a response from me, I want you to do a few things.

    1) State that you are willing to accept "if" hypothetical solutions, because.. that is all that is possible to give to address any POTENTIAL, POSSIBLE solution.
    2) Accept that there is a problem to be solved. (You can even define it).

    If you can't do those two things, then there simply is no room to discuss potential solutions to the controversy and problem of abortion, and frankly you have wasted peoples time.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  4. #244
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Read to the end first. A few things I want from you before we continue.

    Mican, I understand your point about "if" statements.
    But your rejection of them as not relevant to the current situation is simply far too narrow.

    By rejecting if situations, you limit the discussion to what is, and what is, is that the situation is not currently "solved".

    Now, my response was directed at your claim that it wasn't solvable, or that a solution is IMPOSSIBLE. I gave a few totally possible solutions.
    What I mean by impossible to solve is that we CURRENTLY do not have the means to solve the problem. That does not mean that in a hypothetical "what if" future, a solution may not present itself. But as far as seeking solutions for TODAY's situation, musing on "what if's" does not present an actionable solution.

    So maybe I should say that there CURRENTLY there is no actionable solution. If you think there is an action that one can realistically take today that would have a reasonable chance of providing a solution, please present it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do you advocate that people can have sex, and divorce that act from the consiquence of possibly producing a child?

    I'll assume you say no, and thus retract my charge (but if your answer is yes.. then by all means address the charge).

    If producing a child is not seperated, then in what way can you challenge my claim that having sex is the same thing as "trying" to some degree to have a child?
    Because it is a clearly incorrect statement.

    Your statement is akin to saying that driving a car is the same thing as trying to have a car accident.

    Just because something might result from a certain activity does not mean that one is trying to achieve that result when engaging in that activity.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do you think that people who ignore blaitantly obvious and inherent side effects are being responsible?
    Do you think wishful thinking (IE thouse who wish their actions wouldn't result in a child) are acting responsibly?

    If not, then you have no grounds to reject my point.
    I don't about your overall point (since I'm not sure what it is) but I certainly reject your clearly incorrect assertion that having sex and trying to have a child are the same thing.

    But if it will help clear things up, I hold that if a couple have sex and a pregnancy results (intentional or not) then whatever responsibilities that may result from the pregnancy are theirs. That does not mean that I agree that any particular responsibly you may choose to claim is indeed a responsibility that one or both of them should adopt. Any proposed responsibility will be judged on a case by case basis.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    O.k. just to be clear you have made my case. Because by your own reasoning, when sex does produce a pregnancy, then they were "trying" to get pregnant.
    Uh, no. If they weren't trying to have a baby but a pregnancy happens anyway, then they weren't trying to get pregnant. Just like if one tries to drive safely but has an accident anyway, he wasn't trying to have an accident.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because you said if it doesn't result in a pregnancy and you only have fun.. then we can say it was just for fun.
    If the intention is just to have fun then they were doing it for fun, even if an accidental pregnancy occurs.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Lastly, No, it can't be said that the sex was not for making babies. It can only be said that a baby was not produced that time.
    Because the entire process, is part of the making baby process.. and it alwasy is.
    And driving a car is part of the process of having a car accident and it always will be.

    But that does not mean that the purpose of driving a car is for having car accidents.

    Now, I admit that I am limiting "try" and "purpose" to the motivation of the person who takes the action as opposed to factoring in the "purpose" of God and/or Nature. One can certainly argue that the reason God/Nature made sex is for procreation. But if you are going to get metaphysical, then please make it clear that you are doing so. Otherwise I will limit "try" to the motivations of the participants in the sexual encounter.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It's like you go to a canning factory, where all the matchinary does is make cans..
    You turn the matchine on, and a can doesn't come out that particular time. You may have just thought it was fun to run the matchine... but the purpose of the matchine is painfully obvious.
    Bad analogy. A canning machine has only one purpose. A better analogy is that the machine has six functions but there's no guarantee that operating the machine for reasons other than making a can will not produce a can anyway and while one can take precautions to operate the machine's other functions and not produce a can, it's not fool-proof and therefore one must realize that they might make a can if they operate the machine at all.

