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.
Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Do you believe abortion is right or wrong? Are you against it, or do you support it? All Opinions are valid, and respected. Whether or not I agree. So please debate away.
I disagree that it's better that the violating of a child take place in a clinic than in a back alley. Crime belongs in the back alleys and such. Cleaning it up and having it take place in a sterile environment like a clinic sends the message that society is indifferent or ignorant of the crime completely.
Would allowing for child molestations to take place in 'clinics' somehow make child molestations less of a crime on children? Or would institutionalizing it like that make it somehow MORE of a crime? I think it would make it more.
And yes, (before you ask) I am in fact equating child molestations with abortions.
Cleaning it up and having it take place in a sterile environment like a clinic sends the message that society is indifferent or ignorant of the crime completely.
Stating your belief that abortion is wrong, and that society should know it is wrong, and that having legal abortions send a message of indifference or ignorance.
-
There's no meat here. It's all "abortion is wrong", and no "because".
Would allowing for child molestations to take place in 'clinics' somehow make child molestations less of a crime on children?
Worked with the Catholics, I guess. Doesn't make it okay.
-
-
And yes, (before you ask) I am in fact equating child molestations with abortions.
Because molesting a child is equated with never having a child to get molested in what universe?
I never claimed that 'abortion is wrong.' Those are your words. My arguments is not that abortions are right or wrong. My arguments are more factual than that. My arguments are that most abortions are a violation of a child and their rights.
Your denials can not change the fact that we already have laws that say you are wrong and that they ARE children.
"the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb"
1. Your dictionary doesn't exclude a human fetus from being recognized as a child and
2. Our laws already make that recognition.
"the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
[Supporting Evidence: U.S. Code - Unborn Victims of Violence Act] (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/ 18/1841)
My motivation is to protect the rights of the children. I am not motivated by a want to see anyone suffer. I would much rather the children never get created in the first place.
However, once their lives begin... i refuse to deny to them the protections of our laws.
"What triggers the aging process — a process that begins at conception and progresses with each passing moment until death? In the simplest terms, aging occurs because cells are either dying faster than they are replaced or their functioning becomes altered. Yet the fundamental biologic basis of aging at the cellular level is not known."
Elvira,... if it's not conception, what is it that makes your biological father your biological father and does that not prove to you at least on some level that even at conception you were his child?
This is a really good point in a sense. We would never legalize and create institutions for crimes that we know and consider to be crimes, but somehow we do for this which some of us consider to be a crime and others consider it not to be.
That said, however, society rates the mother's life as being greater than that of the child. It is more just than you put it because of the fact that the institution is not designed solely so that the criminals can get their jollies off committing their crime in leisure (like an institution built dedicated to child molestation), but for the fact that it is made so that we can protect the women who will definitely get rid of the baby if they really want to.
I believe it is better over all to kill the thing before it is even aware of itself, in a safe place that will at least leave the mother unscathed, than to have it be born, and potentially neglected by the mother who didn't want it (by neglected I mean tossed carelessly into the dumpster) or for her to go into back alleys looking for an illegitimate doctor wannabe to go digging around inside of her, thus hurting two people.
1. Laws against abortion do not work so forcing this theological (it is theological and only theological) point of view onto others who do not share this point of view does not result in more children born anyway, it's pointless preaching.
2. It would do something though, it would force those who cannot have this procedure by safe and legal means to seek out unsafe and illegal means. Which ironically would lead to more death, this time actual humans dying and not a cult's idea of what a human is.
3. There is no one forcing anyone who does not want an abortion to have one, so then why does one side consider it okay to force their point of view? This is not an equivalent debate and we should stop framing it as such. One side wants to force an imagined morality onto another. That is all it is. For it to be equivalent Pro-Choice proponents would need to support forcing others to have abortions, which is not the case.
4. We know that at the point where abortion is legal, that thing has no feelings or self-awareness. This means the argument against it is 100% from the perspective of potential. One can try to argue otherwise but when they do they are incorrect. It's not an opinion, it's just incorrect.
5. So with this knowledge anti-abortion advocates are not really saying "you're killing a baby" (though no doubt they think they are), they are saying you are killing something which may become a baby.
6. Which means that to be consistent they must also argue equally vehemently against nature or god, because one or the other produces millions upon millions of sperm every day that have 100% equal potential life yet which are destroyed even in the act of sex with no contraceptive whatsoever.
There is no real argument against abortion, it is all theology based and projecting animate feelings onto inanimate things.
I have no respect for any anti-abortion argument which does not also argue for some cure to all the extra sperm and eggs our bodies naturally create.
1. It's not clear what your criteria is for determining whether or not laws work. Do laws against RAPE work? Women continue to be raped whether our laws make it a crime or not. Also, it's not a theological point of view that abortions violate the rights of a child. It's a Constitutional point of view as noted by the Supreme courts during Roe. (see video link)
2. I disagree. With voluntary abortions banned, it's far more likely that both men and women will take prevention more seriously than they do now and that fewer unplanned pregnancies will occur as a result and that will mean fewer deaths in the long run.
3. Protecting the rights of the children now being denied by abortion is no more the same thing as "forcing a viewpoint" onto women than laws against child molestation are "forcing" a viewpoint onto child molesters. Children have a Constitutional right to the EQUAL protections of our laws. Period.
4. As there are cases where children are sometimes BORN (delivered) with only a brain stem and as a consequence can not think, feel pain, etc... (see annencephalic babies) ... and those children have been deemed legal persons. There is no legal or Constitutional criteria for personhood that says a child must be able to feel pain or to be self aware to be entitled to the protections of our laws. 'Potential Children' do not have REAL (tangible) bodies to be disposed of when they are aborted.
5. See above. A child in their first days of their life is MORE than a potential child. A Sperm and an egg are only a "potential" for a child. After conception, the POTENTIAL that the sperm and egg had to create a new child has already been realized and the only thing left is the further growth, development and maturation of the child they created.
1. Rapes have a victim who is able to report a crime. Abortion has no victim and no one to report the crime as all involved would be willing participants.
2. If you believe laws against abortion would lead to either more protection or less sex, then you know nothing about human sexuality.
3. It is completely different than child molestation laws because again, there is a victim when a child is molested. There is no victim in abortion.
4. Annencephalic babies are born with a major portion of the frontal lobe which is responsible for cognition. So again, not the same. And also torture. Parents who know ahead of time that their child will be born this way out to have had an abortion early in the pregnancy.
5. No. That is not a child. It has no more ability to think or feel than a plant. Your concept of what a child is is not correct. You are wrong and those who are for forcing their theology on women for this reason are doing more harm than good.
