How To Finally Resolve the Abortion Debate

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Meta777, Aug 4, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the morons in Congress pass Federal legislation on abortion it will be challenged and overturned immediately in the Federal courts.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
  2. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Yet for years the polls have shown that the majority of Americans want abortion to be legal...


    However , that poll should be rephrased to ask:

    """Do you think American women should have their rights taken away when they become pregnant?"""

    Because that is EXACTLY what banning abortion would do.


    Next questions:

    Who else's rights should we take away?

    If pregnant women have no rights then who should force them to have abortions?

    Should women have to undergo scrutiny to see if they'll be fit mothers?....and if they aren't then should we force them to abort?
     
  3. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Certainly, its true that if you were to poll politicalforum members and ask them to rank the nation's top issues, abortion-related matters would not be particularly high up on that list. But even so, I think its hard to say that the debate itself has really been adequately resolved when there is still such wide-spread and passionate disagreement over the matter, not to mention a number of state governments who regularly attempt to find ways to surreptitiously skirt around the current laws.

    Basically, even if we have laws regarding the matter, if its still significant enough of an issue to divide us so and contribute to the discord, then I think its still an issue worth talking about and attempting to come to consensus on... even if in the end, that consensus isn't much different from the laws we currently have. Regardless of whether laws are changed, I want that when people talk about the issue, that they discuss it in terms that make more sense/using better arguments than they do now...

    ....because part of the divide you see, is due to highly flawed arguments being used on either side. When one tries to justify their view using what to someone on the opposite end of the spectrum is a clearly flawed argument, that doesn't change anyone's mind or help to foster understanding, it merely cements them further into their current position, even if their original justification for being in that position is likewise just as flawed as the first person's...

    ...and eventually these mutually bad arguments lead to everyone viewing everyone else as irrational, and not worth attempting to reason with... which itself leads to an inability and or an unwillingness for one to regularly reason through their own arguments, in turn leading to scores of people being stuck in positions of often flimsy logical backing, and in some cases, ultimately an assumption that anyone with a different view than your own (regardless of what it is) is part of the previously noted irrational group deemed not worth reasoning with.

    We, imo, should do whatever we can to stop such cycles. I think asking people to review the justifications for their own strongly held positions and to consider other perhaps more logically sound justifications is a good place to start. And while I agree with what you said about the abortion debate having a lot to do with ego and image, I don't really think that continuing to group people into one of two sides, particularly along partisan lines, is helpful for bridging the divide...

    ...As the 2nd post of the thread illustrates,
    there are more than just two positions to take on this issue.
    We should not fall into the trap of thinking otherwise. As with many issues,
    binary thinking and false-dichotomies are a large part of what makes consensus so difficult to find.

    -Meta
     
    kazenatsu likes this.
  4. Bassman

    Bassman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,876
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I said this before. Once conception is achieved, the right to bodily autonomy is forfeited until after the child is born.
     
  5. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who knows... but I think that's a discussion for another thread.

    Below is the current list of options I've recorded so far.
    There are currently several Week 0 options and a couple options for allowing abortion through birth. I think that should cover pretty well the extreme ends of the range. I also split things out so that exceptions would be considered separately. Just added in exceptions for child affordability and incest.

    There's also a list of 'other' options which don't really fit in as an exception or cutoff point. If that list remains small, I'll just include all of this in a single Ranked vote. If the other list gets a lot more items added to it, I'll split that one out into its own separate vote.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-the-abortion-debate.538967/#post-1069445807
    Where Should The Cutoff Line for Abortions be Placed?:
    -Lovemaking (Week 0): Because Any Form of Abortion is Murder
    -Conception (Week 0): Because Life Begins at Conception
    -Conception (Week 0): Because since no one knows exactly when a zygote becomes a child, it must be assumed to qualify as one
    -Nervous System (Week 12): Because the baby’s senses are developing and it looks pretty human at that stage
    -Viability (Week 20): Because the earliest surviving baby was born at just over 21 weeks
    -Thalamic Afferents (Week 20): Because its been theorized that connections between afferents may be capable of pain transmission
    -Thalamocortical Fibers (Week 23): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Thalamocortical Fibers

    -Viability (Week 24): Because that's when the law defines a fetus as becoming a child
    -Viability (Week 24): Because that's when a fetus is able to live outside the woman without artificial means
    -Thalamocortical Fibers (Week 29): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Functional Thalamocortical Fibers
    -Pain Perception Dvmnt (Week 23-29): Because a fetus cannot suffer feel or perceive pain without Functional Thalamocortical Fibers
    -Pain Perception Dvmnt (Week 20-29): Because this is the period in which a fetus develops the structures necessary for pain perception
    -Mental Life (Week 29): Because fetal consciousness cannot and has not been observed to occur before this point

