Political Forum Debate #1

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by tecoyah, Oct 2, 2016.

  1. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,344
    Likes Received:
    9,265
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I grow tired of the endless teasing about a real PF debate taking place officially. and as I have created these for other forums I moderated I decided to begin it here.

    ~Rules~
    This will be a two person debate format and any outside commentary will be ignored and ridiculed.

    Each member will be allowed an opening statement which will be the basis for replies going forward.

    The debate will consist of a total of 10 comments by each participant and then end.

    Voting amongst member will then transpire by poll for one week to designate a winner.



    So it begins.

    Debate topic~ Abortion

    At this point the second participant will be chosen by accepting these rules and agreeing to debate with ME as I will be the first one and can debate either side.
     
  2. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,344
    Likes Received:
    9,265
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is an unfortunate reality that Abortion is allowed in the United States, however allowing a thing does not mean condoning or accepting it. The killing of any humsn is to be seen as a negative and hopefully unacceptable practice, and doing so en mass especially so. Our society has become so calloused as to not only allow this but, promote it where the most vulnerable and defenseless humans are involved. It can be defended by claiming these humans are not "Full" humans, or that where they live is the reason they can be killed but, we are still allowing these deaths BY LAW and this is an affront to the very Idea of justice and law. At least in warfare we create excuses for killing in a us vs. them mindset...we do not even TRY to do so with Abortion because ther is no us vs. them to defend.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  3. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I respectfully disagree, abortion is a necessity in society and has been for thousands of years .. whether we condone or accept it or not is purely down to personal perspective and as such those personal perspectives should not be a licence to force others to forgo the unalienable right to decide who, what, where and when their bodies are used by others. To take away the autonomy of a person is to me one of the greatest infringements of individual rights there is, even convicted murders on death row are not subjected to the lose of their body autonomy, and yet certain groups want to treat a pregnant woman as less than a convicted murderer.

    There is no evidence with any real validity that abortion is being promoted, it is usually a last desperate reality that many women have to decide upon, and as to the defenceless and vulnerable idea projected concerning fetuses, they are not as defenceless or as vulnerable as many would like others to think, from the moment of fertilization the ovum releases hormones that trigger reactions in the females body, including suppressing of the local immune reaction - if it did not do this the fertilized ovum would be attacked, killed and either absorbed or expelled.

    It is the fertilized ovum, that turns a non-pregnant woman into a pregnant one and later the fetus, that maintains the female in a pregnant condition, and it does so for it's own benefit.

    Whether the unborn are 'Full' humans or not really doesn't matter, if they are not then they are not protected by the Constitution, if they are then as separate human beings the must abide by the restrictions of that status ie they cannot assume to have consent to use another person body for their own means, this is a fundamental foundation on which all free democratic societies are built , that the state or any other person cannot force you to use your body in anyway you do not want to.

    There is justification for elective abortion .. that being that no person should be forced to allow a third party to injure them without consent by weight of law.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  4. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,344
    Likes Received:
    9,265
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The fetus residing in a woman did not just magically appear, I would hope that every woman understands the process that created it. That said, she obviously took the actions of her own free will (a few exceptions) and thus she is responsible for what she has inside her. We are not talking about some cyst she got by chance or a cold sore, we are dealing with a living human entity awaiting it's chance to become a member of society. Killing for convenience is no reason to end this life and the woman (and man) bare a burden that they themselves decided to lift.
    While I understand and accept that she has rights to consider in this, so does all human life as defined by our Constitution and laws. Making exceptions because we "feel" like we should does not mean it is a good idea and killing ANY human should be unacceptable.
     
    arborville and DennisTate like this.
  5. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whether a woman understands the process or not does not change that her consenting to sexual intercourse is not and cannot be construed as consenting to pregnancy. Sexual intercourse merely creates a risk of pregnancy (a low risk at that) and as a society we do not expect people to suffer injuries because they took a risk .. If one was to use the logic you are using then one could say any injury incurred because a person took a risk should not allowed to be treated to alleviate said injuries, after all they knew the risk and still took it.

