Partial Birth Abortion Debate: Elphaba vs. Politicophile - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

politicophile · 08-05-2005, 12:50 PM

Following is a four-part debate on the subject of partial-birth abortion between Elphaba and I. Please hold your comments on the debate until after both Elphaba and I have completed our two remarks, respectively.

politicophile · 08-05-2005, 12:51 PM

Main Entry: par•tial-birth abortion
Function: noun
: an abortion in the second or third trimester of pregnancy in which the death of the fetus is induced after it has passed partway through the birth canal - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 prohibits doctors from performing dilation and extraction (otherwise known as partial-birth) abortions. For a good description of what partial-birth abortions are, and of the procedure itself, I recommend reading this paper by Martin Haskell – scroll to page 3 on the electronic version: http://www.house.gov/burton/RSC/hask...tructional.pdf - I do warn you, however, that the procedure is not the sort of thing you want to read about while eating diced tomatoes, for example.

A doctor is just about the most legitimate authority there is when it comes to the subject of abortions. Ob/gyns are particularly well-qualified to weigh in on the issue. With that said, take a look at the poll numbers found here: http://www.memag.com/memag/article/a....jsp?id=116460 – You see that doctors of many different fields are strongly pro-choice, which certainly didn’t come as a surprise to me. Ob/gyns specifically want abortion to remain legal by 65% to 24% against. However, when these same women’s experts are asked for their views on partial-birth abortions, 33% of ob/gyns support the procedure versus 57% who oppose it. If it truly were the case that banning dilation and extraction put the lives of women at risk, 57% of ob/gyns would certainly not support making the procedure illegal.

It can be argued that banning partial birth abortions would just increase the number of people seeking abortions illegally. This is probably true, as at least some of the women who would have sought legal partial birth abortions would get them anyway. However, I don’t think it is a stretch to say that the total number of partial birth abortions performed in this country would decrease. As a consequence, we would see both an increase in women seeing abortions earlier in their pregnancies (an improvement, surely) and in women carrying their pregnancies to term.

During a partial birth abortion, a living fetus is partially removed from the uterus before it is killed in a rather disgusting method described in gristly detail in Haskell’s paper cited above. The reason I see this procedure as being wrong, whilst I am otherwise pro-choice, is that the fetus that is killed during that partial birth would, in a very large number of these cases, live, if it were completely removed from the birth canal (with skull intact, of course). If the fetus was completely removed from the mother and then had the same scissor/suction procedure performed on its skull, the doctor would rightly be charged with murder. It seems impossible to justify partial birth abortion without also justifying infanticide of the sort just described, as the only difference in the two scenarios is the location of the fetus. I strongly believe that killing viable fetuses is a very specific form of murder, and one that should be prohibited by federal law. Surely we can join together in opposing infanticide outside of the birth canal. Why do we disagree about infanticide within it?

What do I have to say about the fact that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 doesn’t have an exception to allow for the procedure to take place when the life of the mother is at risk, you ask? That’s pretty easy. It does.

I’ll let that two-word sentence sink in for a moment. Everything you’ve heard about there not being an exception to the ban in cases where the mother’s life is threatened is untrue. Here’s the relevant quote:

“(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.” - http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html

That’s right, folks: If the mother’s life is in danger, there is no punishment for performing a partial-birth abortion. Thus, the Act in question contains the one and only appropriate exception to the general rule that partial-birth abortions are not to be performed. I hope you will join with me in supporting this ban.

To conclude, partial birth abortions are performed exclusively on well-developed fetuses, a large number of which are viable human babies. While it is permissible to abort such a fetus if it is necessary to save the mother’s life, there are no other cases in which this form of infanticide is justifiable. If killing the baby outside of the mother is illegal, it should also be illegal to do so before the baby is born completely.

Elphaba · 08-05-2005, 03:46 PM

Excellent opening statement, Politicophile. I shall be back once I have sorted my 3x5's.

Elphaba · 08-06-2005, 04:18 PM

Partial birth abortion (PBA) is a common term created by pro-life groups for the Intact Dilation and Extraction abortion procedure (D&X). It is a rarely used procedure that constitutes an estimated one percent of all abortions performed, but the politicalization of the term has made it familiar to most people.

Politico's link to Dr. Haskell's monograph is an accurate description of the procedure. Ironically, Dr. Haskell recommends the D&X procedure over those several other methods that he describes. Should you go to the link to review these other procedures, I would go beyond Politico's recommendation and choose not to eat at all. They are equally horrific so the important question is why are they performed?

This is where Politico and I depart dramatically. His claim that "partial birth abortions are performed exclusively on well-developed fetuses, a large number of which are viable human babies" simply cannot be supported by the facts.

The generally acknowledged reasons for any abortion, by trimester, can be found here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1htm#why

- 1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus. The Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade addresses only first term abortions and leaves second and third term abortions to the discretion of the States, given that an exemption is made to protect the health of the mother. 90% of all abortions are done in the first trimester.

- 2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including:

* She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester.
* There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.
* The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.

- 3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy and an elective D&X is prohibited by law. The most common justifications at that time are:

* The fetus is dead.
* The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
* The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
* The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.

Clearly, the decision to have a second or third trimester abortion is not made for frivolous reasons and to term a D&E procedure as "infanticide" certainly must drive a stake into the heart of a woman who must face that decision.

I would further argue that neither the Federal government or the individual State governments should be legislating medical procedures. Each State's medical association's oversight board is sufficient to gage the worthiness of a medical procedure and they are the authority in sanctioning a doctor who violates their regulations.

Politico, I believe we both share a degree of healthy skepticism about the motives of our politicians. In my opinion, the politicization of a rare procedure with all of it's highly emotional overtones caused many politicians to take the easy way out.

politicophile · 08-07-2005, 09:14 AM

Quote:

This is where Politico and I depart dramatically. His claim that "partial birth abortions are performed exclusively on well-developed fetuses, a large number of which are viable human babies" simply cannot be supported by the facts.