    -Birth (Week ??): Because That is When a Baby No Longer Depends On Its Mother to Live
    -Birth (Week ??): Because Women Should Always Have the Right to do What They Want With Their Body
    -There should be Exceptions in cases of Rape
    -There should be Exceptions if Health of the Mother is Threatened
    -There should be Exceptions if Life of the Mother is Threatened
    -There should be Exceptions for Certain Fetal Abnormalities
    -There should be Exceptions for Incest
    -There should be Exceptions based on Ability of Parent to Afford and Care for the Child
    -There should be No Exceptions to the Cutoff Point

    Other Ideas:
    -Meta
     
  6. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Basically we seem to be trying to make abortion more acceptable to society as a whole.

    If we were truly expecting to finally resolve the abortion debate, I would expect fewer, not more choices. In my opinion, we are wasting our time as the issue will never be resolved in any way agreeable to all. In the end, government will tell us what IT will allow, and changes will only occur based on the necessity of a majority of politicians in both Houses of Congress finding their election/re-election hinging on what they say about the issue, which more often than not does not indicate the will of the people will prevail.

    Perhaps a poll to determine the most major issue needing attention would get us on track to resolving something much more important.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2018
  7. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That seems like a strange way to look at things to me...

    You're saying that fewer choices being available will make finding an agreeable resolution more likely? How so? The truth is, we can't really control that much what the options are that are available to us. The options are what the options are. But what we can control are how many of those options we consider when trying to find a consensus position. And the way I see it, we don't want to be artificially limiting ourselves too much in this regard. If we go into things with the mistaken belief that there are only 2-3 or so possible options to pick from, this can lead to people saddling up to bad options if only to avoid what they view as a worse option and only other alternative... even if it is not the only alternative. It leads to those positions which lie in between the extremes being overlooked, even when such intermediate options may very well better maximize overall acceptance... in other words, not a good way to find or form consensus. We don't want to go over board in the other direction of course, and try to consider so many options at once that it becomes overwhelming, but generally speaking its easier to find at least one good consensus position the more options you look at and consider.

    And no, a consensus option does not necessarily imply that everyone agrees with it.
    But to do consensus right, agreement on the option should at least be maximized compared to other options.

    You say that government will tell us what to do on the issue? I say that we the people, as a collective, need to be telling government what it is that we want. Of course its difficult to do that unless we first come to some sort of consensus. Having half at one extreme and another at the other extreme of an issue, and attacking any politician or anyone else who attempts to stray into the middle ground isn't a good place to be. But if we the people can come to accept some sort of compromise on the matter, then that's a start. If the will of the people after that does not then prevail, assuming no constitutional impediments, then there is something seriously wrong with our democracy.

    Already done:
    What are the Nation's Top Issues Most Needing to be Addressed (US)
    Ranked Vote: Discussion Thread (includes list of past present and future votes)

    -Meta
     
  8. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, if we end up with say 25 choices with one getting 3 votes and all others getting less than 3, will the debate finally be resolved?
     
  9. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    :roflol::roflol::roflol: Why? Because YOU say so ?? :roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol:
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  10. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113



    Did you have a POINT?



    What do you want done with your lists?

    All those things have been discussed...….


    Why can't you face the fact that abortion "issue" has been resolved"...?

    Why can't you acknowledge that any ban on abortion destroys an American citizens right to her own body?
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2018
  11. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    OH? Why is the argument that women have a right to their own body "flawed"?

    Why is the argument that women are full citizens with rights to their own bodies "flawed" ?


    Why is the argument that women have committed no crime by getting pregnant so shouldn't be punished for it "flawed" ?


    Why can't you answer any questions?
     
  12. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No what? :/

    If people always believed and acted exactly the way each of us wanted/thought they should of their own accord...
    We wouldn't need any law. But such isn't the case... its never been the case. And so laws are needed for any number of things.

    Think you may have this thread confused with another one then.
    If anyone prior to that post you quoted had mentioned viability in this thread outside the context of "because its the law",
    I would have made a note of it in post #92.

    Who says I can't respond to something? :/
    Anyway, I've posted my thoughts at this point, so I suppose its time to let the bashing resume. :)

    Suggestions for where the cutoff line should be, along with why I'd set them there. :/

    -Meta
     
  13. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The way you posted Post # 138 with our responses together is confusing and hard to address and quote.