    In that situation, if one operates the machine to play a game of pinball, the PURPOSE of that person operating the machine is to play pinball regardless of whether a can is made as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well.. if there is no problem.. why would you say a solution is impossible?

    This is not a my reading comprehension problem, this is a "your position is contradictory and confusing" problem.
    Which.. I also advocate there is a solution too
    The apparent contradiction is that you have not clearly identified the "problem" that we need a solution to so I offered two potential "problems" and addressed the issue of their solutions.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I categorically reject your "what if fiction" response as closed minded. If you don't want to discuss this issue, that is fine. If you don't think there is a problem to be solved, that is fine as well.
    If you choose to respond, and you would like a response from me, I want you to do a few things.

    1) State that you are willing to accept "if" hypothetical solutions, because.. that is all that is possible to give to address any POTENTIAL, POSSIBLE solution.
    2) Accept that there is a problem to be solved. (You can even define it).

    If you can't do those two things, then there simply is no room to discuss potential solutions to the controversy and problem of abortion, and frankly you have wasted peoples time.
    Actually, I ask that YOU define the problem. The OP suggests the problem is the continuing controversy over abortion. From your answers, it looks like the problem is that abortion is legal.

    And I'm not sure which it is. So clearly state the problem and then I will, with better focus, address your solutions.
    Last edited by mican333; October 29th, 2015 at 11:18 AM.

  5. #245
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    @ MICAN
    You declined to answer my direct questions. I will not be responding further.

    If I believed that you would accept the premise of a problem, then I may be inclined to provide one. You have stated that you reject that premise.. so there is no room to discuss anything, as I pointed out.
    If I believed that you would accept not currently realized solutions, I may be inclined to argue them further. You have rejected that, so there is no room to discuss further.. as I pointed out.

    Thanks.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  6. #246
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    If I believed that you would accept the premise of a problem, then I may be inclined to provide one. You have stated that you reject that premise.. so there is no room to discuss anything, as I pointed out.
    Of course there is room to discuss. You can challenge my rejection of your premise. If you can support your premise, then my rejection is invalid.

    And if you can't or won't support your premise, then your argument fails for being based on an unsupported premise.

    So it's up to you if your argument fails or not. If you don't challenge my rejection of your premise by either supporting your premise or pointing out that I'm not actually challenging a central premise of your argument (and I'll have to know what your argument is before I can say for sure if my objection is relevant or not), then your argument fails for being based on an unsupported premise.

    Which is how things stand now.
    Last edited by mican333; October 30th, 2015 at 07:04 AM.

  7. #247
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Of course there is room to discuss. You can challenge my rejection of your premise. If you can support your premise, then my rejection is invalid.
    Well, lets not mistake a rejection on your part as an argument against. It's not as though you have given a reason for your rejection.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And if you can't or won't support your premise, then your argument fails for being based on an unsupported premise.
    Well, in this case it is simply the case that we are not having a discussion. There is no argument to fail or succeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Which is how things stand now.
    It is interesting that you see a non-discussion in those terms.
    Do you really think that because you refuse to accept something, that an argument has thus failed?
    Regardless, I asked you two very simple questions which you have refused to answer.. so there is no discussion. Unless of course you really want to pursue a debate about if a debate is occurring.. which would be a great waste of time.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  8. #248
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, lets not mistake a rejection on your part as an argument against. It's not as though you have given a reason for your rejection.
    I don't need to provide a reason in order to reject a premise. This is really a matter of SUPPORT OR RETRACT (even if I haven't specifically provided that challenge).

    I'm asking you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT your premise and I don't need to give a reason to do this.

    If you won't support your premise then it must be retracted and therefore any argument based on it fails for lack of support.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, in this case it is simply the case that we are not having a discussion. There is no argument to fail or succeed.
    Well, you were certainly arguing various things in earlier posts. Shall I consider every argument made previously withdrawn and therefore no longer a valid topic of discussion?

    If not, then these issue are certainly still up for discussion and my challenges of certain premises are up for discussion assuming you want to defend them. If not, then I will consider your earlier arguments to be retracted and therefore they are no longer arguments you are forwarding for discussion.