1. NO murder victims are able to report the crime that took their life. Would you not agree?
2. That's your opinion. We have historical facts and data which show pretty well what the facts are.
3. Do you need to see some pictures?
4. WRONG. Annencephalic children are born with ONLY a brain stem. (that's where the name comes from)
5. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act now part of the U.S. Code says that you are wrong about that. In fact, it defines a child in the womb as 'an member of the species homo sapiens in ANY stage of their life and development.'
i think its better to do abortion.Women have an inalienable right to determine the circumstances of their lives, and government must not intrude into decisions about personal and private matters.the woman's feelings about becoming a mother, or her ability to take on the burdens of child rearing, is terribly intrusive.
Not even the Roe v. Wade ruling supports that point of view. If abortion were an 'inalienable right' they would have ruled it so and they would have then denied the State's any right to intervene at all. The fact that States do have the right to regulate abortions and even to prohibit them after a certain point is proof positive that abortion is not an 'inalienable right' by any means.
1. Your dictionary doesn't exclude a human fetus from being recognized as a child and
2. Our laws already make that recognition.
"the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
[Supporting Evidence: U.S. Code - Unborn Victims of Violence Act] (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/ 18/1841)
1. Your dictionary doesn't exclude a human fetus from being recognized as a child and
2. Our laws already make that recognition.
"the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
[Supporting Evidence: U.S. Code - Unborn Victims of Violence Act] (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/ 18/1841)
If we can justify killing prenatal children this way, why can't we justify killing those already born by using the same logic? We can't because we all agree that children are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. So far, the pro-abortion movement has succeeded in maintaining the denial of rights and personhood to the children being killed by abortions... but that is going to change. In fact, we are already seeing changes taking place with many State's fetal homicide laws.
Like it or not, the children of 'idiots' are entitled to the same protections of our laws that everyone else is.
A person's experiences make them, like hands mold clay. A cluster of cells has extremely little experience, or way of processing experience- so it is barely a person, not even a sentient being. In my country, care homes are as full as the prisons. And for a few, it's a quick transferral from one to the other. Who says life is so great anyway? Need it live?
I didn't write the laws which make the killing of another human being a crime of murder. However, I do believe they are necessary and I do look for them to be consistently applied as I do all other laws.
The right that child has to their life is not something that is weighed against any of those other things you have listed. In our country, if you are a human being, you have an the same right to your life and to the protections of our laws that every other human being has.
But technically, it's only just alive. There are more alive things than a human foetus that most people are totally fine with killing in any way imaginable. And who cares about the kids dieing of diseases and malnutrition in ledc's when we abort our own children? Priorities need to be in order. All these pro-life people, do you hear them protesting against child cruelty and the minimum wage being too low for parents to feed their children? As soon as you're born, you're off their radar. Our world is collapsing under the weight of too many humans, and you want more?
You might do. I like to think of the world as a whole though. I don't know much about your constitution or of what it consists of, but abortion will happen anyway. The best thing we can do is keep people safe and make sure medical professionals are carrying them out. A similar idea could be applied to suicide, I suppose. The only abortions I'm against is forced abortion and late abortion.
You might do. I like to think of the world as a whole though. I don't know much about your constitution or of what it consists of, but abortion will happen anyway. The best thing we can do is keep people safe and make sure medical professionals are carrying them out. A similar idea could be applied to suicide, I suppose. The only abortions I'm against is forced abortion and late abortion
A foetus is not fully aware yet. You have to think of the mother's, the country's the world's situation, and all of these make abortion a rational choice. There's always evil and wrong to every choice, so you have to find the most logical choice to go ahead with. Legal abortion is the solution to the problem of desperate teens going to back-alley butchers.
Our Constitution says that we all have an equal right to our lives and to the protections of our laws.
For your 'world view' to stand un-contested, you are going to have to amend our Constitution and quite frankly, that will never happen and it wouldn't be the end of it even if you did.
No-one has equal rights, ever. Not even if you write it down. You'll always have the oppressed and the oppressors, unless the world goes happy-go-lucky land. Why fight for small things that we need at the moment when there are larger problems?
You seem to be oblivious to the fact that we have a Constitution and a rule of law that is supposed to afford the equal protections of our rights to every individual human being within its jurisdiction.
You might do. I like to think of the world as a whole though. I don't know much about your constitution or of what it consists of, but abortion will happen anyway. The best thing we can do is keep people safe and make sure medical professionals are carrying them out. A similar idea could be applied to suicide, I suppose. The only abortions I'm against is forced abortion and late abortion
Child molesters makes choices too. In fact an abortion is a form of molestation itself. Can we agree that one person's right to choose ends where another person's rights begin?
An abortion is the ultimate in child abuse. It's a dehumanization of the child, a violation of their physical being and I would argue that because the government essentially sanctions it by turning a blind eye to their killings? It's a crime against humanity that is on par with slavery and the German holocaust.
I am pro-choice as well. That is, I support everyone being free to make choices. Where I suppose you and I might disagree is when and where those choices infringe upon the rights of another.
I don't believe that our right to make choices gives us the right to violate the rights, bodies and lives of others with our choices.
There's no where -to- go. We agree that we don't have the right to violate the rights of others with our "choices." I'm glad that we have found at least that much common ground between us.
I would just like to hear evidence that explains why a baby fetus is more important than a cow or an insect. We kill these things by the Billions every year. That's Billions with a 'B' where is the evidence that suggests we are more important than any other living thing. The sanctity of life seems to only be limited to humans and I don't know why.
As it relates to this debate, it's because we (human beings) say so. We have established it in our laws and in our Constitution that human beings (persons) have certain rights and that we are entitled to the protections of our laws. Voluntary abortions remaining legal is something that runs contrary to those established laws and Constitutional principles and that's really why so many of us oppose it and why we are trying to make it (voluntary abortions) illegal.
I'm sorry, but women are people too. As are the children they could have had. What would you say if, by making abortion illegal, you caused a huge part of the next generation to be homeless, because the parents could not support a child? Or both the child and the mother DIED because she couldn't safely have children? What if a girl walking home from school had her life changed, because she was raped and became pregnant? It's not right to (pardon the pun) "play god" when the lives of girls and women everywhere are at stake. It is the woman's own decision whether to keep a child or not.
What would you say if, by making abortion illegal, you caused a huge part of the next generation to be homeless
I would say there's a thing called adoption. Just because you shouldn't be able to get an abortion doesn't mean you should raise it, too.
What if a girl walking home from school had her life changed, because she was raped and became pregnant?
Not only are those individual cases, but rape-related abortions represent a very tiny percentage of abortions.
It's not right to (pardon the pun) "play god" when the lives of girls and women everywhere are at stake
So it's not okay to "play god" with women and girls, but it's fine to "play god" with a fetus? That's a bit hypocritical.
It is the woman's own decision whether to keep a child or not
It's surprising that your argument for abortion is the same argument for slavery. "Since it's on your property, you get to decide if it's a human or not".
Well, first off being a man I do not really think I should have much of a say in this matter. Maybe men should get a half vote?