    That the fetus is a living human entity has no bearing, unless you are going to make exceptions for them .. it is clearly a Constitutional right for people to defend themselves against any and all non-consented injuries, including the use of deadly-force if required and yet you seem to be advocating for the fetus to be exempt from that .. by what process and logic do you assert that the fetus is above every other person who does not have the right to use another persons body without consent?

    While all human life may have rights as defined by our Constitution and laws, those rights are clearly limited when it comes to interaction with others .. I cannot with impunity injure you without your consent and if I do so then you have every right to stop me by what ever means necessary, including deadly force if required. There is no "killing for convenience" , what may seem like a "convenience" for some is an imperative for others.

    My responsibilities to another human being, be it my own flesh and blood or not, are only as much as I see fit . .I can at any time remove myself from those responsibilities and allow someone else (or the state) to step in, a pregnant woman does not have those options .. her only option is the removal of the fetus which consequently normally leads to its death . .that is the difference between social dependency and biological dependency.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  6. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,344
    Likes Received:
    9,265
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Granted, we do not limit medical attention because an individual took a risk. We also do not condone people taking risks that may end the life of another. People are allowed to consume alcohol and even to drink too much of it, they have that freedom and right. We do not allow them however to do so and then drive home because it risks the life and health of someone else....just as unprotected sex could lead to an abortion, drink driving could lead to killing a stranger.
    A fetus is indeed a "Living Human Entity" and due to it's situation we indeed make exceptions for it. The mother often changes her life for it, the state creates separate legislation for it, we even prepare rooms for it most of the time. Perhaps we should also keep people from killing it.
     
    Etherion and DennisTate like this.
  7. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This misses the elephant in the room, that the fetus is the one that instigates and maintains the injuries to the female . .even as a drunk person you have the right to defend yourself if someone else attempts or does injure you without consent, your status of being drunk does not change that . .neither does being pregnant.

    The events leading up to the pregnancy are not relevant . .what is relevant is that it is the female being injured without her consent, using your analogy it would be the same as a drunk person (whether in a car or not) being injured by a third party without consent .. the fact that the person being injured is drunk in no way diminishes there right to be left alone by others.

    As to not condoning people taking risks that may end the life of another, this happens every single time you or I step into a car, a bus, a plane etc etc we and others are condoning risks that may take the life of another.

    As far as unprotected sex is concerned there is no "could lead to an abortion" at the time the sexual intercourse takes place, there is nothing to abort .. you cannot assume consent is given to something that does not even exist at the time the risk was taken.

    As far as exceptions are concerned I believe you knew that I was referring to legal exceptions and nothing more.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  8. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,344
    Likes Received:
    9,265
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Firstly....How can a fetus instigate ANYTHING, it is a non thinking and non mobile, innocent creature with absolutely no autonomy whatsoever.
    Secondly...Does the possibility of this drunk harming you mean killing it is acceptable?
    Third...Hoping on a plane or bus, driving a car do present some risk yet we do so every day. Sexual intercourse also presents a risk and we do so every day. If however, we kill someone or the pilot does out of their own actions knowing what they do might kill someone they get charged with a minimum of manslaughter.
    And finally...what is the very first step in human reproduction? What does this create and what gets aborted?

    If you refer to legal exceptions...why not one that says you cannot kill it?
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  9. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I will let reply to this later as I am in a training meeting all day
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  10. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll break my reply down to cover each of the items raised.

    That doesn't matter, the law would view the unborn as the objective cause of their actions, even though they cannot be held legally responsible for them. Whether the person is is held criminally responsible, however, depends on the "absence or presence of legal justification or excuse for the action." To decide that question, the legal system, asks three logical ordered questions : Did the defendant cause the actions? If yes, is the defendant criminally responsible for the actions? If yes, what is the grade or degree of guilt of their guilt? The defendant must be acquitted if the answer to questions one or two are no - Source : Rollin. M. Perkins & Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law, 3rd Edition

    The fetus's behavior nonetheless falls into that category of action in which the law assigns objective fault even without the presence of conscious intention. In this sense, people can be objectively at fault whether or not they have the mental capacity or requisite knowledge to know that their behavior is criminal - Source : LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law Page 212-213 - In the same way the fetus's behavior is objectively at fault for causing pregnancy, even though it has no knowledge, consciousness, or intention of doing so.