    Perhaps if you stated a point things would be easier to address ??
     
  14. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, that depends on what the specific changes are.

    -Meta
     
  15. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is resolved. Those who want one can get one and those who wish to prevent them from having one, do not have a realistic way of doing so.
     
  16. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113



    What was the point again?
     
  17. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree that the question ought to be rephrased,
    but I think it should be rephrased into something a bit more nuanced.
    Something more akin to what I asked in the OP or 2nd post for example,
    i.e. where specifically during pregnancy should the cutoff line(s) for abortion be placed?

    The idea that 'abortion should be allowed anytime through birth' or 'abortion should never be allowed from conception'
    should be the only two choices to pick from is a clear false dichotomy. Because there are more than just two options here.
    Questions about abortion would be better if they reflected that fact.

    -Meta
     
  18. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its not about taking away rights per se.
    Its about balancing the rights of one individual against the rights of another when the two sets of rights are in conflict.
    You wouldn't call it taking away a person's right to freedom when throwing them in jail for committing theft, would you?...
    ...well maybe you would... but I would say it'd be more accurate to say that a thief forfeits their right to freedom by committing theft.
    Because in so committing that thief (the illegal taking of another's property) they themselves are violating someone's rights.

    It can be said, that we as a society have a duty, not only to avoid violating one another's rights as individuals,
    but also to protect against the violation of those rights by others. If thieves are running amok in our towns and cities,
    in addition to practical concerns, we are also morally obligated to stop them.

    Though of course, from both moral and practical perspectives, one does have to consider what exactly should count as theft in the first place.
    We can probably all agree that taking someone else's car for yourself without asking should count as theft.
    But then should it also be considered theft for someone to simply pick an apple off some random tree in the woods?
    I'd say that, no, it shouldn't. Cleary, a reasonable threshold must be set based on some reasonable and logically-based criteria.
    The same thing can be said of abortion. (hence, this thread)

    -Meta
     
  19. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No, the core issue is the right of women to their own bodies. That is the base of the argument...


    Anti-Choicers think that pregnant women lose their right to their own body and literally become property of the state.

    That is clearly wrong.

    The issue has been solved and I'm sorry you can't see that.

    Abortion is legal until viability and then the fetus has some protection meaning that elective abortions are not an option.

    And that's a fine compromise because mentally stable women do not "enjoy" 8 months of pregnancy just for the "fun" of an abortion.
    …. most women have their abortions between 12 and 18 weeks...





    IF the fetus is deemed a "person" at ANY stage of gestation then it has no more rights than anyone else and cannot use another's body to sustain it's life nor harm someone else without their consent....so the woman it's in would have every right to kill it...
     
  20. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Forcing a woman to gestate isn't taking away her rights??!!

    YES, it is.....ALL citizens have a right to their own bodies.





    There is no conflict between two persons...there is only ONE person in pregnancy and that is the pregnant woman.

    Anti-Choicers want the fetus to have MORE rights than the woman they're in!!




    Uh, being pregnant isn't a crime.




    I don't know if it's my "duty" but I do want to stop Anti-Choicers from violating women's right to their own bodies..


    Please leave out "morals", they are as varied as people are varied.




    That meandering explanation has nothing to do with abortion or women's rights.


    If someone need a monthly blood transfusion or a new heart would you be comfortable with them taking yours without your consent?
     
  21. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wait... who says pregnant women have no rights??
    I don't think forcing women to have abortions is a good idea.

    I don't think that's a good idea either.

    -Meta
     
  22. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why?

    -Meta
     
  23. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Recently a father was arrested for the murder of his wife and their two daughters.

    As you say, those who want to murder can murder and those who wish to stop murder have no realistic way to stop it.

    I am pretty certain most of us would prevent the death of the wife and the daughters. We do have laws. We have no way to jump in and stop the father.
     
    Meta777 likes this.
  24. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    IF abortion is banned it means pregnant women have no right to their own bodies, a BASIC right everyone else has.




    I don't think forcing women to gestate is a good idea.





    No, it isn't but what do you think will happen if women lose "some" rights....if they lose the right to their own bodies, the most basic of rights, then sure as can be there will be those who try to take away more rights...the slippery slope...
     
  25. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    We're not talking about murder , the topic is abortion.

    (Your little example example of murder was funny, as if we needed an example...LOL!)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page