The only legitimate point, in my opinion, against other than moral/theological points would be that it infringes on the rights of the child. The biggest argument being at one point does it become a child. If we say it is at conception then you could probably argue that male masturbation or safe sex should be outlawed because the seed is being destroyed and it holds potential life. This is where people differ.
I cannot imagine the pain a girl would have to go through to be forced to carry a child of a rapist.
But that being said I do know a rape baby. He is one of my fraternity brothers and I love him like a real brother. I was in his wedding, i was at his adoptive fathers funeral and I will always love him and be at his funeral if he dies before me. I am very grateful to his mom for not aborting him. He went on to college and is now a counselor to teens and his adoptive parents couldn't be more prouder.
I also know a "happy accident." she is my god daughter and I am very glad that those two stupid teens could not afford the abortion. I will be at all her birthday parties, her graduation (high school and college) and her wedding, that is if me and her dad let another guy take her.
I can understand the point of both sides.
But maybe we should stop pouring money into abortions and research and start funding ways to help young mothers, find adoptive homes, help families afford adoption and fund better foster care. Fund law enforcement to try and prevent more rape and find a way that helps prevent or eliminate the need for abortions.
Abortion is an option every pregnant woman should have, because pregnancy puts not only her mental and social but her physical wellbeing at risk. The legality of abortion is a sign of a developed nation, with the personification of cells being an outdated and illogical stance rooted in superstition and the repression of women; furthermore, there is no reason to give cells the title of 'person' since they cannot survive outside of the woman's body. Yes, they contain genetic information and the potential to become a person, but I don't see any pro-lifers campaigning to save every sperm cell.
If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose.
If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America.
I support abortion because of young people who get pregnant and don't want a kid because it may have been accidental or she got raped so she wouldn't want to keep the kid. But with adults it's a different matter, I think that the only time an adult should abort is if the baby has some incurable genetic disorder.
The only society worth defending is the one that protects the weakest and the defenseless.
Unborn humans are incapable of using democratic procedures and structures through which to defend their inalienable rights with - primarily their right to life. Their only hope is a government that will defend them and won't allow the stronger (the mother) to impose their interests over them at the expense of the most basic fundamental rights. They need a state that will take clear steps for the purpose of their protection.
To me, abortion is just insane and is the clearest demonstration of a society obsessed with self-entitlement, privilege, convenience and circumventing any sort of personal responsibility.
Yeah! Defend the defenseless... unless it is like a girl who was raped or something right? What a fucking whore ._.
So really, defend clusters of cells with no capacity to feel. If you are alive and have the capacity to feel fuck you.
And this god fucker is such a "self-entitled, privileged" ass who obviously refuses to take any "personal responsibility." Someone needs to do something about that guy.
I mean he forces millions upon millions of abortions each time a man ejaculates into a woman!
Who's defending all the sperm that didn't make it to that egg?
This is a travesty. The only society worth defending is one that protects the weakest as you say after all, and if there is anything weaker than a non-feeling cluster of cells, it is the sperm and eggs that never get to turn into a cluster of cells.
Yeah! Defend the defenseless... unless it is like a girl who was raped or something right? What a fucking whore ._.
The state already protects that girl through laws. That's all it can do really, you can't have a policeman at every streetcorner and a surveillance camera in every room. The state defends the girl by deterring rapists via law.
If you mean that your hypothetical girl should be allowed to get an abortion - is that defense? Defense from who? The baby who is innocent? What an interesting precedent - lethal defense against innocent people.
So really, defend clusters of cells with no capacity to feel. If you are alive and have the capacity to feel fuck you.
We are clusters of cells too. And feelings have nothing to do with rights or preferential treatment. Even if people were in a state where they can't feel anything, it would still be unethical to kill or hurt them in any way. - this is why we don't murder people while they're drugged or asleep.
Who's defending all the sperm that didn't make it to that egg?
Well, the sperm isn't a developing human being. A zygote is - a separate organism that results in the fusion of the egg and the sperm. The sperm itself has no capacity nor potentiality to develop into a fully grown human being - I don't ever have to worry about giving birth from my ballsack. Killing a sperm means exactly that - killing a sperm.
If you mean that your hypothetical girl should be allowed to get an abortion
Not hypothetical, rape does happen and girls get pregnant from it.
- is that defense? Defense from who? The baby who is innocent?
It's not a baby yet. A cluster of cells is incapable of innocence or guilt so your premise is incorrect.
What an interesting precedent - lethal defense against innocent people.
That would be, if that were what this was. It is not though. You are saying something which is not a person is a person. You might as well say my stapler deserves all of the rights of a conscious self-aware person.
We are clusters of cells too. And feelings have nothing to do with rights or preferential treatment. Even if people were in a state where they can't feel anything, it would still be unethical to kill or hurt them in any way. - this is why we don't murder people while they're drugged or asleep.
People asleep or drugged or in a coma are people with the capacity to feel. A feotus is not. It is not self-aware, only potentially so. You're arguing potential human life, not human life. By your argument each drop of sperm should be saved and injected directly into an egg, less some innocent potential life be lost.
It is the exact same thing. Exactly. You have no argument outside of theological dogma otherwise.
Well, the sperm isn't a developing human being. A zygote is - a separate organism that results in the fusion of the egg and the sperm. The sperm itself has no capacity nor potentiality to develop into a fully grown human being - I don't ever have to worry about giving birth from my ballsack. Killing a sperm means exactly that - killing a sperm.
The sperm has the exact same potential as any zygote. The only difference between the two is the stage of development. You are knit-picking when you think something is "human" and it is inconsistent. Since this potential exists and not allowed to develop by nature, potential cannot be a measure of the morality of abortion. If potential cannot be a measure of morality then something else has to be.
So instead of silly superstition and projected feelings onto a thing with no feelings, use what we know. We know about when a very primitive, insect-like self-awareness begins, and abortion is all but illegal except in the very rare circumstances well before this point.
More important than any of that, abortion laws don't work. People who want one don't buy into your bullshit morality argument anyway, and so when they cannot get an abortion legally they get one illegally.
None of your imaginary baby friends are saved when you outlaw abortion. Real women do die though, because they can no longer go to a doctor for the procedure and so go elsewhere.
You are not the one getting an abortion, and no one is forcing you to get one. Why then do you feel you have the right to force others? If your god truly doesn't like it, let him say so. You have no more knowledge of what is or is not moral in this case than anyone else, including those who don't have a problem with abortion at all.
It's not a baby yet. A cluster of cells is incapable of innocence or guilt so your premise is incorrect.
It is a developing human being. If you give it time and nutrition, the zygote will go through all phases attributed to the human species - from a zygote to a fetus, from a fetus to an infant, from an infant to an adult etc. That process ends with death. Calling it a cluster of cells is just a euphemism. Like I said, we're all clusters of cells.
That would be, if that were what this was. It is not though. You are saying something which is not a person is a person. You might as well say my stapler deserves all of the rights of a conscious self-aware person.