    Recognition of the fertilized ovum as an incompetent actor who makes a woman pregnant opens the door to an evaluation of the legal significance of what the fetus does when it imposes even a medically normal pregnancy on a woman, to the degree that the fetus shares the attributes of a person, its imposition of normal pregnancy against a woman's will is an invasion of her right to be let alone from other private entities. The fetus acquires no entitlement to intrude on a woman simply because it lacks the mens rea to make it criminally responsible for what it does.

    No of course not .. however, there is no "possibility" of harm during pregnancy, it is a certainty. Every single pregnancy cause injuries to the female, whether they are normal, wanted or not, the only thing that separates them is whether the female has consented to those injuries or not, just as the only thing that separates rape from non-rape is the consent of the people involved.

    Here you are talking about contributory negligence. While consent to sexual intercourse merely causes the risk that pregnancy will occur, consent to expose oneself to risk that one will be injured by a private party is not a legal proxy for consent to the actual injuries should they occur. On the contrary, the law recognizes the exact opposite.
    The law instead recognizes in many ways how people can consent to factual, necessary causes of accidents and injuries imposed by other people without consenting to the legal causes of accidents. The "mere fact that one is willing to incur a risk that conduct in a deliberate violent act will be committed", for example, "does not mean one is willing for such conduct to be committed" - Source : W. Page Keeton, Dan B. Dobbs, Robert E. Keeton, and David G. Owen; Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th Ed, Page 113

    The assumption of risk can, and is, often tied into contributory negligence where the actions of a person can bring harm to themselves but even so those people who consent to risk do not lose the right to be free of non consensual injuries from others. The distinction between the assumption of risk and contributory negligence is that the former is viewed as serving one's interests, while the latter is action that does not serve one's interests, so while it might serve one's interests to be involved in a dangerous sport it does not serve one's interests to engage in dangerous activities such as stepping in front of a moving car. For this reason the former is seen as an assumption of risk should they harm themselves while engaging in a dangerous sport, the latter is seen as contributory negligence should they be hit by a moving car.

    Women who assume the risk of pregnancy must there for be seen as acting in their own interest, one way is for them to have given their express consent to that condition, in this case the woman is not being harmed by the fetus imposing pregnancy on to her against her will, she may be harmed by the pregnancy, but she does not endure harm by virtue of imposition of pregnancy upon her against her will.

    The assumption of risk can also be seen in cases where people realize that others have created risks yet they voluntarily exposes themselves to those risks, in the context of a pregnant woman it would mean if she has voluntarily agreed to be pregnant, she cannot hold the fetus responsible for harming her, on the other hand, of course, should she not agree to be pregnant, the fetuses harm to her falls outside the parameters of her assumption of risk.
    In general even if a woman can be said to have assumed the risk that a fertilized ovum will harm her, since people are not bound to continue their assumption of risk, neither would she be bound ergo even if we were to apply an assumption of risk analysis to pregnancy it would not entitle a fertilized ovum to harm a woman unless she has consented to that harm.

    What is created isn't really important, what it "is" isn't important, what it "does" is.

    That would be a violation of the 2nd amendment ie self-defence and a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
     
  11. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,344
    Likes Received:
    9,265
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We can repeat Legal cases for the rest of this debate and indeed the rest of this year, yet this is not so much a legal issue as Rv.W settled legality long ago we are discussing social and cultural problems in the context of killing human life. The ZEF is undoubtedly human and this is obvious, the question then becomes the morality of killing this human life on a whim by another human life. Do we as a just and compassionate society condone the elimination of innocent lives to forward the comfort level of an individual citizen?
    During warfare, or even criminal justice activity we accept killing humans for a cause that protects the general population as a whole. During Abortion we seem to accept the killing of an individual by an individual even though in most cases this is called murder. While I anticipate a reply along the lines of "It's her body, and she can do whatever she decides with it", What of the individual she carries within that body which she decided initially to create?
     
  12. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If only that were true, Roe did little but create the mess that exists today.

