Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

[JoeB131]

We currently let local government handle that, Children's Protective Services, with bureaucratic standards of parenting competence. Before we had so much bureaucracy, parents had help of their communities and extended families. That is what we will need again as the bureaucracy is defunded.

The reason why that bureaucracy was set up was that communities and extended families weren't getting the job done.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

We currently let local government handle that, Children's Protective Services, with bureaucratic standards of parenting competence. Before we had so much bureaucracy, parents had help of their communities and extended families. That is what we will need again as the bureaucracy is defunded.

I thought you meant deciding who gets to be parents on the front end. You’ll always have bad apples in any group.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

The reason why that bureaucracy was set up was that communities and extended families weren't getting the job done.

No, the bureaucracy was set up to get people dependent on it so you can blackmail them for their vote. That’s it. The proof is in the historical data, notice when welfare exploded and how much bad results occurred from it

 

[Mr. Friscus]

There are some species that sometimes eat their born young: cats, rabbits, etc., and more that eat the young of territorial rivals.

Exactly. We aren’t like animals, even though the left seems to desire to lower ourselves to their standards of morality here.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

"Any unwanted child can be adopted" falls on its face when we consider the hundreds of thousands of children dumped in foster care. Many are neglected and abused until they age out at 18 and become homeless, incarcerated, addicted, etc. Foster child education ranges from adequate to none at all.

Life is more important than anything.. and Foster care isn’t the boogeyman you’re making it out to be. Many kids do just fine considering tough circumstances. It’s better than being killed. I’m sure deep down you’re afraid to admit you’re glad your mom didn’t kill you in the womb.

 

[skews13]

Of course, this board is ripe with people who spew fallacies as a debate go-to, but I challenge anyone to stay on topic and discuss the issue without becoming hyperbolic, emotional, or political.

My stance is clear, on many fronts (and you can take on any of them:

1. Scientific: We know that once a sperm and egg unite, they create a unique human life with it's own DNA that is separate from the mother. So it has nothing directly to do with the body of the mother. The mother is a nourisher and supporter of the life inside her, and is performing a woman's superpower, something men cannot do.

2. Philosophic: We are trying to determine the value of a human life, when it begins, what a "person" is. The bottom line is that nobody can say for certain. We've seen horrible atrocities occur when human life is devalued by dictators. The creation of a human life is the ultimate value, and the beginning of the process of a unique being's journey towards it's full complete journey through birth, growing as a child, through teens, and into generally a complete adult by age 23-25.

3. Religious: God loves us, and the teachings are clear He does not approve of us deciding to kill his creations in this way.


I've yet to hear a convincing argument from pro-abortionists, as they
1. ignore the proponents I listed
2. attempt to turn it into some sort of battle of the sexes (despite the gigantic bloc of women who oppose abortion), only focusing on the "inconvenience" placed on the mother, and how it's unfair. If a pro-abortionist would like to add more
3. Dehumanize the fetus despite its' scientific realities and it's philosophical capital.

I invite anyone who can handle a low intensity and high content debate to reply. If we get angry pro-abortionists invading with fallacies, I'll simply point them out and move on.

Scientific: We know without any doubt, that pregnancy goes wrong for any number of issues, that puts the life of the mother in danger, and the pregnancy must be terminated by medical professionals.

It is also scientific fact that a fetus is not a baby, and the pregnancy can also be terminated by either medical professional, or can be self induced by the mother by safe and effective pharmaceutical prescription.

Philosophic: The only concern by anyone involved with the pregnancy, is by the mother, her husband, partner, or family. There are no other valid concerns.

Religious: Plays no role whatsoever, except from the mothers own personal beliefs.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Scientific: We know without any doubt, that pregnancy goes wrong for any number of issues, that puts the life of the mother in danger, and the pregnancy must be terminated by medical professionals.

Well let’s test out that logic, and I’ll put a different scenario in and see if it holds up. I’ll even use your words.

We know without any doubt, that pregnancy goes wrong (car accidents happen) for any number of issues, that puts the life of the mother (driver) in danger, and the pregnancy (car) must be terminated (confiscated) by medical professionals (government)

I’m guessing you don’t think we should remove and take cars because car accidents happen? If so, then at least you’d be consistent.

It is also scientific fact that a fetus is not a baby

Prove your claim. How is an 8 month fetus not a baby?

and the pregnancy can also be terminated by either medical professional, or can be self induced by the mother by safe and effective pharmaceutical prescription.

Yes, sick doctors and parents have the capability to kill babies and infants.

Philosophic: The only concern by anyone involved with the pregnancy, is by the mother, her husband, partner, or family. There are no other valid concerns.

Well, let’s use that absolute claim of yours and test that logic.

Suppose a family wants to kill their 8 year old child. You claimed that there are no other valid concerns, not government, not human rights.. JUST the woman, husband, partner, or family. Thats it.

So again, I’ll use your words and just install a different scenario:

The only concern by anyone involved with the (killing of the 8 year old child) is by the mother, her husband, partner, or family. There are no other valid concerns.

