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.
How do we resolve the abortion debate?
Given that people aren't likely to agree about abortion anytime soon, what can actually be done about this issue? Is there some solution that's fair in some sense and will cause minimal grumbling?
If I were to make a Modest Proposal, I'd say kill all the people who claim to be pro-life but but actually are just pro-fetus. Or lock away all the people who are anti-choice since that's unfair.
Yet since that's just ridiculous I think the argument will never be resolved.
Anti-choice people see the fetus as a life, and want to force the constitution's words to protect anything with the potential of human life, while pro-choice people see the woman who's already alive as being the only one who should make any choices on the matter.
Ultimately though, we can not stop arguing because so long as women have that option, anti-choice people won't be pleased for some reason, and if women ever lose that option pro-choice people won't be pleased.
I feel it's much like the Equal marriage argument. There's no technically correct answer, it's all morals and opinions and there is going to be disagreement so long we are individuals.
Wrong term anti-choice means the opposition to the ability to make choices on all matters it also implys that the focus of the opposition to abortion is on the choice. When actually the focuse is on preserving life. So we are pro-life.
Pro-abortion just simply implys that you support the practice of abortion wich if you fight for its legalization you obviously do. Anti choice implys opposition to free will wich is not in anyway a part of pro-life ideology. And how are any of us hypocrites for wanting to preserve an unborn child's life?
Wrong term anti-choice means the opposition to the ability to make choices on all matters it also implys that the focus of the opposition to abortion is on the choice.
Google it. It's the same for pro-abortion. I'll call those people what I feel they really are, just as they'll call me what they feel I really am. Yet I know what I am so I don't argue anymore, and they know what they are so there's no point in arguing. (about the titles.)
When actually the focus is on preserving life. So we are pro-life.
Oh? Are you a vegan? No wait, that would require you to eat soy products and plant life. You must eat rocks. Wow, I never met a silicon based life form. Make a perspective debate about that please, I'd love to read about how you do it, and provide a sense of variety in your diet.
google what? anti-choice insinuates opposition to free will which i have not indicated in any way thank you. pro-abortion insinuates support for abortion (selectivly or otherwise) wich obviously you do
and i have a normal diet plant product and of course meat. i have no problem aloweing for the ending of life for the sake of like sustaining sustinance. animals kill and eat one another all the time its the circle of life. killing is okay if it serves a valid perpose and killing an unborn child because "i just tottaly dont want to deal with a kid it would tottaly be a bummer" is not a valid perpose.
anti-choice insinuates opposition to free will which i have not indicated in any way thank you.
I feel the same way about pro-abortion but the definitions supports your idea of what a pro-abortionist is, and the definition supports what an anti-choice person is, yet these are not reasons to argue. I know what I am and you know what you are so so what if someone calls you a title someone defines as right, if you don't. So what if you call yourself white or a caucasian, black or african american. These are titles and if they don't accurately address your views you know they don't define you.
pro-abortion insinuates support for abortion (selectivly or otherwise) wich obviously you do
Pro-abortion insinuates mandatory aborts for all pregnant women, which I obviously am not a proponent for. I am simply a proponent of women having the right to choose what to do with their bodies. Contraception, abortion, whatever choices she wants to make with her conscious mind on her existing human body.
and i have a normal diet plant product and of course meat. i have no problem aloweing for the ending of life for the sake of like sustaining sustinance.
So you pro-life...with a catch?
killing is okay if it serves a valid perpose and killing an unborn child because "i just tottaly dont want to deal with a kid it would tottaly be a bummer" is not a valid perpose.
Lol, when put that way of course it could sound bad. I could make it sound like a swell idea.
"I want to get rid of this child because right now it's making my knees weak and organs fail, it's inside my body moving, and if I don't ingest twice would I normally would I'll die!"
These are two different biased views on the matter.
Yet objectively one could say, the fetus is not alive, it has no brain activity, so the only person alive that should be making choices is the person who it is inside of weighing heavily on.
i would like to ask a question if i may. how is the fetus moveing if it is not alive and has no brain funtion? any way moveing on the the young lady in your example i would say "then remember this the nextime you get careless good luck and god bless dear and congradulations on the baby" and no their is no "cath" with pro life either you favor the preservation of human life or you are fine with it being terminated.
how is the fetus moveing if it is not alive and has no brain funtion?
My apologies. An err in my analogy. Those were of two different time in the growth of the fetus. If the fetus can move I'm pretty sure by that point is has brain activity and is now granted it's own life, and rights and can no longer be aborted, yet if it can't then that is because it has no brain activity and the other option can be taken.
with pro life either you favor the preservation of human life or you are fine with it being terminated.
