At what point do pro-abortion supporters draw the line - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

At what point do pro-abortion supporters draw the line
in Global

By all4acttall4actt 71 Pts
I know another abortion debate but not really.

This is more about at what point is abortion an abortion becomes infiacide.

I know that some of you believe that abortion at any point is the equvilent of infacide but it's not you I am interested in.  I want to hear from the pro-abortion people.

The position of some that a child after it is born or aborted up until the day of delivery is this something that even the majority of the  pro-abortion  communitie agree on?

Here is an artcle related to this topic

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planned-parenthood-gave-northam-damage-control-talking-points-after-infanticide-interview

Is throwing away child that survives an abortion acceptable or should that child be transported to a hospital to later be put up for adoption?

At what point does the pro-abortion community draw the line?



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • First thing first, the position is pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion... Pro-abortion would be the position that abortion should be mandatory, which is not the case at all...

    As for "the line" I draw it at birth with regards to legal matters. Morality being subjective by definition, anyone can find it immoral or not, but that is not the point, since the Law's purpose is not to impose beliefs/morality on society, but to maintain order, resolve disputes and protects civil rights and liberties...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    I apologize. You are right it is pro-choice is the commonly used term.

    You said>>>>the Law's purpose is not to impose beliefs/morality on society, but to maintain order, resolve disputes and protects civil rights and liberties...

    Are not laws based on the beliefs and morality of the times in which we live?  Have they not always been based on that through out history?  Is that not why laws have to be challenged and change as societies  beliefs and sense of morality change?

  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 824 Pts
    edited November 7
    @all4actt

    Not really, rules and laws exist to protect and promote the peaceful functions of communities/societies. Yet, here lies one of many perennial chicken-or-egg problems: Which came first, compliance or ethics? We might tend to think that laws originate from moral convictions about what is right and wrong, it may appear that way, but there are many interesting examples that challenge the perception that laws extend from morals. 

    Many things are immoral, yet perfectly legal... Cheating on your spouse is not illegal (although technically still is in 21 states but not on a federal level) yet often regarded as immoral...  Not tipping in a restaurant in the US is often deemed immoral, more so when the service was good, yet it's legal... Rich people and corporations using loopholes, off-shore accounts, and other schemes to avoid tax are often considered immoral, but their actions legal... The opposite is also true, charity is moral, correct? Yet it's illegal in many places across the US to feed the homeless... 

    Morality is subjective, it is individually immanent, it comes from within, whereas the Law is external/imposed and collective...  It's not as intuitive as we tend to think it is... They relate to each other as they often correspond or align, but they really differ ontologically...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen
     Many things that some may find immoral have never had laws made against them yet other things in history were definently laws made to curb what at the time was considered immoral behavior.  A good example is homosexuality or laws reatricting the rights of certain races or nationalities.  All these laws were believed to be for the good of the majority of the people at the time but as the nation grew and sentiments, morals and beliefs changed so did the laws.  

    Homosexualty laws were considered laws to protect the morality of the people whereas laws made restricting rights of people of certain races or nationalities were made of both fear and ignorance but at the time were believed by the majority of the law makers of that time in history to be necessary for the good of the people.



  • @all4actt

    The purpose of a keyboard is to type on a computer but I can use it to hit someone in the face, that fact doesn't change the actual purpose of a keyboard, right?

    In the same way, the law can (obviously) be used to curb population behaviors even if it's not its primary purpose. It's a tool, a very powerful tool of control and like any other tool it can be mishandled. 

    As I said, the Law and Morality are closely related but are fundamentally different things, 

    - Laws regulate external human conduct whereas morality reflects internal conduct. 
    - Laws are upheld by the coercive power of the state; morality simply enjoys the support of public opinion or individual conscience.
    - Moral actions are a matter of choice of inner conscience of the individual, laws are a matter of compulsion.

    It's undeniable that morality informs the Law, we are moral agents and almost everything we do can be morally charged, but understanding that morality is inherently subjective, compels the Jurist to recognize morality as an inadequate source/foundation for the Law. 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @all4actt

    I'm not convinced a fetus can survive abortion. In fact, it seems quite impossible given the thoroughness of the abortion proceedure (required by law). On the off chance that an 'abortion survivor' exists, doctors would care for it to the best of their ability. We certainly don't need a law mandating this. Politicians suggesting otherwise are ignorant in multiple ways.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    You said>>>morality is inherently subjective, compels the Jurist to recognize morality as an inadequate source/foundation for the Law. 

