Abortion

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Hello..if my argument that Abortion is wrong is null and void, they so is everyone else's argument that Abortion is right. You can't just be one or the other, if wrong and right don't exist, then NEITHER exist...not just one or the other. Nice try 👇

Morals may be subjective, but it is widely beleived that they are ALSO intuitive. LEt me not go off subject though....just because Morality is an aspect of our emotion and logic, does not mean that morality is non-existant.

Morality is as REAL as anyone believes it to be. And as long as ONE person has a sense of morality, then it is REAL to someone, and therefore EXISTS....damn man...you act as if things are ONLY TRUE if they are physically existant...as if something that exists in the mind is unreal or less credible. Mental existances are just as valid as physical existances...ok?

AS long as human beings exist, so will morality, because emotion and logic are both factors that every human being inhibits, regardless of in which sections the bias lies. Abortion IS a moral issue, JUST LIKE everything else concerning life and death are.

Again nice try 👇

AS long as there is a point of view, there is then judgement and morality as well. If Abortion is neutral than SO is the Death Penalty, so is banning gay marriage, so is limitting freedom of speech, etc.etc.etc.

If "right and wrong" don't exist in Abortion, then they do NOT exist ANYWHERE else either.

This whole post is you trying to go over your own tracks because you're contradicting yourself. Nice try. 👇

And if any pro-choicer says that abortion is right, call him out on it. Please, I'm going to put emphasis on the word CHOICE here. Whether it's right or wrong is basically irrelevant. Again, nice try. 👇

Abortion is neutral because it doesn't effect anyone outside of the mother. All of those other things you described effect other people. You need to understand that relationship.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
AS long as there is a point of view, there is then judgement and morality as well. If Abortion is neutral than SO is the Death Penalty, so is banning gay marriage, so is limitting freedom of speech, etc.etc.etc.

If "right and wrong" don't exist in Abortion, then they do NOT exist ANYWHERE else either.

How the **** do you figure? Prove that a relationship exists between whether or not abortion is right or wrong and whether or not right or wrong exist. 🤨

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By your own admission, abortion may be neutral:

You then argue that abortion cannot be neutral:

By your own admission, abortion may be independent of morality:

Furthermore, your argument is that there is a relationship between whether or not abortion is a moral dichotomy and whether or not moral dichotomies exist, i.e. if abortion is not right or wrong, then nothing is right or wrong.

That is the equivalent of arguing that if ice cream is not chocolate flavored or strawberry flavored, then no flavors exist.

🙄

Ah.......

Whether or not Abortion is wrong, right, or neutral is a matter of who beleives what. If there was no morality in Abortion, then WHAT would be the point to having a debate about it?

You are trying to shove the "arguing in terms of black and white" card down my throat, and it aint working. 👇

Again, you SEVERELY misunderstand my point, OR you want me to say something that I am not saying.

Someone argued....for the last time...that morality does not exist in Abortion, because Abortion is just an action.....nothing more nothing less. I never said that, someone else did.

ALL I am saying is that Morality exists in every issue concerning life and death, not to mention ANY issue where people have a point of view..which is every issue period.

Being "neutral" is ALSO an aspect of morality. AS is being right or wrong, or HOW right or how wrong, or HOW OFTEN it is right or wrong, or in WHAT circumstances the issue is right or wrong......

But...to argue that right and wrong don't exist in Abortion is a false argument. Right and wrong exist...just because they are mental aspects, and most likely subjective (but is also said to be intuitive)..does not mean that they don't exist.

The argument that morality does not exist in Abortion is a FALSE argument....plain and simple.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If "right and wrong" don't exist in Abortion, then they do NOT exist ANYWHERE else either.

So what if morals do not exist anywhere else? They're only labels anyways. What's your problem with this line of thinking? It would be someone's opinion, their point of view, their judgement. What's wrong with that?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The argument that morality does not exist in Abortion is a FALSE argument....plain and simple.

Why is it false? Just because you think there should be morals? Morals are only a fiction of imagination from the human mind, so we do not know whether or not they exist. So it is neither false or true

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I beleive it to be neutral in cases where the mother was raped or where the fetus threatens her life.

I thought you said that neutrality is a false argument. Why are you now saying that certain situations of abortion are free of morals when you said several posts ago that if abortion in general was free of morals then so is every other situation? You're not making much sense.

Perhaps you need to either 'darken' or 'lighten' your so called 'gray' answer so we can all understand you better.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Why are you now saying that certain situations of abortion are free of morals when you said several posts ago that if abortion in general was free of morals then so is every other situation? You're not making much sense.