I say "cath"? My bad I spell check. The catch with pro-life is that you are not a proponent for all life, you a proponent for human life. You are also not a proponent for all human life, if you would kill a person for killing people or who is currently killing people you are not a proponent for that killer's life.
you are really trying hard to pervert the term pro-life arnt you. look its simple pro-life means opposed to abortion because abortion takes innocent life. got it? good.
If we want to bring our opinions into this of course I'll be wrong to you, and you could ask my associates what pro-choice means and they'll tell you the same thing I did.
The definitions are all that count on a basis for pointing out titles, I point out the title that you are anti-choice, which by definition is not wrong, whether you agree to be it or not, while you do the same with me for being pro-abortion whether I agree to it or not. Yet at the end of the day, that's a side argument while the main topic is who is right. In which case the answer is neither side is more right, it just depends on which side has the most supporters, which for the moment is the pro-choice people.
by the way 80% of abortions are so called "life style abortions" meaning the mother hade an abortion becouse haveing the child would interfere with there life too much. nothing medical at all just bitches being selfish. but of course you support that becouse its their "choice" to kill their child so they dont have to stop going clubing with there friends. ist that right?
by the way 80% of abortions are so called "life style abortions" meaning the mother hade an abortion becouse haveing the child would interfere with there life too much.
She has a consciousness why shouldn't she be allowed to make this decision over a creature, living inside of her, with no consciousness.
nothing medical at all just bitches being selfish.
Medically speaking, pregnancy is very taxing. You can die or damage the fetus if you are not careful and or educated.
but of course you support that becouse its their "choice" to kill their child so they dont have to stop going clubing with there friends. ist that right?
Wrong. I support their choice to decide what do with their body so long as they are alive and conscious. I also support their choice to use contraception such as condoms, birth control pills, and if need be, the morning after pill.
I disagree. Everything will resolve itself in the end, it has always happened. Even if it takes hundreds of years, issues will eventually get resolved. You make a valid point, but there is nothing to suggest that a conclusion will never be reached, even after thousands of years.
Everything will resolve itself in the end, it has always happened.
That's not really us resolving the debate. I also don't agree that it ever will truly end, people will probably always have their own feelings on the matter. Like racist people who still argue (mostly on youtube) about how other races need to go back to their countries of origin.
there is nothing to suggest that a conclusion will never be reached
On this logic, there is also nothing suggesting that one will be reached. It's like the God topic, does he or doesn't he exist, and neither side can prove anything.
"I also don't agree that it ever will truly end, people will probably always have their own feelings on the matter. Like racist people who still argue (mostly on youtube) about how other races need to go back to their countries of origin."
Yes exactly. People will always have their feelings on the matter but ONE side will eventually get their way. That is always what happens. This is different then the ranting of racist people that you have brought up, because those people can talk all they want but they don't actually get what they want.
Yes exactly. People will always have their feelings on the matter but ONE side will eventually get their way.
That's not an end to the debate. Not even close. Right now, pro-choice people have there way, yet the issue still goes on.
That's more like a partial end to the issue. One side has their way until someone overturns that decision. As is the case with abortion, as is the case with racists, as is the case with the religious. If they could have their way they would.
Like religion and war it is a debate that will keep running all the time women are getting pregnant, whilst Abortion was illegal women were still getting abortions and the debate raged about whether it should be legal, then it was made legal but the debate continued now though it is about whether it should be made illegal again, regardless of abortions legal status the debate will continue probably with the same arguments.
Wait, so you have never seen the movie Minority Report with the precogs? They predicted future events that someone would "do". You could look into the future and jail the pro-choice (or anti-choice) people.
Better yet, retroactively abort anyone guilty of supporting abortion, see how they like it. That'll solve the problem, and the details are already set out. ;)
It doesn't make sense to me to say it will never end. Eventually, a decision will be made, People aren't going to like the decision but that has always happened throughout history.
( I still do believe that abortion is an important topic, and I do feel strongly about it.)
I think a time limit of some kind and having a professional to second your decision is the best we can do at the moment. And if you have more than 3, sterilisation. (rape abortions not included)
Women can have all of the abortions they want before the fetus turns 20 weeks after conception, but once the fetus turns 20 weeks after conception, no abortions unless it is dying or dead. Increased access to family planning services will help this.
The Abortion debate is being resolved incrementally by law makers and in court-rooms across the country. Gains are coming at a much slower rate than I would like to see but they are being made just the same.
