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 left out the most important of the deterents to abortions....MAKING IT ILLEGAL EXCEPT FOR EXTREME CASES SUCH AS LIFE OF MOTHER!
You are a phoney to suggest you are strongly anti abortion and not want to make it illegal as it once was when we had FAR FEWER ABORTIONS!
We have apporx. one million abortions per year in America. We had far less abortons when it was illegal 60 years ago. Yes women still had illegal abortions back then but there were FAR FEWER! Today we would have fewer yet because the extreme cases would stil be legal.
If you included making it illegal with all your other deterents, I might have some respect for you.
You are as phoney as a wooden nickel. You are pure Liberal with all your stances and what a shock, you did not want to make abortion illegal. PHONEY!
All those freebies are unaffordable case you missed economics 101. There is not enough money in America to give all low income people free stuff, not to mention the fact that people would refuse to work to get all that free stuff.
Obamacare showed what happens when you force the middle class tax payers to subsidise low income people's healthcare. The entire system collapses.
And what happens with the women who get raped? Is sex education, daycare, and a "livable minimum wage" going to stop them? What happens to the women that could die if they go through with pregnancy and birth? I assume your idea of free daycare is going to reassure a mother whose life is in danger. The world isn't peaches and rainbows, let's make living super easy for everyone! Things aren't black and white. The gray area is what you're missing, and that area is huge.
Life begins at conception, abortion is murder as it is the act of taking human life. We define life on Earth the same way we define life on Mars, a single-celled organism. Abortion is in direct defiance of the sanctity of human life.
Everyone defines human life differently. I define it has someone who's walked the earth; you define it as a single cell organism; the next person will define it as a walking, talking creature.
Abortion is a self-crimination made by a person who may not even know they are admitting, both after in advance to a possible crime, they the people, not only woman may not be guilty of this crime but will now share in its knowledge. Abort means to officially stop/pause a process that is seen as having been officially documented as started. The statement of when life begins is contradictive to the confession made with the choice of word abortion.
There are many things that could go wrong creating danger to human life. This confession describes none of these things nor offers a level of medical privacy, protection to life, or human liberty as common defense. Gender Specific Amputation describes a witness account of what has been described by many woman and men alike who have been forced to confess by self-incrimination in order to receive medical treatment.
Having only one choice that is a self-incrimination confession then legislated into law to receive Medical Treatment is a violation of the Medical Hippocratic oath, while at the same time a violation of the United States Constitution, by way of First Amendment. By assertion of a word abort which has no self-value in order to claim a basic principle of human wrong and relabel it as a human right belonging to only woman. This choice becomes a lie as the word abort is knowingly used to in fact perform a termination. All of which describe a self-incrimination to the crime many people are then accused of publicly.
A legal or illegal confession must be separated from a process of Medical treatment.
A confession should be removed from legislation that is describing written law. As the United States Constitution is describing a basic principle of impartial separation. Those who are separated by confession should have clear knowledge of the confession they make. It should not be an intellectual façade.
The reason no one is aware is that nobody is telling them. As of now, abortion IS a method of birth control -- and the government is informing women that it's their right to do as they so desire with "their bodies" and yes, that is what abort does mean, that we agree on, but on everything else, you are wrong. A 12-year-old human being is technically and obviously still developing -- If I murder a 12-year-old am I aborting that person? Or am I murdering that person? You seem to be suggesting that it isn't murder when you forcefully stop growth -- which just isn't true.
If you are asking me to stop being vague, that's fine. I believe there are a lot of things that could go wrong, a lot of complications, but the only time abortion should be legal is when the mother's life is in danger. And it is that simple.
To really determine whether it's murder or not, we have unpack the situation and first discuss whether or not it is a human life. The argument for abortion is simple -- either it's a human life and you don't own it, or it's not and you can do with it whatever you please. I believe it is a human life, therefore when it's intentionally terminated, it's murder.
There is nothing to discuss about abortion being murder. Abortion is an admittance of knowing something started and is being ended. The discussion of crime is if it is self-incrimination directing double jeopardy. Publicly the confession has creates a court ruling that is being used or claimed as a type of immunity. A person is always going to do what a person does. The public consensus, the opinion matters but is not like a church in regard to confession, you do not make criminal confession in public without possible legal ramification.
