Abortion

[Iamdan]

Why is prostitution illegal? Is it not sex between two consenting adults where payment is exchanged at the end? Surely prostitution came before religion, yet it is still outlawed?

Most laws are based on morality, and its ludicrous to say otherwise.

 

It's legal in australia and in other places, and it should be legal. The law probably came about to help prevent stds, before testing became cheaper and popular, and condoms.

 

Race discrimination wasn't illegal until the population was ready for it. Racism was dying out before the law came in. It used to be legal to kill people for petty crimes.

 

Marijuana was fine until it was illegal, and then everyone thought it was bad. Now the laws are relaxing, it's legal in some places, decriminalized others, and used for medicinal purposes. Now all of a sudden it's more socially accepted.

 

Morals aren't absolute and everyone has different ones. You can do something that somebody else finds morally wrong as long as it's not illegal. Laws are absolute, and everyone in the country must follow them if they agree or not. Just because some people think porn is immoral, that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

 

Laws couldn't possibly be based on morality. The point of laws is to ensure order and safety. Workplace specific rules are like laws, but for the site instead of the country, and they are definitely not based on morality.

 

And sorry Iamdan, I didn't really explain that well enough.

 

What I meant to say is that it's still under debate, but at least in my philosophy class we all discussed it... And what we came up with is this: Yes, we all have our own special abilities, fish can breathe underwater, birds can fly, humans can create and manipulate tools. However, the human has the ability to not only percieve nature, but to transcend above it. It was quoted by someone who's name I now forget: "The Human is the animal that blushes." This is very true, we have the ability to think of ourselves almost in a third person view, but this is not the same as the ability of the fish to breathe underwater, while the antelope cannot. (Actually... Sorry, thats what the debate is about :P ) I theorize that this is not only a special trait, but an entirely new category of traits altogether.

 

A new category of traits? It's nothing more than a property. It's part of what defines us. What makes our ability to feel embarrassed special?

 

I can use your logic for any unique trait and it sounds the same.

[Saru Inc]

And sorry Iamdan, I didn't really explain that well enough.

 

What I meant to say is that it's still under debate, but at least in my philosophy class we all discussed it... And what we came up with is this: Yes, we all have our own special abilities, fish can breathe underwater, birds can fly, humans can create and manipulate tools. However, the human has the ability to not only percieve nature, but to transcend above it. It was quoted by someone who's name I now forget: "The Human is the animal that blushes." This is very true, we have the ability to think of ourselves almost in a third person view, but this is not the same as the ability of the fish to breathe underwater, while the antelope cannot. (Actually... Sorry, thats what the debate is about :P ) I theorize that this is not only a special trait, but an entirely new category of traits altogether.

 

A new category of traits? It's nothing more than a property. It's part of what defines us. What makes our ability to feel embarrassed special?

 

I can use your logic for any unique trait and it sounds the same.

 

Um... It's very important and special, but ok. I explained it, and if you didn't understand, or agree, I'm not going to waste time delving into it farther.

[Iamdan]

I don't think you did. You described it. You haven't pointed out how it differs.

[Assume Nothing]

If law is not based on morality, on what is it be based?

 

Some laws exist to keep order, others exist because they benefit reach people. None are based on morals, if anything it's the other way around.

Why is prostitution illegal? Is it not sex between two consenting adults where payment is exchanged at the end? Surely prostitution came before religion, yet it is still outlawed?

Most laws are based on morality, and its ludicrous to say otherwise.

 

 

EDIT:

 

Can someone list some good arguments that has been stated in this thread? Got an abortion debate tomorrow (for my course, ofcourse), would be nice to have a few good points to show.

 

Hmmm

Which side of the debate will you be on?

 

Both sides are possible.

[Assume Nothing]

Not Trolling, read the past 5 pages or so, decide for yourself if either side threw in a compelling argument for or against abortion.

 

Looks pretty neutral at the moment, no strong arguments on either side. Hence I'm asking sees_all to present a strong argument for both sides

 

EDIT - Page 16 looks good, might print a few pages of that during break

[Saru Inc]

I don't think you did. You described it. You haven't pointed out how it differs.

 

Because there's no point to.

[soulless]

You know not that long ago they were sending [developmentally delayed]s off to camps and planes to "get rid of them" for the VERY same reasons people give for abortion... Funny that.

Funny thing is that it was not just the Germans that did it. Australia, USA and the UK did this and had camps for [developmentally delayed]s.