No, I did not say they were persons. I said they were human being just like embryology has said that for decades.
I don't care about some socially constructed criterions for rights like personhood, I care about empirical and measurable traits and that is exactly what embryology gives me. The zygote can be considered a distinct human being due to having different DNA from both the mother and the father. The genetic information is complete already since conception. Nothing is added to it.
People asleep or drugged or in a coma are people with the capacity to feel. A feotus is not. It is not self-aware, only potentially so. You're arguing potential human life, not human life.
Okay, so you say I'm arguing from potentiality and then you make an argument.... from potentiality.
No, sleeping people and especially drugged people have no capacity to feel at that given moment. If you're drugged, I can do whatever the hell I want with you and you would be non the wiser. Hell, I could hit in the head with the sledgehammer and you'd never know because you would be dead.
Capacity to feel is an inherent trait - you either have that capacity or you don't. Just because sleeping/drugged people will wake up somewhere in the future and regain their capacity to feel - that doesn't mean they are beings with the capacity to feel right now.
By your argument each drop of sperm should be saved and injected directly into an egg, less some innocent potential life be lost.
No, clearly you've never heard of cogito ergo sum.
For a life to be lost, that life must first exist. A sperm is not new, distinct human life - your sperm shares with you identical DNA. The genetic material in the sperm is in no way distinct from your DNA.
Only the zygote has new, distinct DNA. From a biological view, every new human being begins their life as a fertilized egg - this is because this is the moment when a truly unique organism comes into existence, an organism distinct from both the mother and the father. Therefore, before conception has happened, we can't speak of lives lost.
It is the exact same thing. Exactly. You have no argument outside of theological dogma otherwise.
Really? What theological dogma have I alluded to? I'm really curious about this one.
The sperm has the exact same potential as any zygote. The only difference between the two is the stage of development. You are knit-picking when you think something is "human" and it is inconsistent. Since this potential exists and not allowed to develop by nature, potential cannot be a measure of the morality of abortion. If potential cannot be a measure of morality then something else has to be.
No, the stage of development is not the only difference. You forgot to mention that:
1. The sperm has identical DNA with its host (the father) - The zygote has unique DNA that differs from both the mother and the father.
2. A zygote will develop into an adult human being if given the time and nutrition - a sperm will never do so no matter how much time and nutrition you give it.
So yeah, there is no potentiality according to what modern biology has to say. The zygote is an actual human. A zygote developing into a baby is mechanically no different from a baby developing into an adult. Do you know why? Because both are the same organisms at a different stage of development. Because both organisms need the same things to develop - a suitable environment and nutrition. Because both organisms share identical DNA. They are the same.
More important than any of that, abortion laws don't work. People who want one don't buy into your bullshit morality argument anyway, and so when they cannot get an abortion legally they get one illegally.
How interesting that you seem to forget to apply the same argument for guns.
In any case, it's the women's own risk to get a back alley abortion. If we accept the premise that the unborn are human beings (as we should on the basis of embryology), then the women are effectively criminals.
None of your imaginary baby friends are saved when you outlaw abortion. Real women do die though, because they can no longer go to a doctor for the procedure and so go elsewhere.
And it is their risk. If abortion is illegal, then it is illegal for a reason. We aren't going to legalize an illegal activity because people continue to break the law.
You are not the one getting an abortion, and no one is forcing you to get one. Why then do you feel you have the right to force others?
Because I see abortion to be murder and a violation of the most basic human rights. You could just as well say - Well, you don't have to kill people, nobody's forcing you but don't stand in my way if I want to kill people. It is my right.
If your god truly doesn't like it, let him say so. You have no more knowledge of what is or is not moral in this case than anyone else, including those who don't have a problem with abortion at all.
It is a developing human being. If you give it time and nutrition, the zygote will go through all phases attributed to the human species -from a zygote to a fetus, from a fetus to an infant, from an infant to an adult etc. That process ends with death. Calling it a cluster of cells is just a euphemism. Like I said, we're all clusters of cells.
The life inside the womb that is being aborted hasn't began to think or feel yet. By cluster of cells I think he means that they aren't much more than that, where you and me are much more than that with the ability to think or feel.
No, I did not say they were persons. I said they were human being just like embryology has said that for decades. I don't care about some socially constructed criterions for rights like personhood, I care about empirical and measurable traits and that is exactly what embryology gives me. The zygote can be considered a distinct human being due to having different DNA from both the mother and the father. The genetic information is complete already since conception. Nothing is added to it.
If distinct DNA is what decides something the ability to live then I suppose if we are able to clone you, it is ok to murder you right? After all your DNA isn't so unique anymore.
Okay, so you say I'm arguing from potentiality and then you make an argument.... from potentiality. No, sleeping people and especially drugged people have no capacity to feel at that given moment. If you're drugged, I can do whatever the hell I want with you and you would be non the wiser. Hell, I could hit in the head with the sledgehammer and you'd never know because you would be dead. Capacity to feel is an inherent trait - you either have that capacity or you don't. Just because sleeping/drugged people will wake up somewhere in the future and regain their capacity to feel - that doesn't mean they are beings with the capacity to feel right now.
The point I think he is trying to make, is since the drugged person has began living already in the sense of thinking and feeling, than when his ability to do as such is stunted, where as the being inside the womb hasn't started thinking or feeling yet, thus its life in that sense hasn't started. Where as the drugged person still has the capability to begin thinking and feeling again. You always seem to zone in on one argument we use and show where that sole argument is never applied however a sole argument on its own doesn't justify the stance without such other arguments. Potentiality isn't actuality by itself is a crappy argument, the better argument which is a combination of "potentiality isn't actuality" with the life hasn't actually began living yet would equal the argument the "potentiality hasn't reached actuality yet" the undeveloped "baby" has not began life therefore terminating it doesn't rob anything from the being because we haven't stolen what it already has, where the drugged person has already started a life and made one of its own, that belongs to that being, and ending the life while it can't continue what it already has when it can continue it later on is destroying the life it already owns. The undeveloped "baby" doesn't own any life in the sense of thinking and feeling therefore terminating it won't destroy anything already had.
No, clearly you've never heard of cogito ergo sum. For a life to be lost, that life must first exist. A sperm is not new, distinct human life -your sperm shares with you identical DNA. The genetic material in the sperm is in no way distinct from your DNA. Only the zygote has new, distinct DNA. From a biological view, every new human being begins their life as a fertilized egg - this is because this is the moment when a truly unique organism comes into existence, an organism distinct from both the mother and the father. Therefore, before conception has happened, we can't speak of lives lost.
Exactly and in the sense of thinking and feeling that life also doesn't exist.
