CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
A question for those who support abortion.
Two women get pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby at 28 weeks, while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?
It is not a strawman to claim that the ultimate reason people want abortions is because they just don’t want to raise a child. And so, they murder a child in the womb that could have had lived a life of 80 years: childhood, experience, education, marriage, raise children on their own, and have a relationship with their Creator. But they don’t. Why? Because the one responsible for their existence (secondarily at least; the primary reason they came into being is due to God) decided they didn’t want to raise a child, and did not even see the need of putting them for adoption. This is disgusting to the utmost. We have so much evidence that the baby in the womb is an actual human being (e.g. humans alone have their genetic code complete from the start). When one is conceived, a Being comes into existence that will exist for all eternity - an image-bearer of the Divine. We know what we are doing. Morality is not subjective. We have a Judge, one who made us, and we must uphold the sanctity of human life. Abortion is murder.
I fully agree with your points made, Champybeat and as a Latter-day Saint Christian myself, I know this is all to be true. The family matters. Baby lives matter. It's absolutely common sense to defend the lives of innocent newborns. Pretty much all Latter-day Saints believe this to be true. A baby is created by a man and a woman. Therefore the responsibility falls on both but if a woman gets an abortion without letting the man know...she will solely be held responsible for the life of that infant baby. She CHOSE to have sex with that man right? Therefore she has to take responsibility either way.
Other than Life of mother or maybe some other extreme cases, YES, ALL INNOCENT LIFE SHOULD BE PROTECTED!
This is what pro abortion supporters do to deceive the public & hide the inhumanity of their policies.
1) Steer the abortion conversation to life of mother & rape pregnancies, or Zygotes & first trimester abortions, all to deflect what they really support which is No Restriction abortions of all babies, even viable babies for any reason up to birth.
This is the first thing pro choice people do. The GOP has allowed extreme case exceptions since abortion was legalized yet every day we still hear the Left talking about these extreme rare cases.
Lie, deceive, exaggerate, etc., all to condition the electorate to think the GOP wil deny these extreme case abortions.(by the way, rape pregnancies can be prevented within a day or two with a doctor visit)
2) They talk about the medical name of an unborn Baby..... Fetus. By using the name Fetus, they somehow believe it changes the status of the life growing inside the mother. Somehow in their thinking, a Baby that has not yet traveled through the birth canal is different than it is after it is has moved down that canal. WOW, TALK ABOUT DENIAL!
3) They talk about the supposed hard life these unwanted children will have if allowed to live. So in all their God like powers, they know the future of every Baby aborted? How many great people have come from poverty or foster homes, etc.? To be so arrogant to allow the deaths of innocent life because of some perceived hard life is beyond diabolical.
4) Pro choice people like to say they do not personally believe in abortion, but would afford other's the choice to end the lives of their unborn Babies. Gee, how nice of them. I always wonder how a person who personally believes that aborting his own Baby is wrong because it is ending a human life, can support allowing other babies to die. PHONEY!
5) After all the scare tactics and deceptions, their next step is to lie and say they do not support late term abortions for any reason. They refuse to accept accountability for supporting all late term abortions of even viable babies every time they vote for Democrats who support it.
6) The Democrat Party and the Left even supports killing viable special needs babies, for any reason up to birth, for merely being different from them. That's like the Nazi mentality where we only want blond haired blue eyed people being born in Germany. In all their arrogance, they will deem who is deservng of life. Where is all their talk about diversity, inclusiveness, tolerance, compassion? I guess these special olympic children actully mean nothing to them. Their lives are disposable.
7) How many times do we hear the Left tell us how a mother has the right to her own body? Yes she does, but she has no right to take the life of the other body inside of her, (unless her life is in jeapordy). There are TWO lives involved, not just the mother's.
I am not here trying to judge any woman who has had an abortion. I'm trying to bring humanity back to our nation by protecting our most innocent vulnerable lives.
There are actually a growing number of sickos out there who want to legalize abortion after the baby is born. I wish I could hunt down every one of them and put a bullet between their eyes.
I agree. At 28 weeks the child feels pain and is mostly developed. I believe that abortion should only be used in certain situations and early in the pregnancy
You are showing the utter lunacy in the Pro abortion arguments.
That 28 week old unborn baby is OBVIOUSLY every bit a human life as the one who was born.
