Political Crossfire Forums

[SpellJammer]

Did you ever stop to think about the fallacy in your arguments? You WON! Abortion has been legal for how long?! So why are you complaining?!

Oh wait, becayse pro-choice people are liberal, and that's all liberals know how to do is whine. Slipped SpellJammer's mind.. :roll:

But in all seriousness, if you wish to prove SpellJammer wrong that you're just emo panzywastes who are spoiled rotten children. (Children killing children, would make a cool horror movie..) Then explain to him why you dillegently defend a position that is already nationaly approved..

[Sailor Moon]

:lol:

[Snarf]

SpellJammer wrote: Then explain to him why you dillegently defend a position that is already nationaly approved..
To keep it that way...

[Prole]

Snarf wrote: SpellJammer wrote: Then explain to him why you dillegently defend a position that is already nationaly approved..
To keep it that way...
Additionally, because there are places outside of the US where abortion is (generally) not legal.

[Enoch]

I understand your question, but I think that you may be overlooking something SJ. It appears, at least to me, that the abortion arguments center less on legality than on the fuzzy "when does life begin" question and on subjective morality.

It is not enough for people to feel that they have the correct stand, whether pro-life or pro-choice, but so many feel the need to make sure that people agree with their stance on contentions that really have little to nothing to do with the legality of abortion.

There is not one accepted, medical, definition for when life begins. Therefore, both sides argue so they can get people on their side in an attempt to tip the scales and be able to declare some sort of moral victory. This then catapults in to the morality issue of abortion. While not all do, many on both sides picky-back morality on to the beginning of life question. Each side has its members who state "I am right. Life begins at _____, therefore abortion is _________ (insert moral or immoral accordingly).

The reality seems to me to be that there are people who just want to argue over points that will never reach consensus. Whether that gives them a thrill to debate someone, gives them a sense of moral or ethical superiority, feeds their egos, or just provides them an outlet to discuss how they feel I do not know. Regardless of their reasons, each as valid as the next, it seems unlikely that there will ever be a definitive end to the abortion debate.

[Sailor Moon]

Dont you care about THEIR values, or is that unimportant?

Abortion is being attempted to be made legal in many portions of Africa, Asia, and in the M.E., in countries where the people strongly oppose abortion. And yet- pro choicers push for it, because??????

So what if its illegal in countries that oppose abortion? Iraq doesnt want legal abortion...

[Enoch]

Sailor Moon wrote: Dont you care about THEIR values, or is that unimportant?

Abortion is being attempted to be made legal in many portions of Africa, Asia, and in the M.E., in countries where the people strongly oppose abortion. And yet- pro choicers push for it, because??????

So what if its illegal in countries that oppose abortion? Iraq doesnt want legal abortion...

Is that a question for me, or for SpellJammer?

[Prole]

Sailor Moon wrote: Dont you care about THEIR values, or is that unimportant?

Abortion is being attempted to be made legal in many portions of Africa, Asia, and in the M.E., in countries where the people strongly oppose abortion. And yet- pro choicers push for it, because??????

So what if its illegal in countries that oppose abortion? Iraq doesnt want legal abortion...
Personal autonomy, and thus the right to abort (until a point) is a basic human right, and one that I and other pro-choicers believe that people should be entitled to.

Furthermore, not everyone opposes abortion in those countries, though often it is the most apparently vocal majority that does. (Being an open pro-choice advocate often isn't safe in such places; even in some parts of America, being an abortionist doctors isn't safe. How do you think that far more repressive governments react?). The statement that, "Iraq doesn't want legal abortion" is therefore a false one; rather, it is true that some Iraqis what abortion to be legal, and some do not. And as long as some do, I believe that they should be entitled to this right.

[Sailor Moon]

Show me some proof, and prove to me that this is not the "vocal online majority"....

:roll:

[Enoch]

Sailor Moon wrote: Show me some proof, and prove to me that this is not the "vocal online majority"....

:roll:

The same could be asked of you. You claim that there are countries, as a whole, who don't want abortion.

It is fallacious to make assumptions that there are countries, as a whole, who do want it or don't want it.

[Sailor Moon]

Tell me then, why the UN has stepped in, in ALL these cases?

[Enoch]

Sailor Moon wrote: Tell me then, why the UN has stepped in, in ALL these cases?

I am not here to argue the historical accounts of UN involvement in the abortion issue. I was pointing out that if one requests proof for a contention that people's opinions in another nation are FOR abortion, then one must be prepared to offer proof of the claim that people's opinions are AGAINST abortion, if that is the contention made.

If one offers an argument that the majority of a public believes one way or another, some sort of evidence is required to bring it past the level of simple conjecture.

[_Locke_]

because anti-abortionist want to get rid of abortion, so we are fighting to keep it

[SpellJammer]

UrielsFyre wrote: *Well thought out post*
Never thought of it that way Uriel, SpellJammer forgets not everyone is just as passively aggressive as he is. (By that he means he IS aggressive and mean, but it quickly passes.. :P )

To him, the argument should be it's legal status, he doesn't care about the technichal crap like what they consider life to begin at because as long as it's legal or illegal, that's all that really matters in the end, the same go's with it's legal qualities in other countries. As an American, SpellJammer's concern is America, if England or whatever wants to makeup some ass-backward moral conclusions, that's thier problem, if anything, it helps keep pro-choicers out of America, because then it gives them another excuse to leave, for more rights and whatever..

