• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

For the sake of argument let's classify abortion as murder, as well as the death penalty and collateral war damage. Hell, lets just call all homicide murder, why not? It's ridiculous, but whatever.

Here are the murders I choose to accept:

1) abortion before viability
2) self-defense to save your own life or the life of another human
3) killing of the soldier of an invading army

How about you? Anyone else? We know the murders Wrangor and jhmd accept.


Only #1 can be considered murder.

You are calling acts of self-defense murder, or homicide, when they are not.

For at least 2500 years society has distinguished between intentional killing that is not in self-defense from unintentional killing. In the moral sense intention is rather important, and a good bit of this discussion is about morality. Consequently, you cannot ignore the moral sense.

Bake, why do you feel the need to obfuscate the difference between killing done deliberately and not in self-defense, and killing that occurs accidentally, unintentionally, or in self-defense? Why are your views on abortion compelling you to ignore very real moral distinctions, when you know that they exist? Why do your views on abortion require such deliberate self-confusion?
 
The killing of one human by another is a homicide, by definition. A homicide is not necessarily a murder. I pointed out that it was ridiculous to interchange them in the post, but I did so because it was done with reference to abortion.

I thought I was clear. I was comparing all the forms of homicide for examination of the morality of one over the other.

I narrowed the comparison down to three: abortion, collateral war deaths, and executions - and challenged the pro-lifers to their opinions on the other two - knowing that their opinion on abortion was based on the 'morality' of the act. I wondered, and still do, how they could consider one immoral and the other two moral. They feel they and their elected leaders possess the power and moral authority to order the killings of women and children by the score in Iraq, and to execute criminals who commit heinous crimes - but that a mother of a developing fetus does not posses that over whats happening in her uterus.

ETA - its a different look at the abortion debate then the one that we have rehashed over and over - when does life begin, blah blah. Im trying to put abortion in context with the rest of humans killing other humans that happens all around us every day, and that we go through life either supporting, rejecting, or ignoring. There are people all over America who would tell you they are vehemently against abortion and invoke God and Jesus and hellfire to illustrate their opposition - who couldn't tell you what happened in Iraq that day and have no concept of the slaughter they willfully go through life wither accepting out of hand, or ignoring. I find that frustrating and pathetic. There are others who believe that those women and children killed in Iraq were chanting death to America or were gearing up to commit a terrorist act, yet they sit in judgement not of American leadership or hegemony in the world, but of the woman down the street who struggled mightily with the decision to terminate a pregnancy happening inside her body. Further, they don't understand that evidence can be - and has been throughout history - trumped up against unwitting men by other men intent on convicting them for crimes they didn't commit, or obfuscating facts in their cases. History is rife with such corruption, and death is irreversible.

So I just like to point out this inconsistency in the application of morality that, to me, is glaring.
 
Last edited:
In the moral sense you cannot compare different killings of human beings without reference to the intentions of the perpetrator. And this is what you appear to be doing in your examples and comparisons. If abortion constitutes the intentional killing of another human being, you may compare it with other intentional killings but not very well with unintentional ones. If abortion does not constitute the intentional killing of another human being, then those holding this view need to propose logically persuasive arguments in support of that position, that is, arguments more logically persuasive than the argument that life begins at conception. In any event, arguments comparing abortion, which is intentional, to any unintentional acts are not logically persuasive.
 
So are you in favor or against birth control? Where do you personally draw the line? I know it's not in your custom but debate the issues not the source.

On what evidence do you think I am against birth control? Citations appreciated.
 
Im more than happy to examine the intentions of the perpetrator in all three instances, which I hold are all intentional killings (if you are implying that collateral war damage is unintentional, I would disagree, especially in the case of shock and awe and drone strikes. When missiles are trained on cities where innocents are known to be, those killings are intentional.)

Intentions:

1) Collateral war damage - The intention of these killings was purported to be to 'prevent hypothetical future deaths' and to 'remove the murderous Hussein regime' for the same reason - to save hypothetical lives. That these lives could be spent for this intention was decided by elected American politicians. It is the intentional and knowing killing women and children to achieve nebulous goals.