The debate is about a right to brag. Some woman are looking for a right to brag, they are boasting with a self-assigned immunity to a criminal charge. A woman will always have a freedom to say abortion. However it is a confession of crime, the crime is murder, any-one, some-one, and every-one can questions them about the confession they make, and this is a human right, to question a criminal confession being made publicly.
“ Really determine” no we passed that determination part. Abortion is telling us what happened. It is a self-incriminating confession that is being denied after. Stop the confessing if woman want to make the determination on murder. The point prove that Gender Specific Amputation is abortion. They are both confessions and can be removing the same thing by medical procedure. Prove that it is an abortion. Can you? Why not? All that is missing is the self-incrimination.
The moment the word abortion is used by any person in relationship to a medical treatment. That is when life was witnessed as begging officially. That one very first time it is said or written down. Abort means to officially stop. We do not stop any process we do not admit of knowing began, ever, we know as a fact something has officially started. Period. Tell me when does the beginning of life ever become a question in Gender Specific Amputation. It is a confession to a medical process only it does not involve me by confessing a crime to me publicly. Period.
This is what pro abortion supporters do to deceive the pubic and hide the inhumanity of their policies.
1) Steer the abortion conversation to life of mother and rape pregnancies. Talk about a red hearing yet this is the first thing these pro choice people will do. The GOP has allowed these exceptions since abortion was legalized yet we still hear every day from the talking heads in the Democrat party 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 from day after pills that prevent conception)
2) The next thing they do is 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 twisted thinking, a Baby that has not yet traveled through the birth canal is somehow different than it is after it is has moved down that canal. WOW, TALK ABOUT DENIAL!
3) Next they will talk about the pain level of an unborn Baby even though the Democrat Party supports NO RESTRICTION abortions. I am only aware of the one video of an abortion procedure(gee what a shock) around the 1st trimester time frame. The baby clearly moves away from the implements of his death. When they vote for those on the Left, they are supporting late term abortions where the baby most definitely feel pain. The GOP has tried a number of times to prevent abortions past 20 weeks(unless extreme cases) only to have the Democrat party stop them each time.
4) The next thing they do is talk about the supposed hard life these unwanted children will have if we allow them 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. 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. To all the special needs kids? Your lives are not as valuable to many pro abortion people.
5) The next thing some pro choice people say is that 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 be killed. HYPOCRITE PHONEY!
6) 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. But when you show them that the Democrat party has become so radical to even support allowing a late term Baby born alive from a botched abortion to die, they are finally silent because even they can not come up with an excuse for such inhumanity and the fact that they elect these people.
I am not here trying to judge any woman who has had an abortion. I am speaking for the millons of future lives that the Left has sacrificed, all under the notion they are burdens to society. I've heard many people (racists) who bring up the great many Black Babies that would be born were it not for abortions. WOW! I think the support of abortions quite often has racist over tones.
There can be no excuse for taking an innocent life other than rare extreme cases. Our culture is dieing from such little respect for innocent human life. There are absolutely millions of parents waiting to adopt these unwanted babies.
Except for the fact that is not the taking of the life if it isn't even alive. The fetus's heart won't start beating 4-6 weeks from its conception. Therefore it can't even be considered alive. Ultimately it's the woman's choice
It reminds me of extinction of the next generation of humans. Well, a better word for abortion is adoption. If women had some commen sense then adoption would be much more suitable for humanity's sake.
Congratulations for using the same old argumentation as slave owners back then. Slave owners would say "my property, my choice." and it's basically the same argument for abortion, "my body, my choice." Nothing new at all.
With respect, it's actually very different. She as the individual has the right to choose what to do with her body. If you want a more accurate comparison to slavery it would be "your body, my choice".
Congratulations for making an argument that makes little sense .
What you're saying then is a woman should not have a choice or right to do what she wants with her body , this is a form of tyranny and exactly what the slave owners you cited were famed for .
To you obviously, to me it makes no sense . It's new to me as I've never heard such an argument .
What right do you have to dictate to a woman what she can or cannot do with her body ?
If a woman chooses to abort , she does not violate any supposed right to life , but rather deprives the fetus of sustenance provided by her body over which it does not have a right .
Congratulations on comparing women and their rights to slave owners and slaves. So women shouldn't have the right to do with their bodies as they please but men should have the right to tell them what they can and cant do. If its not in your body then its not your problem.
I think you're extremely confused. I'll clear it up for you.
Slave owners believed; because a human being was on their land, it was their property and they could do whatever they wanted with it.
Women believe; if a human being is inside their belly, it's on their property and they can do whatever they want with it.
It's exactly the same argument.
If I see a man being attacked when I walk home from work, it isn't: "I'm not the one being attacked so it's not my problem", it's: "Someone is being hurt, they could be killed, so I'm going to step in and help the victim"
Your entire argument rests on the idea that it's entirely a woman' body with nothing else inside. If it's only one body, why have an abortion?
It is the same argument because they are both dealing with human beings. A fetus has all biological components of what makes up a human being once conception takes places, so therefore a fetus is a human.
So if its "her body" wouldn't she have enough common sense to have safe sex. Many women continue to have unsafe sex and abort their babies. Any woman at a sane age that is having sex should know that there are many ways to prevent having children. There should be no excuses for abortion these days. There are commercials, ads, and many more examples of propaganda that promote using condoms. If these women aren't being smart about their bodies then that's their situation, but abortion shouldn't be an option.
You're just creating these narratives that don't exist. When someone says "use contraception" they aren't solely telling the female it's her responsibility -- it's the responsibility of all parties involved. Ask to clarify, don't assume.
Again, you're absolutely convinced that an unborn child is a part of a woman's body. It is pointless trying to convince you, so, I'll humiliate you instead.
You explain to me how an unborn child is a woman' property, you explain to me how it isn't a human being, you explain to me how it isn't murder and you explain to me why you're completely doing away with science -- you explain all these things to me, and then explain to me why science doesn't matter.
Well no I'm not . It is the responsibility of all parties regards contraception ,I'm assuming nothing .
Humiliate me ? That's rather amusing and a ridiculous statement which is childish to say the least .
I do not have to 'explain ' anything to you as you fail to acknowledge or comprehend what I stated in my initial position regards abortion which is ; it's a woman's choice what she does with her body she is not morally obliged to carry a fetus to term , if she decides to abort she is merely depriving the fetus of sustenance over which it has no right .
If abortion is indeed 'murder ' as you state , how come these ' murderers ' are not serving life in jail ?
What gives you the right to dictate to a complete stranger what she may or may not do with her body ?
But you are assuming. He said to take contraception and you assumed he was putting all the responsibility on the woman -- which just isn't true and you know it.
Well, the entire point of a debate is to convince the opponent, if you can't do that, you humiliate them and convince the audience.
But, you do have to explain why! Why else are you here? I acknowledge what you've said and I've disputed, but you keep saying the same thing. How many times are you going to say it's a woman's choice without providing an intellectual argument? Just try.
These people aren't in jail because in most states in the U.S abortion is legal -- but that doesn't mean it's right. A lot of things throughout history have been wrong and legal. Slavery, Jim Crow -- there were laws on the books in Alabama that said you have to have a 7 ft high wall so blacks couldn't eat at your restaurant. This is government law!
I have the right to dictate for the same reason I have a right dictate about any sort of harm to another human being. I'm not going to watch someone be murdered in the street for the same reason I'm not going to watch a child' brains suck out.
Now, you tell me, exactly when is the fetus considered a human life?
Incorrect again . He said ...... So if its "her body" wouldn't she have enough common sense to have safe sex......
He was putting all responsibility on the woman which is true and you know it .
Well you're not convincing me , and no I do not believe in ' humiliating ' anyone and appealing to the masses,this seems to be a particularly nasty trend and not very worthy .
But I did explain why ! I'm here to debate why are you here .... really ?
What do you want an ' intellectual argument ' for ?
Why do you find the concept of a woman's autonomy her own body so ' tricky ' ?
Why did you ignore what I said regards a fetus having no rights to the sustenance provided by a woman's body ? Just try and answer .
