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 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 232
  1. #21
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Well, that's why I used the word "allowed". I assumed that it would be understood that I meant 'legally allowed', but that's on me for assuming.
    Itís a minor quibble but when youíre in a quasi-religious argument space, you canít be too careful between legal rights, human rights, and religious rights.


    Also, I think you meant to say that 100% of Downs Diagnosed pregnancies in Iceland are aborted; not "in Iceland 100% pregnancies are aborted".
    Oops. Yes. Iíll correct.

    I'm not sure what argument you think I'm making. I'm asking Belthazor for clarification on their position.
    I was just pointing the problems of treating a fetus as a human being.

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I was just pointing the problems of treating a fetus as a human being.
    Which are (since that is where YOU came from) ?

  3. #23
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    People against abortion are generally so because they feel like that "life" is equal to yours (legally).
    Thatís exactly right. Because some people believe in ďsoulsĒ every single (human) life is equally very precious, even down to the fertilized egg.

    I think majority holds the mother should be saved because if she dies the fetus/zygote/poor little human that didn't matter anyway till it gets "older/more developed" would die anyway.
    The law generally sides with saving life.
    Not really. In Ireland where abortion is illegal, a woman, no Irish mind, died because they would not abort the baby to save her life. Two lives were lost.

  4. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I'm asking Belthazor for clarification on their position.
    FYI "I'm all guy Clyde"

    I am NOT of the "you decide what gender you are by virtue of thought" crowd, though I acknowledge their are those that are born "in between/or both/ or not sure quite how to say it??" .

    ---------- Post added at 07:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK;557943
    Thatís exactly right. Because some people believe in ďsoulsĒ every single (human) life is equally very precious, even down to the fertilized egg.
    YOU once were "only" a "fertilized egg"!

    What do souls have to do with it?

  5. #25
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    And the pro-abortion side disingenuously argues that the fetus isn't human, or is a "potential" person, and time after time trots out the intellectually vacuous acorn analogy. (On other issues, liberals embrace science - but not on abortion.) You people need to just man up and admit that you know the unborn child is a person, and that you think a woman should have the right to kill it anyway. Seriously, just be honest about it.
    I wholly agree with you here that a potential human life is lost. An abortion is the literal termination of a life and it shouldnít be taken lightly. To call it a person is a bit much until you reach a certain point.

    Also, no-one is ďpro-abortionĒ - it is preferable to teach children about responsible sex. And because abortions will happen anyway the debate should be about how to minimize the need for abortions and how to do it safely.

    The reality is that in cases of rape and incest, it is an understandable termination and it is one done ideally early enough in the pregnancy. A small bunch of cells, no matter what they might think theyíre going to turn out is hardly the same as killing a baby. At worse it is a mercy killing similar to aborting non viable pregnancies.

    To see life in black and white is naive and unrealistic because not every life could be a good one. And calling the different stages of life is important so that we distinguish between a fertilized egg (PlanB), a fetus (early abortion) or a pre-birth baby (late-term abortion) to a born baby (murder).

    If you treat all life in the same way then you have expect to lose the argument.

  6. Likes Dionysus liked this post
  7. #26
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    May I take a moment to say, I have read your posts over several yrs and only somewhat recently started posting myself. I know you said you didn't like debating these days and I just wanted to say I appreciate you talking with me anyway.
    Thank you. The sentiment is mutual. I still despise the combative nature of debate. I'm only here because 1) The weather sucks I'm bored out of my skull and 2) this is a serious topic that deserves serious and thoughtful discussion. It's unlikely that you'll find me making arguments here, and (this is not directed at you or anyone in particular) the moment the discussion turns into a quagmire of "rebuttals" or "attack/defeating" arguments, or any other dick-waving, mental masturbation like that, I'll leave. Simple as that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I can see no other logical/reasonable/defensible position?

    Welcome to other ideas on the subject?
    Well, a couple of things.