    I find nothing morally wrong with abortion, just as there is nothing morally wrong in killing another person who is causing you serious injure .. do you find killing in self-defence morally wrong?

    Can you please define innocent in the context of this debate, do you mean innocent as in not guilty of any crime, or not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences, or a pure, guileless, or naive person or a person involved by chance in a situation?

    Define 'whim', do you mean "a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained", if so then having an abortion can hardly be described as a 'whim' especially if the woman involved had no intention or desire to be pregnant, there can be no "sudden desire or change of mind" because her desire was not to be pregnant and she certainly hasn't changed her mind on that .. if she had then there would be no abortion.

    There is no murder when the killing is done to protect yourself from serious injury, it is called self-defence.

    Basic biology tells us that the female makes no decision as to whether pregnancy will occur or not, she can no more initially decide to create an individual than I can initially decide to create a sunny day tomorrow .. it is basically down to chance, sure we can attempt to predict the chances (risk) involved or weight the chances for or against (ie use contraception or not) that however in no way equates to the female deciding to become pregnant or not, the only entity that can turn a non-pregnant woman into a pregnant one is a fertilized ovum that successfully implants into the uterine wall ergo it is that fertilized ovum, whether intentionally or not, is the instigator of pregnancy and all the injuries associated with that condition.
     
  13. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,344
    Likes Received:
    9,265
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If it were untrue it would not be creating this mess...now would it.
    I find killing humans immoral regardless of circumstance and know there are other ways to deal with assault.

    In this context innocent means a human with absolutely no idea they are at risk and are unable to do anything about it if they are.

    A whim is simply a decision that is come to.

    Okay...please explain to the cops that you did not murder some guy because he might have caused you pain down the road and so you killed him as a preventative matter.

    So we return to the risk aspect of this debate...should we repeat the bus analogy for fun. When you have unprotected sex the chances of becoming pregnant dramatically increase because of your own actions...THAT is basic biology.
     
  14. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If it were true we wouldn't be having this debate, the abortion issue would be settled.

    What other ways does a pregnant woman have to stop the injuries from occurring?

    Do you have the same sentiment for a mentally incompetent person who is stabbing another person?

    I gave you the dictionary definition of whim, suffice to say it does not apply to abortion decisions.

    Highlighted the difference .. there is no "might" in pregnancy, it is 100% sure that injuries will occur.

    Wrong .. the increase in risk is around 9% for a single act of unprotected sexual intercourse .. less id contraception is used.

    During the first two days of a womanÂ’s cycle (day 1 being your first day of bleeding), the average risk of pregnancy is virtually zero. After the first two days, the risk starts to rise steadily, reaching 9% on or about day 13. Then it begins to decline slowly until it levels off at about 1% on day 25. It stays at about 1% for the rest of your cycle. (The average monthly cycle lasts 29 days, but it is perfectly normal to have a cycle that lasts as little as 20 days or less or as long as 40 days or more.)

    2016-10-05_1913.png

    http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/risk.html
     
  15. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,344
    Likes Received:
    9,265
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are a great many laws in society that are settled within it but are divisive to the population. There are still laws allowing bestiality on the books and I'm pretty sure most people do not want to have donkeysex.

    The most obvious in this case is to avoid getting pregnant.

    Obviously not as the two situations bare no resemblance. The human stabbing another human is clearly and blatantly attempting to kill someone whether incompetent or not.

    Actually, you provided ONE definition from ONE(1) of the many dictionaries.
    whim


    [hwim, wim]

    noun
    1.
    an odd or capricious notion or desire; a sudden or freakish fancy:
    a sudden whim to take a midnight walk.

    This is the definition best fitting.

    Injury will also occur when the Abortion takes place...possibly even death.

    So...a higher risk than a vehicle accident, a plane crash.....or even a lightning strike.
     
  16. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Agreed, hence why I said that Roe just caused more division.

    Agreed .. however accidents happen.

    Actually they are very related, both are non-consented attacks by a person that is innocent due to their inability to know what they are doing is wrong. Neither have intent as intent requires the mental capacity to determine the action is dangerous and/or harming others.