    But I think you aren't actually looking to withdraw them. Am I right? Or are you withdrawing them?



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is interesting that you see a non-discussion in those terms.
    Do you really think that because you refuse to accept something, that an argument has thus failed?
    No I think because you refuse to support your premises when challenged, your argument has failed.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Regardless, I asked you two very simple questions which you have refused to answer.. so there is no discussion.
    Why is that? It's certainly not because the issue of the apparent irresponsibility cannot be debated until I answer the questions.

    You can VERY EASILY open up the topic for debate, and likewise learn what my position on the issue is, by just stating your position on the issue.

    I'll do it for you. By turning your questions into a statement, we get:

    MT: I hold that people who ignore blatantly obvious and inherent side effects and engage in wishful thinking (IE thouse who wish their actions wouldn't result in a child) are acting irresponsibly.

    And my response is that at this time I do not challenge that statement and therefore currently accept it as a premise (although I may choose to challenge it at a later time) and I believe my response basically gives you my answer to your questions.

    So there you go. The premise you sought to establish is established.

    But given that premise, I do not accept the position that all who have unwanted pregnancies fall under the category of "irresponsibility" established by that premise. The choice to use birth control shows that the couple are not ignoring the potential of pregnancy or just wishing that a pregnancy will not result, even if the birth control fails and a pregnancy occurs. That's not to say that one can't argue that these people are irresponsible by other criteria but they definitely do not qualify as people who are ignoring the unwanted consequences of sex.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Unless of course you really want to pursue a debate about if a debate is occurring.. which would be a great waste of time.
    It's up to you if a debate is occurring. You can continue to debate these issues or bow out.

    I'm just saying you can't have it both ways. You can't quit the debate and also have your arguments hold up when they've been adequately challenged. If you leave the debate without addressing my challenges to your arguments, then you leave with your arguments failing for lack of support.

    To use a tennis analogy, the ball is in your court. Are you going to knock it back into my court or let me have the point?
    Last edited by mican333; November 1st, 2015 at 11:30 AM.

  9. #249
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Well, you were certainly arguing various things in earlier posts. Shall I consider every argument made previously withdrawn and therefore no longer a valid topic of discussion?
    I have no idea why this is a challenging issue for you. I clearly said that if you did not wish to answer my simple strait forward questions, I would not be engaging any further.
    Instead you seem more interested in .. lord knows what. I guess I am still engaging you, because I thought it was a pretty strait forward request.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    To use a tennis analogy, the ball is in your court. Are you going to knock it back into my court or let me have the point?
    How about you answer my questions if you wish to continue. Your bloviating on the state of the debate is humorous and all, but if you really want to discus it with me further, you can always resort to actually responding to me.

    Or do you want to just add to the record that your word was the last one?
    Yay you. Have at it.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  10. #250
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    As in any question of matter you have to look on the circumstances. The underlying problem in this debate often has to do with people either suggest that abortion should be illegal no matter the circumstances or the other way around. One have to look at the situation of why somebody is considering making an abortion. A woman that has been raped should have the right to make an abortion if she want, a person on the other hand who wants to make abortion based on unprotected sex should not be aloud to do it.

  11. #251
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have no idea why this is a challenging issue for you. I clearly said that if you did not wish to answer my simple strait forward questions, I would not be engaging any further.
    Instead you seem more interested in .. lord knows what.
    If you look at my last post, it is clear what I'm doing. I'm debating. Every point is a counter to your position.

    You are the one doing lord know what. I don't even know the purpose of holding up the debate over me not answering the questions. You clearly can make your point and even learn if I agree with your point or not without asking me any questions so it's completely unnecessary for me to answer your questions in order for the debate to continue. So I honestly don't know why you feel it's so important for me to answer your questions that you are refusing to continue until I answer. Are you trying to see if you can make me do what you want by holding the debate hostage until I do as you say? It's about making me jump through a hoop for you?

    Well, you win. I'll "jump through the hoop" and answer your unnecessary questions for the sake of keeping the debate going.