    First, I think the position that a potential thing is distinct from an actual thing is quite defensible. By every measurement, a zygote is distinctly different from a fully developed person (or even a fetus at 5 months, for that matter) and as such, they are simply potential persons rather than actual (or actualized) persons, and the fact that there is a difference between a potential thing and an actual thing is probably a factor worth considering

    Second, if we're speaking technically, "life" doesn't begin at conception. Life began whenever life began on this planet, be it in the primordial soup or with Adam and Eve. Since then, it has been an uninterrupted chain of life. This doesn't bear on my position towards abortion per se; it is simply a fact that's probably worth thinking about.

    Third, if we allow the government to act on behalf of potential persons to override the autonomy of actual persons with regards to something as personal and private as the choice of procreation, then I see no reason why the government couldn't simply override the rights of any person for any reason.

    Fourth, with regards to rights, we have to accept that sometimes people will use rights in ways with which we do not agree, but that fact sholdn't compel society to remove those right altogether.

    For example, I support the 2nd amendment, but in so doing, I accept that sometimes people will exercise that right in careless and often harmful ways, and I object to measures that infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners. Likewise, as a supporter of free speech, I reject kids on college campuses starting riots simply because they don't like Ann Coulter or Ben Shapiro. The behaviors of these students says to me that they are NOT the champions of diversity and ideas they claim to be. Rather, they are entirely closed to diversity and ideas as evidenced by their efforts to suppress the free speech rights of those who were invited to speak at their campuses.

    So, when it comes to a woman's right to choose, I hope that when they choose to terminate a pregnancy, they do it with a serious mind and heart. But I also know that, quite often, people will do it for reasons I would find quite frivolous. Nonetheless, I do not believe it is the job of the government to speak on behalf of a potential person and infringe on the agency of an actual person and their choice with regards to their pregnancy.

  8. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    YOU once were "only" a "fertilized egg"!

    What do souls have to do with it?
    True but if I were disabled in a major way. Iím not sure I would want to live.

    Souls are granted at fertilization. I think thatís why some people are even against contraception never mind plan b

  9. #28
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,692
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I wholly agree with you here that a potential human life is lost. An abortion is the literal termination of a life and it shouldnít be taken lightly. To call it a person is a bit much until you reach a certain point.

    Also, no-one is ďpro-abortionĒ - it is preferable to teach children about responsible sex. And because abortions will happen anyway the debate should be about how to minimize the need for abortions and how to do it safely.

    The reality is that in cases of rape and incest, it is an understandable termination and it is one done ideally early enough in the pregnancy. A small bunch of cells, no matter what they might think theyíre going to turn out is hardly the same as killing a baby. At worse it is a mercy killing similar to aborting non viable pregnancies.

    To see life in black and white is naive and unrealistic because not every life could be a good one. And calling the different stages of life is important so that we distinguish between a fertilized egg (PlanB), a fetus (early abortion) or a pre-birth baby (late-term abortion) to a born baby (murder).

    If you treat all life in the same way then you have expect to lose the argument.
    Science says it is a human life. Again, why do you liberals reject scientific fact only on the issue of abortion?

    LOTS of different bad things will happen despite prevention efforts. Again, why is abortion a special case that society should just accept?

    There isn't really a legitimate debate here, SharmaK, because your side is never intellectually honest on the issue.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  10. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Science says it is a human life. Again, why do you liberals reject scientific fact only on the issue of abortion?
    Well, sure, call it a human life then. Now whatís your next step? There is still the matter of unviable pregnancies, pregnancies that harm the mother, disabled births, lives that require a great deal of care and attention, fertilized eggs that might not attach to a womb anyway.

    Are you being equally black and white about those situations?

    LOTS of different bad things will happen despite prevention efforts. Again, why is abortion a special case that society should just accept?
    Well, because you refuse to see the different degrees of life or recognize the different situations then itís hard to have a serious talk about it.

    Contraceptions prevent any kind of fertilization so society deems that this is OK because sex is cool.

    Plan B prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb. Society deems that this is OK because in the cases of rape and incest or even a mistake, an egg doesnít have any kind of brain activity to feel the pain or suffer in any way. Ditto for a fetus - itís no more a conscious life than an ant. In these cases, it is considered a mercy killing for the mother as well as the potentially devastating life for the child.