That sounds like horrible and evil morality to me. There would have to be more considerations, correct?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Andweall.know a woman and her doctor are the only ones who should be deciding on wether or not to bring new life into this world. And they shouldn't have to explain that to anyone.

"We all know" it? I don't think we do LOL

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Well, you know, because it's fun...

That's very poor reasoning to say if something is okay or not.

Mass murderers and rapists enjoy their actions quite a bit. There has to be more considerations, right?

The reality of it was that Abortion Laws in the 1960s were about as effective as the prostitution laws. So prostitution is illegal, but you still have escort services, massage parlors, strip joints, etc. where you can have sex for money. Same with abortion laws back then. OB/GYNs routinely performed early-stage abortions, wrote something else down on the chart, and insurance paid for it

By what metric are you making a claim of laws being "about as effective as the prostitution laws" outside of "because I said so" and "it's how I viewed it".

Of course, people wanted the laws changed because they knew they were stupid and ineffective, but they just couldn't get past the moral scolds. So the Court stepped in.

Who are "people"?

So who got arrested? Inept providers who injured the woman.

Huh? The same doctors before RVW were the ones who performed them after.

I'm sure if a woman found a bunch of unwanted Sea Turtle Eggs up her hoo-ha, she'd want to get rid of those, too.

Human beings aren't in danger of extinction. Sea Turtles are.

Again, you value sea turtles over humans. LOL. I'll gladly let that be the standard as a difference between your woke leftism and my Conservatism. You'd kill humans to save Sea Turtles, I wouldn't.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

If I dont want someone to take my property, such as selling them a cake, or a burger and fries, isnt impeding on their rights.

And what are you defining as your "property" in this scenario?

You mean people out of the womb?

You'd have to tell me what changes in a baby between 12:00pm when in breech position in the womb and 12:01 outside of the womb. What happens to that baby/fetus that suddenly vaults them as far as their biology and their development? What about after they are born and still connected to the mother via the imbilical cord?

I know but it is literally connected to her. If something happened, it would die extremely fast. Its a part of her body.

No it's not. The only way something could be a part of her body would be if it has the same DNA as the women. I know your ideology needs to twist this in order to tread water, but it's simply not true. It's a genetically unique individual being.

And if the reason to be okay with killing something is because not helping it would cause it to "die extremely fast", well, infants out of the womb fit that criteria.

That's the problem with making broad claims and not tightening your logic.. you can't fend off cross-examinations.

Feeding a baby and wiping its ass, isnt anywhere near what it is being compared to.

You had to add on the latter to try to discount it, but "feeding" is quite important, wouldn't you say?

 

[Sparker]

Life is more important than anything.. and Foster care isn’t the boogeyman you’re making it out to be. Many kids do just fine considering tough circumstances. It’s better than being killed. I’m sure deep down you’re afraid to admit you’re glad your mom didn’t kill you in the womb.

The foster care to prison pipeline is well known. This permanently homeless and uneducated guy describes foster care as "kid prison."


But with a low birthrate still dropping, kids may become too valuable to be wasted and ignored in foster care. I have some hope for future generations of orphans.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

The foster care to prison pipeline is well known.

Okay. Still better than being killed.

This permanently homeless and uneducated guy describes foster care as "kid prison."

That’s nice. Anecdotes don’t really mean anything to me in debates.

 

[Sparker]

Okay. Still better than being killed.

Orphans who age out so truamatized or unprepared for adult life that they become terminal addicts, or commit suicide before they age out, may wish they had been aborted.

Sentencing an orphan to kid prison, followed by permanent homelessness, is torture. Caring more about the kids who are alive now seems more important than the fetuses that aren't. If we can drop the foster care system because all the kids are adopted and we don't need foster care anymore, then we could be ready for the extra births that are currently prevented.

 

[buttercup]

This might be a Captain Obvious thing to say, but the entire debate really boils down to: When does the life of a human being begin? Any other arguments are secondary. For example, pro-aborts like to bring up the bodily autonomy argument. But if you ask them the question, "Do you believe it would be OK to kill a full-term, healthy preborn who is minutes away from delivery, for no reason except that the mother decided not to have the baby?" Very few people would say yes. Because anyone who is sane knows that would be a horribly wrong, evil thing to do. So the bodily autonomy argument collapses, because if it doesn't work throughout the entire pregnancy, that shows that what it all hinges on is not bodily autonomy, but when does a human life begin?

The inescapable fact is that the life of every human being begins at conception. And abortion is homicide.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Orphans who age out so truamatized or unprepared for adult life that they become terminal addicts, or commit suicide before they age out, may wish they had been aborted.

Sentencing an orphan to kid prison, followed by permanent homelessness, is torture. Caring more about the kids who are alive now seems more important than the fetuses that aren't. If we can drop the foster care system because all the kids are adopted and we don't need foster care anymore, then we could be ready for the extra births that are currently prevented.