    I assume the questions you want me to answer are:

    "Do you think that people who ignore blaitantly obvious and inherent side effects are being responsible?
    Do you think wishful thinking (IE thouse who wish their actions wouldn't result in a child) are acting responsibly?"


    The answer: I do not think that either act qualifies as a responsible act so the answer to both questions is "no" and as I said in my last post you could have easily learned whether I agreed that such people are being irresponsible by just stating that you hold that they are being irresponsible and then seeing if I challenged you on that. And as I agree, I wouldn't have challenged you so you could have gotten your answer without bogging down the debate by refusing to go forward until I jumped through your hoop. But moving on...

    I don't see how this really has much bearing on the issue of whether abortion should be legal or not. From the pro-choice perspective, it's a rights issue and even irresponsible people have rights so the fact that SOME unwanted pregnancies are the result of rampant irresponsibility (those who use birth control that fails cannot be said to have ignored the potential side-effects of sex since they took action to prevent an unwanted pregnancy) does not change the fact that people have the right to medical privacy.

    Or if you are pro-life and hold that the fetus has life, it doesn't matter how responsible or irresponsible people were when they had sex. Either way, the fetus has a right to life and therefore cannot be aborted even if the one of the parents was not being irresponsible (such as a rape victim).

    So yes, some pregnancies occur due to blatant irresponsibility but so what?

    And btw, I asked you for an answer earlier and you didn't give me one so I'll ask again that you clearly identify the "problem" that you are forwarding a solution to. Can I assume that are willing to do as you ask of me?



    ---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Articulate View Post
    As in any question of matter you have to look on the circumstances. The underlying problem in this debate often has to do with people either suggest that abortion should be illegal no matter the circumstances or the other way around. One have to look at the situation of why somebody is considering making an abortion. A woman that has been raped should have the right to make an abortion if she want, a person on the other hand who wants to make abortion based on unprotected sex should not be aloud to do it.
    Currently, there is a legal right to an abortion based primarily on the principle of medical privacy. In other words, the government has no right to even know about, much less interfere with, people's private medical decisions, including having an abortion.

    If one agrees with this legal reasoning, it doesn't matter WHY the woman wants an abortion. The government has no right to know that she's even having one much less why she's having one.

    So from that legal perspective it doesn't really matter if it's rape or irresponsibility.

    The primary conflicting legal reasoning to that position doesn't so much deny that there's a right to medical privacy but instead holds that there is an overriding principle, which is the right to life of the fetus. But likewise if one truly holds that the fetus has the same right to life as a born human, the reasoning for the abortion still doesn't matter. You could no more kill a fetus that was conceived by rape as you could murder a born person who was conceived by rape.

    Of course you can forward a completely different kind of legal reasoning to justify the different between irresponsibility and rape, but I think you need to make it clear what the reasoning is and why it should override both of the legal reasons forwarded above.
    Last edited by mican333; November 3rd, 2015 at 07:08 AM.

  12. #252
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Currently, there is a legal right to an abortion based primarily on the principle of medical privacy. In other words, the government has no right to even know about, much less interfere with, people's private medical decisions, including having an abortion.

    If one agrees with this legal reasoning, it doesn't matter WHY the woman wants an abortion. The government has no right to know that she's even having one much less why she's having one.

    So from that legal perspective it doesn't really matter if it's rape or irresponsibility.

    The primary conflicting legal reasoning to that position doesn't so much deny that there's a right to medical privacy but instead holds that there is an overriding principle, which is the right to life of the fetus. But likewise if one truly holds that the fetus has the same right to life as a born human, the reasoning for the abortion still doesn't matter. You could no more kill a fetus that was conceived by rape as you could murder a born person who was conceived by rape.

