VEEP Debate--Who Won?

Post Reply New Topic

The thing is that even a small baby is capable of being afraid and overwhelmed in the same way a grown adult would be. And yes in some ways an animal that is unaware of itself can wish to live, a zebra for instance would run away from a lion rather than simply be hunted down and killed.

My second point is that if you see it as acceptable to kill off someone due to a lack of awareness than it also becomes acceptable to kill off many other people. Because of the reasoning you use you make it sound like you think that the standard in which people can justifiably be killed is by lacking awareness. By this logic it becomes okay to kill pets and disabled people due to a lack of awareness they may have.

^^^that is a slippery slope.

Why?

The person is using awareness as a measure for someone's right to exist I am pointing out why that is wrong.

because it is obvious that the "awareness" reference was not meant to include people/beings already out of the womb.

I doubt your intellectual honesty Shahaahshashashasha, but if you are really interested in learning about abortion and why it's necessary for it always to be legal and available for women, here is something that might help inform you:

http://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-wom ... 1781972395

If you genuinely want to understand this issue, you will read that interview. If you don't, then we know where you stand for realz.

Morality should be about choice... and, especially in the context of a government that has no alternatives to take care of a baby, one cannot force anyone to raise a child...

^but there is just no convincing people here, of that simple fact.

Wake up everyone the thread is back.

We've been debating this issue for decades and it never ends. Reason why is that there is no correct answer. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. I wish we could just come to an agreement to make it legal while also pointing out the magnitude of the decision. But I actually understand where pro-life people are coming from. It's a maddening problem that has no easy answer. Why don't we just call it a day and leave it to the mother.

because they don't believe mothers should have full control over their own bodies.

The problem with this argument is that we don't let murderers exercise their own judgement about whether they can kill other people or not. We simply put them in jail.

When Trump got all that flack for saying we should punish the woman for an abortion, he was making a scary but logically consistent point. If one believes that abortion is murder then it makes sense to punish the "murderer." The "if" premise in that argument is what people disagree on (pro-life says abortion is murder, pro-choice says it is not.)

Yup, it's totally logically consistent to believe abortion is murder, just like it's logically consistent to believe assisted suicide or putting your sick pet down is murder and has nothing to do with mercy.

http://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-wom ... 1781972395

It's possible to have a logically consistent argument and come to the wrong conclusion. This happens when the "if" statement is wrong. That's all I meant.

This abortion argument really brought out the worst in all of us and for that I am out.

I would like for this thread to go back to its original purpose, namely to discuss what a pr!ck mike pence is.