VEEP Debate--Who Won?

Post Reply New Topic

I think the above is our point of contention. If we take bodily autonomy away from people we are saying that they are no longer deserving of a fundamental human right; that the right to a potential life is more valuable than the rights of an actual life. To take this right away from people denigrates the value of all human life. Honestly, to say that the potential of a life is more important than a person's right to not only control their own body, but to decide if they will bring life into the world, just seems backwards to me.


That's an interesting take. I have never considered that it might frighten people that women would have abortions. "If they're capable of that, they must be coldhearted," sort of thinking.


It's up to the person what they want to happen to their body.


Ugly. I'm sure modern medicine can anesthetize the fetus.


Or we could try to make a world where it is a good thing to bring a life into it. But we seem to be getting farther and farther from Eden.

But fundamentally when you allow someone to have an abortion you are eliminating live human life just at an earlier stage of development and someone's chance for living. This isn't simply potential life you are taking away you are also taking human life with it. I feel you are using hyperbole and talking as if we don't value a woman's human life. We do we are simply saying that a woman's pain is not a great enough reason to end life. You could say that not having an abortion can be a gateway to someone's hell but here in the western world their is a higher probability of someone being adopted and living a good life. Having an abortion is taking away the chance for someone to live that life.

Women who have abortions are certainly not cold-hearted but that is not a reason for condoning abortions.

"You say it is up to someone to decide what will happen to their body", well guess what it isn't the body of the woman we are talking about is the body of the unborn, what right does a woman have to take that away?

Anesthesia is not commonly used in abortion cases.

It's not about pain. It's about bringing a life into the world with your body. What you are suggesting to me is enslavement; taking away someone's control of their own body and their choice to bring life into the world.

Its not enslavement being pro life is the idea of holding human life above a mother's temporary pain.

i already said it's not about pain. It's about a person's body being forcibly used for purposes to which the person does not consent.
Why do you value the potential of a life above the experience of an actual human life? To me that seems like the old fable of the dog with a bone who sees his reflection in the water and wants the other bone. When he tries to get it, he loses the one he has.

Kaine didn't do as well in his posture or his presentation as Pence but it wasn't too bad. His biggest problem was his timing. Interruptions are alright if they are done appropriately and sparingly which is something he didn't do too well at. He also started out a little too energized. He calmed down fairly quickly though. Pence however lied over and over about what Trump said and what the campaign's positions are.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/05/ ... prove.html

"Tape Proves That Mike Pence’s Only Defense For Donald Trump Was To Constantly Lie"

This is why Pence is the loser in the debate. He couldn't tell the truth. He gave the Clinton campaign a lot of ammunition for campaign ads.

In style Pence edged Kaine out. (Pence's performance wasn't exactly stellar, he was too condescending.) In substance Kaine won by miles. He told the truth.

Tell me if it is not about pain and hardship is not a factor for you then what right does a woman have to get an abortion in the first place, tell me morally why is it better that a woman have autonomy over their body rather than to save human life?

As for potential well the way I see it is the when you are likely to have a good life in the Western world their is no reason to remove someone from existence and deny someone that. You are effectively depriving someone of a good life that they can have.

I already did.


Seriously? I think your criteria for judging the potential of a good life is a little narrow. Either that or I should consider moving to New Zealand.

Okay so what you are essentially saying is that a woman having control over her own body for the sake of her control is more important than having someone's life.

The thing is if someone is born and is more likely to have a good than bad life then why should we deprive it from them?

I am saying that respect for bodily autonomy is more important than fetal gestation.

It doesn't really matter if the fetus may go on to have a positive life experience. Bodily autonomy is more important than the potential of a good life. Look at it this way: if someone had a diseased kidney and needed a new one in order to have a satisfactory life experience, can we force another person to give up their kidney?

But why removing the pain and labor of the pregnancy why is bodily autonomy more important than saving someone's life?

The kidney scenario you talk of is much different essentially you are talking about one person having to remove a vital organ to help someone else. When you have the issue of bodily autonomy in a pregnancy the only argument you have to say is that someone deserves bodily autonomy for the sake of bodily autonomy.

As for what you said about potential well the argument I state is that when you have an abortion you are depriving someone of a life, that is likely to be good.

I think the point that we are failing to agree on is a person's free choice to bring life into the world. You have said multiple times that life is likely to be good, but you have no proof of this. It would be nice if you were right, but I fear you are not.

there was a (clicky this study) a few years back, that concluded that there was a statistical link between the Rowe v. Wade decision and a reduced crime rate.

Well individuals throughout society and certainly capable of providing the care these babies need. Around 6% of married women are infertile now just think about that. What if for one year instead of having 600,000 abortions take place in the USA we could provide for those millions of families unable to have children. The result of this is clear we would have happy and fulfilled parents, plus a place in which these children could grow up to be loved and live good meaningful lives. Their are 18 million married people unable to have children in the USA right now if we were to eliminate abortion we would not only ensure that otherwise aborted babies would have good life but also allow for those parents to have happy lives as well.

Well their is also 40 years of American history that coincide with this not just the impact of Roe Versus Wade.

ok, what if trump gets in and Obamacare is gone and we're back to unaffordable health care for the non-rich types as was the case before 2014- who is going to pay for all that prenatal/post-partum health care for these [majority non-wealthy] women that you are forcing to carry to term?

Well obviously even with the abolition of Obamacare we will still have social security. Low Income families will be able to receive medicaid subsidies. I do think it is important to remember that with Obamacare abolished like Trump said the demand for healthcare would go down allowing prices to fall for women undertaking abortions.