No, the stage of development is not the only difference. You forgot to mention that: 1. The sperm has identical DNA with its host (the father) - The zygote has unique DNA that differs from both the mother and the father. 2. A zygote will develop into an adult human being if given the time and nutrition - a sperm will never do so no matter how much time and nutrition you give it. So yeah, there is no potentiality according to what modern biology has to say. The zygote is an actual human. A zygote developing into a baby is mechanically no different from a baby developing into an adult. Do you know why? Because both are the same organisms at a different stage of development. Because both organisms need the same things to develop - a suitable environment and nutrition. Because both organisms share identical DNA. They are the same.
I made the argument towards DNA, how does unique DNA determine life? Can you answer me that?
It doesn't matter what the being will develop into, if it has not began thinking or feeling yet then terminating it isn't killing a life in the sense of thinking and feeling. Of course I understand that life generally has a broader definition than just "thinking and feeling" but something being alive on its own doesn't constitute an argument other wise we should stop cutting down trees since trees are living things.
How does the necessity of nutrition and time determine life? Trees need nutrition and life but when chopped down to build with wood or make paper we humans don't care. Why should we a tree can't think or feel.
How interesting that you seem to forget to apply the same argument for guns. In any case, it's the women's own risk to get a back alley abortion. If we accept the premise that the unborn are human beings (as we should on the basis of embryology), then the women are effectively criminals..
Well a debate about guns and a debate about abortion are two different debates, the argument when applied to guns control can or can't be justified with complimenting and being complimented by other arguments, I disagree with your analogy but if you are to debate its accuracy we would have to start debating gun politics along side this argument which I think would get a little bit ridiculous.
And it is their risk. If abortion is illegal, then it is illegal for a reason. We aren't going to legalize an illegal activity because people continue to break the law.
That is true, but women in another country will obtain brutal punishment when walking around alone without a man to escort her, depending on the arguments that compliment and are complimented by this argument one could say we are unfairly criminalizing women for getting an abortion.
Because I see abortion to be murder and a violation of the most basic human rights. You could just as well say - Well, you don't have to kill people, nobody's forcing you but don't stand in my way if I want to kill people. It is my right.
Terminating the being in the womb before it has began thinking or feeling hasn't violated any living persons right in the sense f thinking and feeling, trees are alive so how is it right to cut them down for paper? Because a tree can't think or feel.
The life inside the womb that is being aborted hasn't began to think or feel yet. By cluster of cells I think he means that they aren't much more than that, where you and me are much more than that with the ability to think or feel.
You must explain why thinking and feeling are important for deciding who gets rights and who doesn't.
You also need to define your terms - what does ''thinking'' mean? Does it mean the ability to make decisions, think in abstract terms (i.e having self-awareness, questioning the meaning of life etc) and contemplate? Consequently, what does ''feeling'' mean? Feeling as in physical sensory capacity or the ability to experience emotions?
A problem with the traits you proposed is that animals also think and feel albeit to a lesser degree. If thinking and feeling are defining traits, then it makes sense why we value adult human beings more than, for example, pigs. That's because adult humans have a far greater capacity for thought than pigs.
What doesn't make sense however, is why we should value babies more than adult pigs - adult pigs are far more intelligent, more capable when it comes to problem solving and have a high capacity for emotions, such as fondness, fear, anger etc.
If distinct DNA is what decides something the ability to live then I suppose if we are able to clone you, it is ok to murder you right? After all your DNA isn't so unique anymore.
DNA is the best way to show, that a new human being has come into existence. After the moment of conception, the sperm and egg fuse, thus forming a whole new genetic code distinct from its parents.
I use the separate DNA argument to merely demonstrate that truly a new individual has come into existence. To claim that a new human being does not exist after conception is fallacious and un-scientific. You can, however, claim that a new person does not yet exist.
The question of cloning poses no threat to the conception argument - to clone someone, you still need an egg with its nucleus removed, which would emulate the unfertilized egg and a somatic cell from my body, which would emulate the sperm. Once the fusion of these two happens ( emulated conception) - only then does the resulting organism grow into an exact replica of me. Prior to fusion, nothing will happen.
Cloning merely shows that there is more than one way to create a zygote, nothing else.
So, yes while I use DNA to show that a new being exist - in essence, the presence of a developing zygote can also confirm this.
The point I think he is trying to make, is since the drugged person has began living already in the sense of thinking and feeling, than when his ability to do as such is stunted, where as the being inside the womb hasn't started thinking or feeling yet, thus its life in that sense hasn't started. Where as the drugged person still has the capability to begin thinking and feeling again.
The problem is that the capability to think and to feel are inherent qualities - you either can perform these function or not.
Just because I will develop the ability to think and to feel (from a fetus to an adult) - that doesn't mean that I have these capabilities now. Consequently, just because I used to have the capability to think and to feel (used to be conscious) - that doesn't mean that I have these capabilities now.
To say that I used to be a person, therefore I remain a person is akin to saying that because I used to live in Italy 2 years ago, I still live there event hough I now live in the USA.
The argument that the drugged person will start thinking and feeling again - this is pure potentiality. Just because he will gain the capacity to think and feel again in the future - that doesn't mean that he has these capabilities now. The fetus can also think and feel in the future, but this won't stop you from aborting it. So, it appears to me that you have double standards against the fetus while supporting the drugged person. You acknowledge a future potentiality for the latter, but not the former.
You always seem to zone in on one argument we use and show where that sole argument is never applied however a sole argument on its own doesn't justify the stance without such other arguments. Potentiality isn't actuality by itself is a crappy argument, the better argument which is a combination of "potentiality isn't actuality" with the life hasn't actually began living yet would equal the argument the "potentiality hasn't reached actuality yet" the undeveloped "baby" has not began life therefore terminating it doesn't rob anything from the being because we haven't stolen what it already has, where the drugged person has already started a life and made one of its own, that belongs to that being, and ending the life while it can't continue what it already has when it can continue it later on is destroying the life it already owns. The undeveloped "baby" doesn't own any life in the sense of thinking and feeling therefore terminating it won't destroy anything already had.
All that is taken from the drugged person is his future, just like from the fetus. Nothing else is taken. That fact that he ''lived'' before is irrelevant, as he has ceased to live now, at the current point in time. Any future life is mere potentiality.
The fact is that while drugged, the person has ceased to exist. While he may wake up and regain his ability to think and feel and to continue his life - at this current time, he is nothing more than a human shell that lacks all the criteria needed to be granted the right to life. Killing him will only deprive him of the future, and nothing else.
Everything that hasn't already happened is only potentiality.
I made the argument towards DNA, how does unique DNA determine life? Can you answer me that?
I should have been more specific - DNA demonstrates the existence of new human life, but whether we're dealing with a zygote that actually developes and grows into a greater whole is a different story.
It doesn't matter what the being will develop into, if it has not began thinking or feeling yet then terminating it isn't killing a life in the sense of thinking and feeling. Of course I understand that life generally has a broader definition than just "thinking and feeling" but something being alive on its own doesn't constitute an argument other wise we should stop cutting down trees since trees are living things.