    Yet the morality and beliefs of the times still dictate the laws people demand to either be added or  stricken from the books
  • @SkepticalOne I find it hard to believe a doctor would do an abortion up to the time of the birth.

    What law are you referring to that regulates how an abortion is preformed?

    Now most late term abortions (after 23 weeks) from what I have read are done through an induced labor process.

    Even in the late 80's there were hospitals that would do late term abortions but require the mother to sign paperwork that gave up all parental rights because they were able to save some of the children.
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 182 Pts
    edited November 7
    all4actt said:

    What law are you referring to that regulates how an abortion is preformed?

    2003 partial-birth abortion ban mandates something be done to the pregnancy to stop it from growing before abortion can happen. (Most often drugs to stop fetal heartbeat are administered.) Providing the law is being followed, it would be exceedingly difficult for a live birth to occur after abortion.


  • @all4actt

    You appear to be running in circles... I've stated multiple times that Morality and the Law often overlap & coincide... When morality and beliefs are used to dictate the law, the law is being hijacked and becomes immoral in its application (Slavery, anti-gay laws, etc, demonstrates that...). Yes, it has happened, is happening and will continue to happen around the world, I have no doubt about that as humans are fallible... But it doesn't address my point that it still is not, the purpose of the Law... 

    Morality intrinsic inadequacy as a foundation for the Law, doesn't prevent morality to be incorrectly used as such.  The fact that you can use a hammer for many purposes other than hitting a nail, doesn't change the purpose for which the hammer was created, which is to hit nails... Someone can go through life without ever using a hammer for what it was intended for, that intended use does not change because of that...

    Laws are, by necessity, created to maintain peaceful order in human interactions in a societal context, that is their purpose... That is why murder is most of the time illegal, not because it's immoral. It's a question of society self-preservation...
    SkepticalOne
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @all4actt ;

    At what point does the pro-abortion community draw the line?
    The United state of innocence with all woman created equal by their creator, egg ovulation.
  • @all4actt ;
    Is throwing away child that survives an abortion acceptable or should that child be transported to a hospital to later be put up for adoption?

    1st, a little FYI Child Birth describes a legal type of female pregnancy abortion. It is an official stop to what has been documented as a officially started. Like stated many times the idea a woman is looking for control over her body which is never been prove she had full control of. When this kind of question is asked the woman would have had to have been refused a United State Constitutional right to female specific amputation. The United state that all woman share in birth is immigration across a international border, detaining any woman from her constitutional right to refuse access across an international border which jeopardized her life can be established as criminal when undertaken on her. A medical amputation has limits, numbers of times an given amputation can be made is one form of limit, preventative measures by surgery to eliminate an amputation are another.

    The argument of creating all woman as equal has a hidden hurtle created by a questionable undertaking in genetic human farming. Woman who have genetic tested eggs, with selected by choice sperm fertilizing them, implanted multiple times as pregnancy does, or does not take. In light of these actions kinds of choices is Female specific amputation equal to medical genetic testing and In Vitro fertilization process. A point to be considered in the creation of all woman as equal.   
  • @all4actt

    Now, to wrap this up with regards to abortion ... Considering what I just discussed regarding the Law and Morality, an impartial and just legislator must approach abortion (and any other morally charged actions) in terms of levels of disruption to the peaceful function of society. The more disruptive the act, the more justified is the State in using coercion, and inversely the less disruptive the act, the less coercion is justified... 

    The question the Law has to ask then is : In what ways, and to what extent, can an abortion be disruptive to the functioning of society? That is a question that has answers, disruption can be observed and measured...

    Maybe that's what we should really look into if we ever hope to finally move on...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen ;
    The question the Law has to ask then is : In what ways, and to what extent, can an abortion be disruptive to the functioning of society? That is a question that has answers, disruption can be observed and measured...

    Okay let’s answer the question.....Out loud, please. Short answer.

    Pregnancy abortion is abolished easily with the use of three words that create a state of the union female, specific, amputation. A woman has control over the words she choses to say publicly not her body. Use of her body by liberty. Quite simply, we the people all live and die, our body control a myth if eternal life yet to be learned by us. A woman has powers over an international border among say and other liberties granted to people giving her a value, authority over a border is directly shared with the ownership of property. Maybe the only real American Constitutional basic principle setting precedent to allow a woman's constitutional right to Vote. In spite of their many own misguided arguments.

    Plaffelvohfen
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch