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.
Abortion is murder because babies that are not born yet are still humans, they just are not fully formed yet. It is an action because the doctor is taking an action to kill the baby. The shit that people are talking about that babies not born yet are not humans is not logical.
Also, studies say that mothers have domain over their baby, so therefore they have the right to kill it. That is not true. That is like saying a slave is yours and then you murder him/her because you do not want them around. THAT IS COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL!
First off Christianity is filled with flaws and illogical reasoning and ridicule towards other religions. Second what if a woman were impregnated during rape and didn't want to have a rapists baby inside of them because that child would scar them and remind them of the rape.
Your logic is fundamentally flawed. Would you say that a fertilised egg is still a human?
If you say yes: How is a clump of some cells with no shape or unified purpose or ability to exist independently a life form?
If you say no: Then you have conceded because it is impossible to draw any a line in foetus development between a point where the foetus is an arrangement of cells and a point where the foetus is considered human and where abortion would then be considered murder thereafter. This is because any such line creates holes in logic, for if one day a baby is a human due to some classification, then why was it not the week before, or even then day before? How does one day an arrangement of cells be just that, an arrangement of cells, and the next day it be something for which getting rid of it is considered murder? How is this possible - it isn't, you can't draw the line in the same way that you cannot point a finger to when some grains of sand become what we call a "pile" of sand.
Therefore I believe your argument has no sound backing and you are speaking with emotional disgust rather than actual consideration of what is happening, not even getting into the morality of abortion under particular circumstances.
Abortion is a murdern because if somebody abort a child she have kill the child and the child she abort she don't known maybe he/she we become the president of its country and when that person known that she's not ready to bear child can't she abstain from sexual intercourese
Abortion is a murdern because if somebody kill another person maybe mistakely or knowingly they we count it as murdern, and for the people that about they kill too
Abortion is a murdern because if somebody kill another person maybe mistakely or knowingly they we count it as murdern, and for the people that about they kill too
Abortion is a murder because if somebody kill another person maybe mistakely or knowingly they we count it as murder, and for the people that about they kill too
Genetically speaking, a fertilised embryo is still a human. You did state, and i quote that a growing embryo was a "A clump of some cells with no shape or unified purpose or ability to exist" but the problem is that if the so-called "clump of cells" that you speak of can exist, or there would be no way for us to reproduce, it just needs support from the mother to survive. the problem with your argument is that after the baby is born it is still helpless. Just because in the first few months of life, a human baby can barely lift its head, does not mean we have the right to kill it. Using that exact same argument, it could be justified that you could kill your baby AFTER it is born as well.
I think that abortion is a way to kill, because in the womb of the mother there is a fetus that although not born yet, has life and develops day by day. So even if the fetus is not fully formed, feels, grows, dreams, feeds, develops over time and this only occurs in a living being. Therefore if it is a living being, it has a developing life like any human being in the world. And if a living being is deprived of life, it would be to kill and snatch life from a human being. That he even began to live.
What if taking the baby to birth would endanger the mothers life? Would you really sacrifice the life, or QUALITY of life of a mother for a unformed fetus? And what if a women was raped? Or what if a 15 year old had sex and the condom broke and having a child would be unbearable for the mother? Think about QUALITY of life.
Why do you want to have risky fun.....and when the rubber prank goes wrong, you try to preempt the consequences.
Its murder.
its a deliberate attempt to seize the existence of a human being .It doesn't matter the state of the human being. Its an attack on a defenseless human. Had it been older and not delicate, it would have fought to protect its right to life.
Irrational situation;
The only persons who can abort are people who were aborted at birth..... and will therefore will be doing that in the name of payback(still not fair....innocent victim).
Therefore if you were not aborted, you have no right to abortion.
Apparently no such human exists.
……………………………………………
And addressing rape....
There are many orphanage homes so you donot have an excuse.
There are many orphanage homes so you donot have an excuse.
What the hell kinda nonsense is that statement?
It's bad enough to have your body so violated, to have someone force themselves inside you over and over again with no regard to your pain or pleas to stop...but then to then be forced to give birth to the child you didn't want, that constant reminder that your body is STILL not your own? It takes a sick mind to completely bypass the victim because they feel self-righteous in their "cause". Your complete disregard of what a woman has to go through with rape is....I mean it's utterly astounding. I sincerely hope that you didn't mean to sound that indifferent to rape victims.
Do you have any idea how hard pregnancy is on the woman's body and mind? Not only is this victim subject to memories and pains of rape you also want to demand that she keep the child until birth so that it can be adopted. That's two different violations, one is the rape and the other is trying to force her to keep a fetus she may not want that's growing in her body and a constant reminder of a vile attack. She was forced into sex and you want to now force her into creating a life she doesn't want. You want to force her to watch her body change, her hair fall out, her mood change, morning sickness, possible and entirely probable depression, aches and incredible pain all because you think you have the right to take away her choice?
I don't have to ask someone of your character, I'm not really concerned with it, but I seriously question anyone who has such disregard for a victim of rape.
Intentionally or unintentionally, it doesn't have much to do with me liking your answer, it's simply an answer. Regardless I think I have it, so no, you don't need to answer. I hope I have the wrong impression of your character, and I'd rather hope I do then know for sure.
I gotta be honest, that's possibly the dumbest thing I've read from you. We all come into this world through the pain of our Mothers. Very very very few women are all rainbows and sunshine through pregnancy and birth.
Women are so exaggerating and hysterical. There are pregnant people who don't make it look that a big deal.
There is a 16yrs old girl in my neighbourhood who recently gave birth. I never knew she was pregnant though we crossed paths regularly untill someone told me that she was.
You truly are a nasty person and idiotic as well that you cannot even percieve the obvious signs of pregnancy ; you demonstrate again why your society is so backward and primitive
What little you had to do with that girl doesn't speak at all for what she or any other female goes through. What are you, 15? 16?
Honestly it doesn't matter, when you gain a little more life experience or when your significant other goes through the changes, maybe you'll learn a little empathy and understanding.
You are not a victim. I am not patronizing you. You are on a debate site and I was debating. Now it's over. I hope you do have good experiences but I hope you gain some empathy on the way.
Yes. The child has no way to decide who the father is. Why would you kill them just because of the father? I agree with Jeffrey. It is just like murdering someone because their friend stole your banana.
You truly are a very sick individual with no care for the suffering of the unfortunate woman carrying a rapists child ; it's not surprising from a clown like you who thinks homosexuals are mentally ill .
You see we got ourselves a problem here , and the problem is you're a cretin , a cretin is someone who speaks nonsense and the only people who understand nonsense are fellow cretins so I will let you converse away with your ' pals ' .......
You think that how and if it was the case why would I feel bad about it?
But you're after making a judgement you idiot , so let's cut to the chase when did your mother have her last abortion and why ?
I know things are difficult for you's over there but remember it's your mums body ray and be a bit more supportive ; has your father got over his anger yetand stopped beating her ?
If so when did he stop beating her ?
Why don't you ask a medical person what the difference is as i never mentioned a baby regarding abortion did I ?
Why don't you pray to god and as him why he lets babies die od cancer ?
Why don't you ask god why he commands and commits abortion ?
You're another so called Christian who never reads his bible no speculating on these verses you hypocrite but it's cool once it's god doing the aborting isn't it ?
Checkmate .... yet again .... next please :)
Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?
Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.
Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.
Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.
"when did your mother have her last abortion and why ?"
Lol......we don't promote such stupidity here.
Maybe untill recently from 2013 when teenagers had their pranks go wrong and abortion became so popular untill now...but still the rate began to decline again......
"I know things are difficult for you's over there but remember it's your mums body ray and be a bit more supportive ; "
Lol....everyone bears witness you are not making sense.....
There are so many children in our extended family.....myopic speculations.....you just want to have something to say...try harder.
"Why don't you pray to god and as him why he lets babies die od cancer ?"
Stupid atheists always want to say if God exists then he made every bad thing happen. Idiot....if God exists then satan exist........ Don't you know the goals and roles of each? Idiot?