Maybe the law should be changed to suit you and then no doubt it would be right ?
You claim you have the right bet you wouldn't say it to a woman's face that you have rights over her body ?
When the fetus is considered a human life does not concern me what concerns me is the woman's right to choose
He did say that, but that doesn't mean ALL responsibility is on her. You're creating ghosts. No, it isn't true. Did he say that he is putting ALL responsibility on her? Did you ask him to clarify? If not, you're making an assumption because you can't read minds and you don't know if that is what he meant or not. This is simple stuff.
That's what debate is, Dermot. There are two reasons for debate and two only -- to convince your opponent or to convince the audience. The debate is to convince people. Public humiliation is how you win over a group. I really don't think you know what you're talking about.
But you aren't debating. You just using absolutes hoping I'll just stop replying. You're losing big time.
I want an intellectual argument because again, that is what debate is.
Lets put this to rest. Science, the thing that took human beings to the moon, says that a pregnant woman isn't just one body it is two. I don't care what a woman does with her body -- I don't care what she does with her lips, nose, eyes, tongue, heart and lungs, I just don't care. But when she is dealing with another human life, that changes, because every individual is entitled to liberty until it infringes upon another's. This is simple medical science.
You seem to care a lot about women and their bodies, did you know that 50% or 1.2million unborn children who are aborted in America every year are females. What about their bodies? What about their rights?
Let’s carry this argument to its next logical conclusion: Does an infant have the right to nurse after he or she is born? Does an infant have the right to be put to bed, carried, cared for, changed, or nurtured after birth? It seems to me you're talking about the degree of dependency. Since when do we have the moral right to kill someone based on his or her degree of dependency on another person? A toddler is more dependent than a teenager. Do we have the right to kill the toddler but not the teenager?
Additionally, this argument assumes the baby is somehow intentionally enslaving the mother for his or her own selfish purposes. In the majority of abortion cases, the abortion is a procedure of convenience after unprotected sex. The mother elected to have sex that resulted in a pregnancy. Should we now kill the unborn baby because he or she was conceived — and may potentially inconvenience someone — due to the mother’s choice to have sex
That is a ridiculous and uninformed claim because that is one of the primary functions of laws — to legislate and enforce morality. Why can’t we steal money from a bank? Because it is wrong to take money from other people. Why can’t we beat our children? Because child abuse is wrong. Why can’t we shoot and kill our noisy neighbour? Because murder is wrong and against the law. Of course, we legislate morality. Government exists to do just that for the protection and defence of its people.
But I have said it to a woman's face. I have the right to tell her not to harm another human being.
"When the fetus is considered a human life does not concern me what concerns me is the woman's right to choose"
What? Okay, so basically, all you care about is a woman's right to decide whether she gets to kill or not? That is literally what you just said.
I know he said that making my statement correct and you incorrect again . It is simple stuff but you seem to have problems with it whys that ?
To correct you again I can actually read minds and did so professionally as a former mentalist /magician .
Incorrect again debate is not about humiliating people that says more about you and your skewed world view .
I'm debating as in I've made my points and you cannot refute them successfully whys that ?
So you say I don't know what I'm talking about , I'm losing the debate and I'm using absolutes proving it's actually you who cannot debate , please give it a try ?
Debate is about argument where does it state it has to be ' intellectual argument ' ?
I do not care what science has to say regarding abortion it matters not to me , I keep telling you I care about a woman having autonomy over her body .
Answer my two questions
1: You have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body why do you assume you have this special right when in fact you don't ?
2: A fetus has zero rights to susentenace provided by a woman's body why do you assume you have this special right to tell her otherwise ?
Your argument has turned into an emotional lecture which does not interest me as you fail to acknowledge the very simple initial statement I made as in it should be a woman's choice no matter what you , I or others think ; you get very upset that you cannot dictate to women which makes you a bully .
I do not care about the whys , wherefores or various emotional appeals you make please refer to above as you still do not want women to have a choice do you ?
What's ridiculous is you wanting to force your version of morality on society which thankfully has not happened , the women you accost with you bullying tactics I hope told you to mind your own business .