Elphaba claims, as I have quoted above, that it is not true that partial birth abortions are performed exclusively on well-developed fetuses. I suppose this depends on your definition of “well-developed”, but Elphaba’s following several paragraphs provide rather damning evidence for her claim above.

First we find this statement:

Quote:

D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy.

Elphaba has acknowledged, at least, that partial birth abortions are never carried out on fetuses that are relatively undeveloped. The fetus’ large head size is what determines whether D & X is necessary, so the procedure, by definition, is only performed on babies with developed heads, i.e. developed babies.

Elphaba has the following to say about second trimester D & X procedures:

Quote:

- 2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including:

* She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester.
* There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.
* The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.

The first reason cited here is just a case of a mother who waited too long before seeking an abortion. If the fetus is not yet viable, then it stands to reason that a D & E procedure could be performed in place of the D & X procedure. If the fetus’ head is already prohibitively large for D & E, then I do not support allowing the abortion, as we are, once again, dealing with a well-developed fetus.

The second reason cited can be a legitimate concern, but also a problematic one. If the mother is suffering from depression, for example, is that justification for aborting her baby? Again, I draw the line at the point of viability. It is permissible for a mother to decide to receive a D & E procedure on an unviable fetus in order to relieve mental or physical problems, but the mother should not be permitted to kill a viable baby still inside her under the same justification.

Thirdly, if the fetus is dead, by all means, the woman may end her “pregnancy”. As for the badly malformed fetus argument, however, take a look at this well-known anecdote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...439312,00.html – Essentially, a late-term abortion was carried out on a woman in England because her fetus was “seriously handicapped”: it had a cleft lip. So, I ask Elphaba, is genetic retardation a serious genetic defect? What about autism, or paraplegia, or missing a limb? This is a very, very, very dangerous road to go down. I won’t turn this into a slippery slope argument, suffice to say that this justification has already been badly abused and that having a defective fetus is insufficient justification for aborting a viable human child.

Quote:

- 3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy and an elective D&X is prohibited by law. The most common justifications at that time are:

* The fetus is dead.
* The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
* The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
* The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

The first two justifications here are good ones: in either situation, a D & X procedure should be allowed.

The third case here is the most difficult one, but there is a better alternative: in the third trimester, when the fetus is viable, the woman could receive a little bit of extra dilation and the scissors/suction procedure could be omitted. This procedure is known in some circles as a “premature birth”. This method of aborting a pregnancy involves removing the fetus from the mother without killing the baby. Fetus survival rates under this method are far higher than in D & X procedures. There is always an alternative to D & X, even in this, the most difficult case.

Finally, we have this category of fetuses that will surely die after birth. So long as this category is narrowly defined as being “fetuses that will certainly die within a week of their birth”, or something along these lines, I wouldn’t object to it. But really, what harm is there in asking a mother to carry this sort of fetus to term?

As we have seen, there is always an alternative to D & X. Either the mother can receive a D & E procedure (if the fetus is not well-developed) or labor can be induced prematurely, resulting in a live birth and greatly increasing the fetus’ chances of survival. Thus, I remain committed to the principle that partial-birth abortions should only be performed if the mother’s life is in danger. (Yes, Elphaba, I agree that it’s ok to abort dead fetuses, as well.)

Elphaba · 08-10-2005, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Elphaba claims, as I have quoted above, that it is not true that partial birth abortions are performed exclusively on well-developed fetuses. I suppose this depends on your definition of “well-developed”, but Elphaba’s following several paragraphs provide rather damning evidence for her claim above.

Politico, it appears we are using differing definitions of what constitutes a "well-developed" fetus. Your definition appears to address the size of the cranium alone, whereas I define it as involving the entire fetus including organ functioning. Please recall that one of the reasons for performing a D&X procedure is due to a severe form of hydrocephalus. I would also argue that a premature infant, weighing only one or two pounds may be viable, but no medical professional would consider it "well-developed." The evidence I presented rests on the definition that I have given you here, which does damage to your argument rather than mine.

Quote:

Thirdly, if the fetus is dead, by all means, the woman may end her “pregnancy”. As for the badly malformed fetus argument, however, take a look at this well-known anecdote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/s...1439312,00.html – Essentially, a late-term abortion was carried out on a woman in England because her fetus was “seriously handicapped”: it had a cleft lip. So, I ask Elphaba, is genetic retardation a serious genetic defect? What about autism, or paraplegia, or missing a limb? This is a very, very, very dangerous road to go down. I won’t turn this into a slippery slope argument, suffice to say that this justification has already been badly abused and that having a defective fetus is insufficient justification for aborting a viable human child.

I applaud you that you chose not to go the route of the "slippery slope" argument, but a strawman argument regarding two doctors in England does more to support my viewpoint than yours. Once again, a legal procedure was politicized by the religious beliefs of a vicar. Fortunately, the rule of law had precedence:

Quote:

Jim England, the chief crown prosecutor for West Mercia, said the doctors believed, in good faith, that there was a substantial risk the child would be seriously handicapped. "In these circumstances, I decided that there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that there should be no charges against either of the doctors," he said.

Politico, I believe we both agree that under rare circumstances the D&X procedure is a valid alternative. I think our only argument rests in who should define those circumstances. You support legislation at the Federal and State level, whereas I believe that politicians are not competent to make those decisions. I believe that their attempts to do so are simply pandering to a very vocal religious sector that wishes to impose their moral beliefs upon those that do not share the same beliefs.