And why God commits abortions? If your creator doesn't want you to exist.....then what is your problem?
He makes plans for human and he says he has cancelled the plan.....then what have you come to live for?
You idiotic humanbeing you dare compare yourself to your creator GOD. Do you know the magnitude of what that word means?....you should pray for forgiveness.(setting a condition if God exists).....
Well Ghanaians are famous for it :) don't be embarrassed over your mother try and understand her .
Oh yes I am making sense as well you know ... the truth hurts just a bit doesn't it ?
Yes evil god exists the one that enjoys aborting babies and even you admit that's cool once god is doing it , as you state .....if your creator doesn't want you to exist what's your problem ....
So abortion is cool once god does it , you're a two faced hypocrite who's just a dumb superstitious Ghanaian brute ....
Read it and weep ...again :)
Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?
Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.
Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.
Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.
No you have the problem as you're demonising your mother over her 'mistakes ' let it go and tell your donkey of a dad to leave her alone ; Ghana is the abortion capital of the world and that's about all its famous for .
How can I hate something I don't believe in you idiot ?
I was going to say get your dad to explain it but he is possibly as big a jack ass as you :)
Oh dear , you didn't like Obama better take that one up with the Americans .
Yes Kofi Annan is an idiot we agree .
A dead baboon ? You're making no sense at all now ....
So called magician :) ok if that make you feel good .
What do stage magicians normally do you idiot ?
I know you're angry over your mother and her ' indiscretions ' try and forgive her after all she is a very ' giving ' person :) .... just saying I'm not judging :)
I am a teen and even I know it's murder. You asked me what would be wrong with you. Well maybe it's that killing a baby is murder. I don't care what you say. If your mom had abortion you'd be dead. This is a stupid thing to argue about.
No,no and no. And a egg or fetus is soon to be a baby. I said that this debate was stupid meaning it's obvious, you don't need facts everyone should know abortion is murder. Who are you the debate police?????
Abortion of a human pregnancy is murder IF the unborn is in fact a human. Opinions about when an unborn is a human, differ among people. No one has solid proof of exactly when an unborn becomes a human. In the face of this uncertainty, prudence requires that we err on the side of protecting life.
There are no other defensible positions on this question.
There is no universally accepted evidence, only differing opinion.
From a religious perspective, even further compilations are introduced when considerations are given to discerning the moment at which a human receives a soul.
This is why I believe the safest conclusion, among all possible conclusions is that we don't know and should err on the side if preserving life.
I know there is no universally accepted evidence, but what evidence would work for you? What would be sufficient to you to indicate a starting point of humanity?
That answer is available to Muslims. God provided them with the point at which the soul enters the body.
The reason we can't have evidence is because it's a philosophical question about humanity. About what it is and how we should treat it. Because of this intangeable fuzzy philosophical difference, it is very difficult to argue for or against abortion with reason and logic. People have different premises that won't change. I've found your position of safety in the face of ignorance to be the most reasonable, considering what's at stake.
The question of whether abortion is actually murder doesn't depend solely on whether it equates to ending a human life. Murder requires intent. So for most patients, who do not recognize the humanity of their fetus, we cannot show intent. Thus we cannot claim murder. However, abortion doctors who have thorough understanding and experience may be accused of understanding the full import of the procedure. Especially for abortions that are executed later in gestation.
Humans do not receive souls at some point after they are conceived, they are living souls from the moment they are conceived throughout the remainder of eternity.
You were you the moment you were conceived, it is not possible that you could have been somebody else, if you had been killed by the choice of people other than yourself you would have been murdered. I'm glad they didn't kill you before you were born.......but if they did you would be in Heaven and now you have decided you are better than God and your on your way to Hell.
You seem like you try to be a nice guy and good neighbor and I would probably like having you as my neighbor a lot more than some of the punks who are my neighbors and a lot more than most of the atheists/agnostics here who seem to think they are obliged to be as foul and rude as possible toward anybody who says God loves them and wants them to trust in His Son to be saved from Hell.
You were you the moment you were conceived. That is solid proof. It's just simple common sense..you were you the moment you were conceived and if you had been killed inside your mothers womb you would not be here now. Abortion is always murder, birth control which allows for conception and then kills the life which was conceived by expelling it from the mother's body is murder.
I think you need to be saved from Hell, saved from your sins, saved from dying. I doubt that you will be saved. I have learned to avoid reading your stuff.
I think you need to be saved from Hell, saved from your sins, saved from dying. I doubt that you will be saved. I have learned to avoid reading your stuff.
I think you have catholic devils which keep causing your icon to appear on my page, and it looks like they are making you talk and I assume they are making you say the same things you have always said in your stupidity.
Thank you for reading here and for your question. I'm sure you can find the passages I am referring to in the Bible, which in English is called the King James Bible. It's very easy to google phrases and get the Bible reference. Work on it.
You've never read the bible you sad fuck as you demonstrate your vast ignorance daily ; I actually thought you might be busy pulling families from smouldering car wrecks on the motorway ( and boasting about it ) as a dizzy blonde throws herself in your bible clenching arms muttering " you're my hero Now A Stain "
Or maybe volunteering again for the army so you could rid the world of them ' pesky ' Muslims :) no one does superheros like the good ole US
I don't think the doctors are uncertain about whether or not they are killing sentient fetuses. I think the point in which a fetus becomes sentient is very debate-able but all the doctor has to do to not err on the side of killing a human being is make sure the fetus isn't sentient prior or during the operation.
Yes abortion is murder. Murder is the unjust taking of a human life. An unborn baby is certainly a human life - and the convenience of the mother (which accounts for 99% of US abortions) is hardly a justification.
For the unjust taking of a human life to qualify as murder, one must show intent. Most women do not believe their fetus is a human life. Therefore they do not intend to end a human life. Thus, even if abortion is the unjust taking of a human life, it often (though not always) cannot be equated to murder.
Well what kind of life do they think their fetus is then? Plant life perhaps? Sorry, but not realizing it's a human life (which biology can easily prove) is no excuse at all.
In fairness you would have to ask each individual woman that question wouldn't you ?
Again to say " plant life perhaps " is rather harsh .
You're making a blanket statement regarding what you think women do not realise ; also who do they need an excuse for , and why would you assume this ?
Well if they do realize it's a human life, then clearly they know they're taking it, correct? In that case, it's murder - unless of course they can prove the baby deserved it.
And if they don't realize it then it's still murder, because the young life is still human - regardless of the mother's inability to comprehend simply biology.
If it seems like I'm painting with a broad brush here, that's because I see only two possibilities: human or inhuman, moral or immoral, life or death. I don't see a middle option at all. Plus, I'm fairly certain, deep down, all know it's a human life. Some just try very, very hard, to convince themselves otherwise.
Also you honestly think that women who abort percieve themselves as murderers and you know this how ?
Your use of the word ''deserve ' carries impact whether intended or not ,would you say to such a woman ' you murdered a baby because you thought it deserved it ?
Then again you say if a woman doesn't realise it's a young life it's because she may not comprehend simple biology ?
Everyone in this debate is merely giving their views as to the morality of the situation and the law as in the term murder , is tossed about like confetti at a wedding ,it is important not to get morality - right and wrong - mixed up with the law .
Yes YOU see only two possibilities human -inhuman ,moral -immoral ,and deep down again you know what people think ?
When you state what you've just stated you're not just saying how you feel you're making a CLAIM youre saying what you say is true therefore what the woman says is false ... so you're right and that's that ?
A pregnant woman is not MORALLY obliged to carry a pregnancy to term ,there is no moral requirement for her to allow the foetus to use her body in order to survive .
If she aborts she does not violate the fetus's right to life , she deprives it of sustenance provided by here over which it does not have a RIGHT .
I don't understand what this means: "it is important not to get morality - right and wrong - mixed up with the law"
Are you saying immoral laws are not a big deal? If we pass a law tomorrow, which requires the extermination of the mentally ill, wouldn't you object on moral grounds?