The left answer to this debate doesn't make sense:
Arguing forever will not solve a debate because.....we will be arguing forever. I do not care what valid points what each side will say because forever is forever...and thus, a solution will never be reached. A resolution to a debate implies no argument exists. And in order to debate, there need to be an argument. This is my logic.
At some perceptions, the second answer to this debate doesn't make sense as well. The abortion debate on some levels is a matter of opinion. Like chocolate. Some people like chocolate, others do not. And chocolate lovers cannot truly convince chocolate haters because their mind and taste do not prefer the taste of chocolate.
There is another perception to this debate. The educated perception and you can try to educate the other person that how a fetus is exactly alive. But then you have to make them agree on the definition of "alive" or what it means to be living.
So i guess educated perception is a branch off the opinion perception because the abortion debate all rolls down to opinion: Do you consider any form of movement to be alive? Do you consider a cell to be alive?
You are more philosophical and I am more utilitarian, it seems.
As we already have laws which define a child in the womb as a child and we already have laws which makes the killing of some children in the womb as crime of murder... I consider those debates to have already been won (at least for the time being) by the those of us who claim that an abortion kills a child.
Those laws certainly do not support the denials of the pro-aborts.... right?
So, for me.... the philosophical aspects of the debate are over - unless and until the pro-aborts can challenge those existing laws and definitions.
And,... for our part.... we (pro-lifers and anti-aborts) have to find ways to get the courts to see the same inconsistencies in our laws that we see.
I didn't down vote you by the way. I am just saying this. Besides, i will state if i am going to down vote.
I always thought my mind is philosophical...kinda annoying some times. ^^'
In some perceptions, your second paragraph makes sense. If those laws are true (i do not know but i am going to believe you), those who are pro-life wins. They win in the sense of the law. But, and i think you know, because a law states that a child in the womb is living....that doesn't necessarily mean they are living. If the law says i am a pig that oinks, am i truly a pig that oinks? Possibly. But then it wouldn't make sense if the law now says that i was NEVER a pig that oinks. That doesn't make sense because the law did say that i was a pig that oinks. lol. What i am saying is, the law isn't hard cold evidence but pro-life (anti-abort) do win in the sense of the law.
What are the denials for pro-abort? Is it that the child in the womb is NOT living? If so, then yes, the laws do not support that. I agree with you on that.
I can understand why you feel the debate is over because the law supports your view. You believe what is right. And if the law supports that then it is a waste of time to debate.
In some perceptions, your second paragraph makes sense. If those laws are true (i do not know but i am going to believe you), those who are pro-life wins. They win in the sense of the law.
That's what it's all about - "Reversing Roe." Roe was a legal decision and it's a legal matter before the courts. (The issue is a legal matter for the courts to decide)
... because a law states that a child in the womb is living....that doesn't necessarily mean they are living.
Do you actually deny that a child in the fetal stage of their life is alive and or living?
I can understand why you feel the debate is over because the law supports your view. You believe what is right. And if the law supports that then it is a waste of time to debate.
Do you actually deny that a child in the fetal stage of their life is alive and or living?
Actually, when i came to this debate, i didn't think about that. Oddly. I will be honest...i am not too knowledgable about any stages of birth. I have close to zero knowledge. I am thinking of answer of what it means to be alive. Signs of movements perhaps. But i lean more to the side of the beating heart. Or maybe the first signs of consciousness. When the heart begins to beat....does consciousness occurs? I do not know if consciousness exists outside of a beating heart. In fact, i believe it does. I remember hearing of a story of old times when this woman's head was chopped off. (I believe she was a French lady of great position) And the guy slapped her face and she made an ugly expression. I then heard that someone, in the same century perhaps, experimented this and chopped off his own head. His partner then counted the number of times he blinked. And i remember the number 11.
What i am saying is. If a fetus do not have a conscious, then it is contradicting to care about his or her life. Because, grass are considered to not have any conscious. Trees are considered to not have any consciousness. If we do not care about them, then it seem contradicting to care about an unconscious fetus.
But, damn that thought fails because the fetus will soon to be a human. And i believe humans are programmed to care for other humans. So maybe it makes sense to ignore the contradiction.
Do you actually deny that a child in the fetal stage of their life is alive and or living? ~ Chuz
Actually, when i came to this debate, i didn't think about that. Oddly. I will be honest...i am not too knowledgable about any stages of birth. I have close to zero knowledge. I am thinking of answer of what it means to be alive. Signs of movements perhaps. But i lean more to the side of the beating heart. Or maybe the first signs of consciousness. When the heart begins to beat....does consciousness occurs? I do not know if consciousness exists outside of a beating heart.