 

If you can tell me why this is wrong you will find out why I think abortion is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIDT-TuRPFc

[sees_all1]

Laws couldn't possibly be based on morality. The point of laws is to ensure order and safety. Workplace specific rules are like laws, but for the site instead of the country, and they are definitely not based on morality.

 

"order and safety" are distilled versions of morality, stemming from "its wrong to harm another individual."

[obfuscator]

Laws couldn't possibly be based on morality. The point of laws is to ensure order and safety. Workplace specific rules are like laws, but for the site instead of the country, and they are definitely not based on morality.

 

"order and safety" are distilled versions of morality, stemming from "its wrong to harm another individual."

 

morality itself does not stem directly from religion. Humans have been saying harming another individual is wrong since day one, and long before the establish religions threatened an eternal hell if you differ from that morality.

 

order is emergent, it is not reliant on a government or religion to exist

Source?

[obfuscator]

You claimed that "humans have been saying harming another individual is wrong" since Day one.

 

I'd like to see a source showing that humans all got along really well, and never killed each other, since we began to evolve.

[Giordano]

You got to be kidding me. If anything, states reduced violence across the world since you probably wanted to kill a government offical (cavemen with the most food, rocks, or women back in the day).

[sees_all1]

Not Trolling, read the past 5 pages or so, decide for yourself if either side threw in a compelling argument for or against abortion.

 

Looks pretty neutral at the moment, no strong arguments on either side. Hence I'm asking sees_all to present a strong argument for both sides

 

EDIT - Page 16 looks good, might print a few pages of that during break

I won't do your work for you, but it should be easy to find the talking points here. I'll put some of the strategies in here for both sides. If the people you're debating are incompetent, you'll be able to "win" the debate regardless of the side they put you on.

 

 

 

Common pro-choice strategy include forcing your opponent to defend the "corner" cases - rape, incest, medical "necessities", and the "compassionate" cases - deformities or long term suffering. Your focus needs to be entirely on the woman, paint her as the victim, and marginalize the fact that theres a child within. You can also talk about situations which endanger the life of the mother - such as anemia or ectopic pregnancies. You can also broaden the focus towards a macro view - abortion can "solve" world hunger, poverty, and overpopulation. The more off topic you can pull the debate, the harder it is for the pro-life side to establish their argument.

 

The pro-choice case is weak against a strong personhood argument; if you're on this side you and have to defend against this argument, you need to do the best you can to dehumanize the baby. Never refer to the baby as "baby", he or she, child, human etc. Do the best you can to obfuscate the fact that you're talking about an individual. If it comes to it, you can bring up the fact that the sperm and egg cell already existed before conception, and theres nothing "special" about a one-celled zygote. Don't use that as your original position, more as a last resort, because you'll already be playing into a personhood argument.

 

Also, be careful in your choice of language. If this is a class assignment, I'm unsure how the debate is scored, but don't leave room for your opponent to nail you on the facts - things that can easily be refuted by the simplest of definitions. Your best bet is to use the term fetus, and avoid unscientific terminology or specific terminology. Fetus applies to the entire pregnancy, embryo/zygote/blastocyst only applies to the very start. "Ball of cells" or "Fertilized Egg" are unscientific and are easy enough to refute without much effort.

 

 

 

If you're on the pro-life side of the debate, personhood is your argument. You need to argue that at conception, when the sperm cell fertilizes the egg cell, a new, unique human being forms. If you can get the other side to argue on your terms - when does a human being come into existance - you'll have won; the rest of the argument is very straight forward. You also need to establish your definitions carefully - abortion refers exclusively to induced abortion (not miscarriages/spontaneous abortions), does not include removal of a spontaneously terminated pregnancy, and is not the procedure required for dangerous ectopic pregnancies.

 

You need to be very careful with your language and your position. A successful personhood argument requires that you cannot compromise, even in the difficult cases. You need to make it very clear that the right to live is the most fundamental human right, and it trumps any other circumstance.

If your opponent starts to argue about rape or incest, you can stick to your line about the right to life, or you can attack their argument with stories about cover up and continued abuse. If your opponent argues about compassion, and abortion because of quality of life for the genetically deformed, you can liken their argument to eugenics and by extension the holocaust.

 

If you need more breadth in your argument, different than personhood, you can discuss the dangers of abortion - the percentage of botched abortions, the correlation between abortion and subsequent miscarriages, and the correlation between abortion and breast cancer. If you do this, you must remember that correlation does not imply causation, and that only experiments - not studies - can prove or disprove a hypothesis.

 

You can also discuss the uglier sides of choice - scandals covering up under-age abortion, the disproportionate numbers of minorities receiving abortion / racist roots of planned parenthood, and the disproportionate number of "pro-choice" crimes against pro-lifers.