Then if this is the case, why should we value newborn babies (or babies in general) over adult pigs, apes, dolphines etc - all these animals possess a greater degree of abstract thought and capacity for emotions.
How does the necessity of nutrition and time determine life? Trees need nutrition and life but when chopped down to build with wood or make paper we humans don't care. Why should we a tree can't think or feel.
All organisms require nutrition for survival and all organisms are characterized by growth and development that ultimately ends with death.
About the trees and plants - you tell me why it isn't okay to chop them? I ascribe value to humans by the sole virtue of being human. It is speciesm, I know.
Terminating the being in the womb before it has began thinking or feeling hasn't violated any living persons right in the sense f thinking and feeling, trees are alive so how is it right to cut them down for paper? Because a tree can't think or feel.
I have never claimed that fetuses have a right to life because of some contingent characteristic. I apply them value merely for being human beings.
You must explain why thinking and feeling are important for deciding who gets rights and who doesn't.
Thinking an feeling is what causes us to appreciate life and care for it. When you take life from something that doesn't think or feel you have done it no injustice because it is incapable of caring for their own life. When we kill a tree for paper it doesn't matter because the tree can't feel wronged, or couldn't ever feel wronged about the idea of trees dying for us to simply write on slices of their "corpse".
You also need to define your terms - what does ''thinking'' mean? Does it mean the ability to make decisions, think in abstract terms (i.e having self-awareness, questioning the meaning of life etc) and contemplate? Consequently, what does ''feeling'' mean? Feeling as in physical sensory capacity or the ability to experience emotions?
Thinking is being able to form any sort of thoughts, awareness, logic, reason, prejudice, analysis, criticism, etc.
Feeling is being able to experience emotion.
A problem with the traits you proposed is that animals also think and feel albeit to a lesser degree. If thinking and feeling are defining traits, then it makes sense why we value adult human beings more than, for example, pigs. That's because adult humans have a far greater capacity for thought than pigs.
I definitely do think animals probably deserve equal treatment though I feel conflicted on e issue of animal ethics, I haven't analyzed how we treat animals enough to know how I feel on the whole issue.
What doesn't make sense however, is why we should value babies more than adult pigs - adupigs are far more intelligent, more capable when it comes to problem solving and have a high capacity for emotions, such as fondness, fear, anger etc.
First of all human babies have a higher potential of intelligence and feelings more so than any animal. Also the apacity to think and feel is a two variable, which matters more? A being with a little intelligence and significant feelings or a being with little feeling and significant intelligence? Personally I feel the difference in intelligence shouldn't be as a big of a factor as difference of feeling. In fact both only matter to appreciate life but one only needs so much intelligence to do so, more feeling more appreciation for life. A human baby is possibly more capable of feeling than most animals, most animals show this actually.
The question of cloning poses no threat to the conception argument - to clone someone, you still need an egg with its nucleus removed, which would emulate the unfertilized egg and a somatic cell from my body, which would emulate the sperm. Once the fusion of these two happens ( emulated conception) - only then does the resulting organism grow into an exact replica of me. Prior to fusion, nothing will happen. Cloning merely shows that there is more than one way to create a zygote, nothing else. So, yes while I use DNA to show that a new being exist - in essence, the presence of a developing zygote can also confirm this.
It can determine that the being is human from possessing human DNA but sperm also contains human DNA as well, sperm containing human DNA can also be determined as human as well right? I am claiming that person isn't living or feeling yet in the terms of thinking and feeling.
The problem is that the capability to think and to feel are inherent qualities - you either can perform these function or not. Just because I will develop the ability to think and to feel (from a fetus to an adult) - that doesn't mean that I have these capabilities now. Consequently, just because I used to have the capability to think and to feel (used to be conscious) - that doesn't mean that I have these capabilities now. To say that I used to be a person, therefore I remain a person is akin to saying that because I used to live in Italy 2 years ago, I still live there event hough I now live in the USA. The argument that the drugged person will start thinking and feeling again - this is pure potentiality. Just because he will gain the capacity to think and feel again in the future - that doesn't mean that he has these capabilities now. The fetus can also think and feel in the future, but this won't stop you from aborting it. So, it appears to me that you have double standards against the fetus while supporting the drugged person. You acknowledge a future potentiality for the latter, but not the former.
I am not saying the drugged person isn't thinking or feeling at the moment, but that the drugged person has already started living in the sense of thinking and feeling and therefore deserves to continue his/her life if possible. People will usually agree that if given the choice if their capability to think and feel was momentarily stunted for just a moment they'd desire to not be killed and be allowed to live as soon as their ability to think and feel has continued again, the fetus however hasn't consciously even bagan to exist yet, thus could care less if they began to do so or not.
All that is taken from the drugged person is his future, just like from the fetus. Nothing else is taken. That fact that he ''lived'' before is irrelevant, as he has ceased to live now, at the current point in time. Any future life is mere potentiality. The fact is that while drugged, the person has ceased to exist. While he may wake up and regain his ability to think and feel and to continue his life - at this current time, he is nothing more than a human shell that lacks all the criteria needed to be granted the right to life. Killing him will only deprive him of the future, and nothing else.
A fetus hasn't began to consciously exist long enough to determine if it wants its future, a drugged person has. You can't take something away from a nonexistent consciousness (capability to think and feel).
I should have been more specific - DNA demonstrates the existence of new human life, but whether we're dealing with a zygote that actually developes and grows into a greater whole is a different story.
Regardless the phyisique of the being does exist, the being as a conscious life doesn't, and you can't wrong a nonexistent consciousness.
Then if this is the case, why should we value newborn babies (or babies in general) over adult pigs, apes, dolphines etc - all these animals possess a greater degree of abstract thought and capacity for emotions.
Because its not intelligence alone or emotions alone that determines significance of its life, I will call it conciousness like I've been doing for a lack of a better term, I think that is essentially what I am trying to describe with "thinking and feeling". If something doesn't consciously exist and never has yet, it cares not for its future, thus you aren't wringing it. Generally critical "morality" (I quote due to the subjectivity of morality) has a lot to do with forcing something on another it may or does not like (nobody wants to be robbed from, murdered, etc) the fetus once terminated can never dislike being terminated because it never consciously existed.
All organisms require nutrition for survival and all organisms are characterized by growth and development that ultimately ends with death.
I miscommunicated I meant "right to live".
About the trees and plants - you tell me why it isn't okay to chop them? I ascribe value to humans by the sole virtue of being human. It is speciesm, I know.
They aren't conscious, that's why, at least not in the same way to otherth life, to us. They don't feel pain, they don't get scared, they don't fear for their life.
The laws do not require that a child in the womb have any of the attributes that YOU are requiring of them for personhood.
We already have laws which define them as children and which make some of their killings 'murders.'