    Of course you can forward a completely different kind of legal reasoning to justify the different between irresponsibility and rape, but I think you need to make it clear what the reasoning is and why it should override both of the legal reasons forwarded above.
    Your premise is flawed. There is no such right as medical privacy. The courts, (i.e. Roe v Wade) upheld a woman's right to privacy based on their interpretation of the 14th amendment. However, the SCOTUS also recognized, in that same decision, that such privacy was not absolute. It should be expected that it is no more absolute than actual rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution, such as freedom of speech. So, there is no conflict or contradiction if we are to determine the state has a compelling interest in protecting potential human life, but that it is outweighed by the woman's health and that having a child born of a rape would have a severely negative impact to her mental and physical long-term health.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  13. #253
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Your premise is flawed. There is no such right as medical privacy.
    Maybe not as a legally-recognized term, but it certainly is included under the general right to privacy. Do you disagree that the right to privacy includes one's medical decisions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The courts, (i.e. Roe v Wade) upheld a woman's right to privacy based on their interpretation of the 14th amendment. However, the SCOTUS also recognized, in that same decision, that such privacy was not absolute. It should be expected that it is no more absolute than actual rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution, such as freedom of speech.
    I haven't argued otherwise. I didn't say that rights are absolute. I was just forwarding the general principle behind legalized abortion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, there is no conflict or contradiction if we are to determine the state has a compelling interest in protecting potential human life, but that it is outweighed by the woman's health and that having a child born of a rape would have a severely negative impact to her mental and physical long-term health.
    And generally speaking, it is also outweighed by the woman's right to privacy.
    Last edited by mican333; November 2nd, 2015 at 04:28 PM.

  14. #254
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Maybe not as a legally-recognized term, but it certainly is included under the general right to privacy. Do you disagree that the right to privacy includes one's medical decisions?
    It can fall under the general right to privacy, but they are not synonymous. When we are talking about medical decisions which impact others, such as the potential father and a fetus which some consider a living being, then the right to privacy may not cover it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I haven't argued otherwise. I didn't say that rights are absolute. I was just forwarding the general principle behind legalized abortion.
    I think it is an important distinction to make. We have a right to privacy from government, but our medical care is separate from our general right to privacy. If I am making a decision about treating my skin cancer, then I have a reasonable expectation that the conversation will be between my doctor and I. However, if my wife is planning an abortion, I am not so sure she should expect the same level of privacy since (presuming I am the father), then I have a general interest in her decisions. Her medical concerns and not entirely her own. Let's be clear here, this is not the same as saying I should be able to override whatever decision she makes. However, her case for privacy does not feel like something which should be guaranteed here.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And generally speaking, it is also outweighed by the woman's right to privacy.
    Whether it is outweighed by her general right to privacy is subjective. I don't necessarily oppose this view. However, I also do not find myself in opposition to the other side wherein the unborn child should have a general right to be protected as well. You and I may perfectly agree on all aspects of this. However, I am not arguing for my personal beliefs. I am accepting that rights are never absolute and where we draw the line on this right is based on where one believes human life begins. I am, personally, believe that a potential life is not at all equal to an actual person. I am entirely on-board with the notion that potential does not have actual rights. That is my philosophical view based on my belief system and while I believe I am right, I am also willing to accept compromise as the only practical way to allow two very polemic views to find some satisfaction in order that we can stop having this stupid national conversation every four years. If it keeps the Republicans/Conservatives from rolling out the Huckabees of the world every Presidential election, then it is good enough for me.

    As it stands right now, the abortion issue has simply given liberals the intellectual high ground as the conservative position is one which entirely panders to the believers of Christ and all the mythology that follows.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  15. #255
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It can fall under the general right to privacy, but they are not synonymous. When we are talking about medical decisions which impact others, such as the potential father and a fetus which some consider a living being, then the right to privacy may not cover it.
    Of course the right to privacy still covers it. It's just a legal fact that the right to privacy is the basis of the legal right to an abortion.

    As far as mitigating factors go, like the ones you mention, they currently have no legal bearing on the legality of abortion - at least in the first trimester.

    And if they do mount an effective challenge to the legality of abortion (and of course there are restrictions to abortion in the third trimester) it does not invalidate the principle of the right to privacy but just shows, as you said, the right is not absolute, similarly to how you have the right to free speech but yet can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

    So my original statement is correct. The right to an abortion is based on the right to privacy.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Whether it is outweighed by her general right to privacy is subjective.
    Legally, it's not subjective. Whether it SHOULD be is subjective, though.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    That is my philosophical view based on my belief system and while I believe I am right, I am also willing to accept compromise as the only practical way to allow two very polemic views to find some satisfaction in order that we can stop having this stupid national conversation every four years. If it keeps the Republicans/Conservatives from rolling out the Huckabees of the world every Presidential election, then it is good enough for me.