Dude. You are calling yourself the thinker.
What i am saying is. If a fetus do not have a conscious, then it is contradicting to care about his or her life. Because, grass are considered to not have any conscious. Trees are considered to not have any consciousness. If we do not care about them, then it seem contradicting to care about an unconscious fetus.
What about the fact that they are our children - our young and the fact that we have these crazy things called basic human rights?
But, damn that thought fails because the fetus will soon to be a human. And i believe humans are programmed to care for other humans. So maybe it makes sense to ignore the contradiction.
The young of a human (even while in the womb) is already a human.
The young of a human (even while in the womb) is already a human.
And that is a matter of opinion. Not fact. I don't think it can ever be considered a fact. And because it is an opinion, this conversation can go on and on until one of us agrees. But that won't really solve this debate because this is an opinion debate.
The young of a human (even while in the womb) is already a human. ~ Chuz
And that is a matter of opinion. Not fact. I don't think it can ever be considered a fact. And because it is an opinion, this conversation can go on and on until one of us agrees. But that won't really solve this debate because this is an opinion debate.
Your ability to deny it, not withstanding. It really is an undeniable fact among scientists and law makers - that the young of a human being while in the womb is already a human being at any stage of their development.
The question among them is whether or not it is (or should be considered) a legal person and some of our laws already say that they are.
I agree that the answers don't make sense, nor does the question. The questions implying that the debates haven't been trying to end it, and like this debate would suddenly end it. Yet I read the question as "Will the abortion debate ever end?" and with that same reasoning I take this side as the negative. Because it will never truly end so long as one side feels they are being wronged.
Women who can't keep a child will always try to do something to get rid of it, that may include going to shady illegal places to terminate the pregnancy, or a more drastic and less likely method of doing dangerous substances, in the hope for a miscarriage. Which isn't really solving the issue it's just making women find alternatives while they still push the issue hoping to end the alternative practices.
Whereas if abortion stays legal, the anti-choice will still have their reasons to picket, and protest, like they have been.
Induce a country-wide societal apocalypse which ultimately shuts down all abortion clinics, local government, and abortion drug manufacturing plants, and wait several years for the remnant general population to use up all the abortion pills left in stock.
Once the pills are gone, or stockpiled, then we'll see if abortion really is a "right" or not.
Society has already devolved almost to the point where nothing but a shock like this is really enough to stir people up. Excepting such a major blow to "everyday life" and the "mindless mass perspective" the debate will continue to rage endlessly.
Very interesting what you said. It is like realizing your true nature to things when they they are gone from your options. Like someone hating their sister....how would he or she react when their sister is truly out of their lives?
So yeah i do want to see what people would say when the option to abort is gone.
No, I support the removal of government funding, and subsidization for performing abortions, and I support the criminalization of murder. How does that make me not libertarian? I'm sure most libertarians support keeping murder illegal.
Lets put a gun to the head of the country and make him sign the bill. Surely, if millions of people storm the white house or house of commons armed to the teeth they are going to go... "Uhh, lets just do what the people say." (satirical)
People who make debates about abortion are Republican and don't believe in killing unborn baby's. in my opinion the woman can choose if she wants to have a abortion or not.
Hi here by decree the decision I act. By up voting this, you are approving of the compromise.
ACT I Abortion act
The abortion act here by makes it legal to get an abotion, if fetis is under 4 months of age. The abortion act makes it illegal to get an abortion IF
I : There nearly 0% risk of death or sevear phisical/mental problems that may be damaged in birth.
If unknown risk apears after 4 months, or any risk above a 1.5% chance will allow an abortion up to 7.5 months pregnent. If past, medical help will be provided NO CHARGE!!!!
Your post was pointless to read. It contributes nothing tangible. You are not an elected official thus this "Abortion act" is nothing more then a sweet nothing. If you can even call it that. Perhaps, making a petition inciting all the crap you spewed forth from your frothing mouth and seeing if people will sign it and send it to the government would be a worth while decision. And that goes for just about anyone else who reads your sweet nothing.
Not even a well-thought out compromise... The best compromise we have is the one we have already in place set in law. The thing is, neither side is willing to compromise their principles, and are intent on changing the compromise according to their desires. And so the debate rages on, and will continue to do so without any concrete solution until something majorly drastic causes a severe paradigm shift in the entire populous, something as severe as a societal apocalypse, or the complete degradation of morality over the course of a few generations.