 

 

 

Last thing - look at and know sources. Anything from the Guttmacher Institute has a strong pro-choice spin to it, usually anything with "life" in their name has a pro-life spin.

[obfuscator]

You claimed that "humans have been saying harming another individual is wrong" since Day one.

 

I'd like to see a source showing that humans all got along really well, and never killed each other, since we began to evolve.

 

Well if you look at groups of cavemen, they are really careful to harm members of their own groups. True warfare may have existed between groups (which is unlike as most anthropologists think they survived from co-operation) but warfare as we know it came about with states and religion.

 

Im not going to provide you a source, this is just my general understanding of history - besides the anthropologist part which I can dig up a source if you want.

So basically you want to spout whatever comes up and not source it at all? Don't expect to convince anyone.

 

And @sees_all: best post in the thread, hands down.

[obfuscator]

 

Fair enough, however the burden of proof is on you. Heres what my view of human nature is, people are neither good nor evil but people simply respond to incentives. If there is an incentive to band together people do.

 

There is no incentive for warfare without a state, especially in caveman days. Lets say one group had 20 members - and 8 males of age to be able to fight. Then another group who entered the region has 25 members and 13 of them are males of fighting age.

 

Untrue. I can think of many causes for conflict in a stateless society such as the caveman one in your example. Organized states make conflict bigger because they involve more people - that's it.

 

If people are neither good nor evil, why will people put in the same situation with the same incentives do different things?

 

Now lets create a situation, there isnt enough food in the area to support both groups, do they go to war against each other? no most historians agree that they would meet with each other and decide to leave, a fight would result in a large percentage of their men getting killed and isnt worth the risk.

 

Most historians agree? There's a fact - now I want a source, otherwise I call bs.

 

However a state and religion do the opposite, if you "swear your oaths of fealty" and if you die in combat you are instantly allowed into heaven people are willing to do things to are opposite to their own survival instincts.

 

What religion tells you that?

 

is this fair to say? or do I need to source this opinion?

 

Opinions don't need to be sourced. Facts do.

[obfuscator]

1.) Im not sure what you meant by that, but if you are making a claim that people are either innately good or innately evil the burden of proof is on you. Saying that people respond to incentives is a theory established by capitalism, if you disagree with that then prove it

 

I'm not saying people are innately good or evil. I'm saying that due to certain factors some people are willing to do evil, others are not.

 

2.) It was from my old history book, that said that. However a modern day example would be, how do people respond after a major disaster? is there widespread looting, pillaging and rape? perhaps. But in the end if there is no help from the outside the survivors tend to band together to survive. A meta example would be like zombie apocalypse theme or a cataclysmic asteroid hit the earth or a massive plague. Just what anthropologists and historians say happen, hell they could be wrong but it does make sense to stick together after major disasters. If I got it from a web article I could give you a source but I would have trouble sourcing old text books.

 

Did you just try to use a zombie apocalypse as a factual example for the behavior of some in society when put under pressure?

 

As I've said before, if you're going to make statements, prove them. Otherwise, I reserve the right to disregard them (as does anyone).

 

3.) Christianity - specifically speaking of the crusades, although radical islam does say the same with jihad

Christianity tells you that if you are murdered in direct defence of your faith you are a martyr. In order for this to be constituted correctly it would require a man holding a gun to your head telling you if you did not renouce Christianity he would fire.

 

The crusades were an unfortunate corruption of that idea.

 

The idea in islam is practically the same - but it is corrupted by a scant few who use it as an excuse to terrorize.

[sees_all1]

One last thing, this is how I deal with such a debate offline - if im for pro choice.

 

Non-cognitive argument is a powerful tool. If you write off the whole arguement as a moral argument that cannot be proven or disproven (which then bases peoples opinions entirely on morals which makes for a weak arguement), then it is easy to make a case for the liberal side of an issue.

To me, that makes it sound like you're babbling on about a non-issue.

 

Easy way of doing so is prove that such an argument is generally forcefully put onto someone who does not agree with it, or you can go a step farther and demonize the opponent by saying things like, forcing your way of life on someone else isnt a democracy it is more like a totalitarian (nazi - ohh you get bonus points if you compare them to nazi's) government.

 

Its kind of a dirty way of playing but its effective,

In a structured debate, attacking your opponent is the fastest way to lose.

[Giordano]

Oh please don't use Nazi everytime when comparing things to and much less in a debate. Use it for extreme cases not a one-time abortion debate.