    As it stands right now, the abortion issue has simply given liberals the intellectual high ground as the conservative position is one which entirely panders to the believers of Christ and all the mythology that follows.
    As I firmly believe in the right to privacy I am not willing to compromise just for the sake of avoiding the societal debate. And frankly, I really doubt there can be the kind of compromise that will end the debate as a pull in either direction will decrease the satisfaction of those who are on the losing side. If you adjust things to satisfy the pro-life side more, you will anger the pro-choice side more and vice-versa.

    So let the rule of law decide the issue, not the whims of the people.

    And while I don't like political pandering, I mind it less when it comes to REAL issues, like abortion as opposed to faux controversies that are ginned up just to get people excited (like the "War on Christmas"). At least with abortion, it's an issue of people's sincere beliefs that are driving the controversy and not so much the pundits. Pro-lifers are going to be involved in this controversy regardless of what the pundits do.

  16. #256
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Of course the right to privacy still covers it. It's just a legal fact that the right to privacy is the basis of the legal right to an abortion.
    Let's be clear. Roe v. Wade indicated that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy when making medical decisions and that, under the equal protection clause (the 14th amendment), that women had equal expectations of privacy as men. As such, abortion, as a medical procedure, should be protected as a decision made between a woman and her doctor. The idea women have the "right" to abortion is a bit far-fetched. They have the right to discussion abortion privately with their doctor, and should the doctor be willing, to undergo an abortion procedure. However, as a society, we can place limits to this and there is no reason society cannot define when a fetus ceases to be a potential human life and begins to be an actual human life. This is the underlying premise in the whole abortion debate. If society decides that a fetus at 1 day is an actual human life, then the discussion is done. No abortion. Ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As far as mitigating factors go, like the ones you mention, they currently have no legal bearing on the legality of abortion - at least in the first trimester.
    This is all dependent upon how this society will define life. Potential v. actual. This is, by its very nature, a subjective call. There is no right or wrong answer here. It is under this premise where any and all abortion debates will be concluded.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And if they do mount an effective challenge to the legality of abortion (and of course there are restrictions to abortion in the third trimester) it does not invalidate the principle of the right to privacy but just shows, as you said, the right is not absolute, similarly to how you have the right to free speech but yet can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

    So my original statement is correct. The right to an abortion is based on the right to privacy.
    We never disagreed that abortion is based on the right to privacy. I was clarifying that it isn't synonymous. Abortion, itself, isn't a privacy issue. It is a privacy issue so long as it is considered a medical procedure which does not involve a third actual human life. If abortion, itself, were the protected act, then the debate between actual and potential life would be moot since the court's would have essentially made that decision for us. Since it is only protected under the auspices of general medical procedures, then the premises change as I just noted.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Legally, it's not subjective. Whether it SHOULD be is subjective, though.
    I don't think, legally, this issue has been decided. It is why state laws currently exist which limit some types of abortions and why the laws are not uniform. So, yes, the legality of it is subjective and laws do not make something less subjective. They just codify the subjective decisions we have made.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As I firmly believe in the right to privacy I am not willing to compromise just for the sake of avoiding the societal debate. And frankly, I really doubt there can be the kind of compromise that will end the debate as a pull in either direction will decrease the satisfaction of those who are on the losing side. If you adjust things to satisfy the pro-life side more, you will anger the pro-choice side more and vice-versa.
    There is a minority which will always refuse to compromise. However, I think on this issue, the minority is relatively small (despite the huge press they get) and 2/3 to 3/4 of the country would happily compromise on this issue. I think we just need to decide where the line between human potential and human actual lies. I do not mind this being decided on a state by state basis. However, such nonconformity to a single definition will probably result in this debate occurring for the next 1000 years. Personally, I'd support abortion for a woman until the head was literally poking out. In my mind, actual person does not start until the fetus has left the womb. I understand that my view is subjective and I don't demand that everyone adheres to my own views.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So let the rule of law decide the issue, not the whims of the people.
    Is there a difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And while I don't like political pandering, I mind it less when it comes to REAL issues, like abortion as opposed to faux controversies that are ginned up just to get people excited (like the "War on Christmas"). At least with abortion, it's an issue of people's sincere beliefs that are driving the controversy and not so much the pundits. Pro-lifers are going to be involved in this controversy regardless of what the pundits do.
    Abortion is a real issue? I find it as much a faux controversy as the war on xmas. It is all about playing identity politics and pitting one group v. another for no rational reason. It isn't like Republicans oppose privacy rights. That is just how Democrats try to frame it for political purposes. Again, the compromise is to find where the American people define actual v. potential human and then draw the line there. What I believe is that neither Republicans nor Democrats are interested in clarifying this line as they both love to use this issue to beat over the heads of their opponents. This is why it isn't a real issue.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  17. #257
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Let's be clear. Roe v. Wade indicated that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy when making medical decisions and that, under the equal protection clause (the 14th amendment), that women had equal expectations of privacy as men. As such, abortion, as a medical procedure, should be protected as a decision made between a woman and her doctor. The idea women have the "right" to abortion is a bit far-fetched.
    I see no basis for calling it far-fetched. You just explained why a woman does have that right.

