I challenge Unifier to debate the morality of abortion

I do not see this as a remotely good match up, and it is quite likely a failed debate before it can start.

This is just my opinion, but I cannot moderate this.

 

Nice to see you just stick to ad hominem rather than prove this 'troll' accusation through an actual debate. Pathetic, but not surprising.

Lol! im baffled as to why you couldnt understand I simply used the word feel synonymous with think. ok let me rephrase - I THINK they are accurate and by thinking this I inevitably feel they are accurate also.

Prove it in debate.

I actually would prefer you chose a mod so you couldn't use this as an excuse for losing.

I hope you debate me so I can finally prove you wrong and force you to confront such failure.

 

I thought it would be a good match given unifier chimes into abortion debates passionately but he does have a tendency to disappear just as he begins to flounder in arguing. Case in point. He's resorted to ad hominem this entire time to justify himself. That's why I think a debate would be good - to expose the fact he only ever has ad hominem as a defence to his faulty arguments. The fact he continues to avoid a debate with me and be able to choose a mod to declare me a troll is evidence I can't top.

 

Bets, take your Bets here!

 

Can I bet on myself to win?

 

Sure I don't see why not.

 

Ill bet $1000. Easy money.

 

Just so you know, I do get a portion of the winnings...

 

Might as well make it $2000 then

 

Good. Now I can lease whatever I want.

 

Two things
1. You feel he is a troll. That you make that choice is based on how he makes you feel. Personallu I don't think you are a troll, but that you have deeply held beliefs and those feelings gives you a sense of superiority and a related complex.

2. I don't buy the whole post editing story, unless you posted some kind insult. I thought it was just odd you got called out to debate, that you chickened out on, then left the site soon after.

It is easy to post in a thread, but to debate, one liner based stereotypes and wordy rants against all Libs/Cons just don't fly. Granted that is like 99.999% of the posts on the Internet.

I will take you up on a debate about abortion, and only would need 3 or 4 posts to end it victoriously.

 

I don't see Unifier as a troll either. I admire his conviction. But... oooh... the sanctimony.

So, who won the debate?

 

this is unfortunately one of those things where there's a 95% chance of anyone viewing the debate will think they one on their side 'won.' Both will make good arguments, both will find that the other is making some error, but both are based on value judgements. The pro-abortion side will say that life doesn't "count" until birth for whatever reason, something along the lines of the child not having any "interests/desires" until after birth, quite likely with some lame snipe about fetuses being leeches or w/e. The Anti-abortion side will say that an unborn child 'counts' as a human because it has a beating human heart and a functioning brain.

I personally find that there's no consistent way of looking at abortion as perfectly fine, but I'd be willing to take on such a debate, though I may be up to three days between posts, and would ask that the debate not get flooded with other people's opinions until the end. And it should be brief - probably 3 posts each. Introduction of argument A then B, body argument A then B, conclusion and closing arguments A and B.

 

I think your post explains most online "debates" about Abortion. However I could easily win a debate on Abortion with any Pro-Life poster, would only take me two posts on this board. I consider myself Pro-Choice if that matters.

All I would have to post to any Pro-Life person on here is this:

Do you feel abortion goes against your moral fiber and that your choice on this issue is based on what you deem moral? Additionally being Pro-Choice does NOT mean you support abortion at all, it means you feel as an individual that the person should make a choice based of their morals and beliefs. If you deny that choice then you are asserting your morals on them. Being that is the case, I have strong beliefs on certain issues that I deem immoral, since you are okay with your morals being heaped upon another, then you will have no issue with my morals being heaped on you. Frame that last part as a question and of course the Pro Lifer will try to wiggle with murder or what not. But if they don't answer the question then the point is made and I don't see how any thinking person could say a Pro Life debater won.

Both sides try and play the science game about when something is a fetus or life. But the reality of it is, the Pro Life side villifies the Pro Choice by misclassifying what they believe, and the Pro Choice spends more time trying to defend from that misclassifying.

Of course this is my opinion of course.

 

Well yeah, I think I already said that, but the anti-abortion side of the argument hinges on believing the unborn to be 'life' and that killing them is murder. Otherwise, there's no moral impetus to ban abortions. But come on Dixie, saying "something about murder" is not wiggling on abortion, it's the very crux of the pro-life position. It'd be like saying, "I could beat anyone on a discussion about the Constitutional right to bear arms, but they'd probably try to wiggle out of it with some 2nd amendment crap." Dude, it's central to the position.

I'm generally pro-life, but in my opinion it has always been this simple: abortion should be legal until the unborn is considered a human being. I always thought that went without saying. As far as 'attacks', the pro-choice side isn't a victim of rhetoric here any more than the pro-life side is. Stuff like that thing inside a woman's belly is a parasite?

 

Saying abortion is murder precisely makes my point. The pro choice side never makes the claim it isn't. I never wrote it isn't murder, though by legal definition it isn't. However I also don't say it isn't "killing" either. What I am saying is that this a choice based on one person puts their morals on another. And it is also vilifying others who don't think like them. Being pro choice doesn't mean you endorse abortion, it just means you feel an individual needs to make that choice on their own. I imagine most Americans are pro choice, but ask them if they would have an abortion they would say no. People don't want to be forced with someone else's morality.