"When you state what you've just stated you're not just saying how you feel you're making a CLAIM youre saying what you say is true therefore what the woman says is false ... so you're right and that's that ?"
What? Sorry I'm not following. As they say in Japan, mo ichido, kudasai.
"A pregnant woman is not MORALLY obliged to carry a pregnancy to term ,there is no moral requirement for her to allow the foetus to use her body in order to survive ."
Because according to you, using a body is much more worse than killing a body? Do you also think there's no moral requirement for the mother to care for the child after it's born? Can she just leave it in a dumpster - free from any moral/legal judgement? If not, then why not?
"If she aborts she does not violate the fetus's right to life , she deprives it of sustenance provided by here over which it does not have a RIGHT ."
Again, that argument could easily be extended to children already born. What would you say to someone who no longer wants to provide sustenance to their 6 month old baby? Obviously, you'll want to try to argue that the child only has value after they're born, to which I would say - why?
If you don't believe the value of human life is innate, then what magical transformation occurs within the vaginal canal, which bestows this value as the child is born? Is it just the independence from the mother's physical body? Newborns are hardly independent creatures though - even after they're born - so I'd like to hear your distinction from a baby in the womb to a baby swaddled in a blanket.
I'm saying you're pushing moral law into a question on what we are talking about which is a woman's right to do what SHE CHOOSES with her own body .
Again regarding law what's an immoral law opposed to a moral law ?
It was illegal for blacks to do many things in the states in the 50s and they were all so called moral laws weren't they ?
I'm saying the claim you're making is just you saying I'm right she's wrong end of story .
Why the Japanese ? It's stuacacht linbh , that's in my native tounge and it's as we say here
No again to correct you when did I ever use the term 👉much worse 👈 when did I say a foetus was a body ?
When did we talk about a baby after its born ?
When did I talk about leaving children in dumpsters ?
But we are not talking about children already born ?
I never mentioned 6 month old babies did I ?
I never mentioned or argued about a child after it's born ?
I never asked about when life begins that's another red herring
A baby in the womb and a baby in the blanket again fails to address even one of my points , you really need to go back to what I stated as you've addressed nothing but just attempted to shove your opinion down my throat
You said that murder is the unjust taking of a human life. Murder also requires intent. If you look at what the other side argues, they are constantly saying that a fetus is not a human life. So women go to the doctor to remove human tissue that is alive but not yet human in their mind. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's not murder (except arguably for the doctor).
And to the Nazi mind, Jews weren't human either. Thus, according to them, they weren't committing murder when they exterminated 6 million of them - but we all know that they were.
Abortion does cause pain to the baby inside the mother. Many may argue that abortion causes no pain what so ever, this is wrong. Their argument states that a baby cannot feel pain before its cerebral cortex is functioning. This is simply not true. There is a part of the brain that is present in the early stages of pregnancy that is known as the thalamus. This part of the brain is there and functioning within 8 weeks of pregnancy. Anyways, even if the baby, at no point of the pregnancy, could feel pain, it would still be wrong. Killing someone in their sleep might be painless, but it is still murder. Therefore, abortion is unethical, even if the point of no pain abortion was true.
If a woman is raped, there is still no grounds for killing the baby. It is illogical to believe that it is justifiable that when a woman is raped, that that pregnancy be terminated. If one day, every son and daughter of any rapist were to be killed, would that be morally justified? If not, then why do you justify doing that exact same thing, only to little babies who haven’t even been born? Another reason is that if you were to abort the baby of a woman who was raped, it would be exactly the same as if you were to give someone the death penalty because their father was a criminal. Therefore, it is not morally justifiable to abort a baby whose father is a rapist.
A fertilized egg is indeed a human being. The argument was brought up that killing a group of cells is not murder, seeing as it is not life. This point is not true in the least. All multicellular organisms start out life as unicellular. Through the process of mitosis, one cell becomes two, two becomes four, and so on. Cells accumulate to become tissues, tissues accumulate to become organs, and organs accumulate to become the fully mature organism. At no point in the middle of this process is there an official start of life. It is in the beginning, when the egg is fertilized, that there is a living being. it, therefore, cannot be argued that life does not start at conception. Furthermore, a collection of cells, no matter how small, is life, whether human or not determines its value.
A fertilized egg is a different human being than its mother. Dermot has pointed out that "Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not an actual human being—it is a potential human being, i.e. it is a part of the woman," but the truth is, the so-called "fetus" is actually a human at the moment of conception, as proven in section (1). It is an undisputed scientific fact that a genetically normal human has 46 chromosomes, and a genetically normal human gamete cell has 23. It is also an undisputed fact that each and every cell in our body has a nucleus, and in that nucleus, there is enough DNA to make 23 pairs of chromosomes. When a sperm fertilises an egg, there are 23 chromosomes from mom, and 23 from dad, which just so happen to add up to 46, which defines the species of homo sapien. Since the fertilised gamete cell was fertilised, from then on, it cannot be classified as a gamete cell, but as a somatic cell, this somatic cell will then undergo the cellular process as described in section (1). Therefore, you cannot argue that the baby is part of the mother.
An unborn baby has its own separate DNA. If I were to take a tissue sample from 3 people, using DNA fingerprinting, it is indisputable that I could tell the difference between each human that I tested. Now, the same principle can be applied to an unborn baby and its mother. If a tissue sample was taken from the unborn, and one from its mother, a simple DNA test would conclude that the unborn child is different from the parent. Furthermore, if the DNA in a child is different than the mother, then how can it have been logically deduced that the baby was part of the mother until it is born? The explanation of this is simple, gamete cells are created, not by mitosis, but by meiosis, which is different for one reason: the cells that are produced are not genetically identical to one another. When the two gametes (egg and sperm) come together to fertilise, they create a somatic cell, as explained before, and this somatic cell is different than any cell in the body of the woman. Therefore, the baby is not part of the mother.
The fertilized egg is in fact living. When two gamete cells come together, they form one cell. This cell is an organism that is completely different from its mother. Not only does the cell have different DNA, but it is alive. According to the cell theory, cells are the basic units of LIFE. I would like to focus on that 4-letter word for just a second. How exactly could cells be the basic unit of life, AND a collection of cells not be alive? This is obviously a fallacy of the law of noncontradiction. Furthermore, a collection of cells that is actively replicating and growing is the definition of life. There is no non living thing on this earth that happens to be self-replicating and grows. So let me ask how a growing, self-replicating organism can be classified as non living. As has been proven, it is impossible to logically argue that the “fetus” is not alive.
Remember when it was legal to kill slaves. The Democrat Party wanted to keep it legal to do so!
Now here we are again today, after the Democrat Party claims to have gained some humanity, that the new socially acceptable victims of a selfish barbaric people is our babies.
But they got even worse if possible. They are sacrificing our most innocent of human life, our babies. Our babies can't speak for themselves. They can't defend themselves and most importantly.....they can't vote!
Democrats give little attention to people who will not vote for them.
And during the time is was not murder to kill a slave. Use the definiton of the word stop trying to make loop holes. killing slaves or having them in anyway is wrong yes but because killing them then was legal it was not murder.
That is what he is saying. You democrats think it is right to kill a baby when it has the right to live. Same with the slaves. It was legal at the time, but it does not mean it was right at all. Same with the babies. It is legal now, but that does not mean it is okay.
No that is not what he is saying. I am not democratic I do not identify with this broken system. Also I do not believe killing a babe is right in anyway if you read what I said and read the resolution you would see what I am saying by definition it is not murder it is legal It is wrong yes but legal and by definition of the resolution is not murder.
it is murder because you are killing someone,you dont give them a chance at living life which is stupid,i believe everyone should have a chance to live there life and we are just robbing it,the only reason to abort is if the mother is in danger.So therfore abortion is murder
Alright so the baby isn't allowed the same rights as someone who is outside of the womb? okay so lets make you swallow a poisonous pill and take your life because we don't want you anymore. Yes i understand rape is also a big cause of it but lets be real, we have adoption centers as well as foster care systems that you can give the baby to.