For now, those laws make an exception for abortions.
We are going to fix that.
"the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
The laws do not require that a child in the womb have any of the attributes that YOU are requiring of them for personhood.
Then I disagree with the laws, that is the point of politics isn't it? to adapt our laws, to change how society works? That is what I thought.
We already have laws which define them as children and which make some of their killings 'murders.'
I don't define unconscious fetus's as children, but regardless of whatever you call them my point is if a conscious life itself hasn't been born yet, the being hasn't began to think or feel, they are indifferent to abortion, they don't care, why should we?
For now, those laws make an exception for abortions.
We are going to fix that.
So now the laws being different isn't a good argument? you just said laws do not require for the fetus to have any of the attributes I am requiring for them for personhood, as if I'd care... yet you couldn't realize that I wouldn't when you realized that the laws disagree with you at the moment thus you wanting to change them?
"the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
My point still stands. You can't wrong a being that has never existed as a consciousness yet. The fetus is essentially a bag of cells, killing a fetus is no more immoral than killing a tree.
"My point still stands. You can't wrong a being that has never existed as a consciousness yet. The fetus is essentially a bag of cells, killing a fetus is no more immoral than killing a tree."
I'm so glad our many of our laws are already passed the point of your ignorance.
I'm so glad our many of our laws are already passed the point of your ignorance.
Wow such a good argument, bravo-bravo you deserve a gold medal for that...
If a being hasn't began thinking or feeling yet long enough to oppose or support it's own existence, and is essentially indifferent, then there is no issue. No thinking or feeling conscious being is being harmed, the fetus doesn't care one way or another because it hasn't developed those feelings or thoughts prior. Just like a tree. Instead of throwing insults around, devaluing your own intelligence why don't you pick apart my argument it is so ignorant based? I'd like to see you try honestly... That would be something to see... sort of like the special Olympics :D.
While I have been trying to skew away from impulses of uncivility and offense to my respectable debators I have decided to not go that route with you. Just remember though, you started this potential flame war, and if it essentially gets to that level of ridiculousness I will stop responding to you. Have a nice day :P
"If a being hasn't began thinking or feeling yet long enough to oppose or support it's own existence, and is essentially indifferent, then there is no issue. No thinking or feeling conscious being is being harmed, the fetus doesn't care one way or another because it hasn't developed those feelings or thoughts prior. "
yet we have laws on the books already that make the UNJUST killing of one of these non thinking and non feeling children a crime of MURDER.
I can find you a case that proves against that claim in minutes.
In the meantime, browse these State's laws and tell me which ones if any require that the mother must also die for the perp to be charged with killing her child.
There are just too many of these for me to pick one.
let's see...
"A Missouri truck driver is one of the few people charged under Ohio's 4-year-old fetal-homicide law.
Ernest L. Westerberg, 52, was charged with two counts of vehicular homicide Saturday in Friday's Interstate 74 crash in Green Township.
A 52-year-old teacher from Green Township and her 20-year-old daughter's unborn fetus died in the three-vehicle accident. Two women remained hospitalized Sunday.
Before 1996, Mr. Westerberg would have been charged with only one count of vehicular homicide. But that changed when a Middletown man lobbied to modify state law, which originally did not consider a fetus a person until it took its first breath.
Joseph Daly took up the cause after his wife and her unborn fetus were killed in a 1995 accident near Indian Hill. Gov. George Voinovich signed into law the Daly bill in June 1996.
The law makes it a crime to harm or kill a fetus at any stage of pregnancy, with the exception of legal abortions."
yet we have laws on the books already that make the UNJUST killing of one of these non thinking and non feeling children a crime of MURDER.
Imagine that.
You have already used this argument against yourself not acknowledging it as an argument, and I actually pointed that out to you... wow... ok.
I could replace that to oppose something else.
"yet we have laws on the books already that make the UNJUST marriage between two grown, consenting, loving men not allowed.
Imagine that."
Really? using "The law disagrees with you" as an argument against someone's politics... either you are not thinking this through or simply have no comprehension of what politics is for... we don't have political opinions so we can agree with everything the government and laws say but the opposite (sort of, not completely), it is meant to be independent of what the laws say, I wouldn't see the point in having political opinions if that is what politics were supposed to be.
I am against abortion because even though some of these unborn children are not wanted, they can still be given to someone who does want them once they are born. Even though the mother does have the choice, shouldn't that child's life be considered at all? It's not just some little spec of dust that you should just wipe away. That's a child, no matter how small. It's still alive and it still has a heart. Now in some circumstances, abortion should be considered. But more often than not, the baby could still live a good life. I think that if someone doesnt want a child, they should put it up for adoption, that way it could still have a chance. That little "spec of dust" is one of God's children, and he wouldn't have put it there if it didn't have a chance. I know that everyone has their own opinion, and I am definetly not the only right person. Everyone on both sides of the debate bring up really valid points.
I feel like if you are not prepared for a child, then you should take the necessary precautions beforehand, such as using protection such as condoms, or birth control (which is not a guarantee that you will not get pregnant by using this solely on its own.) Or abstain from sex altogether. I don't feel much sympathy for those who end up getting pregnant when they weren't careful, and then they want an abortion because they are not 'prepared' for a baby. But it is a consequence that they need to deal with I think. They should 'grow up' and take responsibility for their actions and do what it takes to raise the child they brought in to the world, even if it wasn't supposed to happen. The child should become the priority. However, in some cases I understand abortion, for instance if a woman is raped. I feel she has the right to carry out abortion, or if there are severe health risks involved in the matter.
Well, if you took the time to read all of it, then you would see that I do believe in abortion in cases of Rape, because there is no precautions that can be taken. The line you are disputing is for those who are involved in sex at their own will who are careless about it.
I have a logical problem with that. So abortion is okay if the woman was a "good girl" and did not have consentual sex, but if she consented to sex she is a "bad girl" and she should suffer for it? Bullocks. Either abortion should be allowed or it should not. The rape exception is just another way of "slut shaming" women who consent to sex, and that is sexist and wrong. No one does this to men, and besides, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
Until there is a fool proof form of contraception this argument is moot. There is no way to truthfully prove what pregnancies are caused by carelessness and there for we cannot know if that number is substantial enough to have any sway in this argument.
The real problem is that most people who support pro-life agendas fight against contraception as well as sex education.
Did you not click on the link I provided? They don't. Most pro-lifers and anti-aborts completely support birth control methods and devices that are not abortifacient in their results.
Au contraire, ma chère. Most of the prolife organizations are against coverage for contraception. Have you heard of the Blunt Amendment? It would have given employers the right to deny contraception to their employees. That would have been a violation of civil rights. Employees do not have the right to violate people's rights. People have the right to choose whether they become parents or not by using or not using contraception. Religious freedom does not include the freedom to deny people's rights based on your beliefs. Everyone talked about employers conscience rights. What about the employee's conscience rights? They are just as import. And that link is biased. I want factual information that is not from an antichoice perspective. Do try again. Last edit: most antichoicers lie about whether certain contraceptive methods are abortifacient in nature. The copper IUD the hormonal IUD, the combination pill, the progestin only morning after pill and others are not abortifiacient.