    A later term fetus, I would argue is where society would feel squeamish but even in those cases, if it were diseased, disabled, or harming the mother, society would favor the rights of a fully formed adult over the baby.

    Youíre seeing all these as stabbing a living baby to death and thatís where youíre applying some other factors into play. And as much as you want to avoid it, those factors are going to be wholly religious and not applicable to non-believers.

    In short, the problem is not with society but with your stance to not see the gray areas.

    There isn't really a legitimate debate here, SharmaK, because your side is never intellectually honest on the issue.
    Of course itís honest: no-one is denying that a life is being terminated but we also recognize that not all life is really the same.

    The dishonesty is also on your side because you refuse to bring your own religious viewpoints into the discussion, which of course are invalid, but nevertheless, those are your primary arguments and youíre hiding behind ďscienceĒ to avoid losing out of the gate.





    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  11. #30
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,692
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, sure, call it a human life then. Now what’s your next step? There is still the matter of unviable pregnancies, pregnancies that harm the mother, disabled births, lives that require a great deal of care and attention, fertilized eggs that might not attach to a womb anyway.

    Are you being equally black and white about those situations?
    Make your argument for each case individually if you want to discuss them. Start with "pregnancies that harm the mother". Give me some specific situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, because you refuse to see the different degrees of life or recognize the different situations then it’s hard to have a serious talk about it.
    You must have me confused with someone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Plan B prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb. Society deems that this is OK because in the cases of rape and incest or even a mistake, an egg doesn’t have any kind of brain activity to feel the pain or suffer in any way. Ditto for a fetus - it’s no more a conscious life than an ant. In these cases, it is considered a mercy killing for the mother as well as the potentially devastating life for the child.
    YOUR segment of society deems plan B okay. Some segments of society would argue that there is no "mercy" to the unborn child.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    A later term fetus, I would argue is where society would feel squeamish but even in those cases, if it were diseased, disabled, or harming the mother, society would favor the rights of a fully formed adult over the baby.
    Again, your segment of society believes that. I don't see where you're offering any kind of argument, but rather a sixth-grade level overview. Is that all you have to offer?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You’re seeing all these as stabbing a living baby to death and that’s where you’re applying some other factors into play. And as much as you want to avoid it, those factors are going to be wholly religious and not applicable to non-believers.
    Sharm, I haven't once injected religion into this discussion. You're just flailing around in search of an argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    In short, the problem is not with society but with your stance to not see the gray areas.
    People without guiding principles always insist that everything is shades of gray. They offer banal generalities, talk down to their opponent, and pretend to be enlightened on all the finer points of an issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    The dishonesty is also on your side because you refuse to bring your own religious viewpoints into the discussion, which of course are invalid, but nevertheless, those are your primary arguments and you’re hiding behind “science” to avoid losing out of the gate.
    Typical juvenile liberal. Don't want to hear a religious argument, but can't handle a secular one. What are you, fifteen?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  12. #31
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Make your argument for each case individually if you want to discuss them. Start with "pregnancies that harm the mother". Give me some specific situations.

    You must have me confused with someone else.
    I donít think Iím confused - you appear to have missed a retort for contraceptions in general. So is this an honest mistake or are you avoiding the topic altogether for some reason?

    Do you agree that contraceptions are an effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Do you further agree that we need to educate our children on matters of human sexuality, in particular safe sex practices as well as contraception?

    YOUR segment of society deems plan B okay. Some segments of society would argue that there is no "mercy" to the unborn child.
    OK - whatís your argument?

    Again, your segment of society believes that. I don't see where you're offering any kind of argument, but rather a sixth-grade level overview. Is that all you have to offer?
    Itís sixth-grade overview because itís not really that complicated. It is understood that there are pregnancies that exist that are unviable for the baby but cause harm to the woman OR could be viable but also cause harm to the woman OR could be viable but would lead to a highly distressed and painful life for the child OR could be viable but would lead to a hard life for the child and the family.