[Alg]

[spoiler=I'mma go widely off topic here, okay?]

 

Fair enough, however the burden of proof is on you. Heres what my view of human nature is, people are neither good nor evil but people simply respond to incentives. If there is an incentive to band together people do.

 

There is no incentive for warfare without a state, especially in caveman days. Lets say one group had 20 members - and 8 males of age to be able to fight. Then another group who entered the region has 25 members and 13 of them are males of fighting age.

 

Now lets create a situation, there isnt enough food in the area to support both groups, do they go to war against each other? no most historians agree that they would meet with each other and decide to leave, a fight would result in a large percentage of their men getting killed and isnt worth the risk.

 

However a state and religion do the opposite, if you "swear your oaths of fealty" and if you die in combat you are instantly allowed into heaven people are willing to do things to are opposite to their own survival instincts.

Not sure about this, actually.

 

People formed groups because that's just the efficient way of doing things. An individual is limited by his individual skill set. He may be the best at making tools that the world has ever seen, but even if he sucks at hunting for food, he's going to have to or he'll starve. He also has to balance his time between making tools, hunting, and his other survival needs. Now, in a group, there are bound to be others who are much better at hunting, they can cover for him and he can supply them with tools to earn his share of the resources. In that sense there's always been an incentive for group organization throughout human history, and I think it's safe to say that it's still in effect now. We look up to the famous and the popular, and look down on the loners. The popular ones are good with other people, that's exactly what you want in a group, the loner keeping to himself is probably not the kind of person you want to have to rely on.

 

States and large organizations are the next step there. A larger group has a better chance of survival. In your example you have a group of 20 versus a group of 25. The smaller group isn't going to attack the larger one unless it has to, for obvious reasons. So the logical thing to do is to get a larger group. Larger groups require greater amounts of organization, which is where levels of governments come in. The advantage is that they have the skills to do pretty much anything, but require enough resources per individual to sustain them, and a method for keeping it from collapsing out of its own size.

 

So we get governments to run things and religions to unite the group against other, opposing groups. There are going to be opposing groups because of resource limits. And they aren't going to work together because of that limit. If they cooperate, half of both groups die. If they compete and win, one group survives with much less damage (usually), and if it's your group that survives, you have it made. See, we know now that competition is the best way to get groups to hate each other. The reason for this is probably because most of human history had us competing for resources. Your group is going to be comprised of your family and friends, or otherwise individuals like yourself. People still feel comfortable with people like themselves, To some degree most people willingly segregates themselves, be it by interest, culture, or any other things. This board is no exception. Look at the posters you like. Are they similar to you?

 

I can't really cite anything, I'm not sure where I learned that. My background isn't in anthropology (If I have a 'background' it would be very basic sociology, psychology, and biology), so it's probably bound to be wrong to a degree.

 

 

 

So, uh, yeah. Abortions.

Godwin's law exists for a reason. If one has to resort to Nazi comparisons, it's safe to assume that they're out of arguments and trying to make a last, emotional bit for acceptance. But, that's a personal opinion.

[fakeitormakeit2]

I think that you feel women are subhuman and dont deserve control over their body (not flaming, im inferring this from what you said), calling it a living thing is an easy excuse but also an noncognitive one as well, remember both the sperm and the eggs are living - beings (their DNA is separate from every cell in the body)- as well. Also what is your opinion on miscarriages (from her getting pregnant and a period expelling the fertilized egg, which is a common miscarriage), her body just killed a living person that wouldve been born had that not happened that murderer!

Finally someone figured me out. I hate women. They shouldn't have any rights. My first order of business is that we retract their right to vote. Then we can slowly start to force them to cover their heads and stay in the kitchen, where they belong of course. Unless of course they're needed to reproduce, than to the bedroom. They should also be required to have 5 children each. Oh and did I mention, hail Satan?

 

On a more serious note, murder is intentional, miscarriage is not.

[Alg]

On a more serious note, murder is intentional, miscarriage is not.

I remember saying this same thing a few pages back. Is it safe to say that it was ignored?

That, and saying that all pro-lifers must hate women is a generalization and a cop-out. It sidesteps any actual arguments and assumes that the only reason that anyone wouldn't be pro-choice is if they were a horrible monster. That's not good arguing. That's not tolerance. That's hypocrisy and a way that one can feel superior over another through a perversion of guilt by association.

[Iamdan]

[hide=]

Not Trolling, read the past 5 pages or so, decide for yourself if either side threw in a compelling argument for or against abortion.