2) Prisoner executions - I assume from Wrangor's posts that the intention here is punish humans for heinous crimes, or exact revenge. Eye for an eye. Imprisonment achieves the goal of preventing future killings and punishment, so all death achieves is revenge.

3) Abortion - Im not a woman, so I have no way of knowing what is in the hearts of women when they choose to abort pregnancies. When a woman makes the decision to kill a baby that is in her womb, Im assuming the intention is to prevent that baby from continuing to gestate inside her body and ultimately enter the outside world.

I maintain, for sake of argument, that they are ALL immoral. jhmd and Wrangor cherry-pick their morality. They settle in their hearts with 1 and 2, but not with 3.
 
Last edited:
Im more than happy to examine the intentions of the perpetrator in all three instances, which I hold are all intentional killings (if you are implying that collateral war damage is unintentional, I would disagree, especially in the case of shock and awe and drone strikes. When missiles are trained on cities where innocents are known to be, those killings are intentional.)

Intentions:

1) Collateral war damage - The intention of these killings was purported to be to 'prevent hypothetical future deaths' and to 'remove the murderous Hussein regime' for the same reason - to save hypothetical lives. That these lives could be spent for this intention was decided by elected American politicians. It is the intentional and knowing killing women and children to achieve nebulous goals.

2) Prisoner executions - I assume from Wrangor's posts that the intention here is punish humans for heinous crimes, or exact revenge. Eye for an eye. Imprisonment achieves the goal of preventing future killings and punishment, so all death achieves is revenge.

3) Abortion - Im not a woman, so I have no way of knowing what is in the hearts of women when they choose to abort pregnancies. When a woman makes the decision to kill a baby that is in her womb, Im assuming the intention is to prevent that baby from continuing to gestate inside her body and ultimately enter the outside world.

Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You might recognize me from such films as "Im [sic] not a police officer, so I have no way of knowing what is in the hearts of police officers when they discharge their weapons at resisting suspects. When a police office makes the decision to kill a suspect that is resisting his authority, Im [sic] assuming the intention is to prevent further dangerous criminal activity and ultimately protect and serve the public."
 
that's funny, but you continue to make my point for me. I am giving you that abortion is immoral in post after post after post. I have called it homicide and murder, and use the term 'baby.' Yet you continue to argue that Im calling it moral, which I am not - intentionally. That's not the debate I am trying to have.

I am just pointing out with great success that you and your sanctimonious pal Wrangor are hypocritical nincompoops with little grip on your perceived 'morality.'
 
that's funny, but you continue to make my point for me. I am giving you that abortion is immoral in post after post after post. I have called it homicide and murder, and use the term 'baby.' Yet you continue to argue that Im calling it moral, which I am not - intentionally. That's not the debate I am trying to have.

I am just pointing out with great success that you and your sanctimonious pal Wrangor are hypocritical nincompoops with little grip on your perceived 'morality.'

Speaking of hypocrisy, I miss the left's instant-expertise on law enforcement judgment calls. Suddenly we get a lot less expert-y depending on how sympathetic we are to the life being taken.
 
Collateral damage is not usually considered to be intentional. It may sometimes be reasonably concluded that it is, and sometimes that it is not. Your blanket assertion that collateral damage is intentional is simplistic and does not accurately reflect generally accepted usage or meaning. Why do you consider collateral damage intentional?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
Looks like the GOP is going all in after this video.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...parenthood-abortion-push-120263.html?cmpid=sf

I think they overrate the impact of that video. Conservatives cry wolf so much that it's hard to take such allegations seriously.

No doubt somebody misspeaks when addressingg abortion and says something demeaning to women.

The ridiculous thing is that it's not like Conservatives would be ok with abortion if the tissue was not donated, so they should stop acting like this adds anything meaningful to the conversation from their point of view
 
Collateral damage is not usually considered to be intentional. It may sometimes be reasonably concluded that it is, and sometimes that it is not. Your blanket assertion that collateral damage is intentional is simplistic and does not accurately reflect generally accepted usage or meaning. Why do you consider collateral damage intentional?