Yes all I care about is the woman's choice to abort or not all you seem to care about is being a tyrant who demands that women follow your revised version of a ' modern moral code ' .
To correct you again I can actually read minds and did so professionally as a former mentalist /magician .
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
What Dermot actually means is that he is a former mental health patient who was incarcerated for his own safety after declaring telepathy as one of his "core skills" during a Walmart job interview.
a man who claims Bin Laden had no hand , act or part in 9 / 11 because ...... he said so
Oh yes, hilarious, given that the only evidence you claim to possess that he did have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks is a video where ... he said so.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, not mine to disprove it. You don't get to mock me for not believing in your conspiracy theory which you have been unable to prove for the last 16 years (on account of it contradicting all the evidence).
You are a stupid fucking hypocrite and a giant shit stain on the rich tapestry of culture.
Yes , hilarious is putting it mildly 😂 Poor old Osama , he said he didn't do it so Q and the retard gang accept the word of poor old Osama demonstrating how insane you actually are.
I do get to mock you as I continue to do so as your inane posts are deserving of ridicule as are you 👋
You are a certified looney who posted last week the words of a tarot card reader as evidence to support your ' revised 9/11 conspiracy bullshit .
You're a retarded holocaust denier who believes the moon landings ever happened.
Hilarious is putting it very mildly Dermot. By your own admission you believe you can read people's minds, so that renders anything else you say null and void on the grounds that it is coming from someone who is quite seriously unwell.
No it demonstrates you do not believe that the art of deception and illusion exist
What do deception or illusion have to do with you claiming you can read people's minds? I really don't think these linguistic red herrings are going to make your claim any less stupid, but good on you for trying.
Everything , because that is what a skilled mentalist uses in deceiving the public , your stupidity and gullibility is just the way you are so I make allowances for it 👌😊
CONTEXT, Dermot, CONTEXT. You don't know about the context he said that in. You cannot just assume what someone means, that's not how this works. You're being very childish.
You're a mental patient.
Again, the debate is about convincing the audience, and what better way to convince an audience than with humiliation? You don't have to agree.
I've refuted your ridiculous arguments over and over and over and over.
So, I can't debate? I'm the only person here providing an argument.
... I'm done with you. You're quite possibly the stupidest person I've never met.
You assume all the time you fuck -wit , you're a prize idiot .
You're a 😂😂 self proclaimed catholic I see and a typical religious hypocrite who insults people who disagree with his retarded mindset , i don't agree with any of your inane bleatings you fuck -wit .
You haven't refuted anything you've made claims and failed to address the two questions I asked as they were to tricky for you considering your profound retardation.
Interesting 😂 A vegetable such as you who cannot answer two simple questions and resorts to insult to avoid humiliation brands others stupid 😂😂 get your minder to put your crash helmet back on and off with you and bash your stupid skull around the walls again 👌😂👋👋👋👋👋
Okay .... you assume you have a right which does not exist regarding what a woman may do with her body , you do not have this right its based on a false assumption .
My rule on here is I will engage fairly until one fires off the first insult then you may expect the same back , you were the one who first resorted to cheap insult all because I disagree with you , you don't seem to realise it's a debate site ,
whys that ?
Your religious beliefs see you identifying as a catholic and thus someone who claims to follow the teachings of Jesus who I do not remember told his followers to resort to insult , mockery and slander when conversing with others , this is why I called you a hypocrite can you deny it ?
You have not answered my two specific questions .......
1: You have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body why do you assume you have this special right when in fact you don't ?
2: A fetus has zero rights to susentenace provided by a woman's body why do you assume you have this special right to tell her otherwise ?
You have zero rights regards what I ask , all you can do is give an opinion which means nothing , again you know I'm correct making you wrong again
No. It is not her body. To say it's the woman's body and she can do with it as she so pleases is intellectually dishonest and it completely defies science. It's funny how history repeats itself, the argument for abortion is the exact same argument for slavery, really, it is. "Because it is on my land, I get to decide whether its person or property, I get to decide" Society does not allow me to kill another human being, so why should it let her?
Yes . It is her body . To say it's the woman's body and she she can do with as she so pleases is intellectually honest and what science has got to do with it is beyond me .