I take it you don't eat meet and have never accidently stepped on an insect then. I mean, that's innocent life too. Animals actually have a far far far far greater capacity for feeling than a feotus.
Otherwise you would be a hypocrite and I'd feel justified calling you a murderer and forcing my morals onto you even though it's none of my business and I completely don't know you or how you've come to the decision to eat meet or step on bugs.
Still, feel the wrath of my moral indignation! I know so much more than you and am so much more moral! blahblahblahblah.
Due to the fact you started calling me a murderer off the bat, I will no longer respond to any of your disputes on this topic. When I am debating someone the one thing that tells me they don't know what the hell they are talking about is when they start calling the other names. I would have gladly explained the reason why I said that.
Due to the fact you started calling me a murderer off the bat, I will no longer respond to any of your disputes on this topic. When I am debating someone the one thing that tells me they don't know what the hell they are talking about is when they start calling the other names. I would have gladly explained the reason why I said that.
Ah, so you do not understand irony. Probably best we do not converse then. I'd only confuse you.
I'm pro choice, but the problem i see with your argument is you are basically calling it murder and yet you don't seem to have a problem with it if the mother's life is at risk? Is the foetus life worth less than the mothers?
A life is a life mate. If the mother has a high chance of dieing while giving birth, I see no problem with aborting the baby. I would rather see one life taken then two. Get my gist?
So what you’re saying is most murder is wrong. Where is the line? What if the mother consistently gets pregnant knowing that she will get an abortion? At what point does the mother become willfully negligent?
I believe you misread my comment. I'm saying IF the mother has a chance of dieing in birth, then she should be able to have an abortion. I'm not saying I'm for abortiion.
Ah i see now but I'm going to ask, what if the baby could be saved but the mother would die what would you do then?
Also I do think there should be a time after which an abortion should not be allowed, but when the embryo is lets say a few weeks old it is basically just a ball of cells and is definitely not a human by any means. I do think discussions should be had about when is the latest someone should be allowed to have an abortion and also education should be given to people so they won't need to have one, but i still think there should be a choice.
I do think people should take measures before hand if they do not want to have children, just getting pregnant and then having an abortion is unnecessary if you could prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
Indeed! While a justifiable homicide still is a homicide, it can not be treated the same as a murder. Efforts are made (or should be made) to save BOTH the mother and her prenatal child in these cases. However, when allowing the pregnancy to continue will likely kill BOTH? The abortion (termination of the pregnancy) is justified to save the life of one over the other.
I am mostly against abortion. They say it is the right of the mother to choose, but what about the rights of the child?? Do children/fetuses have rights?
No, no, no, no. A baby is a baby, they are defenseless. And is a life that we do not have the right to destroy. I also don't agree with capital punishment.
I do not agree with you because we should think that if our mothers had liked abortion than we would not have lots of pleasure .plz think once would you like to die without any sin.if we like it than we can say that we are terrorist because there is no difference between terrorist and me.terrorist kill people and we are also kill clean handed baby.we will be more rascal than terrorist if i like it because we kill a innocent lady who can be our best leader/guide or social worker i think it is so bad to like abortion.
Killing an unborn baby is the same as killing a born baby. You're killing a child with a whole life ahead of it. It taking a life because you just don't want to deal with it.
"Potential" beings can not have an actual real and tangible physical existence. A sperm and an egg cell have the 'potential' to begin a new child's life. After fertilization, their potential has been realized and that child's life, growth and development has already began.
If you have sex... and you get knocked up... well thats your problem... because you are the one that had the sex.. So dont abort a baby... I mean what if you were abroted?? I understand if you would get an abortion if you got raped.. but if you messed up and didnt take the pill or bother to even ask if he had a condom on then.. thats yours to deal with... keep the kid.. even if you are a teen.... have the baby and put it up for adoption so a family that cant have a baby can have one...
i personally am against abortion, i don't think it would be fair to the baby to not give it a chance to live a life that its entitled. abortion goes against everything i believe in and against good morals and values. i know that people have different morals, values and believes and i respect that. but i just find it hard to respect someone that has the guts to take another humans life and not even feel bad or guilty. for all those mothers out there especially teenage mothers i respect them for sticking it out and going ahead with the pregnancy...ps.(hope i have not offended anyone with what i wrote)
Abortion is simply legalized murder. And the worst of any murder you can think. If a mother can kill her own children so easily, then what makes you think that he wont do the same to strangers?
1. According to our Constitution, all 'persons' are entitled to the 'equal protections of our laws.' (5th and 14th Amendment)
2. Scientists have already proved that a human life begins at and by conception. For example, they have established the fact that conception is when a person's aging begins.
3. We already have laws which make the unlawful killing of a child in the womb a 'crime' of 'murder.' (see Unborn Victims of Violence Act and State Fetal Homicide laws)
It is an unacceptable inconsistency in our laws which establish the fact that a person who kills an unborn child during a robbery can be charged with MURDER... and yet the mother can kill the same child for any reason she wants to (with an abortion) and not be charged with the same.
Abortions are murders for these (above) reasons and that is why I oppose them.
Aye, there are many crazy laws, though. Like not getting fish drunk and so on, so law is pretty much useless here. A positive straight line graph begins somewhere, too- and 2 has much difference to 4940.
Unless you are saying that fetal himicide laws and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act are "crazy laws" and you can prove them to be so? Your comments here are 'non sequiturs' and as such are not even worthy of further consideration.
Supporting Evidence:
Non Sequiturs
(en.wikipedia.org)
My point is that the entire legal system in most countries is pretty crazy- take insurance and suing, the idea that someone can pay more than they have- daft. So law is not applicable to ethics, really.
I do not support it as long as the baby has been in the womb for more than three weeks. I can't stand the thought of remembering the child scream at four weeks old in the womb.. Lives are given by than, they shall not be taken away. Kill the parasite before it has life, if not, do not kill the new human.
The only abortion I support is for mothers who are at risk of death and their babies are less than 20 weeks from conception, but it has to be done in a humane manner.
unless there is a genuine medical case to abort then why not go full term and have the baby immediately adopted out.couples who opt to abort a healthy fetus are immotionally immature in my opinion.
I think of abortion the way i think of murder. If you netflix and chill and it goes down, you have to pay for your own actions dont make the baby pay. for all the females out there either wait till marriage or deal with it
I personally am against abortion. The whole abortion debate essentially rests on the question of whether the fetus counts as a person. If it does, then abortion is morally wrong, as abortion is equivalent to murder. If it does not, then abortion is perfectly acceptable. I believe that the fetus does count as a person.