We have the right to live. Babies that are not born yet are still humans, but they are not formed yet, as HillarySucks said. Dermot said that murder is taking the life out of another human being through the initiation of physical force. As I said before, babies that are not born yet are still human beings, and the people that are aborting the baby are initiating a physical force to kill it. I do not agree with people calling the unborn babies a fetus because they are humans as I have stated multiple times.
As I said, we have the right to live. Think about this: What if you were aborted? You would never be arguing this right now. If your brother or sister or just anyone in your family that is close to you was aborted, how would you feel? You would probably be on the other side of this argument. You need to also think about the life of the baby that was aborted. They could have a whole life ahead of them. If you killed somebody that had already been born and had the brain capacity to know you were killing them, you would feel bad if you had a heart. This is just like aborting a baby.
I agree. GodIsNotDead got inside and used emotions. I like that. They used things that were absolutely true, but that you would not ever think of. Most of you are into logic, everything is about logic, as most people say. But it is not always about logic.
No , Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not an actual human being—it is a potential human being, i.e. it is a part of the woman.
No , Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not an actual human being—it is a potential human being, i.e. it is a part of the woman.
A fertilized egg is not human life. The advantage is the mother, possibly 15, possibly has been raped, not living a miserable life because of a dumb desicion, or worse, something that she didnt decide at all.
Notice I didn't say it was a human life. I said it was a potential human life. It could grow into a fantastic person that solves serious world issues but that will never happen now because it died before it got the chance to live. If a 15 year old girl gets raped the rapist should be tracked down and either castrated or killed. But why does being raped automatically give you the right to take a life? If a girl gets raped and then shoots someone is that fair to the person that got shot?
If you had cared to research your side, you will find that the "fetus is NOT part of the woman. it has a completely different set of DNA and chromosomes. When something is part of someone, it has the same DNA, and exact same DNA fingerprinting as the other tissues in the body.
Perhaps because that "metaphor" (*analogy) doesn't work in the slightest.
Your analogy implies that he is saying that different types of humans are worth less. Your analogy would work better against a racist; a dog is still a dog whether they're brown, black or white; a human is still a human whether they're brown, black or white.
A foetus is a fraction of a human, not a different "type" of human. A group of cells connected to a woman's body. If it cannot survive outside the womb, then the woman holds the decision of what to do with it.
If you are against early abortions, then you must be against masturbation, and sex for pleasure, because it's the same concept. All you're doing is killing cells which are not human yet, but have the potential to be human.
"Your analogy would work better against a racist; a dog is still a dog whether they're brown, black or white; a human is still a human whether they're brown, black or white."
"would work better"..........meaning its good thats why you got it at least. But the frozen head doesn't get it at all.....such a pity...
....
I can explain a bit the colours...
Let
Dog= human
Black = foetus(potential to be a complete human)
Brown= handicapped
human
White= A fine human....
"If you are against early abortions, then you must be against masturbation, and sex for pleasure, because it's the same concept. All you're doing is killing cells which are not human yet, but have the potential to be human."
Early or late abortion is still murder: there is nothing wrong with sex for pleasure but you should be ready to take responsibility if your 'rubber' prank goes wrong. Even if you take pills, at any time if anything goes wrong maybe forgetfulness......don't be a coward take charge of the responsibility....
And masturbation is just stupid...but then its your life, your stick and your choice.
"All you're doing is killing"
Killing what? Potential.
And you make it sound like nothing....。by using 'All' to sum it up into a simple picture. as if people against it are just deluded with morality......justifying and condoning...hmm
Congratulations. You just made an extremely racist analogy. Was that intentional or are you just stupid?
Early or late abortion is still murder
You didn't address my point. How can you accept sex for pleasure and masturbation, yet deny early abortions? What's the difference between a sperm and a foetus at one week? They're both just undeveloped humans which have 0% chance of living outside the womb.
And masturbation is just stupid...
Oh, please. Don't act like you've never spanked the monkey before.
Killing what? Potential.
I'm going to assume you're not a vegetarian. How can you condone the killing and consumption of innocent animals, yet not the removal of something that can't even think and survive yet?
"Congratulations. You just made an extremely racist analogy. Was that intentional or are you just stupid"
I don't share that view
My motive counts。。。
and also governed by the debates' topic.
Racism can't be a factor...
You chose to deviate.
"Oh, please. Don't act like you've never spanked the monkey before."
Maybe you stole my memory.
You are remembering for me.
". How can you condone the killing and consumption of innocent animals, yet 。.........."
Even non vegetarian animals eat up each other because they know they lack potential to achieve anything in life. The jungle never developed...lack of potential...
Every human has potential from clot of blood to old age.
"They're both just undeveloped humans which have 0% chance of living outside the womb."
Because they were made to live in the womb. The womb is for them not for food or anything.
You speak as if you survived outside your mother's womb......
"What's the difference between a sperm and a foetus at one week?"
Then why did you make that analogy instead of, I don't know, not making a blatantly racist analogy?
and also governed by the debates' topic.
Racism can't be a factor...
You chose to deviate.
So if I go onto an abortion debate and post "THE JEWS DESERVE TO BE ANNIHILATED", it's not antisemitic because it's deviating from the topic? Gotcha.
Maybe you stole my memory.
You are remembering for me.
Is this supposed to be a diss...? The insult is directed at me masturbating, as if I would be ashamed and disgusted that you would imply that I masturbate...? Doesn't really work. I'll happily admit that I love a wank every now and then.
Even non vegetarian animals eat up each other because they know they lack potential to achieve anything in life.
Who says they lack potential? You? What do you define as "potential"?
What is potential to us, is very unlikely to be potential to a pack of lions. To them, potential might be raising cubs, or becoming leader of the pack, etc...
Your entire argument implies that you deem animals to be worth less than humans. But why? Because they're a different species?
Because they were made to live in the womb.
How does this refute my argument?
Potential.....
Hold on a second... you're saying sperm doesn't have potential... but a foetus does? You do know how foetuses are made, don't you?
Why are you asking me why as if i'm obliged under a certain to law to use colours for only racist analogies.
Ugh. You're trying my patience with your idiocy. If you cannot see what is racist about the analogy you used, then you're a lost hope.
The sense i could make is you represent unborn children with Jews and annihilate as in abortion.
Which yet contradicts with my point of view.
But even you couldn't have made out that sense out of your own incomplete attempt of an analogy.
Jesus fucking Christ. I wasn't making an analogy to abortion you deplorable airhead. You said that racism can't be a factor because that was not the topic of the debate. My comparison was that by your logic if I made an antisemitic comment on an unrelated debate, it's not antisemitic because antisemitism wasn't a factor in the debate topic. It's just ludicrous.
I wonder what you get from that.
I will say it is okay for a teenager anticipating sex to do that but you?
How old are you?
I'm 17, and I'll continue to wank up until I've lost the strength in my arms. It's not about "anticipating" sex - I've had plenty of that - it's about me having the ability to masturbate, so why not?
which animal has been able to make a light bulb.
We survived for around 200,000 years without electricity. How does the ability to make a light bulb make one superior?
A sperm is an element and a fetus is a formula.
That's the difference.
They still both have potential. Why does it matter which one is an element and which one is a formula?
No you see comprehension of your idiotic statements is precisely why I choose to ignore a lot of what you say .
You present daily various examples of the ' personality ' and the ' probing intellect ' of an ass who has half its brains beaten out by its frustrated owner ; in short most of what you say is void of meaningful implication:)
I think you need to read those comments again as you're so dense you think when people disagree with you they're argeeing ; I've yet to see one person agree with anything you've said you dumb brute
Yes it's very difficult for you because you're an idiot , and I see everyone is now tearing your stupid rants apart ; how did you end up so dimwitted ?
Still no one agreeing with you andthe only one doesn't get it is you as you're a cretin , now maybe you should go off and answer all the questions you keep ignoring ?