It's not really funny how history repeats itself , my argument for abortion is the exact opposite argument for slavery , really it is .
" Because it's my body I get to decide " yes , it should always be the woman's choice ; end of story .
No, it is not her body. The idea that it is a part of her body defies science. You are wrong and you are delusional. The decision to abort doesn’t involve one body -- it involves killing another being that has his or her own body. Though a zygote or an embryo is not yet fully developed, both are beings, both have substance, and both have bodies. You and I are just more mature versions of the zygotes.
So, the argument is; we ignore science and listen to you?
Okay, if it's the exact opposite, then you explain to me why?
What are you even talking about? "Yes, it's the woman's choice, end of story" -- the slave owners also said something to that effect that went like this "I paid for this piece of property, therefore, I own it. End of story."
No, it is not her body. The idea that it is a part of her body defies science.
How exactly does the reproductive process "defy science"?
The decision to abort doesn’t involve one body -- it involves killing another being that has his or her own body.
But that other body relies completely on the agreement of the other to survive. This agreement should not be forced where it is not given freely. That would be a situation reminiscent of the Alien franchise.
To suggest two bodies are one defies science and you know it. It is not one body -- to suggest so is to ignore medical science and to lie. You tell me, if it's only one body, what is there to abort? How about you explain that one to me?
So, now you're talking about the degree of dependency. Since when do I have the moral right to kill someone based on the degree of dependency of that person? A toddler is more dependent than a teenager. Do I have the right to kill the toddler but not the teenager?
This argument assumes the baby is intentionally enslaving the mother for its own selfish purposes. In the majority of abortion cases, the abortion is a procedure of convenience after unprotected sex -- that is the large majority. The mother elected to have sex that resulted in a pregnancy. Should we now kill the unborn because he or she was conceived — and may potentially inconvenience someone — due to the mother’s choice to have sex?
Incorrect yet again , the argument has nothing to do with science and all to do with a woman having a choice regarding what she does with her body .
Your emotional argument regards slave owners is ludicrous as you are putting yourself up as a tyrant who believes they should have the power to dictate what a woman should or should not do with her body .
No, Dermot, you are the only one that is incorrect. You can't dispute what I say and then not explain why I'm wrong -- that isn't how this works. Do you know what delusion is?
How do biology and the creation of life have nothing to do with science? Please explain that to me.
It's not her body! To say it's her body is to lie and to completely ignore biology! The government is made to preserve LIFE. I'm not a tyrant if I tell someone they aren't permitted to murder or even hurt another. In what world do you live?
And no, it's extremely ignorant for you to say "end of story" I'm sorry, but I just don't think you know what you're talking about.
No, you are incorrect because you're not backing up your stance.
Your entire stance can be summed up in 5 seconds -- "It's a woman' body, therefore, she can do as pleases. End of story" That isn't an argument -- that is you saying things and telling me I have no right to continue the debate because you think it's inarguable.
Because if science says it isn't just her body, she can't make choices for both beings. She doesn't have the right to decide the fate of another person. It isn't difficult to understand.
The fetus' rights do not supersede the woman's rights. They both have equal rights. I can't murder another human being and either can she. 95% of abortions are purely elective, meaning; no one is in any danger -- it's purely for convenience. Don't you think it's wrong to terminate another life because you were irresponsible? Explain to me how the child is responsible for the parents' mistake?
If I tell a serial killer to not kill his next victim, does that make me a tyrant?
You are not correcting anyone. Again, you're just saying things without an argument.
No , I'm correct because I stated my position simply and clearly .
My stance is a woman is entitled to autonomy over her own body you disagree making you a bully and a tyrant, you may continue but your position demonstrates you believe you have the god given right to dictate to others which is merely childish
She actually does have a choice you saying she doesn't is ridiculous because the choice is made daily by many , it is indeed very difficult for you to understand it seems .
They don't both have equal rights , a fetus has zero rights and sustenance provided by a woman to a fetus is a ' right ' a fetus does not have .
There is no moral requirement on a woman to allow a fetus to use her body in order to survive .
Your emotional appeal to right and wrong mean nothing , my stance remains regardless what you, I or anyone else thinks it should always be a woman's choice .