 

I never said you did say it's murder - it's irrelevant. You said "...the Pro Lifer will try to wiggle with murder or what not." But as I've said, that's the very crux of it. No, no one (or at least the vast majority of pro-lifers, setting the fringes) actually says that abortion is currently legally murder. Otherwise, why would they campaign to change certain laws?

Now, what you're saying is "this a choice based on one person puts their morals on another. And it is also vilifying others who don't think like them." Well, that sounds absolutely ridiculous and silly when you actually consider that the pro-life side believes that abortion is wrong because it is killing an innocent human being (generally called murder, but w/e). Put that phrase in the context of murder, and it sounds kind of like, "we shouldn't judge murderers just because they kill other people for greed, sport, or whatever, that's imposing your morals on others, and it's wrong to villify others who don't think like you."

2 things: first, let's not pretend that pro-lifers are the only ones vilifying here, it's not as if no one ever claims the other side is trying to strip women of their rights. Second, the question of life is still central and is still being avoided. If we were to agree that an unborn child (note I'm not talking about 1 day after conception, I'm talking later) is a person, how could we not say that killing it for concerns of convenience is not murder? Or at least 'wrong'?

 

the fact is women's right to choose is a red herring, since the freedom of choice is made when a woman decides to screw that oh so cute Goober Clampett and risks getting pregnant in the first place, so claiming 'abortion is about womens' freedom of choice' conveniently ignores they exercise their freedom of choice by risking pregnancy in the first place. Biology sucks, and prohibiting abortion as a birth control convenience isn't denying 'freedom of choice'; the child has no such freedom of choice on whether to be born or not; abortion for reasons other than health and rape and the like are merely mindless self-indulgence run amok. Women are rarely forced to get pregnant, they make the choice to take that risk. Infanticide isn't something to approve of and support; it isn't 'enlightened and progressive', it's just a callous cheapening of human life.

 

Firstly....I was unaware that women can get pregnant without a man involved. Pretty sure the man also has a choice.

Secondly....the "Child" does not have the ability to choose ANYTHING, because it is not yet a child. "Freedom of choice" cannot exist without the ability to choose something in the first place.

And, thirdly....Just as you do not agree to being sucker punched in a bar, she does not agree to get pregnant for having sex. Every time you take an action that carries risk, there is the possibility of something you did not intend happening. This does not mean you do not address the unintended consequences of your actions. If you get in a car accident, do you simply abandon your car and limp home....or do you have the car repaired and go to the hospital.

 

I see what you are saying about morality and when life starts. But I am going to say something that might offend you. What difference does it make? Individuals should use their own values to decide what they do.

I see the life and morals argument as weak. It is like when PETA wants to stop hunting because they feel it is immoral and taking life. My response I don't hunt because I have no interest in killing for sport, but I respect others who enjoy shooting their own food.

 

So if you actually believe that, what does it matter if a racist jerkoff blows up a black church? And who cares what happens to him afterward?

 

Yes. After all, it's just a lifestyle choice, and we should all embrace diversity and stuff and make up whatever standards we want for ourselves without being oppressed by judgmental, narrow minded people. There is no real reason to limit abortions by age even; if it's okay to abort lives because somebody finds somebody else's existence inconvenient, then why limit it to viable fetuses?

 

I do believe it.

Both an act of terrorism in your example and abortion are about a choice and how you judge those actions are based on your morals.

Change the situation. You are ex Navy, so you can appreciate this. You'd sitting on the bridge of a
destroyer and you get orders to fire a missile at a target knowing that human lives are going to be lost. We will say for this example they are terrorists plotting to kill civilians.

Are your morals okay with that? You think the folks living next door or
down the street from where that missile hits is going to
see it the same way as you do?

That is the way Abortion is in my eyes. You are entitled to your view just don't force it on others. People have to decide how they feel about it. That is tech crux of being Pro-Choice. Let's face it, we all
are Pro-Choice, everyone makes a choice on how they feel on it

 

And as far as I'm seeing it, saying "don't force your c views on others" about killing a fetus in the womb for 4 months, or a 3 yr old little girl. The moral quandary is the same. Your rationale for the dismissal of one is equally applicable to the other.

 

While that is true, it is the woman who will get pregnant. We are told that contraception doesn't always work therefore, one would think that the female would be especially reticent to engage in penis in vagina sex however, with the astounding number of abortions, this seems not to be the case.

Any man who has penis-in-vagina sex and, has not made an absolute commitment and received an absolute commitment from the woman, is either an idiot or a jerk. Maybe both.

Yes, the very definition of a defenseless victim. One would think that even the most liberal (pro-choice) mind would want to protect such a helpless entity.

Since contraception is not 100%, she cannot really count on not getting pregnant. With all the abortions one would think that either contraception is quite unreliable OR women are just having unprotected sex.