    In all these cases, an abortion for early detection has been a preferable choice when taking into account the health of the mother and the quality of life for the family. Do you disagree with that assessment?

    Sharm, I haven't once injected religion into this discussion. You're just flailing around in search of an argument.
    Itís your primary reason for your position though, is it not?

    People without guiding principles always insist that everything is shades of gray. They offer banal generalities, talk down to their opponent, and pretend to be enlightened on all the finer points of an issue.
    Perhaps but guiding principles are meant to do precisely that: to guide, not to dictate and control oneís life. I would say, as a non-praying atheist (I havenít forgotten your claim that atheists pray remain unsupported), that life is very precious since itís the only chance in the entire history of the universe that it will occur for a particular person. That said, itís not a freebie and throughout history humans of all ďguiding principlesĒ have chosen death over life for all sorts of reasons, in particular, pertinent to this discussion, deciding whether a child be brought into the world or not.

    Killing another human deliberately has never been a black and white issue - we do so in many justified cases. In war, when others attack; in punishment, when it fits the crime; and in all societies, euthanasia before birth or at an old age or due to health issues has been a valid choice to avoid suffering or to save anotherís life.

    So itís nothing to do with not having ďguiding principlesĒ - there are plenty of justifications for all manners of death. In your case, your unstated (and therefore irrelevant until you do so) principles suggest that life of a baby should be preserved in all cases, but you have yet offered up any reasons. I hope you will do so soon.

    Typical juvenile liberal. Don't want to hear a religious argument, but can't handle a secular one. What are you, fifteen?
    Iíd love to hear a religious argument but I have yet to be presented one that makes sense for non-believers. I was trying to save you the embarrassment of having to offer one up but if you choose to invoke your God and your religion in as a justification for not aborting a baby, then thatís great: donít abort your child. By the same token, donít tell other people what to do with their own bodies and their own lives and keep your personal religious convictions personal if thatís all you have.

    And you havenít offered a single argument yet so I have no idea what your secular arguments are. Youíve made no comment on contraception and your responses have been ad-homenim attacks; which is fine, if thatís what you consider an argument but I think you have more to say.
    Last edited by SharmaK; February 8th, 2018 at 12:32 AM.

  13. #32
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Lots of you discussing here seem to think that the question in play revolves around whether or not a fertilized egg, a zygote, or a fetus is a "person" or "human being"...or a "potential person" or "potential human being"...or just a clump of cells.

    That is not the question for me.

    What I am saying...and actually indicated in my opening and follow-up remarks is:

    We are talking about a PREGNANCY...an unquestioned living, human body hosting whatever stage that fertilized egg takes during gestation. And as I see it...the person who's body is host to the the embryo, zygote, fetus, clump of cells, or potential human being...should be the one who makes any decisions about whether to continue the pregnancy or to terminate it.

    Nobody else should have veto power over that decision.

    For those of you who insist that the "object" in the gestation stage HAS TO BE CONSIDERED A HUMAN BEING...so be it. That does not change the fact that the "object" is being hosted by a living individual who has the right to say, "I no longer want this "object" housed in me...and I want it expelled."

    If that makes you folk feel any better to conceive of it that way..if that gives you reason to hate those of us who champion a woman's right to have dominion over her own body...fine.

    So???


    ---------- Post added at 07:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 AM ----------

    I want to add:

    Any arguments from the religious standpoint are almost counterproductive.

    Like SharmaK above, I'd love to hear them...and dispose of them.

    If anyone has any to make...do it.

  14. #33
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Lots of you discussing here seem to think that the question in play revolves around whether or not a fertilized egg, a zygote, or a fetus is a "person" or "human being"...or a "potential person" or "potential human being"...or just a clump of cells.

    That is not the question for me.

    What I am saying...and actually indicated in my opening and follow-up remarks is:

    We are talking about a PREGNANCY...an unquestioned living, human body hosting whatever stage that fertilized egg takes during gestation. And as I see it...the person who's body is host to the the embryo, zygote, fetus, clump of cells, or potential human being...should be the one who makes any decisions about whether to continue the pregnancy or to terminate it.
    I'm struggling to understand your objection.