Exactly my point.

So what if morals do not exist anywhere else? They're only labels anyways. What's your problem with this line of thinking? It would be someone's opinion, their point of view, their judgement. What's wrong with that?

Your argument is that morals do not exist, simply because they exist in our minds and are not physically manifested in anyway. As if the mental existances are less valid than the physical ones.

I already gave my arguments for why I beleive morals DO exist, so I am not going to repeat myself. Morals are subjective but also intuitive. I am not the only person who thinks this.

I do not have a problem with people who think morals do not exist, but if you think they do not exist in Abortion, but then you most likely HAVE TO think they do not exist anywhere else. That's fine....your opinion.

Why is it false? Just because you think there should be morals? Morals are only a fiction of imagination from the human mind, so we do not know whether or not they exist. So it is neither false or true

Again how do you know morals are simply part of our imagination? AGAIN because they are mental in nature, and not physical that means they don't exist? So something that only exists in mentality and emotions DOES not exist all together? yeah okay buddy !

Why are we even arguing this? The point to this debate is to stand behind whether or not you are for abortion and why......morals play a huge role in this debate, so why are you trying to neutralize them?

I thought you said that neutrality is a false argument. Why are you now saying that certain situations of abortion are free of morals when you said several posts ago that if abortion in general was free of morals then so is every other situation? You're not making much sense.

Perhaps you need to either 'darken' or 'lighten' your so called 'gray' answer so we can all understand you better.

Nope. Saying that Abortion is Nuetral in CERTAIN situations is not a false argument, as long as you can justifty why. Saying that Abortion is a nuetral issue ENTIRELY is a false argument, because that suggests that there is no wrong or right in the issue EVER.

Exactly my point.

👇 Your point is INVALID. Nice try though 😉

Your argument is that morals do not exist, simply because they exist in our minds and are not physically manifested in anyway. As if the mental existances are less valid than the physical ones.

As far as a foetuse is concerned, mental existences are less valid than the physical ones. So why are you applying moral values to abortion? Because you FEEL it is wrong. But foetuses do not feel... so what's the problem?

Again how do you know morals are simply part of our imagination? AGAIN because they are mental in nature, and not physical that means they don't exist? So something that only exists in mentality and emotions DOES not exist all together? yeah okay buddy !

Basically, anything that does not exist objectively does not exist period. We can feel emmotions, but if we could not feel, what then?

Nope. Saying that Abortion is Nuetral in CERTAIN situations is not a false argument, as long as you can justifty why. Saying that Abortion is a nuetral issue ENTIRELY is a false argument, because that suggests that there is no wrong or right in the issue EVER.

No, it is not a false argument... it is a contradicting one. If you can justify those means, why can you not justify all aspects of abortion to be exceptionally neutral?

Please explain your arguments more specifically because you're making yourself look like a contradicting idiot. OR you can stop trying to float in the middle and make a valid argument. You may not make a fully white or fully black answer, but it'll be either darker or lighter than the other. You cannot stop that.

Her body, her decision.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
You're fun to debate with because you don't get it, but you're also not fun to debate with because you just dont get it.

You are fun to debate because you argue yourself.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak

I have more reasons to allow abortion than 'I help society' but you just aren't understanding them, or just ignoring them. Why do you not understand "Help the children that are already born" WHY!? What language do you speak, maybe I should ****ing translate it for you.

No, you should ****ing watch your mouth and not swear only because you have nothing else to bring. All that "helping other children" you pulled out of your a$$, you explain that with overpupulation but tell me not to think of damn future. Again, you argue everything you say.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak

No, YOU'RE naive. I actually know women who have had abortions. It's a hard decision to make and it haunts them all the time. That doesn't mean they're going to stop living their lives though. You've pissed me off at this point.

I actually know women who had abortions too. Non of them are upset because of that. Two of them made it because they were not carefull while having sex and didn't wanted children at that time. That was few years ago. Now, one of them is pragnant again. She didn't wanted child then(not because she couldn't raise it but simply didn't wanted), but simply changed her mind in a few years. How freaking noble and fair!

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak

He doesn't want anything, he doesn't even have a damn brain before he's aborted. You're really trying too hard to make people have pity for the fetus.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak

No, I had a guess after the first few posts, but I figured you made a few typos. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt really.

I never tried to pretend that english is my first language coz it's not.
It takes one to look at the "location" and to read few posts to realise that he is talking to a foreigner. You couldn't do that. Remember that anytime you would think of calling ME idiot...