I propose that politicians stay out of involving themselves in medical procedures. Each State has a medical oversight board that determines valid procedures and has the authority to sanction any doctor who chooses to disreguard specific prohibitions. I also strongly support that the patient and her doctor have greater knowledge of the need for a D&X than any legislative entity.

Politico, let us agree to leave this devastating decision to the patient, her doctor, and the State medical board, under which that doctor is regulated.

Elphaba · 08-10-2005, 06:41 PM

Adam, thank you for agreeing to participate in this debate. I have never had the experience of a formal debate before, so you provided me a learning experience, and challenged my thinking processes as well.

My mind hasn't been changed and I doubt that you have altered your opinion, based upon our experiment. You and I both knew that this debate would end up in a stallmate, as most moral issues do.

What I appreciate is that we each gave the best argument to support our position and didn't resort to personal attacks normally associated with emotionally laden political stances. You did a great job, Adam. I hope I learned, by your example, to be a worthy debate opponent.

politicophile · 08-11-2005, 04:29 AM

Thank you for the kind words, Elphaba. i very much enjoyed our little experiment.

Now for some audience feedback: what did everyone think of this debate? Is this kind of format something you would be interested in seeing more of?

Charlatan · 08-11-2005, 06:22 AM

*applause*

I'd love to see more of this sort of debate. Very rational and well thought out posts by both participants.

JustJess · 08-11-2005, 07:06 AM

Definitely. I learned from this debate, for once!! I didn't feel like I had to read with a lot of skepticism, as I sometimes do.

Supple Cow · 08-11-2005, 09:05 AM

I think the most valuable part of this experiment was that you were both forced to address all of the issues that had previously been mentioned. This kind of civility and reasonable progression of ideas would be possible in the other threads if everybody would read the entire thread before posting and address the topic in its latest incarnation. I can't even count how many times I've seen somebody say something very reasonable and relevant to a thread only to have it ignored in most of the posts to follow (notably including posters from earlier in the thread who stand to benefit most from taking the new ideas into account).

Ustwo · 08-11-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supple Cow

I think the most valuable part of this experiment was that you were both forced to address all of the issues that had previously been mentioned. This kind of civility and reasonable progression of ideas would be possible in the other threads if everybody would read the entire thread before posting and address the topic in its latest incarnation. I can't even count how many times I've seen somebody say something very reasonable and relevant to a thread only to have it ignored in most of the posts to follow (notably including posters from earlier in the thread who stand to benefit most from taking the new ideas into account).

This is an excellent point. One problem though is in a normal thread, you may have five posters trying to debate you, about different or related points, and often you only have time/desire to respond to some of them. I will often pick out one poster and respond to them, and the rest becomes noise.

politicophile · 08-11-2005, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supple Cow

I think the most valuable part of this experiment was that you were both forced to address all of the issues that had previously been mentioned. This kind of civility and reasonable progression of ideas would be possible in the other threads if everybody would read the entire thread before posting and address the topic in its latest incarnation. I can't even count how many times I've seen somebody say something very reasonable and relevant to a thread only to have it ignored in most of the posts to follow (notably including posters from earlier in the thread who stand to benefit most from taking the new ideas into account).

There certainly are a lot of advantages to having a structured debate instead of the somewhat free-for-all approach that other threads have. I especially like the fact that this debate remained so focused and civil. We stayed precisely on topic without attacking each other's character or resorting to inflamatory language.

I hope to see other posters taking the initiative and starting similar debates on other subjects. And if anyone is interested in debating me on another issue, PM me and we'll discuss it.

tecoyah · 08-11-2005, 11:55 AM

Excellent......I wish we could do this in all threads here....but, you two have definately shown it can be done. I very much appreciate the "Experiment, and hope it becomes the norm in here. Maybe it could be.....if the community is behind it.

Thank You Both

Bill O'Rights · 08-11-2005, 11:59 AM

Well done gentlemen.
Very well done.
I've tried to initiate this experiment a couple of times, just to have the fuse fizzle. This is something that I would definately like to see more of. Maybe it'll help to wash some of the slime off of the walls of the politics board.
Again...Bravo!!

alansmithee · 08-11-2005, 12:13 PM

I'm gonna go against the prevailing opinion and say that I think this was a horrible idea. How can you have a discussion board if only 2 people are allowed to discuss issues per thread? One of the things that is interesting about discussion boards is that it does allow many differing views to be shown on a particular issue. This can lead to more conflict and/or noise, but it also allows for interaction, which debates don't. I think if this became the trend, it would lead to less people visiting the politics board (I know I have no interest in it personally). If civility needs to be added, that's fine, but not at the expense of free interchange of ideas.

Elphaba · 08-11-2005, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Following is a four-part debate on the subject of partial-birth abortion between Elphaba and I. Please hold your comments on the debate until after both Elphaba and I have completed our two remarks, respectively.

Alansmithee, I guess we didn't make our intent clear enough. We wanted to complete the debate itself, without interruption, followed by an open critique of the arguments we made by anyone who wished to participate.

Jump in, sir.

Elphaba · 08-11-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Well done gentlemen.

This he is a she.

politicophile · 08-12-2005, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I'm gonna go against the prevailing opinion and say that I think this was a horrible idea. How can you have a discussion board if only 2 people are allowed to discuss issues per thread? One of the things that is interesting about discussion boards is that it does allow many differing views to be shown on a particular issue. This can lead to more conflict and/or noise, but it also allows for interaction, which debates don't. I think if this became the trend, it would lead to less people visiting the politics board (I know I have no interest in it personally). If civility needs to be added, that's fine, but not at the expense of free interchange of ideas.

Well, thanks for ridiculing Elphaba's creative idea, as well as her and my hard work in creating this thread. If you had read my original post, you would know that, from the very beginning, the intention was to have Elphaba and I write our point-conterpoint-point-counterpoint and then to open the floor for discussion as usual. We wanted to have both points of view represented in the opening of the thread, as is not the case in the typical thread one would find here.