Your serial killer argument is bizzare to say the least and again proves nothing .
I am correcting you and continue to do so , simply arguments simply stated seem to upset you whys that ?
Dermot, nobody has the right to take the life of another. It isn't tyrannical to suggest this. It's law. I have every right to protect those that can't protect themselves. That isn't tyrannical -- you're just delusional.
It's not difficult to understand what you are saying, it's difficult to understand why you're saying it because it's ridiculous. Because the choice is made daily by many doesn't make it right. Your entire argument is "It's a woman's body no matter what anyone says" No, it's not. If medical science says she is dealing with another life, she is not allowed to do with it what she wants, it's just not happening.
Again, you're back on the argument of dependency. This argument assumes the baby is somehow intentionally enslaving the mother for his or her own purposes. The abortion is a procedure of convenience after unprotected sex -- in the large majority. The mother elected to have sex that resulted in a pregnancy. Should we now kill the unborn baby because he or she was conceived — and may potentially inconvenience someone — due to the mother’s choice to have sex? You're so intellectually dishonest that I really believe you're doing more harm than good.
It's bizarre because you cannot comprehend a basic argument. All I'm asking for is to provide more than "It's her body, so deal with it"
Hey Fuck -Wit no one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body , it is tyrannical to suggest otherwise , you have no right to dictate to a woman what she can or cannot do with her body making you wrong and delusional yet again .
She is allowed do as she wants and women do it every day you fucking idiot unless you live in a different world .
My argument is all about a woman's right to choice you clown she can have sex morning , noon and night if she wishes and have multiple abortions and it matters not to me as it's her choice not yours you idiot .
It's her body is the only justification she needs you moron , why do you wish for anything else as being the sanctimonious Catholic hypocrite you are you will squeal like the bullying prick you are that you cannot tell women what to do
But it is NOT HER BODY! People a lot smarter than you have determined this! It is NOT HER BODY! SHE IS DEALING WITH ANOTHER BODY INSIDE OF HER BODY! THERE ARE TWO BODIES INVOLVED! THIS ISN'T DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. IF IT WAS ONLY HER BODY, WHY DOES SHE NEED AN ABORTION? IF THERE IS NOTHING ELSE INSIDE OF HER, WHAT IS SHE ABORTING?
Typing a reply in block letters demonstrates how desperate you are to carry on making the same tired silly point and still failing to accept differering viewpoints .
Your appeal to authority as in " people a lot smarter etc,etc , is meaningless ? so what if so called smarter people have disagreed with me ,the same also applies to your position , so what ?
Again you miss the whole point I don't care if you and others claim a fetus is now a ' body ' it matters not regarding a woman having the right to do as she wants with her body , you still don't get this do you ?
To answer the question you gave, "Is abortion the taking of human life?" I will point out that actually, abortion can be the saving of human life.
If a young girl gets pregnant before her body is able to safely deliver the baby, if there is an ectopic pregnancy, or if there are such serious medical complications that the baby cannot be delivered alive, an abortion will save the life of the mother. It may not save the life of the fetus, but in the case of medical emergency the fetus cannot always be saved.
As to whether it is human, it consists of human cells. This cannot be denied. Whether it is life is another matter. In its very earliest stages the zygote is not a life in its own right -- it is organic, but it is currently a cluster of cells without any kind of consciousness.
Okay, so, some women die from complications, but before we discuss that, can we agree that all other abortions are bad? Well, of course not, because you're taking this small case of the mother's life being in danger to justify all abortions. An extremely small percentage of abortions are the outcome when the mother's life is in danger, you're being extremely dishonest to take the outlier and use it justify your argument.
Right, so what we have to do is break down what that means. You and I are just more mature versions of zygotes we once were. You are technically a clump of cells. A zygote is a being that is distinct from the creator. He or she has 46 unique chromosomes and is internally driven to grow into mature stages. Therefore, a zygote is fully human — as is an embryo, a fetus, and a born baby. Consciousness isn't necessarily a good argument to be making.