No one comprehends you and I've yet to see anyone agree with your idiotic statements , because you're right no comprehends or agrees with a Ghanaian cretin :)
By your argument, you have committed the ad hominem fallacy in calling your opponent a cretin. I have noticed this quite a bit from your arguments, they seem to be all directed at the people who made the arguments, instead of the arguments themselves.
No incorrect , my opponent is a gibbering idiot this is a fact if you bothered to read his nonsense .
If someone makes an argument and engages in a correct manner I will likewise reply but if one is going to make nasty remarks they will get them back double .
I note you do not take to task the person who used ad hominem on me whys that ?
I suggest in future you get your facts right so I don't have to correct you ... again
Adding this message was not only meant to apply just to you. the ad hominem fallacy example applies to everyone who uses it. I happen to know who you speak of, but i find it quite hypocritical of you to use this fallacy in response to my calling you out on it.
The hypocrisy in your statement was that in response to me calling you out on your ad hominem fallacy, you shifted the attention on someone else using a non sequitur, and used another ad hominem fallacy on top of that. Furthermore, you have no proof that the individual you were speaking of was or was not a person who fits the definition of that word. You also seem to have no argument for the topic we are debating here besides the one i have already shot down, you have simply, this entire time, been calling your opponents cretins and idiots, which is not an argument but a series of insults.
You made a statement which was incorrect I corrected you and now you're sore , it also appears you are one using non sequiturs as you're making little sense .
Again I will correct you I have more than enough proof that my statement about the individual is correct if you wish you can set up a fan club and a FB page for him if it makes you happy :)
Again another correction , I set my argument out at the top,of the thread your lack of comprehension skills is hardly my fault , and no I didn't see your alleged ' shooting down ' of my points .
I also noted like a big child you declared me an enemy something I've never resorted to here .
When you have an anything resembling an argument please post it up otherwise fuck off .
Why would I care to look when you totally ignored my initial post ?
You haven't ' established ' anything you've stated your position and again using terms like ' scientifically indisputable ' shows you're merely trying to force your viewpoint , also you need to define the term murder don't you ?
Going to the shop to buy some plastic rectangularly(80%) shaped object and get a metal into a hole in it and then aim it at a wood, pull the trigger, if you weren't satisfied with the reaction of the wood then you point it to a homo sapien and then you try again......and the reaction is more fun after that...nice game.....my favourite.
I wouldn't call it murder if i choose to see it that way....Right?
So easily said like a psychopath would say it.
Anything which has blood that you kill is murder. If there is blood(beginning), there is pain. Babies start from a clot of blood into a full bodied human that you are........n...
If abortion is not murder then throwing a metal at a grown arse homo sapien is not murder.
Yes, once the fetus leaves the womb it becomes an independent entity. I could ask is abortion to murder what a miscarriage is to manslaughter? I mean, following most "abortion is murder" ideologies, then we should be charging women with miscarriages to manslaughter, no?
-In what world is the entity of a human baby independent? Once the baby is born it becomes more of a dependent burden.
-No. Dying due to natural cause is not at all akin to dying because someone accidentally killed you.
-If a potential human is not human until it leaves the womb, how does one account for births at imprecise and various points of gestation? Does medical technology that increases surviveability of premiture birth also decrease the time it takes to become human?
-In what world is the entity of a human baby independent? Once the baby is born it becomes more of a dependent burden.
A financial burden for a while does not mean that it's existence is entirely dependent. It can now have independent experiences, and the sustainance of its life isn't then dependent.
Does medical technology that increases surviveability of premiture birth also decrease the time it takes to become human?
It prematurely actualises the potential.
But, if you understand that already, then yes, of course.
I hope you can see why your opinion on the matter is not likely to persuade.
A baby has independent experiences in the womb.
The idea that a baby becomes an independent entity after it is born is all well and good to say, but everyone knows that babies are not actually independent. Which makes it a tough philosophical sell.
The idea that medical technological advancements will decrease the time it takes to become human is also a hard sell. Eventually, doctors will be able to bring a baby to term completely independent of a mother. When that happens, would you argue that life begins at conception? Not likely.
The alternative perspective is that a baby is actually not a human when in another human, but actually IS a human when not in another, and that this difference of environment is the sole determinant of humanity. This is too arbitrary to hold weight with your opposition.
You might be interested to know that people are actually not human when in prison. True story. They are not independent entities. If my proposition sounds arbitrary, then you may see the problem with your own.
everyone knows that babies are not actually independent. Which makes it a tough philosophical sell.
Nothing is then independent. I wonder what leads you to base decisions on such universal generalisations.
Eventually, doctors will be able to bring a baby to term completely independent of a mother. When that happens, would you argue that life begins at conception?
That's entirely unrelated to whatever I might have said.
As long as it is a fetus, its life has not begun.
You might be interested to know that people are actually not human when in prison. True story. They are not independent entities. If my proposition sounds arbitrary, then you may see the problem with your own.
They don't need the building of jail to be and in well condition as a necessary factor of existence. I wonder what part you see as parallel to draw the example from.
All babies. They respond to pain stimuli and stress. There are indications that they dream. When they are small, they swim.
Your senses are constrained and limited as are everyones. The various ways in which they are constrained is part of what creates independent experience.
Nothing is then independent. I wonder what leads you to base decisions on such universal generalisations.
They are called concepts. The ability to conceptualize is useful to understanding the world around me.
People can become independent from each other. They can be self-sustaining in that no other person must sustain them . People can do this, but not when they are babies.
That's entirely unrelated to whatever I might have said
It's not unrelated at all:
“Does medical technology that increases surviveability of premiture birth also decrease the time it takes to become human?
It prematurely actualises the potential.
But, if you understand that already, then yes, of course.”
If the time it takes to become human is altered (decreased) by technology, then each lifesaving advancement for sustaining a child that prematurely exits the womb serves to delegitimize any abortion that might occur at that same stage. If we advance to the point at which a fetus is medically viable outside of the womb at the point of conception, then all abortion will become illegitimate, from a viability standpoint.
As long as it is a fetus, its life has not begun
Do you mean that killing a day old child is murder, but killing it the day before is perfectly acceptable? At what point during the birthing does it stop being a fetus?
They don't need the building of jail to be and in well condition as a necessary factor of existence. I wonder what part you see as parallel to draw the example from.
A child can potentially survive after being born at 5 ½ months. Thus, it does not need the environment of a womb as a necessary factor of existence. You reason that the child’s environment (a womb) determines whether it is human.
They can be self-sustaining in that no other person must sustain them .
They can't. That's a tautology.
Because you seem rather insistent to try out paradoxes and fallacies against me. Let's see how far you can go with your words.
At what point during the birthing does it stop being a fetus?
When it experiences the real world.
Though it is developed enough a while before that to have the experiences. But it still doesn't exist in reality.
A child can potentially survive after being born at 5 ½ months.Thus, it does not need the environment of a womb as a necessary factor of existence. You reason that the child’s environment (a womb) determines whether it is human.
It'd grow rather off-topic there. But still, potential life won't be treated as actual life. Also, if that's right, then my criticism of the analogy was a bit off the mark.
The criminal isn't potentially alive, but free, and the jail is a necessary environment in which the potential is not yet actualised.
They respond to pain stimuli and stress.
That's unconscious.
There are indications that they dream.
There isn't enough information in the brain to really dream.
Your senses are constrained and limited as are everyones. The various ways in which they are constrained is part of what creates independent experience.
Another one of those vague universalisations.
Their being constrained by your bodily limits is their function, and they aren't so much constrained as in a fetus.
Because you seem rather insistent to try out paradoxes and fallacies against me. Let's see how far you can go with your words
Simply saying they people can’t is not actually an argument, especially when they can. Pointing out that a thing is it’s definition may be tautological, but that doesn’t make it false, it makes it fundamentally true. Insisting that my position engages fallacies and paradoxes provides one avenue to avoid the subject you are failing to defend. Lets see how far you can go with your avoidance.
When I asked at what point a fetus becomes a baby, you said When it experiences the real world.