    If you're trying to answer a question like "Should a property owner be allowed to burn down their own, occupied house that exists on their own land?", then naturally one of the relevant questions might be something like ""What occupies the house? Mold? Bacteria? Bugs? Animals? Pets? People? What do you mean when you say "occupied"?". These are all relevant things to consider when asking people to cosign on a claim as general as "A property owner should be allowed to burn down their own, occupied house that exists on their own land".

    Depending on how deep you want to dive, a question that might NOT be relevant might be something like "Should anyone be allowed to destroy anything, ever?", because then we've moved beyond the original question.

    But your question here almost sounds like "Should a person be able to have an abortion, no questions asked?" and your answer sounds like it is "Unquestionably, YES". It sounds as if your position is that, with regards to pregnancy, the subject (host) is in no way related to the object (z.e.f.) in question. What is your position with regards to the object? Is it related to the subject at all? Does that relationship - supposing there is one - bear consideration at all?

  15. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    We are talking about a PREGNANCY...an unquestioned living, human body hosting whatever stage that fertilized egg takes during gestation. And as I see it...the person who's body is host to the the embryo, zygote, fetus, clump of cells, or potential human being...should be the one who makes any decisions about whether to continue the pregnancy or to terminate it.
    But I see no more reason to accept your position than to accept the opposing position that would typically argue that the unborn is just as deserving of the right to not be killed as a born human and therefore it shouldn't be allowed for pretty much the same reasons that we don't people like you and me to be killed.

    Yes, you can quite accurately point out that all pro-life arguments are ultimately subjective as they are rooted in premises that one has no obligation to agree (since their premises are never objectively true) with but then the exact same thing can be said out pro-choice arguments.

    So no one can prove that they are right but that doesn't mean that either side is wrong either. So ultimately the debate on which side is right and which side is wrong is unresolvable.

  16. #35
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I'm struggling to understand your objection.

    If you're trying to answer a question like "Should a property owner be allowed to burn down their own, occupied house that exists on their own land?", then naturally one of the relevant questions might be something like ""What occupies the house? Mold? Bacteria? Bugs? Animals? Pets? People? What do you mean when you say "occupied"?". These are all relevant things to consider when asking people to cosign on a claim as general as "A property owner should be allowed to burn down their own, occupied house that exists on their own land".

    Depending on how deep you want to dive, a question that might NOT be relevant might be something like "Should anyone be allowed to destroy anything, ever?", because then we've moved beyond the original question.

    But your question here almost sounds like "Should a person be able to have an abortion, no questions asked?" and your answer sounds like it is "Unquestionably, YES". It sounds as if your position is that, with regards to pregnancy, the subject (host) is in no way related to the object (z.e.f.) in question. What is your position with regards to the object? Is it related to the subject at all? Does that relationship - supposing there is one - bear consideration at all?
    Thank you for your comments and questions, Dionysus.

    On the question of "Should a person be able to have an abortion NO QUESTIONS ASKED?...I would have to include one qualification to the answer I am about to give. Qualification to follow:

    ANSWER: ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, A PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE AN ABORTION...WITH NO REGARDS (other than the qualification to follow) FROM ANYBODY...NOT THE GOVERNMENT, NOT YOU, NOT ME, NOT ANYONE ELSE IN THIS DISCUSSION...AND NOT ANYONE ELSE WHO MAY HAVE HAD SOME PART IN THE PREGNANCY OCCURRING.

    Qualification: I would say that the "no questions asked" exclude questions asked by the person hosting the pregnancy of anyone she wants to ask for any reason she wants to ask...particularly of a physician. SHE should have that right to ask questions.

    BUT...as long as the pregnancy is occurring in a woman's body...SHE, and she alone, should have absolute authority over whether to allow the pregnancy to continue or to be terminated.

    Please question me further if I have not been clear...or, even if I have been clear, if you want something further identified.

