Which side makes a better case?
avatar
29 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    @logicalreason Great conversation with you, even if we didn't get into a real serious debate. Really enjoyed it so thanks for taking this up. Hope you're able to get some more going on this platform.

    • 2 years ago

      Hey @nellyj, have you ever heard of the attached violinist analogy? If not, it might be interesting to check it out. It's not perfect either, but it's better than comparing a baby to a parasite!

      • 2 years ago

        @sarahmiller I believe that was the Rothbard argument that we briefly mentioned as we both thought it was an absurd argument because a baby is not something you simply wake up to find attached to youcaused bunny action of your own.

      • 2 years ago

        @nellyj It's actually Thomson's analogy. But it does follow along those same lines. Hah yes, I suppose it is nearly impossible to create an exact comparison to pregnancy.

      • 2 years ago

        @sarahmiller I might compare it to inviting a stranger into your house and implicitly promising to feed and care for it for 19 years then one day out of the blue shooting them because you becMe annoyed or their presence meant you couldn't go out and drink one Friday night. I think it's a much better analogy.

      • 2 years ago

        @nellyj Yikes.

      • 2 years ago

        @nellyj Perhaps you missed it, but I was looking for an analogy for pregnancy. I truly hope you misunderstood what I was saying and this is not your idea of pregnancy lol

      • 2 years ago

        @nellyj Also yikes if this is your idea of abortion. Just yikes all around.

      • 2 years ago

        @sarahmiller I'm just saying that pregnancy is not something that comes purely by chance and through no pirposeful actions of the mother. It's not like a cold that one gets from engaging in daily, common and harmless activities, but the potential result of a specific and well understood action. Of course I'm Talking about S.E.X. Haha.

    • 2 years ago

      Question for both of you: is there a difference in the definition of shunning and disassociation, at least for your purposes, or are they synonymous? Thanks!

      • 2 years ago

        @sarahmiller I believe he was saying that society should shun and would thus disassociate with those who do this act.
        Most importantly, as a start, it should not be celebrated.
        I'd like to get into a debate on this issue with somebody if you're interested. I don't know if you, as a judge, do them or not.

      • 2 years ago

        @nellyj I might be interested in this. Judges do participate in debates. Would you want to debate on this exact topic or discuss another aspect of abortion?

      • 2 years ago

        @sarahmiller I don't know if you're a libertarian or what viewpoint you'd like to debate over. If you want to straight debate the issue I would be ok with that I suppose.

    • 2 years ago

      Very interesting...

      • 2 years ago
        • 2 years ago

          I said the word 'liked' a lot. :3

        • 2 years ago

          @enzilag great. Thanks for your watching and commenting. YeH, at the start we realize zed in the terms that we wouldn't be exactly debated Ng and I don't think we disagreed on anything haha. It was a very good and I hope informative discussion and in very happy to hear you got something out of it.
          Hope you're able to get involved in the QallOut platform as well.
          Cheers

      • 2 years ago

        Hello! My name is Jackson Edwards. I am a judge for this discussion. All I am doing is providing feedback or my opinion of the topic NOT the winner. I think being pro-abortion is a true-libertarian. Of course there is a gap period between when you can get a abortion and cannot. However if it is in the period of when you can an abortion (baby isn't really a baby) then I believe you can use your free will and still be a true libertarian. At some point we have to cut out opinions and focus on the true fact, if "it" isnt a baby yet then the woman has all right to decide if she wants to proceed with the pregnancy or not.

      • 2 years ago
      • 2 years ago

        @nellyj_misesian Morning after pill is after conception but before implantation. So, the DNA is in place and the fertilized egg starts to develop. So, if you are focused on the DNA being in place, then you should be agaisnt morning after pills.

        • 2 years ago

          So its great to shame people in society for things you think are immoral, but when others shame people for things they think are immoral that is a travesty of some kind. Awesome double standard gentlemen.

          • 2 years ago

            @sigfried we call upon a universal moral standard, as do you, in fact here you are doing it now though all the while you deny it. We say there is a right and a wrong, again, as do you right there above. So we don’t believe in the relative moral standards that you claim but refuse to stay consistent with, again, as you show here.

          • 2 years ago

            @nellyj_misesian Um, I can't really make any sense of that.

            I don't call on universal moral standards. I call on standards that any given set of people can all individually agree on. Some people don't care about double standards. I presume you do, I do, I'd guess your opponent here does. But that does not mean I think it is universal, just agreed among us.

            The standard here is whether Shame is an appropriate mechanism in a free society under libertarian principles. If social shame is a valid mechanism, then all should be able to engage in it equally. If shame is not then all should not engage in it. If its ok for one group to use shame, but not another, then it's a double standard.

            Sometimes you strike me as the sort, and I could be wrong, that would instead claim. Anything that supports my biblical moral view is good, and anything that opposes it is bad. Free speech and liberty are only good for those who you agree with, which isn't really free speech or liberty. That's just a right-wing authoritarianism. It is much more in keeping with the idea there is a universal good and you are confident you know what it is.

            I'm guessing that is not at all right and you can give me a better take on how you see your possition. Not trying to say what you think, jsut what I observe.

          • 2 years ago

            @sigfried you are at least implying that a double standard exists and that it’s wrong. You are imposing your personal view on us as if we should follow it. This is because you can’t actually live with the idea that morals and what’s R&W is truly within a person and relative. You have an inherent sense of universal justice.

          • 2 years ago

            @nellyj_misesian You still don't understand my moral view. I absolutely want to persuade you that my morality is better than your morality. I just don't claim my morality is created by cosmic forces. It's created by me and my society. Yours is you and your society.

            In my moral universe, morality is always in conflict to show which is superior and to hold sway in society. If I can show you, that by your own claimed standards, that there is an inconsistency in your moral claims, then I can perhaps persuade you to change them by your own reasoning and moral viewpoints.

            Fighting for my moral viewpoint over yours is entirely consistent with my moral philosophy. I am the ultimate judge of right and wrong in my universe and I'm judging you. Simple as that.

          • 2 years ago

            @sigfried so morality is not relative then.

          • 2 years ago

            @nellyj_misesian I never said it was. I said morality is subjective. There is a meaningful difference.

            Relative: All morality is of equal value and varies by society

            Subjective: Every individual has their own moral view and they conflict/compromise over them in the social sphere.