As to _Locke_, You feel though that the pro-lifevoice has THAT significant of a position? Let's be serious, pro-life advocates have nothing to gain but the moral supiriority of this issue.. The goverment is pro-choice probably not because of what the majority thinks at all, but because it puts more money in thier pockets. Abortions cost money, even condoms and birth control are fairly expensive. The American goverment WANTS us to be premiscues and fickle. What amazes SpellJammer is how the left in this country isn't left at all, they're sheep to coporate interests..

[Mycroft147]

Many pro-choice people that ive known advocate abortion because they are afraid of and against any laws that might be related to or attributed to religion. But usually thier excuse is that it is a violation of the womans rights, because of course everyone should have the right to murder.

[SpellJammer]

What SpellJammer thinks is ludacris is how liberals think we shouldn't give a serial killer a lethal injection but we should such a child out of a plastic tube.. :roll:

SpellJammer feels we're all entitled to the same basic princaples, dignities, and freedoms, (however few they may be..) from the time of conception. We are equal untill we revoke our own equaility through bad actions and bad thoughts. (Hense where the death penalty comes into focus.)

Not to say that a person couldn't reform, but the likelyhood is very unlikely, and it's simply cheaper, and more convient to just kill them. Now, perhaps this is why liberals defend abortion, it's cheaper then finding adopted kids homes, and more convient. However, such a stance cannot defend against the death penalty without appearing retarded, nor does it make any sense to be fearful of the religous right getting thier way, considering they never do..

[Sailor Moon]

UrielsFyre wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Tell me then, why the UN has stepped in, in ALL these cases?

I am not here to argue the historical accounts of UN involvement in the abortion issue. I was pointing out that if one requests proof for a contention that people's opinions in another nation are FOR abortion, then one must be prepared to offer proof of the claim that people's opinions are AGAINST abortion, if that is the contention made.

If one offers an argument that the majority of a public believes one way or another, some sort of evidence is required to bring it past the level of simple conjecture.

I see, so you have absolutely no argument for the international wing of planned parenthood or the UN's interest in abortion?

Youre not talking about human rights, youre talking about human lives. There is a huge difference. And if this is some kind of anti religion machine, well, newsflash! The vast majority of the world is religious... and the vast majority of religions dont think that killing is a right. Sorry.

[Prole]

Sailor Moon wrote: Youre not talking about human rights, youre talking about human lives. There is a huge difference. And if this is some kind of anti religion machine, well, newsflash! The vast majority of the world is religious... and the vast majority of religions dont think that killing is a right. Sorry.
Well, Sailor, not all people universally consider abortion to be the killing of a person in the moral sense of the word; few people would contend that abortion terminates a preborn human, but not all people agree that killing of a preborn human is always morally wrong.

Furthermore, I do not know about world statistics, though would hazard a guess that you are correct in stating that the majority of people in the world oppose abortion, and agree that most of the world is religious. However, there are still a significant minority that believe that abortion is amoral and/or a personal decision, with some people believing that although abortion is immoral it is still a personal decision as to whether to abort or not.

Furthermore, just looking at America, about 85% of people identify themselves with a specific religion, and all but 5% of that is Christianity. Though most people in the US believe abortion is immoral (though I am not sure whether they would prefer it be made illegal), this is hardly a vast majority; I think it is something like 60%. Thus, opposing abortion's legality and/or thinking abortion is immoral is hardly synonymous with being Christian; the majority of pro-choice people in America are Christians.

Yes, it is true that most religious and areligious moral codes believe that murder is immoral. But abortion is considered by many people to be a special case, not a black and white murder that many anti-choice individuals perceive and depict it is. Abortion can arguably be construed as exercising bodily autonomy or self-defense, and that the mother is entitled to such a decision, or that the individual killed does not have moral status, and as such killing it does not equate to murder. You may reject these arguements, but they are the reasons why individuals believe that abortion should be allowed.

As far as justification for why people should be able to have abortions, SpellJammer, why do you believe that individuals are entitled to anything from the time of conception? Because many if not most pro-choice people protect abortion not because they consider it to be acceptable killing of a person, but because (until late in gestation, when the preborn human develops consciousness) the preborn human is not a person in the moral sense at all, and thus killing it is completely amoral. Thus protecting something that has no moral rights whatsoever at the expense of the mother's bodily autonomy is completely unjustified.

[Gilbert1908]

UrielsFyre wrote: I understand your question, but I think that you may be overlooking something SJ. It appears, at least to me, that the abortion arguments center less on legality than on the fuzzy "when does life begin" question and on subjective morality.

It is not enough for people to feel that they have the correct stand, whether pro-life or pro-choice, but so many feel the need to make sure that people agree with their stance on contentions that really have little to nothing to do with the legality of abortion.