 

Looks pretty neutral at the moment, no strong arguments on either side. Hence I'm asking sees_all to present a strong argument for both sides

 

EDIT - Page 16 looks good, might print a few pages of that during break

I won't do your work for you, but it should be easy to find the talking points here. I'll put some of the strategies in here for both sides. If the people you're debating are incompetent, you'll be able to "win" the debate regardless of the side they put you on.

 

 

 

Common pro-choice strategy include forcing your opponent to defend the "corner" cases - rape, incest, medical "necessities", and the "compassionate" cases - deformities or long term suffering. Your focus needs to be entirely on the woman, paint her as the victim, and marginalize the fact that theres a child within. You can also talk about situations which endanger the life of the mother - such as anemia or ectopic pregnancies. You can also broaden the focus towards a macro view - abortion can "solve" world hunger, poverty, and overpopulation. The more off topic you can pull the debate, the harder it is for the pro-life side to establish their argument.

 

The pro-choice case is weak against a strong personhood argument; if you're on this side you and have to defend against this argument, you need to do the best you can to dehumanize the baby. Never refer to the baby as "baby", he or she, child, human etc. Do the best you can to obfuscate the fact that you're talking about an individual. If it comes to it, you can bring up the fact that the sperm and egg cell already existed before conception, and theres nothing "special" about a one-celled zygote. Don't use that as your original position, more as a last resort, because you'll already be playing into a personhood argument.

 

Also, be careful in your choice of language. If this is a class assignment, I'm unsure how the debate is scored, but don't leave room for your opponent to nail you on the facts - things that can easily be refuted by the simplest of definitions. Your best bet is to use the term fetus, and avoid unscientific terminology or specific terminology. Fetus applies to the entire pregnancy, embryo/zygote/blastocyst only applies to the very start. "Ball of cells" or "Fertilized Egg" are unscientific and are easy enough to refute without much effort.

[/hide]

 

Also,

 

People seem to be ignoring the fact that we are no better than every other animal. No humans life is really worth more than the cow they eat, or the cockroach they squash.

 

Death isn't really that big of a deal. It's part of our culture, and everybody contributes to it. Abortion is killing, so [bleep]ing what? Indirectly, so is buying lunch instead of donating it and saving third world families. Life isn't sacred, we aren't special. Human life is a continuous process and aborting a baby every now and then isn't going to doom us all.

 

I mean I've used this a few times and the only person to contradict me is bonkers who just disagreed with me without providing a reason because 'there is no point.'

[sees_all1]

Also,

 

People seem to be ignoring the fact that we are no better than every other animal. No humans life is really worth more than the cow they eat, or the cockroach they squash.

 

Death isn't really that big of a deal. It's part of our culture, and everybody contributes to it. Abortion is killing, so [bleep]ing what? Indirectly, so is buying lunch instead of donating it and saving third world families. Life isn't sacred, we aren't special. Human life is a continuous process and aborting a baby every now and then isn't going to doom us all.

 

I mean I've used this a few times and the only person to contradict me is bonkers who just disagreed with me without providing a reason because 'there is no point.'

 

Doesn't matter how you see humanity - humans are still granted rights and are protected by law. The big question in this debate is when are you legally protected, when are you granted rights? Because obviously stomping on another human being is punished more severely by law than stomping on a cockroach, or most any other animal for that matter.

 

 

But that argument also goes to what I said - "The more off topic you can pull the debate, the harder it is for the pro-life side to establish their argument."

[Iamdan]

Then you're bring the law into a moral debate, which is more off topic than bringing up the morality and logic of putting humans before animals.

 

Legally, a fetus is not a human and doesn't have rights. There is no funeral after a miscarriage or abortion and they are not counted by the census.

[Giordano]

Then you're bring the law into a moral debate, which is more off topic than bringing up the morality and logic of putting humans before animals.

 

Legally, a fetus is not a human and doesn't have rights. There is no funeral after a miscarriage or abortion and they are not counted by the census.

Okay I think this is over. We can talk about morality all we want but if I kill this baby none of you can do anything about it. The law already states a fetus is not a legit human, lets all go home.

[Iamdan]

Then you're bring the law into a moral debate, which is more off topic than bringing up the morality and logic of putting humans before animals.

 

Legally, a fetus is not a human and doesn't have rights. There is no funeral after a miscarriage or abortion and they are not counted by the census.

Okay I think this is over. We can talk about morality all we want but if I kill this baby none of you can do anything about it. The law already states a fetus is not a legit human, lets all go home.

 

 

aaannnnd you've completely missed the point :thumbup:

 

That post wasn't an argument for pro choice, it was an argument saying that an argument against pro life is valid.