Furthermore, what is not interactive about debates, especially if the "audience" is allowed to respond afterwards? This was a well-constructed dialogue between two disagreeing parties, not an interaction-deviod monologue, so I have trouble sympathizing with you here. If you really are so concerned about the lack of interaction, why don't you start us of with your thoughts on the issue of partial birth abortion?

Charlatan · 08-12-2005, 08:13 AM

nevermind..............

alansmithee · 08-12-2005, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Well, thanks for ridiculing Elphaba's creative idea, as well as her and my hard work in creating this thread. If you had read my original post, you would know that, from the very beginning, the intention was to have Elphaba and I write our point-conterpoint-point-counterpoint and then to open the floor for discussion as usual. We wanted to have both points of view represented in the opening of the thread, as is not the case in the typical thread one would find here.

And thank you for flying off the deep end. I don't see anything that I wrote that could be considered ridicule. And I did read the original post (after which I stopped reading the thread until I saw others post, because it was made clear that outside comments would not be appreciated until the adults had finished talking). And you prove my point with the "both points of view represented" comment. There may be *gasp* more than two points of view on a subject. And in subjects where there are two points of view, i generally see both sides voiced (or attempt myself to voice the unrepresented side).

Quote:

Furthermore, what is not interactive about debates, especially if the "audience" is allowed to respond afterwards? This was a well-constructed dialogue between two disagreeing parties, not an interaction-deviod monologue, so I have trouble sympathizing with you here. If you really are so concerned about the lack of interaction, why don't you start us of with your thoughts on the issue of partial birth abortion?

A debate is very interactive, for those involved in the debate. I was not questioning if it was interactive for the two named participants. However, it did lack interaction for the however many other people visit the board, who were politely told to shut up while you two had your debate. And what could I have to add to the subject, when obviously the only possible two sides of the issue have already been covered.

maleficent · 08-12-2005, 10:45 AM

The downside to this experment is there was absolutely no passion in any of the statements made... it was a point/counterpoint - I felt like I was back in my college debate team where you were handed and issue and told what side to debate... until you get passion in there... it's not exciting for me... Maybe it tones down politics from the fighting... there were no personal attacks whcih is good, but there's no person or personality behind the points being made.

I'd much rather see a debate that's civil but I'd like to see some of your personalities to it - I can easily Google and find any side of any issue and copy and paste.. I'd much rather know HOW a person feels about a topic and WHY they reached that conclusion.

amonkie · 08-12-2005, 10:58 AM

I think people are trying to find the happy medium between a cut and dry debate, and the flamewars that sadly all too often take focus on threads that had great potential. This was merely a place to start - information was presented by opposing sides - and there may certainly be more than 2 views. I agree with Maleficent that the passion that is perhaps more easily felt in other threads is absent, but it takes skill to use that passion as an asset to your argument and not to let it BE the argument. Perhaps the next step would be an evolution of civilized debate with the awareness for the need of balance in passion/emotion in the response.

politicophile · 08-12-2005, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

And thank you for flying off the deep end. I don't see anything that I wrote that could be considered ridicule. And I did read the original post (after which I stopped reading the thread until I saw others post, because it was made clear that outside comments would not be appreciated until the adults had finished talking). And you prove my point with the "both points of view represented" comment. There may be *gasp* more than two points of view on a subject. And in subjects where there are two points of view, i generally see both sides voiced (or attempt myself to voice the unrepresented side).

A debate is very interactive, for those involved in the debate. I was not questioning if it was interactive for the two named participants. However, it did lack interaction for the however many other people visit the board, who were politely told to shut up while you two had your debate. And what could I have to add to the subject, when obviously the only possible two sides of the issue have already been covered.

Sir,

I apologize for coming across in a manner that you considered "flying off the deep end", as this was certainly not how I intended to sound. As for there being two perspectives in the debate, I meant that one either thinks partial birth abortion should remain legal or it shouldn't. I understand the issue is more complex than that, but felt that the two primary positions were well-represented.

Again, I apologize for any offense taken, as none was intended. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this pressing political issue.

tecoyah · 08-12-2005, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amonkie

but it takes skill to use that passion as an asset to your argument and not to let it BE the argument.

And here lies the great truth we seek.......I can only hope we all pay attention to it.

and no...I'm not playing favorites, she just has a very valid point

Elphaba · 08-12-2005, 12:10 PM

Hey, I was really, really passionate when I was keying in my arguments. Really.

Ustwo · 08-12-2005, 06:57 PM

Perhaps we should all note:

No one else has bothered to talk about partial birth abortion, just the merits of talking about an issue in this manner.

There in lies the rub.

bermuDa · 08-12-2005, 08:16 PM

part of this experiment was to discuss the merits of this kind of discussion, and perhaps the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments used. this is not the only debate about abortion, but it is the first one conducted in this manner on these forums.

the question this thread posed was "what did everyone think of this debate? Is this kind of format something you would be interested in seeing more of?" Whilst other opinions on the subject of the debate would be welcome, this thread is to test the water more than to have a bunch of people skim the thread then post their own opinions about the subject of debate.

In future threads, after the two parties have finished making their arguments the floor would open to opinions and criticisms of the arguments used. that's not happening here because that's not what was asked for.

Elphaba · 08-13-2005, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bermuDa

In future threads, after the two parties have finished making their arguments the floor would open to opinions and criticisms of the arguments used. that's not happening here because that's not what was asked for.

Actually, that was what Politico and I had hoped for. We simply did a poor job of explaining our intentions. It may be that abortion in any form has been beat to death in previous topics and no one is interested in continuing this particular debate with their own position on the topic.

dy156 · 08-13-2005, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

And thank you for flying off the deep end.

