Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

[initforme]

Contraception has nothing to do with abortion in this debate. Stop spamming.

Not going away..

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Not going away..

Well then address the topic. My goodness.

 

[pknopp]

"Actual life"?

Her life is actually at risk.

Yeah. Until it was.

It shouldn't have been.

 

[initforme]

Well then address the topic. My goodness.

I did. Young people need not be open to procreating...

 

[pknopp]

I've not heard a pro-life person who opposes a procedure that is life-threatening situation to the mother.

There are many.

It's the one allowable instance, although many mothers might sacrifice themselves for their child.. which is Christ-like, but not expected. It's much like murder vs. killing in self-defense. Both end with the death of a human, but one is justifiable and the other is not. We may be largely in agreement.

Well that's a different claim, and I'm curious to know something about both claims you made:

1. Are you referring to the Treaty of Versailles as far as why WW2 shouldn't have been necessary?

People were (understandable somewhat) pissed at Germany after WWI. They kept Germany beat down which allowed for rise of Hitler.

2. Regardless of whether it should have been necessary, the rise of the Nazi party under Hitler happened, and he expanded. You said you opposed all war, and no human can kill another. So what do you expect the surrounding nations of Germany to do?

I noted self defense.

 

[pknopp]

Voters of each state decide. Best outcome. No losers.

Unless you are actually pro-life.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I did. Young people need not be open to procreating...

No, the topic is about once a life is created, what is allowed.

 

[Lockback]

Her life is actually at risk.

Ok.

It shouldn't have been.

Yeah, but it was. Hitler was, to say the least, a "problem". A really, really, really BIG problem. And so were his armed forces. You can argue the Versailles Treaty or whatever and maybe he should be have been assassinated but the fact is that something had to be done about him. And about Japan. And Italy.

 

[initforme]

No, the topic is about once a life is created, what is allowed.

The voters in each state get to decide. Perfect. Nobody loses.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

There are many.

it can't be common as far as my observations. I'm not saying none exist, but I'm pretty observant of the mainstream pro-life community.

People were (understandable somewhat) pissed at Germany after WWI. They kept Germany beat down which allowed for rise of Hitler.

Yes, I agree that the sanctions against Germany were a part of how Hitler rose to power, but pointing that out doesn't negate the fact that it happened.

I noted self defense.

So do you take back your claim of:

"I don't believe anyone has the right to take the life of another."

 

[pknopp]

it can't be common as far as my observations. I'm not saying none exist, but I'm pretty observant of the mainstream pro-life community.

I don't really think I tried to argue it was main stream.

Yes, I agree that the sanctions against Germany were a part of how Hitler rose to power, but pointing that out doesn't negate the fact that it happened.

With my argument being it shouldn't have had to happen.

So do you take back your claim of:

"I don't believe anyone has the right to take the life of another."

I already addressed that just like I have many times.

As a Christian, I am pro-life. No one has a right to take the life of another outside of direct self defense.

He didn't. No one has the right to take the life of another outside of direct self defense (which obviously wasn't the case here) IMO.

IMO, no one has the right to take the life of another outside of direct self defense.

I've done it so many times (there are far more than that) that I thought i wouldn't have to now.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I don't really think I tried to argue it was main stream.

We agree.

With my argument being it shouldn't have had to happen.

But that doesn't negate the fact that it did, so saying it shouldn't have happened really doesn't matter.

I already addressed that just like I have many times.

I've done it so many times (there are far more than that) that I thought i wouldn't have to now.

You've certainly been all the things I was hoping for when I made this thread, and I appreciate and respect that, but you've said 2 things:

1. "I don't believe anyone has the right to take the life of another."

and

2. People can kill in self-defense.

Those two are at an impasse. I'm just curious how you reconcile that.

 

[pknopp]

We agree.

But that doesn't negate the fact that it did, so saying it shouldn't have happened really doesn't matter.

You've certainly been all the things I was hoping for when I made this thread, and I appreciate and respect that, but you've said 2 things:

1. "I don't believe anyone has the right to take the life of another."

and

2. People can kill in self-defense.

Those two are at an impasse. I'm just curious how you reconcile that.

Already explained with examples.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Already explained with examples.

No, you didn't reconcile your impasse. All of the examples you gave contradict your original claim of:

"I don't believe anyone has the right to take the life of another."

If you want to amend that, by all means, go ahead.

 

[pknopp]

No, you didn't reconcile your impasse. All of the examples you gave contradict your original claim of:

"I don't believe anyone has the right to take the life of another."

If you want to amend that, by all means, go ahead.

If you don't want to read what I wrote, writing it again isn't going to help.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

If you don't want to read what I wrote, writing it again isn't going to help.

Again, you're holding 2 positions at one time.

How can someone kill another in self defense if nobody has the right to take the life of another?

 

[Leo123]

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.

Pro-abortionists do not use the same definitions as most. Any debate is destined to fail when they have no definition of life that is viable or scientific. They ignore the reality human life because their moral base is relative to what makes them feel good.

 

[initforme]

Pro-abortionists do not use the same definitions as most. Any debate is destined to fail when they have no definition of life that is viable or scientific. They ignore the reality human life because their moral base is relative to what makes them feel good.

The issue has been settled. Roe is gone. Voters decide as it should be. Nobody lises i. This scenario.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

The issue has been settled. Roe is gone. Voters decide as it should be. Nobody lises i. This scenario.

In case you didn't realize it, Roe came into being in the 70's, and now ended. Things change. You seem to think nothing will change going forward. I'd advise you to pick up a history book, and even look back the past 20 years and watch as things have changed.

 

[initforme]

Yes Roe ended. Now each state decides. The issue has now been morally decided. Wonderful outcome.