    ---------- Post added at 10:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But I see no more reason to accept your position than to accept the opposing position that would typically argue that the unborn is just as deserving of the right to not be killed as a born human and therefore it shouldn't be allowed for pretty much the same reasons that we don't people like you and me to be killed.

    Yes, you can quite accurately point out that all pro-life arguments are ultimately subjective as they are rooted in premises that one has no obligation to agree (since their premises are never objectively true) with but then the exact same thing can be said out pro-choice arguments.

    So no one can prove that they are right but that doesn't mean that either side is wrong either. So ultimately the debate on which side is right and which side is wrong is unresolvable.
    I agree with you completely, Mican.

    I also see no reason for you (OR ANYONE ELSE) to "accept" my position.

    It simply is "my position" and I am articulating it here...and I will champion it whenever legislation is proposed to limit a woman's ability to choose to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body.

    I am happy with anyone listening to my position...and considering it positively or negatively.

    That, it seems to me, is all any of us can do.

  17. #36
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    ANSWER: ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, A PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE AN ABORTION...WITH NO REGARDS (other than the qualification to follow) FROM ANYBODY...NOT THE GOVERNMENT, NOT YOU, NOT ME, NOT ANYONE ELSE IN THIS DISCUSSION...AND NOT ANYONE ELSE WHO MAY HAVE HAD SOME PART IN THE PREGNANCY OCCURRING.
    Ok, so more generally, in a truly free society, a person should be able to do whatever they want with their own body (excluding performing criminal acts, or any acts that would otherwise inflict harm on another person). Is this correct?

  18. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I agree with you completely, Mican.

    I also see no reason for you (OR ANYONE ELSE) to "accept" my position.

    It simply is "my position" and I am articulating it here...and I will champion it whenever legislation is proposed to limit a woman's ability to choose to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body.

    I am happy with anyone listening to my position...and considering it positively or negatively.

    That, it seems to me, is all any of us can do.
    But then I assume you will agree that ultimately there is no debate to be had.

  19. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Ok, so more generally, in a truly free society, a person should be able to do whatever they want with their own body (excluding performing criminal acts, or any acts that would otherwise inflict harm on another person). Is this correct?
    I'm going to pass on the "more generally"...and stick with the subject at hand.

    ---------- Post added at 10:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then I assume you will agree that ultimately there is no debate to be had.
    No...I think there is plenty to be had...the fact that it almost certainly will not be resolved notwithstanding.

    I am absolutely stunned when someone brings forth a thought I have not heard nor dealt with before...but it happens. HAS HAPPENED a couple of times in discussions of various things.

    I'd love to hear something new come into this topic.

    Not holding my breath...but it still is worth discussion and debate.

  20. #39
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I'm going to pass on the "more generally"...and stick with the subject at hand.
    Well, it seems to me that the question I'm asking imposes directly on the subject at hand. The argument you're making seems to say that, because the woman is the owner of her own body, she - and ONLY she - bears the sole and singular right to have an abortion (as well as any other "thing" she wishes to do with her own body). Have I mischaracterized your position?

  21. #40
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Well, it seems to me that the question I'm asking imposes directly on the subject at hand. The argument you're making seems to say that, because the woman is the owner of her own body, she - and ONLY she - bears the sole and singular right to have an abortion (as well as any other "thing" she wishes to do with her own body). Have I mischaracterized your position?
    I have spoken only to the part dealing with abortion. You are, inappropriately, extrapolating the part about "any other thing."

    If you have some other things in mind...start a thread on them and I will participate, if I consider it to be of interest.

 

 
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Terms in the abortion debate
    By mican333 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: February 7th, 2018, 08:56 AM
  2. Is Equal Opportunity Possible?
    By UNC Reason in forum Politics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 6th, 2012, 09:14 AM
  3. Missed terrorist opportunity?
    By FruitandNut in forum Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 13th, 2007, 04:52 PM
  4. Abortion: split from a 1 vs 1 debate
    By CC in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 26th, 2006, 05:37 PM
  5. Debate Mastery: Abortion
    By TheOriginal in forum General Debate
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 20th, 2004, 07:43 PM

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
  •