Abortion right or wrong

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Yet the Bulverism still stands. It's still a matter of you making wilful misrepresentations against your opponents in the debate without addressing why the opposite position is wrong in the first place.

What I was doing back there was merely bringing up a unmentioned possibility. It was overstatement, but it had a point that wasn't completely groundless if you think about it a little. Surely people are often careless when it comes to sex, and my proposition was that they were setting standards for themselves so that they would be able to run from the consequences. This sort of thing (where people make standards for their convenience) often happens in history; and if you like, I can offer examples.

Now if you take my above opinion (I say opinion since I'm not formally arguing, like you seem to want to), and add it with my newer notion that states that "the boundary for when life begins is actually arbitrary", it works even better (meaning I didn't just pull something out of thin air).

Or do you want to contest that?

So your position is based on an Argument from Personal Conviction? Noted.

Since the boundary is arbitrary, whatever your conviction is, it's also personal. I'll note that for you.

My point is that in the abortion debate, all of our views are "personal convictions," and all that is actually meaningful, in that case, is that we give more details as to why we believe what we do, and hope that the other party will consider those details in making their own choice of the issue.

I really hope this doesn't start up again....

Actually... yeah, so do I. You know what, ignore this last post since I now think that you weren't actually contesting my point itself rather than the way the point was written. If you feel a need to respond, please do, but keep in mind this thread should've been six feet under some time ago.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

Since the boundary is arbitrary, whatever your conviction is, it's also personal. I'll note that for you.

My point is that in the abortion debate, all of our views are "personal convictions," and all that is actually meaningful, in that case, is that we give more details as to why we believe what we do, and hope that the other party will consider those details in making their own choice of the issue.

While this may be true to a certain extent, there still must be a law to ban it, or no law preventing it. As it stands in many countries, abortion remains legal. How can you ban the masses from an activity when it is just your opinion? Can we make a law that dictates that people must sleep on beds because we feel that is the normal thing to do?

Now the title of this thread is "Abortion right or wrong," so any response here does not dictate that people think it should be illegal unless otherwise stated, but I would assume that those who think it is wrong usually want to make it illegal.

[Throne Invader]

Haha. Ascaloth I was just joking. In other words I was just trying to say that I don't wanna really join the conflict.

@Kamui4356
Hmm, you are right......in a sense. There's a simple answer to that problem. Don't do it unless you're married or ready to have this child. When these type of people have sex, I guess it's really more of heart and less of mind. Discipline is a really important part when you make choices. In an intimate relationship, the percentage of avoiding having sex isn't 0. As for contraceptives, better safe than sorry. Just don't do it. Again my answer does not include rape victims. But in my opinion regarding them, adoption is the best option.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

What I was doing back there was merely bringing up a unmentioned possibility. It was overstatement, but it had a point that wasn't completely groundless if you think about it a little. Surely people are often careless when it comes to sex, and my proposition was that they were setting standards for themselves so that they would be able to run from the consequences. This sort of thing (where people make standards for their convenience) often happens in history; and if you like, I can offer examples.

Now if you take my above opinion (I say opinion since I'm not formally arguing, like you seem to want to), and add it with my newer notion that states that "the boundary for when life begins is actually arbitrary", it works even better (meaning I didn't just pull something out of thin air).

Or do you want to contest that?

In other words, what you were bringing up was an ignoratio elenchi that did not serve to address the actual issue in the first place. Noted.

Since the boundary is arbitrary, whatever your conviction is, it's also personal. I'll note that for you.

My point is that in the abortion debate, all of our views are "personal convictions," and all that is actually meaningful, in that case, is that we give more details as to why we believe what we do, and hope that the other party will consider those details in making their own choice of the issue.

Agreed. I don't throw accusations of fallacious thinking at people who don't state their opinion as if it is fact.

Actually... yeah, so do I. You know what, ignore this last post since I now think that you weren't actually contesting my point itself rather than the way the point was written. If you feel a need to respond, please do, but keep in mind this thread should've been six feet under some time ago.

Fair enough, I'm cool with ending it here.

Originally Posted by Amoredoll

Haha. Ascaloth I was just joking. In other words I was just trying to say that I don't wanna really join the conflict.

Fair enough. Take your time to grow up, and maybe you can join the debate when you're a little older and wiser.

[Vexx]

I'll just suggest people take the time to *read* the thread. It contains a lot of data people really need to consider before they *have* an opinion.

[Mystique]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'll just suggest people take the time to *read* the thread. It contains a lot of data people really need to consider before they *have* an opinion.