I know in the musical Elphie was accused by Glinda of "flying off the handle" and it was kind of a big deal when she flew off into the western sky, but "flying off the deep end"? Maybe some mixed metaphors there.

Rather than spend more time discussing the debate- I actually want to address a few points that were debated, and hopefully get this thing back on track.

I'm about as conservative as one can get. In fact, this is yet another instance where I think you can, if you're being intellectually honest, go so far to the right that you come out on the left, and prove once again that a spectrum is a poor metaphor for the range of political thought.

As a general rule, I'm adamantly against aborting a viable fetus. It's terrible. What's more, the age of viability has gone down dramatically since Roe v. Wade, and I think that the courts have done a poor job of upholding stupid laws that restrict abortions, while not really facing and upholding the reasons for the Roe decision. Prime example: parental notification laws. I'd rather a 16 year old have a clump of cells sucked out in the first few months, rather than follow the steps to get a court order or notify her parents, make sure she's dotted the i's and crossed the t's to comply with the restrictions on abortions and followed the law imposed by supposedly conservative state legislatures and judges; meanwhile that clump of cells has grown into a fetus that should not be aborted, but she's followed the law, dotted the i's and crossed the t's, and therefore she gets to have the abortion, because "Roe v. Wade makes abortion legal." That was not at all the intention. In fact, if I recall, Justices O'Conner and Stevens wrote in that opinion about viability of the fetus.

In the same pissed-off-because-so-called-conservatives-are-intellectually-dishonest-and-have-made-this-arch-conservative-distraught-about-the-Republican-party rant, I think we've missed the boat on "partial-birth abortions" too. I mistrust the government, and especially the Congress. The life-threatening-to-the-mother standard mentioned is actually very high, and every doctor I know has an inordinate (although often unsubstantiated) fear of lawyers. Doctors that might be making a decision about whether to abort a third-term pregnacy are faced with an extremely complex problem. Maybe it's not clear cut that the situation is life threatening, but the risk to the mother is great, and the probability of a healthy child is very slim. In that case, I'd place my trust in a doctor to make those tough calls. The doctor has not only been through education, both lengthier and more rigorous, than that of most legislators, Congressmen, and judges lack in the field, but has also worked ungodly hours in their specialty to give them experience upon which to base their decision and rely. They have at their disposal sophisticated sonogram and other medical equipment, and the state of the art will always outpace legislation governing it. I've had friends who have had stillborn children, and thankfully the mother was in no danger. But I'd rather leave every option open to the doctors that specialize in that area of medicine. The recent story about the mkother that had advanced cancer, but was kept alive so that she could deliver a baby was heart warming. But what if the situation were reversed? A mother with a severe disease was about to give birth to a baby that would likely have little chance of survival. It's a tough call, and in the gray area of what is right, but I'd rather a specialist doctor make that tough call than a politician.

I'm against the partial birth abortion ban, but I question any "conservative" that contradicts me and places more trust in lawmakers and judges than doctors in their support of it.

bermuDa · 08-14-2005, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Actually, that was what Politico and I had hoped for. We simply did a poor job of explaining our intentions. It may be that abortion in any form has been beat to death in previous topics and no one is interested in continuing this particular debate with their own position on the topic.

I see, well I think that your intentions are good and I like the concept of having formal debates within a larger discussion, and after the formal debate is over the normal forum format would take over. For the sake of the debate, I like that third parties outside the debate have an opportunity to tear apart the arguments and counter with their own information and opinion afterwards. I think this would improve the participants' ability, and also build very strong arguments for both sides.

If any members do decide to continue in this vein and hold another debate in this format, I think I would prefer the comments are limited to the scope of the debate itself, presenting personal opinions and facts when needed, and addressing the validity of the arguments used and they way they were presented by either side. I felt this thread became more of an experiment since it was the first thread of its kind around here, and most other users took the opportunity to discuss the format rather than the topic itself, I wouldn't expect this kind of discussion in future debate threads.

I wish I could set an example and actually address the issue as mentioned above like dy156 has, but I can't at the moment. And now that we've beaten this horse to death, please discuss the debate itself.

FoolThemAll · 08-14-2005, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dy156

Doctors that might be making a decision about whether to abort a third-term pregnacy are faced with an extremely complex problem. Maybe it's not clear cut that the situation is life threatening, but the risk to the mother is great, and the probability of a healthy child is very slim. In that case, I'd place my trust in a doctor to make those tough calls. The doctor has not only been through education, both lengthier and more rigorous, than that of most legislators, Congressmen, and judges lack in the field, but has also worked ungodly hours in their specialty to give them experience upon which to base their decision and rely. They have at their disposal sophisticated sonogram and other medical equipment, and the state of the art will always outpace legislation governing it. I've had friends who have had stillborn children, and thankfully the mother was in no danger. But I'd rather leave every option open to the doctors that specialize in that area of medicine. The recent story about the mkother that had advanced cancer, but was kept alive so that she could deliver a baby was heart warming. But what if the situation were reversed? A mother with a severe disease was about to give birth to a baby that would likely have little chance of survival. It's a tough call, and in the gray area of what is right, but I'd rather a specialist doctor make that tough call than a politician.

I'm against the partial birth abortion ban, but I question any "conservative" that contradicts me and places more trust in lawmakers and judges than doctors in their support of it.

I agree here, in the sense that doctors should normally be the ones to make the call on whether a pregnancy is life-threatening. But I also support government oversight on whether doctors are making any blatant abuses of the "life of the mother" exception (to the not-yet existent abortion prohibition), which you can be sure would occur in a world without Roe v. Wade. If there was no medical basis for the abortion, punishment would be in order. License revocation would certainly be one possible legal consequence, perhaps more depending on the case. Perhaps the partial birth abortion ban needs to be rewritten to reflect a greater trust in doctors, I'm not sure. Perhaps this particular implementation is bad. But I don't quite see how a ban would necessarily be in conflict with what you're saying.