I won't get into a "life is torture" goth debate with you... because it's simply a difference in perspective on life. some people have very difficult lives, but you can't just speak for all of them and say they shouldn't have lived. You don't get to make that call. Ask them.

And all of this is just shifting the goal posts away from the actual topic.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

This might be a Captain Obvious thing to say, but the entire debate really boils down to: When does the life of a human being begin? Any other arguments are secondary. For example, pro-aborts like to bring up the bodily autonomy argument. But if you ask them the question, "Do you believe it would be OK to kill a full-term, healthy preborn who is minutes away from delivery, for no reason except that the mother decided not to have the baby?" Very few people would say yes. Because anyone who is sane knows that would be a horribly wrong, evil thing to do. So the bodily autonomy argument collapses, because if it doesn't work throughout the entire pregnancy, that shows that what it all hinges on is not bodily autonomy, but when does a human life begin?

The inescapable fact is that the life of every human being begins at conception. And abortion is homicide.

Indeed, there's a predictable path pro-abortion folks take. It's:
1. What about the woman
2. It's just a clump of cells
3. You don't care about living people anyways

All 3 ignore the basics you lay out. The reason is, most people know that killing a near-birth infant is murder. Only the ones desperate enough to stay in complete ideologue-land suppress it, in the name of the cause.

And yes, "It's her body, her choice" means that she can "choose" at ANY portion of the pregnancy to end it. This is followed by the predictable reply of "That never happens", but number one that's false, and two let's talk about if it SHOULD happen. The pro-abortionist doesn't want that conversation, and then they evade. It happens almost every time. Occasionally you'll get some pro-abortionists to fess up to being okay with killing an 8 month old fetus.. and it's shocking every time. But hey, at least they're honest. That's all I ask for, because if pro-abortionists are honest they'll quickly be defeated in society.

Their rhetoric often gets them into trouble.

 

[initforme]

No, I was hoping for some rational public discourse, adult style. I was hoping you would respond with YOUR interpretation and meaning of the one-sentence amendment, but no joy. I rather expected that.

The Ninth has been cited in only one SCOTUS case as far as I know, Griswold v. Connecticut. The court upheld a couple's unenumerated right to practice birth control, in violation of a Connecticut statute.

Imagine being so morally bankrupt as to making birth control a bad thing. Mind boggling. How can it be looked at any other way?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Imagine being so morally bankrupt as to making birth control a bad thing. Mind boggling. How can it be looked at any other way?

Birth control isn't a part of this discussion. We're talking about what happens once conception happens. I don't get why you're incapable of addressing a topic.

 

[JoeB131]

No, the bureaucracy was set up to get people dependent on it so you can blackmail them for their vote. That’s it. The proof is in the historical data, notice when welfare exploded and how much bad results occurred from it

Well, let's look at that. Let's look at the poverty rate.

Wait, what, the Poverty rate went from 22.4% to a little over 10% today?

(And that's with the government continually defining poverty up. It's much better to be a poor person today than it was in 1959)

That's very poor reasoning to say if something is okay or not.

Mass murderers and rapists enjoy their actions quite a bit. There has to be more considerations, right?

You are comparing recreational sex between consenting adults to mass murder? Really?

By what metric are you making a claim of laws being "about as effective as the prostitution laws" outside of "because I said so" and "it's how I viewed it".

Well, here's a good metric for you. The birth rate didn't drop dramatically after 1973. In fact, it went up by 1975.

U.S. Birth Rate (1950-2025)

Crude birth rate indicates the number of live births occurring during the year, per 1,000 population estimated at midyear. Subtracting the crude death rate from the crude birth rate provides the rate of natural increase, which is equal to the rate of population change in the absence of migration.

www.macrotrends.net

Which tells me that the abortion laws that were still on the books just legalized what was already happening.

Huh? The same doctors before RVW were the ones who performed them after.

Exactly my point.

Again, you value sea turtles over humans. LOL. I'll gladly let that be the standard as a difference between your woke leftism and my Conservatism. You'd kill humans to save Sea Turtles, I wouldn't.

I know. Your sort would leave the planet an empty hole in the ground sucking out all the resources.

So let's look at Sea Turtles vs. Humans. Out of 1000 Sea Turtle Eggs laid, maybe one reaches adulthood. Even without human intervention, nature picks off most of the "babies". This is why protecting their nesting sites is so important.

Now, let's compare that to humans. A baby human has a 97.5% chance of reaching adulthood globally. In the US, that number is 99.4 (still high among industrialized countries, but your side doesn't think poor people deserve health care, so there's that.)

Simply put, there's no danger of humans becoming extinct other than our own bad management of the world.

Now, it wasn't always this way. The infant mortality rate in the Middle Ages was 30-50%. So people needed to have six kids to just get one or two to make it to adulthood. Today, not so much. There's no compelling reason to protect every last darned zygote through restrictive abortion laws.

 

[JoeB131]

Birth control isn't a part of this discussion. We're talking about what happens once conception happens. I don't get why you're incapable of addressing a topic.

Abortion is birth control of last resort. I don't get why you are incapable of understanding that.