To be honest, I'm surprised it's even lasted this long without serious flaming or mud slinging. Kudos to the debaters, perhaps?
(but then, I wonder how many girls are on this thread actively...)
*remains on the fence quietly*

[Vexx]

I *think* there has been a fair amount of female participation (at least as far as the population of forum members) ... It helps the thread that the mods have patrolled the thread pretty thoroughly. Its probably one of the more amazing instances of mostly civil discussion and actual thoughtful exposition of information and ideas on both sides of the issue.

But yeah, because of the volatility of the thread --- loose thinking and poorly supported positions get thrashed pretty badly. Critical thinking skills and research into any important issue is a good idea before someone should just spout off. That's why I recommend spending a few minutes reading the thread looking for excellent posts on both sides and absorbing *how* they make their points and the amount of information they're presenting on the complexity of the issue.

[Throne Invader]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Fair enough. Take your time to grow up, and maybe you can join the debate when you're a little older and wiser.

Ok....looks like you really thought I'm a little girl. . I'm already 17 and mind you I've also had my fair share of debates at other forums.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by AmoreDoll

Ok....looks like you really thought I'm a little girl. . I'm already 17 and mind you I've also had my fair share of debates at other forums.

In other words, you are still a little girl, at least to me.

And maybe you have had your fair share, but I wouldn't know from the unsupported assertion you made the first time.

[Throne Invader]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

In other words, you are still a little girl, at least to me.

And maybe you have had your fair share, but I wouldn't know from the unsupported assertion you made the first time.

Then consider yourself lucky

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'll just suggest people take the time to *read* the thread. It contains a lot of data people really need to consider before they *have* an opinion.

Indeed. Everything that needs to be said has already been said.

If you need a summary, please click this link.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'll just suggest people take the time to *read* the thread. It contains a lot of data people really need to consider before they *have* an opinion.

Excellent advice.

The consensus is that this topic is over and I have to agree. I'd like to end this on a good note in celebration of a remarkably civil discussion on such a polarizing topic, so I'm closing the thread.

Thanks.

[ganbaru]

Doctor found guilty of murder in Philadelphia abortion trial
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...94C0WU20130513

A Philadelphia doctor was found guilty on Monday of murdering three babies during abortions at a clinic serving low-income women in a case that cast a national spotlight on the controversial practice of late-term abortions.

[Terrestrial Dream]

From other the article this guy does not seem to be right in the head. Apparently he would put fetus in plastic containers and bags. I really think this trial goes beyond abortion, rather this looks a trial for just one really sick person.

[synaesthetic]

The more the nutjobs try and restrict abortion, the more shit like this will start happening again. Apparently "pro-lifers" are fond of coathanger abortions.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The more the nutjobs try and restrict abortion, the more shit like this will start happening again. Apparently "pro-lifers" are fond of coathanger abortions.

When you peel the platitudes away and look at what the goals are, the only rational excuse is they want to punish anyone who has sex without the intent to procreate.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Vexx

When you peel the platitudes away and look at what the goals are, the only rational excuse is they want to punish anyone who has sex without the intent to procreate.

Do all pro-lifers oppose condom use as well? Because it seems to me like this is more an attempt to take sexual freedom away from women specifically, relegating them to "barefoot and pregnant" staying in the kitchen.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Do all pro-lifers oppose condom use as well? Because it seems to me like this is more an attempt to take sexual freedom away from women specifically, relegating them to "barefoot and pregnant" staying in the kitchen.

There isn't a 1:1 but there's a Huge Overlap even to the extent of being anti-condom and trying to assert unimplanted fertilized eggs are "people" (which is a problem when nearly every woman flushes fertilized eggs that don't implant).

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The more the nutjobs try and restrict abortion, the more shit like this will start happening again. Apparently "pro-lifers" are fond of coathanger abortions.

When you are saying more "shit" like this this, are you talking about the trial or the action of this doctor?

Originally Posted by Vexx

When you peel the platitudes away and look at what the goals are, the only rational excuse is they want to punish anyone who has sex without the intent to procreate.

I could actually argue against this. There are parents who are likely to abort base on the gender and potentially babies being twin, with twin being more financially burdening. One could argue that in some they are stopping abortion to prevent such events.

I feel that article from Reuters did not provide enough details.
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/...207178491.html
This article provides more detail, the most interesting part are the juries, all of them were pro-choices or had no particular strong opinion on women's right.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

When you are saying more "shit" like this this, are you talking about the trial or the action of this doctor?
I could actually argue against this. There are parents who are likely to abort base on the gender and potentially babies being twin, with twin being more financially burdening. One could argue that in some they are stopping abortion to prevent such events.

I feel that article from Reuters did not provide enough details.
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/...207178491.html
This article provides more detail, the most interesting part are the juries, all of them were pro-choices or had no particular strong opinion on women's right.

I'm sorry, that's like banning cars because some people have accidents. The ratio doesn't justify it.