Oh boy. Please dont attack people offer issues you dont know about. I wanted the guy I was talking to to give a moral principle, not a definition of morality, since the latter is rather useless in resolving the issue of abortion, whereas the former is paramount.
That is only your moral opinion, one I dont share. I think that killing a viable human life is not immoral unless the brain cortex is developed and functioning, too. Birth defect or not, I think there is no victim and no crime.
I am not making my own definition at all, I am saying dictionary definition of morality does not specify a moral system (which is a fact). Just like dictionary definition of religion does not mean Christianity or Islam specifically. Its insufficient to simply say " morality" in this debate, because different moral systems view the abortion issue differently. So, WHAT morality? According to who? Deontological, consequentialist, utilitarian, virtue morality?
I disagree I do not see it that way at all. if you want a mod to oversee the debate then she is best suited. now, how would it be billed? would it be Pro-Life vs anti-life? Anti-abortion vs pro-abortion? pro-choice for death of baby vs pro-choice for life of the baby? how would you lablel this riveting, head-to-head engagement?
so that would be #3 pro choice for killing of baby vs anti choice for killing of baby OK, that seems fitting
Roe was decided on the right to the privacy of one's body with regard Constitutional rights so I don't see SCOTUS forcing its opinion on us..... That being said we ARE being forced to accept abortion as a normal course of contraception by about 1/2 of our government representatives (Democrats) that have used so-called 'pro-choice' (translation: pro-abortion) as their banner and litmus-test for entry into their party's power-base. There is also government schools that allow little girls to get abortions behind their parents' back, the fact that our government gives some of our tax dollars to PP who are the purveyors of abortion across this country and the main-stream media that marches in lock-step with the liberal-leftist-socialist-Democrat pro-choice dogma.
No, absolutely not. You don't have to accept it all. You are freely able to use your own judgement. First of all, it's important that young people know they can seek help in complete confidence. It's vital, in fact. It could literally mean the difference between life and death for them. If you want your daughters to confide in you, then it's up to you to make sure they know they can. That's your job. The job of the government is to act in the best interests of young people. Secondly, you know that no government funding to PP pays for abortions.
Hint: When you agree just state so. That is none of the government's business. The actions of underage children are their parent's responsibility 100%. There is no constitutional basis for government interjecting itself into family matters EXCEPT in the case of child abuse by the parents and, since MOST parents have a loving, healthy relationship with their children the 'secret' abortion is IMO immoral and unconstitutional and, BTW, giving children the 'tools' to go behind their parent's back only exacerbates the typical natural defiant, rebellious behavior most kids exhibit in their teenage years thus, putting an utterly needless extra burden on parents. Frankly, the whole thing smacks of Socialist tactics where the parents are supplanted by the State. The vast majority of folks don't need intrusive government control over their children. Making general policies to cover a small percentage of the population is SOCIALIST in nature and goes directly against our guaranteed individual freedoms here in the U.S. It allows CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL over the masses in areas that should be private. You have completely missed the point. Parents are constantly undermined by government, the media and indeed the public schools their kids attend. The GOVERNMENT is urging kids NOT to 'confide' in their parents. This is wrong and immoral. Selective bookkeeping.
That being said we ARE being forced to accept abortion as a normal course of contraception by about 1/2 of our government representatives (Democrats) that have used so-called 'pro-choice' (translation: pro-abortion) as their banner and litmus-test for entry into their party's power-base. I don't agree with that and told you why. You haven's answered my point that it's vital young people know they will treated in confidence. That would only be the case if children were discouraged from telling their parents. They aren't. Children are also entitled to privacy if their well being is at stake. No, they are absolutely not. Children are encouraged to tell their parents, but sadly some children are afraid of their parents. Quite often this fear is unfounded, but that is the fault of the parents. Make sure your children know they can trust you, no matter what. Nonsense.
Murder is a legal term and specifically means "unlawful killing." If the government says it's lawful, then it's not murder. Well, assuming that you believe that government is the sole provider of law.
You sound extremely ignorant about the issue, but this is not a surprise. Most families may be functional, but among families where an underage child got pregnant and is looking for solutions "behind the parents back", there is a high percentage of, if not abuse, then neglect or incompetence on the family's part. You appear to be one of these people who believe most young teens[12-14] get pregnant from experimentation with peers, when indications are pregnancies that young are mostly a result of incest and rape from adult males. Now carry on in your comforting ignorance...
well you might want to check your story with your other proabortionists because THEY all say that younguns is gonna have sex regardless and need information on how not to get preggers... Now carry on in YOUR comforting ignorance...
Dont lie mate: "actually we are done..." bahahaha! You said earlier "I can't explain it." You're sure one to accuse others of not being able to debate! haha ps. you cna still debate me anytime by agreeing to discuss abortion with me on the debate forum. You can choose a moderator to declare a winner and keep the debate in line, ie relevant and without fallacies.
So are you going to debate me or not? If to please go away. If you have a problem with my proposition please point it out. I said earlier that who ever wishes to debate me can assign a third party to declare the winner of the debate, or just generally moderate it.
Why? Have you not seen her comments around here? I dont think she would be entirely neutral. If you want her to be the moderator, then alright, but as I say I doubt it would be completely fair, despite the fact she is generally a good mod. Probably something like the OP being: Debate: That abortion is morally acceptable. My contention is..... yada yada. After this you would basically state your own contention and then counter my argument, or vis versa.
YOU arent forced to accept anything. If YOU want, you dont have to have an abortion. Women dont HAVE TO have an abortion. No one is being forced to do anything. Roe v Wade gives women liberty of choice. That was all part of Roe v Wade? ps. I'm a libertarian and support choice. There is no such thing in the main stream that could be described as "liberal-leftist-socialist-Democrat pro-choice dogma." That's just political rethoric, something lifers are fond of. I wish it would be sustained and principled argumentation instead.
Its remarkable when, even when I pose the opportunity for a debate and say a third party can monitor it - of my opponents own choosing, lifers STILL run from arguing against abortion. Cowards.
Yo if you remake a thread i'll debate you, im kinda hanging on the edge of whether i think its moral or not.