You're saying a zygote may be a human but it is not a person, correct? Well, what is considered a person depends on who you ask. To me, it seems you're also arguing viability, which again, isn't a good argument to be making. So, is a coma patient a "person"? The answer to that question depends on whether the patient has a chance of recovery. If a patient has a high chance of recovery, society still considers that patient a person. If the patient becomes brain dead, there are those who argue a patient is no longer a person.
All of this implies that the personhood of the patient rests on their future ability to have full consciousness. The same can be said of the zygote. Both the coma patient and the zygote are human, but neither have consciousness.
The question is then, what is the significant moral difference between a human being that will develop consciousness and a human being that will regain consciousness?
The point isn't whether or not abortion is the taking of a human life. The point, whether you unambiguously think it is, you unambiguously think it isn't, or you're not sure, is whether or not you have the moral maturity to recognise that the taking of a life, or at least of something human, can sometimes be necessary. The evidence from other countries which have decided that it can never be such, and that therefore have banned abortion, seems to suggest fairly clearly that the decision we have made, that sometimes it is, is the correct one.
The evidence from other countries which have decided that it can never be such, and that therefore have banned abortion, seems to suggest fairly clearly that the decision we have made, that sometimes it is, is the correct one.
Bill Hicks summed up the double standards of Republicans pretty poignantly when he pointed out the morons are only "pro-life" until the life turns 18, at which point they believe it should be banned from claiming welfare, and either find a job or starve to death.
Bill Hicks is a moron and that is a moronic statement. Republicans want people to take personal responsibility and get a job -- to suggest this is too much to ask is ridiculous.
All you and Bill Hicks are doing is using some petty, intellectually dishonest argument to justify abortion. Really, that is all you're doing. Your argument is -- "Because Republicans want people to take personal responsibility, get a job, not steal from others and not be on welfare, we should make abortion legal" that is literally the weakest thing I've ever heard.
Its not considered a human life into its able to live outside of the wound or is born.
www.abortion.procon.org
Abortions aren't just about the baby but the mother to. If the mother cant afford to take care of her self, how is she going to take care of a baby. Adoption? Do you know how hard it is for a women to go get a abortion sometimes. Then think about how hard it is for her to give up her child and never see him/her again. ITs more mental for a women than physical. Walk a day in her shoes and you'll understand.
What about all the women who didn't choose to have sex. What about the women who are raped. In 2016 alone 218,000 abortions occurred because impregnating via rape. I'm sure most people don't want to get abortions it's just there best option many of those raped women may also not be financially stable and the child would not have an easy life and neither would the mother what's the point of bringing the child in the world just for it to have a terrible life. I think that so long that it's a fetus abortion should be legal. It's a woman's right to choose how can man and women be equal if we take away things that they should decide it's their body. Let them choose.
What a woman chooses to do with her own body is no one else's choice but her own. You can't say well i think it's wrong so it should be illegal. You aren't the woman who is making the decision. A 4-6 week prenatal organism , i'll call it, isn't even considered a human being. When it's heart starts beating should be when it's considered a human being, and it's heart doesn't start beating from the moment of conception so get your facts straight. Conception is NOT when life starts. Don't make it seem like woman just choose abortion for the hell of it. Abortion is not murder and will never be
Of course abortion is the taking of human life, but only in the sense that a fetus is classified as human in species. You can't call it a person, unless it's sentient. A more accurate question would be is a fetus a human being, or a person.
If it under 50 pounds, can't breathe on its on, and can't move then its not a human life. And if the women wants to donor it to help save another life with stem cells then that's even better.
What? And where did you get this information from? Which medical journal told you that; "If it's under 50 pounds, can't breathe on its own and can't move, it's not a human life".. That doesn't sound very scientific, Birdy..
And I wouldn't gamble human life on you or that advice.
Saying a women shouldn't have an abortion is like saying the government shouldn't have a right to kill people on death row in prison. Yet, you would be fine with a cereal killer getting killed.
Plus abortions don't just kill the baby, they can use the stem cells of the baby to save a life. I would rather say a life of a 30 year old man who has done many things to help the world than a 1 week old who hasn't done anything.
All Leftist are Pro Abortion why do you think they are all about open borders they need to replace the lives that have been taken. Leftist are truly transparent in their stupidity