There is not one accepted, medical, definition for when life begins. Therefore, both sides argue so they can get people on their side in an attempt to tip the scales and be able to declare some sort of moral victory. This then catapults in to the morality issue of abortion. While not all do, many on both sides picky-back morality on to the beginning of life question. Each side has its members who state "I am right. Life begins at _____, therefore abortion is _________ (insert moral or immoral accordingly).

The reality seems to me to be that there are people who just want to argue over points that will never reach consensus. Whether that gives them a thrill to debate someone, gives them a sense of moral or ethical superiority, feeds their egos, or just provides them an outlet to discuss how they feel I do not know. Regardless of their reasons, each as valid as the next, it seems unlikely that there will ever be a definitive end to the abortion debate.

I ask again for you to link or reference a MEDICAL journal, MEDICAL texbook or ANY MEDICAL publication that says anything other than human life begins at conception with a possible argument for 10 or so days later at implantation.

I'm not talking about the PHILOSOPHICAL designation of personhood or humaness but the point at which a new individual HUMAN organism COMES INTO EXISTENCE.

I have never had anyone provide anything but philosophical excerpts using terms like personhood or humaness but NEVER has anyone provided a medical journal, textbook saying anything but the human life begins at conception/implantation.

[Sailor Moon]

Prole wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Youre not talking about human rights, youre talking about human lives. There is a huge difference. And if this is some kind of anti religion machine, well, newsflash! The vast majority of the world is religious... and the vast majority of religions dont think that killing is a right. Sorry.
Well, Sailor, not all people universally consider abortion to be the killing of a person in the moral sense of the word; few people would contend that abortion terminates a preborn human, but not all people agree that killing of a preborn human is always morally wrong.

Furthermore, I do not know about world statistics, though would hazard a guess that you are correct in stating that the majority of people in the world oppose abortion, and agree that most of the world is religious. However, there are still a significant minority that believe that abortion is amoral and/or a personal decision, with some people believing that although abortion is immoral it is still a personal decision as to whether to abort or not.

Furthermore, just looking at America, about 85% of people identify themselves with a specific religion, and all but 5% of that is Christianity. Though most people in the US believe abortion is immoral (though I am not sure whether they would prefer it be made illegal), this is hardly a vast majority; I think it is something like 60%. Thus, opposing abortion's legality and/or thinking abortion is immoral is hardly synonymous with being Christian; the majority of pro-choice people in America are Christians.

I'm going to remember you said that, which isnt true- at least not true of any real christians. Maybe its true of people who have gone to church and claim to be christian, but its certainly not a religious attitude now, any more than it was in the 60s and 70s. And back then, it was very much opposed, by the majority. Now there is a thing called "religious tolerance" that people are subscribing to, which is hedonistic, and paganic, rather than being religion based.

Quote: Yes, it is true that most religious and areligious moral codes believe that murder is immoral. But abortion is considered by many people to be a special case, not a black and white murder that many anti-choice individuals perceive and depict it is. Abortion can arguably be construed as exercising bodily autonomy or self-defense, and that the mother is entitled to such a decision, or that the individual killed does not have moral status, and as such killing it does not equate to murder. You may reject these arguements, but they are the reasons why individuals believe that abortion should be allowed.

I dont believe that, I know that religious people try to forgive alot of this now, because of the lies and deceit that is given to women that they have some kind of "God given right" to abort, but I dont think you should be making more or less of it, the way you are doing. Pro life people do not believe that women do not have autonomy, either, so please stop bashing us that way.

Quote: As far as justification for why people should be able to have abortions, SpellJammer, why do you believe that individuals are entitled to anything from the time of conception? Because many if not most pro-choice people protect abortion not because they consider it to be acceptable killing of a person, but because (until late in gestation, when the preborn human develops consciousness) the preborn human is not a person in the moral sense at all, and thus killing it is completely amoral. Thus protecting something that has no moral rights whatsoever at the expense of the mother's bodily autonomy is completely unjustified.

You say "until some point", and pro lifers say that the only life that does not have an entitlement to a life, is the unfertilized egg and lonely sperm cells. You do not know what kind of consciousness a single celled organism has, so why do you continue to pretend to be psychic and act like you know these things? Besides, your own argument is clearly a contradiction, being that you think its okay (but not really) to kill a viable "person" (what you just called a fetus with consciousness) for the sake of the mother. Killing is killing, and you will have to make up your mind about this one, Prole. Its either a person or not, but you cant say "its amoral to kill it if it has no conscious, but immoral to do so if it has a conscious, except when...'la-dee-da' occurs- then its autonomy, or whatever excuse we can come up with, regardless of the moral standing or aforementioned personhood of said life".

Plus, you are adamant about abortion being amoral until the 8th week, and now youre saying, "well, until late in gestation", so what about the ones in between? Do they not count anymore, or have you nothing to say about them?

In my opinion, you need to figure out where you really stand on this, Prole, because youre arguments are only weakened by your contradictions.