Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

[initforme]

The subject of the thread is not about abortion law, it is about the morality and philosophy of abortion and about taking life. Even a zygote represents human life. It will, if not killed, most certainly develop into a human person's life. It is actually worse than killing or murder it is denying the opportunity to develop after the spark of conception and the organized action of dividing and developing cells.

My question is why, under normal circumstances, would any life be unwanted?

I have no dog in this fight.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I always did.
And it always worked.

.

The generation that is fertile now is too lazy or too stupid to effectively use birth control.

.

 

[initforme]

.

The generation that is fertile now is too lazy or too stupid to effectively use birth control.

.

People are using birth control. This fertle generation is no worse than any other generation. Theyre actually having less kids

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Wow, when I joked in the other thread that you miss the barefoot-and-pregnant days, I was being a little hyperbolic, but it turns out not really.

Here's the thing. 2/3rds of fertilized zygotes never attach to the uterine wall. 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriages. We don't treat those as murders or deaths to be mourned; we just move on.

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.

More children will die of treatable diseases in the third world than are ended by abortions. Trump's gutting of USAID will kill 600,000 third-world children every year. Your concern for human life would impress me if you gave a crap after the umbilical cord is cut.

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

Right. God loves us, which is why we have cancer and famine and plagues and war, because God loves us SOOOOO much.

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.

In short, you'll reject any arguments you don't like. Got it.

'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.

Okay, here's the only argument you need.

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she'll find a way to not be pregnant.

Period. Full stop.

The reason why SCOTUS struck down the state abortion laws with Roe is that they were already being largely ignored. Women would go into their OB/GYN, they would perform the abortion, write something else down on the chart, and insurance would pay for it.

It's like you guys learned NOTHING from prohibition. If people want something badly enough, they'll find a way to get it.

So you will either have to create a police state to make sure women aren't having abortions (do we start investigating miscarriages as homicides?) or you will have another raft of laws people will ignore.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Thats your opinion, not a fact.

A widely held opinion.

 

[initforme]

A widely held opinion.

Why do i meed more grandchildren? You havent explained why 1 is not enough.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

I think abortion is absolutely horrible. But its also none of the govts business. Women shouldn't lose bodily autonomy because something is growing in them.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why do i meed more grandchildren? You havent explained why 1 is not enough.

A widely held opinion. I said that already. You are the reason for our declining birthrate.

 

[sartre play]

Why do i meed more grandchildren? You havent explained why 1 is not enough.

Now YOU want to fight over how many grand childern some one has?
There are problems with many pregnancy's. At that point the pregnant female and a licensed doctor
Need to be involved. NOT some uninvolved man, EASY
for you to pass judgment, as YOU never have to worry or even think about getting pregnant.
or suffer any consequences.

 

[initforme]

A widely held opinion. I said that already. You are the reason for our declining birthrate.

Oh my bad. So sorry.

 

[Leo123]

I have no dog in this fight.

Yet here you are

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I think abortion is absolutely horrible. But its also none of the govts business. Women shouldn't lose bodily autonomy because something is growing in them.

So you oppose a universal definition of what a human is, and leave it up to each individual based in their issues and conveniences? To me that’s unacceptable at any level of dealing with human life

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Wow, when I joked in the other thread that you miss the barefoot-and-pregnant days, I was being a little hyperbolic, but it turns out not really.

Ad hominem fallacy

Here's the thing. 2/3rds of fertilized zygotes never attach to the uterine wall. 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriages. We don't treat those as murders or deaths to be mourned; we just move on.

Red herring: We’re talking about what happens to the ones that attach

More children will die of treatable diseases in the third world than are ended by abortions. Trump's gutting of USAID will kill 600,000 third-world children every year. Your concern for human life would impress me if you gave a crap after the umbilical cord is cut.

Another red herring fallacy, has nothing to do with the topic

Right. God loves us, which is why we have cancer and famine and plagues and war, because God loves us SOOOOO much.

You can choose not to believe, go ahead.

In short, you'll reject any arguments you don't like. Got it.

No, you can make valid arguments, you just don’t.

Okay, here's the only argument you need.

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she'll find a way to not be pregnant.

“If someone wants to x, they’ll find a way, so we might as well just make x legal”

What poor logic. Substitute other issues in there

1. If someone wants to murder, they’ll find a way, so we might as well just make murder legal

2. If someone wants to steal, they’ll find a way, so we might as well just make stealing legal

3. If someone wants to do heroin, they’ll find a way, so we might as well just make heroin legal

How silly

 

[initforme]

Yet here you are

Its entertainment. These issues are entertaining.