Though it is developed enough a while before that to have the experiences. But it still doesn't exist in reality
I’ve never before heard the argument that the inside of a womb is outside of reality. The notion that a fetus can have experiences in a place that doesn’t exist in reality is a paradox. You are using it against yourself.
Perhaps this is needless to say, but your comment isn’t actually true. The inside of the womb is a place. It exists. In this world.
The criminal isn't potentially alive, but free
The fetus isn’t potentially alive, but human. It is certainly alive. It metabolizes.
You claimed that pain response is unconscious, except that fetuses develop sleep cycles. States of unconsciousness that contrast with states of wakefulness.
You claimed that they don’t have enough information to dream. Do you know how much information is required? They have a wide range of noises, pressures, temperatures, light, and chemical/nutrient input responses. Given they present brainwave data that is analogous to that of a dreaming person, there is no reason to believe they don’t dream.
Another one of those vague universalisations.
Their being constrained by your bodily limits is their function, and they aren't so much constrained as in a fetus.
It, then, just limits the extent of experiences
Your derisive characterization of concept as “vague universalization” is either a crude attack at legitimate criticism, or evidence of your inability to understand the concepts I present. Neither looks good for you.
Their being constrained is not their function, it is one small aspect of their condition. One of their primary functions (among others) is to metabolize and grow. That’s life.
When I say that a fetus has an independent experience, I mean that it has a subjective experience. It does not matter that its senses are constrained, all of our sense are constrained. This does not remove the existence of an independent experience. Neither in the womb nor otherwise.
Simply saying they people can’t is not actually an argument, especially when they can. Pointing out that a thing is it’s definition may be tautological, but that doesn’t make it false, it makes it fundamentally true. Insisting that my position engages fallacies and paradoxes provides one avenue to avoid the subject you are failing to defend. Lets see how far you can go with your avoidance.
You always have to depend on others for your survival.
The inside of the womb is a place. It exists. In this world.
That's obvious. I didn't say that it was imaginary, but if I did and that were true, it'd still be able to experience things in an imaginary place.
You're attacking something unrelated to what I said.
That meant that it exists potentially in the real world, ie., it isn't yet really alive. And if you really care about potential life, then you're destroying it each second that you're not reproducing.
there is no reason to believe they don’t dream.
Okay, but the ability to dream would still only suggest that their potential has developed rather than actualised. Womb is not the world.
Your derisive characterization of concept as “vague universalization” is either a crude attack at legitimate criticism, or evidence of your inability to understand the concepts I present.
The constraints to an adult, old man, and a fetus are very different things. You're vaguely collecting them considering it a "legitimate criticism". Their organ capabilities are constrained, while to the fetus, it's senses are the level of a reptile that has always been trapped.
Their being constrained is not their function, it is one small aspect of their condition. One of their primary functions (among others) is to metabolize and grow. That’s life.
Okay, it's their condition. I couldn't remember the right word while writing that.
You always have to depend on others for your survival
No you don’t. People are very capable of surviving independent of other people. Most adults are interdependent, not dependent, which is a better option, but not a requirement. But more to this point, fetuses rely on their mother. When they are born, they continue to be heavily reliant for quite some time. When they are born prematurely, they are even more reliant on more resources from others than if they had stayed in the womb. The reliance of an entity on others does not determine its humanity. Nor does it’s location (in the womb)
That meant that it exists potentially in the real world, ie., it isn't yet really alive.
Except that it is really alive. That’s not disputed scientifically speaking. If it wasn’t alive, then how come premature babies struggle to stay alive. You seem to think that whether or not a thing is alive depends on its location. Which is absurd.
Okay, but the ability to dream would still only suggest that their potential has developed rather than actualized
And you think I am vague? Has an infant “actualized” its potential? Have you?
The constraints to an adult, old man, and a fetus are very different things. You're vaguely collecting them considering it a "legitimate criticism".
People are variously constrained in different ways yes. The manner and degree to which and individual is constrained has no relation whatsoever to the question of whether the individual is alive. Which is my point. I would argue that a quadriplegic in a temporary coma is more constrained than a fetus and it wouldn’t change the fact that the quadriplegic is alive.
Their organ capabilities are constrained, while to the fetus, it's senses are the level of a reptile that has always been trapped
It’s senses are at the level of a mammal that has always been in a womb. A human mammal to be precise. Go back and explain why constraint is an appropriate justification for abortion. Also explain how a things location in the womb means it is not alive.
I could, certainly, go on explaining that, but it seems like there isn't much common to begin with
Meaning I fundamentally disagree. Why would you only debate people who agree?
And I know better than doing infinite regressions
Meaning you don't want to defend your assertions, just assert them.
Do you dispute that your being is defined by your experiences, memories and thoughts?
I am aware of my being though experiences, memories, and thoughts. Lacking them does not necessitate lacking being.
Also, I won't be explaining the most little of things
If you are using a concept as a foundation for your argument, you should be able to articulate that concept. If you cannot, it is not a failure in my brain, but in yours. Especially if you wish to accuse me of fuzzy generalizations while claiming that actual fetus's are not actualized.
The other things, you might understand by yourself. If you can understand it right now, I'd be surprised.
Claiming the stupidity of your opponent, as an excuse for failing to make a reasoned argument, is not itself a reasoned argument. The only possibly valid purpose of this statement would be to elicit an emotional response from me. Failing that, it reflects poorly upon your own position.
Consider it as just asking your point of view on the nature of those arguments, though it's also about whether you have one.
Consider what exactly? If you want my point of view on the nature of a given argument, you’ll have to present the argument. I have already told you what I think of your position on fetal confinement and location as reasonable justification for abortion.
You couldn't be more circular. It's absurd at that point.
Stating that which is self-evident is neither circular nor absurd. A person can temporarily cease to experience, think, and remember. They don’t stop being. You don’t stop being if you fall into a coma or when you have dreamless sleep. You stop being when you die. It doesn’t get more straight forward.
I've made enough reasoned arguments, but as long as they do nothing, they aren't fine enough.
Here’s a summary of your arguments:
-Fetuses are dependent, babies are independent.
I demonstrated that neither are independent, but that adults are.
-Fetuses are constrained, which makes them not human or not alive.
I demonstrated that living humans are variously constrained.
-Fetuses don’t live until they exit the womb.
I countered with the scientific understanding of life and demonstrated that the location of a living thing does not determine whether it is alive.
-Fetuses do not experience.
This is, by all indications, factually inaccurate.
You have made arguments. Calling them reasoned is a stretch. Neither confinement, nor location determine the life status nor the humanity of an entity. Nor is thought, memory, and experience sufficient to determine a beings existence.
When asking what you want me to consider you responded:
The questions, of course.
If you can't answer the questions properly, then your beliefs are unfounded and you probably can't be convinced if you're already aware of that
I have answered all of your questions as directly as possible. I have not been circular. Where there have been differences in our understanding of a word or concept, I have elaborated. Your failure to successfully support your own position does not indicate failure in my critique.
It doesn't reflect anything poor for my position.
Claiming the stupidity of your opponent, as an excuse for failing to make a reasoned argument, does reflect poorly on your position. If you fail to understand this, your presentation of your position will not improve.
Stating that which is self-evident is neither circular nor absurd. A person can temporarily cease to experience, think, and remember. They don’t stop being. You don’t stop being if you fall into a coma or when you have dreamless sleep. You stop being when you die. It doesn’t get more straight forward.
Haha, “I won't be explaining the most little of things, so keep your brain working.”..
As though I really need to take the time to look up the meaning of basic words for you.
Death is the end of the biological process (metabolism) required to sustain an organism. It is the loss of organic ordiny in favor of relative entropy for an organism. The state of an organism following the end of it's life. Death.
So, your being is composed of your metabolism? You're essentially just your metabolism?
Metabolism is necessary to life as a human, but it is not sufficient. I also have experiences. I have experience in the manner and form consistent with that of the human being. The knowledge that organisms have experiences is the cause for our concern for other living things, our own species first and foremost.