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak

No, overpopulation is a problem NOW. When ONE country has 1/6th of the entire world's population, it's a problem.

Now you are just making excuses. That there are a lot of people in China it doesn't mean that we have overpopulation in the world.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak

No, I was refuting your argument of 'but they might be presidents or actors or blah blah blah', I was using YOUR logic, so dont give me that shit.

No you weren't. My point never was that we should let them live ONLY because they MIGHT become president or actor. My point was that we should let live so they would have a chance.
It was your idea that we must get rid of them because they might grow up bad and it was your logic, so don't say it was mine.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak

Many countries is NOT the WHOLE planet. Why do you not understand that? And statistics DOESN'T say that the amount of deaths will become larger than the amount of births. I want you to quote any and all sources that say that bullshit.

Fact is that during war, there are actually MORE births, because when a soldier comes home from fighting, what does he want to do with his wife/girlfriend? Make babies.

👆 there are more birthes but MUCH more deathes that time than at peacefull time. And amount of deathes during wars is FAR greater than amount of born children after these wars. And during desasters (that unfortunatly became very often recently) there are no more birthes than ussualy but deathes are MUCH more. Simple logic...

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak

This is the last post of yours that I'm replying too. You aggrivate me with your refusal to accept hard facts(i.e. world population statistics), refusal to understand my points, and plain ignorance on the effect that an abortion has on a woman.

Yeah, and another reason is that you realised that you argue your own words more than mine. It happened not once. All your "hard facts" are possible threats of the future that you yourself suggest to ignore.
Since you wanna end this conversation I will repeat myself again.
All fetuses must have a chance of living, and overpopulation (that is not really a problem) must not take that chance from them. Nor possibility of becoming murderers must take this chance from all them since you can't kill anyone who MIGHT grow up a bad guy. I made my point clear.

I know this is cliche but if abortion is murder calling the exterminator is genocide. Just because something is alive doesn't mean it should be "Protected".

It's not murder, for crying out loud.

I swear this thread has been dog patch for morons for the past 200 pages or more.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not murder, for crying out loud.

I swear this thread has been dog patch for morons for the past 200 pages or more.

-AC

I'd say it really started 150 pages ago.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not murder, for crying out loud.

I swear this thread has been dog patch for morons for the past 200 pages or more.

-AC

There your friendly neighborhood religious nuts.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not murder, for crying out loud.

I swear this thread has been dog patch for morons for the past 200 pages or more.

-AC

I'm curious, if you're so adamant that abortion isn't murder, what is it or how would you classify it? And, when do you feel that an embryo becomes a person?

Originally posted by Kritish
I know this is cliche but if abortion is murder calling the exterminator is genocide. Just because something is alive doesn't mean it should be "Protected".

Are you comparing rats, roaches, ant's etc. to humans? Because, I do not see the relevance of what you said.

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you comparing rats, roaches, ant's etc. to humans? Because, I do not see the relevance of what you said.

A fetus isn't a human, that's like calling an acorn a tree.

Originally posted by Kritish
A fetus isn't a human, that's like calling an acorn a tree.

What is it then? It has all the genetic makeup it will ever have just like a human has. Also, I'm assuming that you meant embryo and not fetus, a fetus can clearly be seen having a human appearance.

And an acorn essentially is an acorn tree, it just hasn't developed into one yet...

Originally posted by Robtard
What is it then? It has all the genetic makeup it will ever have just like a human has.

And an acorn essentially is an acorn tree, it just hasn't developed into one yet...

So, if an eleven year-old gets raped she should have to go through the pregnancy?

Originally posted by Kritish
So, if an eleven year-old gets raped she should have to go through the pregnancy?

That's irrelevant to what I asked you, since that is only one small aspect of the abortion debate, but I'll answer anyways from my own point of view.

No, a victim of rape should not have to go through birth, it's unfortunate for the baby but this is one of the very few exceptions where an pro-abortion has a valid argument. I'd hope that the person would go through the birth and consider putting the child for adoption if the being the parent of a rape birth is too much to bare, but I wouldn't hold it against them if they absolutely couldn't, especially in the case of a child being raped.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's irrelevant to what I asked you, since that is only one small aspect of the abortion debate, but I'll answer anyways from my own point of view.

No, a victim of rape should not have to go through birth, it's unfortunate for the baby but this is one of the very few exceptions where an abortion has a valid argument. I'd hope that the person would go through the birth and consider putting the child for adoption if the being the parent of a rape birth is too much to bare, but I wouldn't hold it against them if they absolutely couldn't, especially in the case of a child being raped.

Who decides if it's necessary or not?