 

[JoeB131]

So you oppose a universal definition of what a human is, and leave it up to each individual based in their issues and conveniences? To me that’s unacceptable at any level of dealing with human life

But it's the only practical one, unless you want a world where health care professionals become Police Informants, and HIPAA is meaningless.

Red herring: We’re talking about what happens to the ones that attach

No, your definition was when sperm meets egg- that life begins at conception.

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 which is it? Are all Zygotes people or not?

You can choose not to believe, go ahead.

Quite right. And if you try to make laws based on your fantastical delusions about the Imaginary Sky Man, you are going to get resistance from the Reality-Based part of society.

“If someone wants to x, they’ll find a way, so we might as well just make x legal”

What poor logic. Substitute other issues in there

1. If someone wants to murder, they’ll find a way, so we might as well just make murder legal

Here's the difference. There is universal agreement that murder is wrong. That's why murder laws work.

The reason why prohibition failed is a large chunk of the population didn't support it. (Even though it got added to the constitution, people had no idea that they were voting for all alcohol to be taken away. They thought they were voting against those dirty stinking Germans drinking in Taverns. )

When the government passed the Volstead Act, people were immediately finding ways to break it. Police refused to arrest people for drinking, courts refused to prosecute them, and the gangsters got rich. The only reason they got Al Capone in prison was that the guy didn't like to pay his taxes, because no one was going to convict him of bootlegging.

It took about 10 years, but everyone realized they had stepped in it and amended the constitution again. (Then hopefully had a nice, stiff drink afterwards.)

Now, let's apply that to abortion. We just need to look at what's happening now. Women in the states who have banned abortions aren't saying, "Oh, shucks, I guess I need to have this unwanted ankle-biter!" Heck, no, they are driving to states where abortion is still legal or they are secretly stashing mifepristone and misoprostol. So you've only gotten part of what you want, and people are already figuring out ways around it.

So let's say you get your fantasy of a nation-wide abortion ban, even though you have a jury pool that is going to be at least 50% pro-Choice. Think you are going to get a conviction of a provider? How about a patient?

 

[initforme]

So you oppose a universal definition of what a human is, and leave it up to each individual based in their issues and conveniences? To me that’s unacceptable at any level of dealing with human life

No its up to each state. While i dont believe in abortion as a christian citizen i cannot justify entering the fight.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Oh my bad. So sorry.

Thank you! Those drugs must be working!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

For the record I agree with every point that you have made. I would challenge the pro-life community to research an option that will be extremely relevant for the next decade or so.

Zone1 Thread 'A Basic Minimum Income Supplement and the percentage of women who choose abortion?'

Nov 30, 2025

In a high percentage of cases where a woman chooses to have an abortion, money and obtaining an education and getting a better career in the future are cited as being major reasons for choosing to have an abortion.

An Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income for all citizens of the USA and Canada would almost certainly result in a significant percentage of women deciding instead to give birth to their baby, [even if they were to give their baby up for adoption, a less scary economy for the USA and Canada would impact pregnant women so that they would be less pessimistic about the...

• DennisPTate
• Replies: 23
• Forum: Clean Debate Zone

Here is why these next ten years will be the perfect time for the Pro-Life Community to come together with the people who support an Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income.

Thread 'Will robotics and Artificial Intelligence make an Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income Supplement necessary?'

Nov 18, 2025

The rather brilliant Mo Gawdat does believe that B. M. I. is one of the only ways to prevent a pandemic of homelessness and poverty as robotics and A. I. make so many careers nearly obsolete.

I happen to believe that he is correct but I have some suggestions as to how this shift can be done in such a way that the greatest boom in PRODUCTIVITY of workers will be set in motion that will lead to the greatest economic boom that has ever been seen.

"Ex-Google Exec (WARNING): The Next 15 Years Will Be Hell Before We Get To Heaven! - Mo Gawdat"

2,997,802 views Aug 4...

• DennisPTate
• Replies: 146
• Forum: Politics

A woman that cannot survive without public assistance has no business getting pregnant. At the very least, if she cannot provide for her child, no father, no family. The child should be taken from her and given to someone with the ability to provide. This might put the brakes on women having children as a economic necessity.

 

[ding]

I think abortion is absolutely horrible. But its also none of the govts business. Women shouldn't lose bodily autonomy because something is growing in them.

Something?

 

[TNHarley]

So you oppose a universal definition of what a human is, and leave it up to each individual based in their issues and conveniences? To me that’s unacceptable at any level of dealing with human life

The way i see it is, that human is completely dependent on the mother. Therefore it is her business. Not the governments.