The other disagreement: the non-viable, in general, are just as deserving of the protection of the law as the viable. I've yet to see a convincing argument to the contrary. Certainly not a scientific argument. Thus, I also disagree with your reasoning against the parental notification laws; I see no important relevant difference between an abortion at 2 months and an abortion at 8 months.

hannukah harry · 08-14-2005, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

I see no important relevant difference between an abortion at 2 months and an abortion at 8 months.

exactly. which is why really, abortion should be legal until birth.

Elphaba · 08-14-2005, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

I agree here, in the sense that doctors should normally be the ones to make the call on whether a pregnancy is life-threatening. But I also support government oversight on whether doctors are making any blatant abuses of the "life of the mother" exception (to the not-yet existent abortion prohibition), which you can be sure would occur in a world without Roe v. Wade. If there was no medical basis for the abortion, punishment would be in order. License revocation would certainly be one possible legal consequence, perhaps more depending on the case. Perhaps the partial birth abortion ban needs to be rewritten to reflect a greater trust in doctors, I'm not sure. Perhaps this particular implementation is bad. But I don't quite see how a ban would necessarily be in conflict with what you're saying.

If by "government oversight" you are referring the the state medical regulatory boards, I am in complete agreement with you. These boards are made up of medical professionals who are more than capable in determining the need for a particular procedure, and have the power to sanction any doctor who willfully chooses to ignore the regulations. I strongly oppose politicians attempting to legislate medical procedures or someone's moral vision on the entire populace. Whenever politicians have attempted to do so, they produced a black market in what they were trying to prevent. Prohibition, the illegality of abortion prior to Roe v. Wade, and medical marijuana are cases in point.

FoolThemAll · 08-15-2005, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

exactly. which is why really, abortion should be legal until birth.

Or the other path, the one I favor, illegal no matter the stage of development.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I strongly oppose politicians attempting to legislate medical procedures or someone's moral vision on the entire populace. Whenever politicians have attempted to do so, they produced a black market in what they were trying to prevent. Prohibition, the illegality of abortion prior to Roe v. Wade, and medical marijuana are cases in point.

You're not going to eliminate crimes by passing laws against them. I recognize that. I'm not against Prohibition because it failed, I'm not against medical marijuana because it found a black market niche. I'm against both of them because I don't think there's sufficient reason for those substances to be illegal. Regulated to some extent, but not illegal. But if something should be the government's business and the government isn't doing a good job of curtailing what it aims to, the answer is not to give up. The answer is to find ways to do better.

The nasty habit of imposing moral visions on entire populations enables us to curtail practices such as theft, assault, and murder. The question is not whether to impose, but what to impose.

RusCrimson · 08-16-2005, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

I see no important relevant difference between an abortion at 2 months and an abortion at 8 months.

I see a huge difference: viability. If you remove the embryo from the womb at 2 months, it will die on its own. If you remove it at 8 months, it may need an additional force beyond removal to kill it.

That being said, I believe that even removing the fetus with knowledge that it will die is "causing" its death.

I am opposed to all abortions, not just those made after the point of viability. This opposition is based in a simple argument:

(1) I was once an embryo (or fetus).
(2) I have always possessed a basic right not to be killed.
(3) The embryo (or fetus) that was me also possesses a basic right not to be killed.
(4) I do not deserve special treatment.
Therefore: All embryos (or fetuses) possess a right not to be killed.

Obviously, the main argument will be against (1), and I'd welcome discussion on it.

hannukah harry · 08-16-2005, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RusCrimson

I am opposed to all abortions, not just those made after the point of viability. This opposition is based in a simple argument:

(1) I was once an embryo (or fetus).
(2) I have always possessed a basic right not to be killed.
(3) The embryo (or fetus) that was me also possesses a basic right not to be killed.
(4) I do not deserve special treatment.
Therefore: All embryos (or fetuses) possess a right not to be killed.

Obviously, the main argument will be against (1), and I'd welcome discussion on it.

actually, i think the main argument is against (2) and by default then (3). why do you think you have a basic right not to be killed as an embryo? i say you have no basic rights. there's no such thing as a basic right. the 'basic rights' are those that we say we have and allow ourselves through the social contract. but their are no true 'inalienable rights.' only the law of nature is immutable. that we try to override it with our sentience doesn't change anything.

Gilda · 08-16-2005, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RusCrimson

I see a huge difference: viability. If you remove the embryo from the womb at 2 months, it will die on its own. If you remove it at 8 months, it may need an additional force beyond removal to kill it.

That being said, I believe that even removing the fetus with knowledge that it will die is "causing" its death.

I am opposed to all abortions, not just those made after the point of viability. This opposition is based in a simple argument:

(1) I was once an embryo (or fetus).
(2) I have always possessed a basic right not to be killed.
(3) The embryo (or fetus) that was me also possesses a basic right not to be killed.
(4) I do not deserve special treatment.
Therefore: All embryos (or fetuses) possess a right not to be killed.

Obviously, the main argument will be against (1), and I'd welcome discussion on it.

No, the main argument is against 2 and 3, assumptions that are really logical fallacies called "begging the question". You are assuming that your conclusion is true as one of the premises of your argument. The issue of abortion comes down to deciding at what point between conception and birth does the fetus A: become a person and thus B: enjoy the basic human right not to be killed. My A and B are your 2 and 3, and they are the heart of the abortion debate and cannot be used as premises without proving them first.

Gilda

FoolThemAll · 08-17-2005, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

i say you have no basic rights. there's no such thing as a basic right. the 'basic rights' are those that we say we have and allow ourselves through the social contract. but their are no true 'inalienable rights.' only the law of nature is immutable. that we try to override it with our sentience doesn't change anything.