The uncertainty concerning the experience of other organisms leads to the social phenomenon of animal rights advocates and tree huggers. No one is concerned about rocks, they lack the necessary metabolism to indicate they may have experience.
To bring this back to the topic at hand, A fetus has elements necessary to an independent human being, but is not sufficient. It takes roughly 14 years practically, 18 years legally, and 25 years biologically (neurologically) to be a complete and independent human being (typically). You may be able to claim a fetus is not fully human, but neither is a 5 year old, and we know a fetus is not even partially anything else.
Thus, the argument against a fetus’s complete or independent humanity is not sufficient to justify abortion. Stating that it is morally acceptable to kill small children would be sufficient, but no one wants to say that.
Metabolism is necessary to life as a human, but it is not sufficient. I also have experiences. I have experience in the manner and form consistent with that of the human being. The knowledge that organisms have experiences is the cause for our concern for other living things, our own species first and foremost.
Necessary? To your being?
So, if we remove your metabolism, and put in its place some inorganic technology that could achieve the same results, perhaps more efficiently, but entirely differently, how would it affect your being?
To bring this back to the topic at hand, A fetus has elements necessary to an independent human being, but is not sufficient.
Yes, if it can be said with sufficient reason that it is really alive, (which I'd see as it can and does have independent experiences, but perhaps you might be on a ground that supports your view) then aborting it being moral isn't really supportable.
While our experiences depend on the objective world, it's are based on conditions in the womb. If we are under similar restrictions, as we might possibly be, then even we aren't really alive.
So, if we remove your metabolism, and put in its place some inorganic technology that could achieve the same results, perhaps more efficiently, but entirely differently, how would it affect your being?
It’s hardly conceivable as the very phenomenon of experience depends on metabolic processes which are by definition organic. You're describing a world wherein machines can be said to be alive. Nonetheless, if a machine replaced the metabolic processes through which I experience, then that would be the affect on my being. At that point I would have experience through a different means.
As it is though, the metabolic process is the only known avenue through which a thing can experience.
While our experiences depend on the objective world, it's are based on conditions in the womb. If we are under similar restrictions, as we might possibly be, then even we aren't really alive.
Objective reality includes the conditions in the womb. We are all under various constraints, but this doesn’t remove us from the realm of the living. Rather the realm of the living extends to all of us with metabolic processes and experience, including those of us in a womb.
It kinda has to in order to birthed. Also as soon as the BABY has a heart beat then it is obvious a human. Come on even my 4 year sister knows that much
No. Murder is the killing of a human being, a cluster of cells is not a human being. A fertilised egg is not a human being. These laws are based on the abstract concept of life anyway, you cannot try and make it more abstract by trying to call some cells, which themselves are arrangement of proteins with no conscious thoughts, a living thing.
People argue that there are stages in the development of a foetus that when gone past, classify it as living, and anywhere past or close to this time would indeed constitute murder. These checkpoints in growth can be development of a central nervous system, a beating heart, a brain, electrical activity in the brain, or a theoretical point where the child would be able to survive independently. The problem with this is that it is utterly impossible to try and draw lines like and I shall explain why: Let's say that we do draw a line, say at the development of a central nervous system, firstly what is the CNS, there are different views of what it actually would be when first developed, but even ignoring this, what if this line of age is crossed meaning abortion at this point is now murder - are you really saying that just a week earlier it was not abortion, it was something else? How about a day, what if just one day earlier an abortion was carried out, we are to say that that was not murder but one day later it is, all because a few thousand cells grew in a specific place? Who are we to say which stage of development defines life, and how can we even say when a few grains of sand turns into a "pile" so to speak, there is no point after which it is murder and before it is not.
I also however would argue against the belief that there are indeed no lines and that all abortion is murder. This is simply false, as aforementioned, a fertilised egg is not life, not even close to life. The only thing that you can argue is that it has potential for life, but if this is believed then you would believe that all egg and sperm cells have potential for life, and thus the menstrual cycle when a women is not fertilised is now immoral? Then also you run into the issue of a definition for potential for life, could an instance be potential for life, would having protected sex or not having sex at all contradict this law of not killing potential for life? Therefore no abortion is murder, and while this may be believed, there are often circumstances where the act of killing something which could be life at some point is certainly the right thing, not only because a mother has domain over her body, but there are important socioeconomic issues often that cannot be ignored.
The arguments that you have presented are obviously based on a straw man fallacy. The argument is that the very moment an egg is conceived, it is then a human life. There is no point that can go against this seeing as there is no way to prove otherwise without bringing into the mix opinionated arguments. Genetically, the embryo is a HUMAN, it has 46 chromosomes, just like you and I
So if we just rip your heart out of your body and cut it into pieces for no particular reason that shouldn't be an issue right? I mean it's not a living thing it's just a bundle of cells. According to your logic, as long as its just a bundle of cells that cant think on its own it doesn't deserve to exist so we can just go ahead and take out your heart, lungs, stomach, liver, any part of you that's just a useless pile of unintelligent cells because that is 100% justifiable.
Good, pointed out flaws in the opposition's argument, though i would have to say that at some point you have to admit that there is immorality in abortion before birth. For example a child a month before birth could survive out of the womb and likely has 'thoughts' to some degree. The science is not that strong to back it up, but you must agree that a foetus this close to birth should not be allowed to be aborted.
People argue that there are stages in the development of a foetus that when gone past, classify it as living, and anywhere past or close to this time would indeed constitute murder. These checkpoints in growth can be development of a central nervous system, a beating heart, a brain, electrical activity in the brain, or a theoretical point where the child would be able to survive independently. The problem with this is that it is utterly impossible to try and draw lines like and I shall explain why: Let's say that we do draw a line, say at the development of a central nervous system, firstly what is the CNS, there are different views of what it actually would be when first developed, but even ignoring this, what if this line of age is crossed meaning abortion at this point is now murder - are you really saying that just a week earlier it was not abortion, it was something else? How about a day, what if just one day earlier an abortion was carried out, we are to say that that was not murder but one day later it is, all because a few thousand cells grew in a specific place? Who are we to say which stage of development defines life, and how can we even say when a few grains of sand turns into a "pile" so to speak, there is no point after which it is murder and before it is not.
This is a bad argument... Reason why? because doctors don't genuinely think that way obviously. Of course they understand the the fallibility in drawing lines like that, as long as that lines prevents what it is meant to it doesn't matter. As long as we never abort after a certain period of time then the event of a sentient fetus capable of pain and emotion being aborted is more guaranteed to not Occur. For example you can't legally drive unless you are 16. I am sure there are some 14 year olds who might drive really well... that doesn't mean I think it is a good that every 14 year old should be able to.
Okay, yes this is what I was going to cover I had a bit more time to finish it. I believe that the abortion week limits can be put in place for humanitarian reasons not due to development progression. But that's not the debate, remember it is is abortion murder, and i remain my stance that it is not murder. While these caps being puts on as a guarantee that no foetuses suffer is the case, that is irrelevant to the debate at hand because it is one of whether it is murder or not rather than whether it is legal or not. So I believe that it is still not murder until self-sustaining life has developed, but since this point cannot be determined then abortion cannot be said to ever be murder
No. Murder is the killing of a human being, a cluster of cells is not a human being
A human being is a cluster of cells.
These laws are based on the abstract concept of life anyway
Of course a cluster of cells is alive. By strict definition. The question is when is that cluster of cells is a human.
Let's say that we do draw a line, say at the development of a central nervous system… what if this line of age is crossed meaning abortion at this point is now murder - are you really saying that just a week earlier it was not abortion, it was something else?
If we can say that this line is the earliest possible point at which a cluster of cells is human, then yes, a week earlier it was something else.
and how can we even say when a few grains of sand turns into a "pile"
There is a point at which everyone agrees we have a pile of sand. There is also a point at which no one would call grains of sand a “pile”. Our ignorance concerning when a cluster of sand grains becomes a pile does not negate that what is a pile now, was not a pile before, and that a change occurred in the interim.