I specified the shock and awe campaign and drone strikes. There was no doubt that innocents would be killed. More importantly for this debate, wrangor openly acknowledged this and accepted it for the larger goal of 'saving more lives.'
 
The tissue donation is an emotional issue that may/will resonate with a number of voters. You can't expect politicians to pass on the potential opportunity it may present. As is obvious to anyone reading this thread the arguments over abortion include reasoned ones and emotional ones. (Wrangor's posting of the video at the beginning basically has an emotional impact. It is hard to watch without condemnation well-heeled people sitting over a meal in a trendy restaurant, eating and sipping wine, while they matter of factly discuss details of abortions and trafficking in body parts.) Other arguments are more directed toward reason. And yet others revolve around personal experiences. All these types of arguments are not kept distinctly separate and are often bundled inextricably together. We know from the history of the great debate over slavery that the appeal to emotions such as Uncle Tom's Cabin or even more Theodore Weld's American Slavery as It Is, which was based on eyewitness accounts, moved more people than any other type of argument, whether it be based on the Bible, or natural law, or ideals of equality.
 
Last edited:
I specified the shock and awe campaign and drone strikes. There was no doubt that innocents would be killed. More importantly for this debate, wrangor openly acknowledged this and accepted it for the larger goal of 'saving more lives.'

I'll let Wrangor make his own points and defend his own ideas.

I take it then that you accept the concept that collateral damage was not merely applied in the one case that you cite and that it can, and has been, and can be, applied to unintentional as well as intentional killings.
 
I'll let Wrangor make his own points and defend his own ideas.

I take it then that you accept the concept that collateral damage was not merely applied in the one case that you cite and that it can, and has been, and can be, applied to unintentional as well as intentional killings.

Not to answer for WandB, but for me, past history is an absolute predictor of future results. Every war fought, every time, has produced unintentional killing of innocents. EVERY. WAR. So...if you are in favor of any war...past war, current war, or future war, you are accepting of unintentional killings of innocents as part and parcel of whatever you are trying to "win" with that war.
 
Not to answer for WandB, but for me, past history is an absolute predictor of future results. Every war fought, every time, has produced unintentional killing of innocents. EVERY. WAR. So...if you are in favor of any war...past war, current war, or future war, you are accepting of unintentional killings of innocents as part and parcel of whatever you are trying to "win" with that war.

the goal of every war is a better peace (St. Augustine)

can that be achieved by means that involve the deaths of innocent civilians? sometimes yes
 
On what evidence do you think I am against birth control? Citations appreciated.

I'm just asking you a question since you seem to believe that abortion is homicide where you draw the line on when life begins. At what point do you draw the line as to what constitutes this homicide? Is it as soon as sperm attaches to eggs and cells are formed that are a tiny human? Is it at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 16 weeks?
 
the goal of every war is a better peace (St. Augustine)

can that be achieved by means that involve the deaths of innocent civilians? sometimes yes

I would hope that is the goal of every war. As a species, we still seem to be searching for that better peace.

I would challenge that sometimes yes, is always yes.
 
The tissue donation is an emotional issue that may/will resonate with a number of voters. You can't expect politicians to pass on the potential opportunity it may present. As is obvious to anyone reading this thread the arguments over abortion include reasoned ones and emotional ones. (Wrangor's posting of the video at the beginning basically has an emotional impact. It is hard to watch without condemnation well-heeled people sitting over a meal in a trendy restaurant, eating and sipping wine, while they matter of factly discuss details of abortions and trafficking in body parts.) Other arguments are more directed toward reason. And yet others revolve around personal experiences. All these types of arguments are not kept distinctly separate and are often bundled inextricably together. We know from the history of the great debate over slavery that the appeal to emotions such as Uncle Tom's Cabin or even more Theodore Weld's American Slavery as It Is, which was based on eyewitness accounts, moved more people than any other type of argument, whether it be based on the Bible, or natural law, or ideals of equality.

"trafficking body parts?" Really? Also, that video is of a woman talking about her job. I don't know what happens to the fetal tissue that isn't donated, but I imagine that donation for medical research is the best and most positive use of it. It's very likely that research on fetal tissue has saved the lives of actual babies.
 
Back
Top