    If one has a right to privacy then they have a right to an abortion.

    Saying a right is not absolute does not mean that the right does not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    They have the right to discussion abortion privately with their doctor, and should the doctor be willing, to undergo an abortion procedure. However, as a society, we can place limits to this and there is no reason society cannot define when a fetus ceases to be a potential human life and begins to be an actual human life. This is the underlying premise in the whole abortion debate. If society decides that a fetus at 1 day is an actual human life, then the discussion is done. No abortion. Ever.
    But that's just a hypothetical and is one that is almost certainly not going to happen in our lifetime.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This is all dependent upon how this society will define life. Potential v. actual. This is, by its very nature, a subjective call. There is no right or wrong answer here. It is under this premise where any and all abortion debates will be concluded.
    Sure. But we can objectively observe the current state of the law. And the current state of the law is that there is no legal restriction to a woman's legal ability to have an abortion during the first trimester and that is based on the legal recognition of her right to privacy.

    What the laws SHOULD BE is subjective. What the law ARE is objective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    We never disagreed that abortion is based on the right to privacy. I was clarifying that it isn't synonymous. Abortion, itself, isn't a privacy issue. It is a privacy issue so long as it is considered a medical procedure which does not involve a third actual human life.
    Which is the current state of the law. So it currently IS, legally, a privacy issue.

    And even if the fetus were granted the legal right to life, abortion would STILL be a privacy issue. It would just be an issue that is overridden by a greater concern. As an example, people have the right to privacy in their own homes and a policeman cannot typically enter one's home without a warrant. But if a policeman sees that a murder is about to take place in a house, then he can enter without a warrant due to a greater consideration. But this factor does not mean that people do not have a right to privacy in their houses, just that sometimes there's a concern that's considered more important. So likewise women would still have a right to privacy when it comes to their medical decisions but there would be a concern that overrides it when it comes to abortion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I don't think, legally, this issue has been decided. It is why state laws currently exist which limit some types of abortions and why the laws are not uniform. So, yes, the legality of it is subjective and laws do not make something less subjective. They just codify the subjective decisions we have made.
    When it comes to first trimester abortions, the law in uniform.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    There is a minority which will always refuse to compromise. However, I think on this issue, the minority is relatively small (despite the huge press they get) and 2/3 to 3/4 of the country would happily compromise on this issue. I think we just need to decide where the line between human potential and human actual lies. I do not mind this being decided on a state by state basis. However, such nonconformity to a single definition will probably result in this debate occurring for the next 1000 years. Personally, I'd support abortion for a woman until the head was literally poking out. In my mind, actual person does not start until the fetus has left the womb. I understand that my view is subjective and I don't demand that everyone adheres to my own views.
    I think the dividing line is already apparent. There are legal restrictions on third trimester abortions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Is there a difference?
    Of course there is.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Abortion is a real issue? I find it as much a faux controversy as the war on xmas. It is all about playing identity politics and pitting one group v. another for no rational reason.
    So that's why pro-lifers are against abortion? They don't, in fact, have a sincere concern for the unborn but are just playing identify politics. And pro-choicers aren't actually concerned for women's concern over their own bodies or their privacy, but are just playing identify politics?