    Not any of the numerous dictionary definitions of whim fits the case of abortion, do you really believe that a woman deciding to have an abortion is "an odd or capricious notion or desire; a sudden or freakish fancy"?

    An injury that is consented to .. unlike the unwanted pregnancy that causes injuries not consented to, as to the death issue, childbirth is around 14 times more dangerous than abortion.

    Irrelevant to what you stated - "When you have unprotected sex the chances of becoming pregnant dramatically increase because of your own actions" - a 9% risk factor is not a dramatic increase.
     
  17. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,344
    Likes Received:
    9,265
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Might I recommend at this point we submit a closing argument and begin a vote on what has transpired as we must end the debate as designated by rules and are unlikely to resolve much more. I very much appreciate your effort and feel this has been productive.

    My close:

    Abortion and the social argument it creates are both unpleasant and divisive. The Pro-Life side will not accept scientific argument and the Pro-Choice side will never accept the Dogmatic arguments. Yet there is great division that exists which creates emotional reaction to almost anything involving it. Debates such as this serve a valuable purpose if only because they set a standard of decency in communication that is often lacking in this gut wrenching topic....I am glad you stayed the course.
    Clearly I am actually in opposition to what I argued for primarily but, the game proves beyond a doubt that civil debate is absolutely possible. Lessons are her to learn for anyone wishing to learn them.
     
    Derideo_Te and DennisTate like this.
  18. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Agreed. Actually for the first time in a long time I enjoyed the debate, even though I knew you were "playing the part" your arguments were rational, well put and did not devolve into the usual fayre we get here.

    What I find the most confusing with pro-life advocates is their piece meal, cherry picking of dogmatic arguments usually tailored to suit their bias, on the whole pro-lifers tend to adhere to a set of principles that they switch 180 degrees when it comes to abortion eg. support the right to defend yourself against non-consented injury EXCEPT for pregnant women.

    It becomes increasingly difficult to have a reasonable debate with most pro-lifers, it usually ends up in the same vein when all their arguments are shot full of holes they fall back to the bumper sticker memes and intentional evasion.

    I hold that abortion should not be subject to the arbitrary decisions of who happens to be in power but should remain the sovereignty of the female.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  19. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    67,514
    Likes Received:
    16,758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Having just now run into this dog and pony show, there is no point to voting. Each side wanted abortions to proceed as they now proceed.

    I find that we mix England law with American law as well. Why not follow Muslim law or the law of some other group?
     
  20. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,344
    Likes Received:
    9,265
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So basically you wish the debate was you arguing with yourself rather than civil and logical interaction?

    Also....how can "American Law" be anything other than Laws in America?
     
  21. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    67,514
    Likes Received:
    16,758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, not me vs me at all. The debate, though very civil, which is the proper way to do it, was him vs him or you vs you.

    American law is laws of this country yet he kept citing english law as practiced in England.

    explanation: Never have I seen English law argued in American courts of law. Our courts do not use his references, we use Blacks law dictionary.

    The concept a woman is injured by her own fetus makes no sense at all but you allowed him to get by with it.

    I wanted you to win. But you then said you would argue either side and summed up saying you agree with him. Did you award yourself a draw?

    People who won't argue civilly make an enormous error. I hate arguing over abortion since it does not remain civil. Sure, you did due to you both holding the same views. That is my version at least.
     
  22. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    53,107
    Likes Received:
    19,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They did NOT present the same views in the debate. Your opinion of the debate means nothing. If you hate arguing over abortion, don't. :roll:
     
  23. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    67,514
    Likes Received:
    16,758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I get it now. I never said they presented the same views.

    Why don't you get that?

    Here is my claim.

    First thing Tecoyah did was say pick a side and he would argue the opposite.

    Last thing he said is he agrees with his opponent.

    The rest was civil fluff.
     
  24. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    53,107
    Likes Received:
    19,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you hate arguing over abortion, don't. :roll:
     
  25. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    67,514
    Likes Received:
    16,758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't and thanks but your permission is not needed by me. Do you need my permission to not debate?
     
    DennisTate likes this.

Share This Page