What's the point here? I understand what you're saying, and I disagree, but what difference does this make? Should, in your view, that social contract enforce the right to life?

(And I'm not arguing that one can't agree with a right to life and still support legal abortion.)

hannukah harry · 08-17-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

What's the point here? I understand what you're saying, and I disagree, but what difference does this make? Should, in your view, that social contract enforce the right to life?

(And I'm not arguing that one can't agree with a right to life and still support legal abortion.)

the point was that he was making an assumption that he has a right to 'not being killed' as a fetus. and that assumption is wrong. it's a presumption that he assumes not based on anything but is opinion. i'm merely giving my opinion that there is no fundamental right to being born, that the only rules that exist are those of nature which doesn't care if 'you' are born or not.

08-05-2005, 12:50 PM	#1 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	Partial Birth Abortion Debate: Elphaba vs. Politicophile Following is a four-part debate on the subject of partial-birth abortion between Elphaba and I. Please hold your comments on the debate until after both Elphaba and I have completed our two remarks, respectively. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

08-05-2005, 12:51 PM	#2 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	Main Entry: par•tial-birth abortion Function: noun : an abortion in the second or third trimester of pregnancy in which the death of the fetus is induced after it has passed partway through the birth canal - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 prohibits doctors from performing dilation and extraction (otherwise known as partial-birth) abortions. For a good description of what partial-birth abortions are, and of the procedure itself, I recommend reading this paper by Martin Haskell – scroll to page 3 on the electronic version: http://www.house.gov/burton/RSC/hask...tructional.pdf - I do warn you, however, that the procedure is not the sort of thing you want to read about while eating diced tomatoes, for example. A doctor is just about the most legitimate authority there is when it comes to the subject of abortions. Ob/gyns are particularly well-qualified to weigh in on the issue. With that said, take a look at the poll numbers found here: http://www.memag.com/memag/article/a....jsp?id=116460 – You see that doctors of many different fields are strongly pro-choice, which certainly didn’t come as a surprise to me. Ob/gyns specifically want abortion to remain legal by 65% to 24% against. However, when these same women’s experts are asked for their views on partial-birth abortions, 33% of ob/gyns support the procedure versus 57% who oppose it. If it truly were the case that banning dilation and extraction put the lives of women at risk, 57% of ob/gyns would certainly not support making the procedure illegal. It can be argued that banning partial birth abortions would just increase the number of people seeking abortions illegally. This is probably true, as at least some of the women who would have sought legal partial birth abortions would get them anyway. However, I don’t think it is a stretch to say that the total number of partial birth abortions performed in this country would decrease. As a consequence, we would see both an increase in women seeing abortions earlier in their pregnancies (an improvement, surely) and in women carrying their pregnancies to term. During a partial birth abortion, a living fetus is partially removed from the uterus before it is killed in a rather disgusting method described in gristly detail in Haskell’s paper cited above. The reason I see this procedure as being wrong, whilst I am otherwise pro-choice, is that the fetus that is killed during that partial birth would, in a very large number of these cases, live, if it were completely removed from the birth canal (with skull intact, of course). If the fetus was completely removed from the mother and then had the same scissor/suction procedure performed on its skull, the doctor would rightly be charged with murder. It seems impossible to justify partial birth abortion without also justifying infanticide of the sort just described, as the only difference in the two scenarios is the location of the fetus. I strongly believe that killing viable fetuses is a very specific form of murder, and one that should be prohibited by federal law. Surely we can join together in opposing infanticide outside of the birth canal. Why do we disagree about infanticide within it? What do I have to say about the fact that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 doesn’t have an exception to allow for the procedure to take place when the life of the mother is at risk, you ask? That’s pretty easy. It does. I’ll let that two-word sentence sink in for a moment. Everything you’ve heard about there not being an exception to the ban in cases where the mother’s life is threatened is untrue. Here’s the relevant quote: “(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.” - http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html That’s right, folks: If the mother’s life is in danger, there is no punishment for performing a partial-birth abortion. Thus, the Act in question contains the one and only appropriate exception to the general rule that partial-birth abortions are not to be performed. I hope you will join with me in supporting this ban. To conclude, partial birth abortions are performed exclusively on well-developed fetuses, a large number of which are viable human babies. While it is permissible to abort such a fetus if it is necessary to save the mother’s life, there are no other cases in which this form of infanticide is justifiable. If killing the baby outside of the mother is illegal, it should also be illegal to do so before the baby is born completely. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

08-05-2005, 03:46 PM	#3 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Excellent opening statement, Politicophile. I shall be back once I have sorted my 3x5's. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

08-06-2005, 04:18 PM	#4 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Partial birth abortion (PBA) is a common term created by pro-life groups for the Intact Dilation and Extraction abortion procedure (D&X). It is a rarely used procedure that constitutes an estimated one percent of all abortions performed, but the politicalization of the term has made it familiar to most people. Politico's link to Dr. Haskell's monograph is an accurate description of the procedure. Ironically, Dr. Haskell recommends the D&X procedure over those several other methods that he describes. Should you go to the link to review these other procedures, I would go beyond Politico's recommendation and choose not to eat at all. They are equally horrific so the important question is why are they performed? This is where Politico and I depart dramatically. His claim that "partial birth abortions are performed exclusively on well-developed fetuses, a large number of which are viable human babies" simply cannot be supported by the facts. The generally acknowledged reasons for any abortion, by trimester, can be found here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1htm#why - 1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus. The Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade addresses only first term abortions and leaves second and third term abortions to the discretion of the States, given that an exemption is made to protect the health of the mother. 90% of all abortions are done in the first trimester. - 2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including: * She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. * There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy. * The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester. - 3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy and an elective D&X is prohibited by law. The most common justifications at that time are: * The fetus is dead. * The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger. * The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her. * The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus. In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed. Clearly, the decision to have a second or third trimester abortion is not made for frivolous reasons and to term a D&E procedure as "infanticide" certainly must drive a stake into the heart of a woman who must face that decision. I would further argue that neither the Federal government or the individual State governments should be legislating medical procedures. Each State's medical association's oversight board is sufficient to gage the worthiness of a medical procedure and they are the authority in sanctioning a doctor who violates their regulations. Politico, I believe we both share a degree of healthy skepticism about the motives of our politicians. In my opinion, the politicization of a rare procedure with all of it's highly emotional overtones caused many politicians to take the easy way out. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