The radical Pro abortion Democrat Party understnds completely what you are sayng, they simply DON'T CARE! That includes the phonies who elect these radical pro abortion poiticians. THEY DON'T CARE!
It's all about money and support from Feminist and abortion lobbies.
Killing babies is a crime against humanity. Anyone who agrees with abortion is subject to the law and to imprisonment for life. Baby lives matter. Morality is objective!
the woman should not be charged with murder because she 's just doing for the betterment of the baby. the baby will face a lot of problems if she/he lives to grow up
You argument is nonsensical. Just because you can give birth to the child and it is alive at birth, that doesn't mean that it is viable. One of the seven criteria of life is maintaining homeostasis. If it can't survive on its own then it isn't viable. No one (pre born or post born) has the right to persist at the expense of another person. Abortion isn't about killing babies. Abortion is by definition, the termination of a pregnancy. We have a definition for a late term abortion. It's called a caesarean section.
If you are against abortion then you are against human rights and you aren't a real American.
I don't know where you get this idea that he and I are conspiring against you. We both just so happen to disagree with you on everything. I don't talk to anyone outside of the message boards.
Your paranoia is just another sign that you might be certifiably insane.
I don't speak crazy. Can someone translate? Are you talking about actual puppets? If I were talking to puppets and I thought they could really understand me then I would definitely be crazy. However that isn't the case.
If it is able to live then that's good. But if it dies, so what? They aren't trying to kill it because that isn't the purpose of an abortion. If it can't live outside of the womb then that is just too bad. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.
You are for taking away a woman's right to not be pregnant. How very immoral of you.
You are for taking away a woman's right to not be pregnant. How very immoral of you.
I don’t think clarifying questions endanger anyone’s rights. Incidentally, actions have consequences. Do you believe in a woman’s right to not be a mother?
They aren't trying to kill it because that isn't the purpose of an abortion.
Do you see a difference in terminating a pregnancy in order to destroy the fetus vs terminating a pregnancy in order to save the fetus?
The only reason why you would have to do that is if the woman is dead or the fetus is having health problems that needs to be treated right away. In that case you are just trying to minimize loss of life. I already said that every fetus has the right to life. It just doesn't have the right to live at someone else's expense. If it comes out and lives, good. Whether it lives or dies is irrelevant to the fact that a woman has the right to choose what goes on in her body.
I already said that every fetus has the right to live, but there is a second clause. It doesn't have the right to live at someone else's expense. If the mother is dead then saving the baby is the most logical option. There is no right that a dead person has that would justify letting someone else die.
As it pertains to abortion, the fetus doesn't have the right to use the woman's body against her will to stay alive. If it lives, good. If it dies then that just means that it was using that woman to stay alive, which it doesn't have the right to do if it is against her will.
You can twist what I said all you want. That just shows that you can't defeat my argument as it was stated.
If you consider direct quotes to be twisting your words, then you may have a problem. Other then that, I simply asked a couple more unamerican questions, which you didn’t answer.
The quote you used was " you are just trying to minimize loss of life".
You cut out the context. The context was" if the mother died".
I said every fetus has the right to live. That means if the mother is dead then your only option is to save the baby. I said this because that is the only reason why you would cut a fetus out of a woman to save it.
You asked "Do you see a difference in terminating a pregnancy in order to destroy the fetus vs terminating a pregnancy in order to save the fetus?"
I couldn't conceive of any instance where you would have to terminate a pregnancy in order to save the fetus because by definition the womb is basically the healthiest place to keep a fetus that isn't ready to be born.
I couldn't conceive of any instance where you would have to terminate a pregnancy in order to save the fetus
You previously said “We have a definition for a late term abortion. It's called a caesarean section“. C section for the health of the baby is not uncommon.
Your questions was idiotic
You must be defensive for a reason. You didn’t answer my previous question, nor the question in the OP. Some questions are hard for some people wolf, and that’s ok.
Usually that only happens if the baby is past due, the mother can't pass the baby naturally, or she doesn't want to deal with the pain of giving birth. If they got that far then obviously they chose to keep it. Abortion is about the mothers choice of whether she wants to be pregnant or not. It's her body. If my wife chose to abort our baby, I would have no right to tell her she couldn't. It's not my body. My wife has extreme physical problems and they gave her an 85% chance of dying from the pregnancy. Her pelvis is more metal than bone and she broke two screws in her spine carrying our baby to term. She is the bravest woman I know, but I wouldn't have thought any less of her if she decided that she didn't want to go through with the pregnancy.