    Of course not. The REAL controversy arises from many, many people having a SINCERE disagreement on these issues. Politicians and pundits may play their games regarding the controversy but the controversy is very real and organic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, the compromise is to find where the American people define actual v. potential human and then draw the line there. What I believe is that neither Republicans nor Democrats are interested in clarifying this line as they both love to use this issue to beat over the heads of their opponents. This is why it isn't a real issue.
    But let's not pretend a compromise hasn't already been reached. Again, there are legal restrictions regarding late-term pregnancies.

    Who's to say we haven't already reached the best compromise that we can?
    Last edited by mican333; November 12th, 2015 at 07:24 AM.

  18. #258
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    12
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    I am sure it is impossible to solve this issue without any conflict. From one hand it is a bad thing, a murder. But from the other one we can't say that abortion isn't the only way out of the situation when the pregnancy is really undesirable or there are some awful pathologies. As for me I still can't hold one opinion because each situation is unique and we can't reduce all women to the same level

  19. #259
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I see no basis for calling it far-fetched. You just explained why a woman does have that right.

    If one has a right to privacy then they have a right to an abortion.

    Saying a right is not absolute does not mean that the right does not exist.



    But that's just a hypothetical and is one that is almost certainly not going to happen in our lifetime.




    Sure. But we can objectively observe the current state of the law. And the current state of the law is that there is no legal restriction to a woman's legal ability to have an abortion during the first trimester and that is based on the legal recognition of her right to privacy.

    What the laws SHOULD BE is subjective. What the law ARE is objective.



    Which is the current state of the law. So it currently IS, legally, a privacy issue.

    And even if the fetus were granted the legal right to life, abortion would STILL be a privacy issue. It would just be an issue that is overridden by a greater concern. As an example, people have the right to privacy in their own homes and a policeman cannot typically enter one's home without a warrant. But if a policeman sees that a murder is about to take place in a house, then he can enter without a warrant due to a greater consideration. But this factor does not mean that people do not have a right to privacy in their houses, just that sometimes there's a concern that's considered more important. So likewise women would still have a right to privacy when it comes to their medical decisions but there would be a concern that overrides it when it comes to abortion.




    When it comes to first trimester abortions, the law in uniform.






    I think the dividing line is already apparent. There are legal restrictions on third trimester abortions.



    Of course there is.




    So that's why pro-lifers are against abortion? They don't, in fact, have a sincere concern for the unborn but are just playing identify politics. And pro-choicers aren't actually concerned for women's concern over their own bodies or their privacy, but are just playing identify politics?

    Of course not. The REAL controversy arises from many, many people having a SINCERE disagreement on these issues. Politicians and pundits may play their games regarding the controversy but the controversy is very real and organic.




    But let's not pretend a compromise hasn't already been reached. Again, there are legal restrictions regarding late-term pregnancies.

    Who's to say we haven't already reached the best compromise that we can?
    Saying a woman has a right to privacy (doctor/patient privilege) does not mean the state cannot limit the types of procedures a doctor can perform, does it?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  20. #260
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Saying a woman has a right to privacy (doctor/patient privilege) does not mean the state cannot limit the types of procedures a doctor can perform, does it?
    It does mean that.

    If a patient wants a certain procedure, the state has no right to interfere which means it can't interfere with the doctor providing that procedure.

    And as I said before, rights are not absolute. Sometimes there are exceptions to rights so in some limited circumstances the state can interfere with one's rights to pretty much anything one has a right to. But the exceptions are quite limited and specific. For example, a policeman can legally enter someone's house without a warrant (thereby violating the right to privacy) if they are aware of a life-threatening situation from inside the house.
    Last edited by mican333; May 20th, 2016 at 01:57 PM.

 

 
Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 3 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, 10:55 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, 09:20 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
  •