08-10-2005, 06:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Adam, thank you for agreeing to participate in this debate. I have never had the experience of a formal debate before, so you provided me a learning experience, and challenged my thinking processes as well. My mind hasn't been changed and I doubt that you have altered your opinion, based upon our experiment. You and I both knew that this debate would end up in a stallmate, as most moral issues do. What I appreciate is that we each gave the best argument to support our position and didn't resort to personal attacks normally associated with emotionally laden political stances. You did a great job, Adam. I hope I learned, by your example, to be a worthy debate opponent. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

08-11-2005, 04:29 AM	#8 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	Thank you for the kind words, Elphaba. i very much enjoyed our little experiment. Now for some audience feedback: what did everyone think of this debate? Is this kind of format something you would be interested in seeing more of? __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

08-11-2005, 06:22 AM	#9 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	applause I'd love to see more of this sort of debate. Very rational and well thought out posts by both participants. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-11-2005, 07:06 AM	#10 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	Definitely. I learned from this debate, for once!! I didn't feel like I had to read with a lot of skepticism, as I sometimes do. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

08-11-2005, 09:05 AM	#11 (permalink)
Supple Cow Americow, the Beautiful Location: Washington, D.C.	I think the most valuable part of this experiment was that you were both forced to address all of the issues that had previously been mentioned. This kind of civility and reasonable progression of ideas would be possible in the other threads if everybody would read the entire thread before posting and address the topic in its latest incarnation. I can't even count how many times I've seen somebody say something very reasonable and relevant to a thread only to have it ignored in most of the posts to follow (notably including posters from earlier in the thread who stand to benefit most from taking the new ideas into account). __________________ "I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed." (Michael Jordan)

08-11-2005, 11:55 AM	#14 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Excellent......I wish we could do this in all threads here....but, you two have definately shown it can be done. I very much appreciate the "Experiment, and hope it becomes the norm in here. Maybe it could be.....if the community is behind it. Thank You Both __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

08-11-2005, 11:59 AM	#15 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Well done gentlemen. Very well done. I've tried to initiate this experiment a couple of times, just to have the fuse fizzle. This is something that I would definately like to see more of. Maybe it'll help to wash some of the slime off of the walls of the politics board. Again...Bravo!! __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

08-11-2005, 12:13 PM	#16 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	I'm gonna go against the prevailing opinion and say that I think this was a horrible idea. How can you have a discussion board if only 2 people are allowed to discuss issues per thread? One of the things that is interesting about discussion boards is that it does allow many differing views to be shown on a particular issue. This can lead to more conflict and/or noise, but it also allows for interaction, which debates don't. I think if this became the trend, it would lead to less people visiting the politics board (I know I have no interest in it personally). If civility needs to be added, that's fine, but not at the expense of free interchange of ideas.

08-12-2005, 08:13 AM	#20 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	nevermind.............. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-12-2005, 10:45 AM	#22 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	The downside to this experment is there was absolutely no passion in any of the statements made... it was a point/counterpoint - I felt like I was back in my college debate team where you were handed and issue and told what side to debate... until you get passion in there... it's not exciting for me... Maybe it tones down politics from the fighting... there were no personal attacks whcih is good, but there's no person or personality behind the points being made. I'd much rather see a debate that's civil but I'd like to see some of your personalities to it - I can easily Google and find any side of any issue and copy and paste.. I'd much rather know HOW a person feels about a topic and WHY they reached that conclusion. __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

08-12-2005, 10:58 AM	#23 (permalink)
amonkie Drifting Administrator Location: Windy City	I think people are trying to find the happy medium between a cut and dry debate, and the flamewars that sadly all too often take focus on threads that had great potential. This was merely a place to start - information was presented by opposing sides - and there may certainly be more than 2 views. I agree with Maleficent that the passion that is perhaps more easily felt in other threads is absent, but it takes skill to use that passion as an asset to your argument and not to let it BE the argument. Perhaps the next step would be an evolution of civilized debate with the awareness for the need of balance in passion/emotion in the response. __________________ Calling from deep in the heart, from where the eyes can't see and the ears can't hear, from where the mountain trails end and only love can go... ~~~ Three Rivers Hare Krishna

08-12-2005, 12:10 PM	#26 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Hey, I was really, really passionate when I was keying in my arguments. Really. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

08-12-2005, 06:57 PM	#27 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Perhaps we should all note: No one else has bothered to talk about partial birth abortion, just the merits of talking about an issue in this manner. There in lies the rub. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

08-12-2005, 08:16 PM	#28 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	part of this experiment was to discuss the merits of this kind of discussion, and perhaps the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments used. this is not the only debate about abortion, but it is the first one conducted in this manner on these forums. the question this thread posed was "what did everyone think of this debate? Is this kind of format something you would be interested in seeing more of?" Whilst other opinions on the subject of the debate would be welcome, this thread is to test the water more than to have a bunch of people skim the thread then post their own opinions about the subject of debate. In future threads, after the two parties have finished making their arguments the floor would open to opinions and criticisms of the arguments used. that's not happening here because that's not what was asked for. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.