If we had the technology to zap a fetus from a womb and into an incubator, at any stage of pregnancy, without pain or surgery to the mother, and with high surviveability for the baby, should abortion that ends fetal life still be legal? If so, should the father have the option to keep the baby?
My point is that if you hadn't met your wife, there would be no life to terminate. After conception your daughter was alive. Terminating her would have been murder. Do you disagree? If you do, perhaps you can explain how a fetus can exist without being alive? I expect a medical explanation. Good luck with that, since every medical definition says it's alive.
If you can't achieve homeostasis then you won't be alive for long. Every fetus has a right to life but it doesn't have the right to live at someone else's expense. I don't have the right to knock you out and stick an iv in you so you could filter my blood for me even if it would keep me alive. Are you handing out special rights?
1. You can survive just fine in the woods by yourself. People have done it for hundreds of thousands of years.
2. In a just society, your rights stop as soon as they encroach on mine. I have the right to have my things. My right to swing my arm ends at your nose.
1. When I say that a fetus can't survive on its own I am talking about internal homeostasis. It can't maintain its own internal temperature or regulate its own metabolism. If my kidneys fail, I can't make you filter my blood for me.
2. From a legal standpoint you didn't steel it from me. If I drop a $100 dollar bill and you pick it up and I am long gone, I am not there to declare ownership and you are under no obligation to wait until I return.
Your argument is nonsensical because these are basic concepts.
There is no internal homeostasis without external environment. No one survives on their own. In fact, everyone dies.
If I take something directly from your hands, and you are not able to get it back, whether or not you consider it stealing, it is mine now de facto.
According to you, these are basic concepts. Basic concepts that you claim to have an understanding of. You claim, based on your understanding of these basic concepts that my understanding is nonsensical.
Your observation is a reality, but your observation does not make reality.
In other words, you are expressing an opinion not a real statement of fact, despite the fact that you are making godlike declarations of reality.
If you took it out of my hand without my permission then by definition you have just stolen it. First you said that I dropped it and now you are saying that you took it out of my hand. These are two different things entirely. Your arguments aren't consistent. Homeostasis is the stabilization of your internal environment. You can have an internal environment
Without homeostasis. It will just be one that can't maintain a living thing. A fetus doesn't have the ability to keep its body working outside of the womb. That doesn't mean anyone has the right to make a woman remain pregnant.
Whether or not I stole something from you, if you are not able to retrieve what I have stolen, the object in question is my de facto property.
You say that a fetus is not a living thing, but it is clearly living, whether or not it is able to survive on its own.
A baby doesn't have the capability of surviving without help from others. Maybe we should just abandon babies in the wilderness and have them fend for themselves.
Maybe we should let people who are in critical condition die on their own, especially if records indicate that they aren't able to pay their medical bills.
Truthfully, no one is an island, we all need others or have needed others at one point in our development.
My mother had me when she was 17. I'm glad I wasn't aborted.
Really though, of all the things to defend in the world, why abortion? Of all the problems in the world to be solved, why is this the battle?
How can anyone be passionate about this? Whether or not you believe a woman should be able to choose whether or not she wants to keep a baby till term, isn't the practice of abortion so reprehensible that defending it is not even really worth it?
Maybe it would be more beneficial for society to admit that sexual immorality is a real thing, and to encourage family values rather than so called "safe" promiscuity.
But your argument is nonsensical like most your posts you spout nonsense and most members on C D have told you so , but you are persistent in pushing your nonsense , whys that ?
With respect, this is nonsense. If it can’t survive in its own it is not alive. A baby who is out of the womb depends on its mother (e.g., milk). It is utterly dependent on her. And the baby staying alive is more precious and basic than not being pregnant. And if objective moral values exist, abortion is indeed absolutely wrong (for those in the womb are formed by the Creator and are made in the image of the Divine). And so, apart from God, morality is subjective. And so, who are you to claim that abortion is absolutely for human rights - as morality in your worldview is an opinion? Humans, apart from a Creator, are chemical reactions dancing to their DNA (as Dawkins puts it). And your argument is fallacious (‘if you are pro-life, you are not American and against humanity!’ - a slippery slope fallacy. Also no, I believe it is more important to keep a human alive in the womb than it is going to perhaps live a full life of 80 years, than it is to kill it so a woman can selfishly not want to raise it [or not want to be pregnant]).