Are you really going to say that sex with someone on their birthday is not a crime when sex with that person the day before was a pretty serious one? Yes. Your incredulity notwithstanding.
Therefore no abortion is murder
This is as absurd as claiming that no arrangement of sand is ever a pile. That no amount of hair on ones face equals a beard. To reverse your incredulity, are you really saying that killing an infant is murder, but killing it the day before (while in the womb) is not?
there are often circumstances where the act of killing something which could be life at some point is certainly the right thing, not only because a mother has domain over her body, but there are important socioeconomic issues often that cannot be ignored
So I believe that it is still not murder until self-sustaining life has developed
Your analysis is built around the idea that no beard is a beard, that no amount of sand is a pile, that no amount of development in a womb creates a human life. Drawing the line at birth eliminates the issue of bodily domain, but not the socioeconomic issues. And babies are not actually self-sustaining. Thus, your line of reasoning can easily be applied to say that there are very important socioeconomic issues which justify the killing of children prior to the point at which a kid can potentially survive independently, roughly 6.
Yes, but what sets us apart is a conscious and experience through senses. Your spit has clusters of cells in it, but you wouldn't compare this to a human being.
Of course a cluster of cells is alive. By strict definition. The question is when is that cluster of cells is a human.
Yes cells themselves are alive, I've not put my point across properly here. But they are not humans, some say that they are "potential humans", but this is just some made-up, non-tangible worthless label that means nothing.
There is a point at which everyone agrees we have a pile of sand. There is also a point at which no one would call grains of sand a “pile”. Our ignorance concerning when a cluster of sand grains becomes a pile does not negate that what is a pile now, was not a pile before, and that a change occurred in the interim.
Are you really going to say that sex with someone on their birthday is not a crime when sex with that person the day before was a pretty serious one? Yes. Your incredulity notwithstanding.
Yes if you read my other post you would see that these regulations like your sex analogy are only put in place for purely humanitarian reasons to appease the people. But in terms of morality and murder/not murder you cannot set a line where something that is not murder becomes murder suddenly.
Yes I talk about the hair being a full beard as I say that it becomes murder only once a theoretical point of potential independent survivability is surpassed, but since this cannot be a specific point in development, we must simply draw our own line late in development when the sand has certainly become the pile like I said
But in terms of morality and murder/not murder you cannot set a line where something that is not murder becomes murder suddenly.
According to the most liberal approach to abortion, this line is present and exists at birth. While you may argue that killing the child is not murder on one specific day, few would be so morally corrupt as to approve of the killing the very next day. The only difference being the child’s location relative to the womb. If we can draw this line, in terms of morality for rape, saying that we cannot do the same for murder is arbitrary, unless you have some specific reason behind it.
Yes I talk about the hair being a full beard as I say that it becomes murder only once a theoretical point of potential independent survivability is surpassed, but since this cannot be a specific point in development, we must simply draw our own line late in development when the sand has certainly become the pile like I said
This point of independent survivability is not achieved upon birth, thus it serves as a poor moral marker. Furthermore, it is as arbitrary a moral standard as is a heartbeat. Given a newborn baby can hardly be said to have independent survivability, one might say that this is just some made-up, non-tangible worthless label that means nothing. Whereas the concept of potential is at least intelligible and relevant.
To understand that a fetus becomes a human life at some point in the interim between conception and birth, and to conclude that we must “draw our own line late in development”, is to concede that we will in fact end human life a certain percentage of the time. It is morally inferior to drawing a line early in development, ensuring that we are not killing a human being. That is provided human life is a moral value.
Its not murder because its not yet a human life. it is a parasite that survives on off the host body. Once its capable of surviving outside the womb on its own then its a human being....
You forget the definition of parasite. a parasite is an organism that lives and feeds on or in an organism of a different species and causes harm to its host. the key word there is harm. A human baby is not a parasite. Furthermore, a parasite is an organism involved in the symbiotic relationship of parasitism, which is defined as one organism benefits, while the other is harmed. Both organisms benefit, because the woman is having her species continued. You also have skewed the definition of human. A human being is a member of the species of homo sapien. Homo sapien is defined by a number of characteristics, one of which is the number of chromosomes in the cells, in a genetically normal human, there is 46. in a genetically normal "fetus," there are 46 chromosomes, and the DNA inside of these is genetically different than that of the mother.
The problem with this resolution is that murder defines as being unlawful killing of a being. And at this moment abortion is legal so by the definition of murder no abortion is not murder. I am 100% against abortion however it is not murder.
Murder only exists if society declared a particular type of killing to be illegal and thus murder. War, self defense, police action, etc, are all killing but are not considered murder.
In current US society most abortions are not illegal and thus are not considered murder.
If the Supreme Court changes on it then I will acknowledge on this site it has become murder.
1. It's not illegal. Murder, at least if we are speaking about the legal term, murder refers to unlawful killing of human beings. Since abortion is legal and not unlawful that's one reason Abortion is not murder.
2. The "victim" is not a being. It might be human, but so is sperm, or fingernails, or hair, etc. What's more important to me is whether or not we are killing an actual being. It is technically alive but so are plants technically. Abortions after the point in which the the fetus develops a sensation for pain is typically illegal and thus don't result in the end of a human being life.
1. Abortion is only legal because people do not understand that it is murder. It does not make any sense for that to be an argument. It is like saying rape is not bad because it is not illegal. It is, but it was not before.
2. The "fetus" can feel pain and does notice when an abortion is actually happening. The "fetus" is a being, a human being. It is like saying that when you plant a seed and it starts to grow a little bit and you say it is not a plant, when it really is.
1. Abortion is only legal because people do not understand that it is murder. It does not make any sense for that to be an argument. It is like saying rape is not bad because it is not illegal. It is, but it was not before.
Dude I totally get where you are coming from, I've been on the other side of this argument on this issue. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean it should be...
However the debate isn't "Is abortion moral?" the question is "Is Abortion Murder?" and as of right now, it is not. legally.
I can be a very technical guy sometimes. Although we'd disagree on that issue as well.
King, I am just asking you what is your argument in a short paragraph. I know I got off topic before, but how did you argue before, and what changed you?
Nothing changed me. You misunderstand, I still held the same position. Somehow it was flipped, where the person arguing against abortion got to a point in which they used that argument somehow for why abortion shouldn't be illegal. Like maybe he was arguing that a fetus is technically human having DNA and therefore should be illegal. Then one of the points I made was that just because something is (or technically should be by law, whatever) illegal doesn't mean it should be. It was a while ago so it's a little fuzzy but I just remember coming across that same argument, from the pro-life point of view.
What you are doing here is obviously fallacious. just because something is the law doesn't mean it is true. In World War II the nazi party made it legal to slaughter Jews by the hundreds of thousands, but does this mean that it is not murder, legally it wasn't, but morally it was. I do wonder how this makes sense to you in our case here.
What you are doing here is obviously fallacious. just because something is the law doesn't mean it is true.
yes I agree, however if legality is relevant to the question it can affect what is true.
In World War II the nazi party made it legal to slaughter Jews by the hundreds of thousands, but does this mean that it is not murder, legally it wasn't, but morally it was.
Well obviously I am talking about Murder in legal context in this specific point. The debate creator here didn't give a specific definition for murder, and I simply made the point that legally it is not. So I agree with you, morally I would call the holocaust murder, but legally it wasn't. Doesn't mean the holocaust wasn't horrendous. If you want to challenge my other argument that applies for the more layman definition of murder, knock yourself out. However here, I am operating of the legal context definition of murder, something you and me both seem to agree on.
I do wonder how this makes sense to you in our case here.
Since you want to use the legal definition of murder, we can use the definition of murder as provided under section 18, U.S. Code § 1111. Murder is there defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought now there are some key-words we need to focus on, and those are killing of a human being, malice aforethought. the dictionary defines aforethought as previously in mind and malice as intent to do harm , and abortions aren't something you just decide one day that you are going to do like going to McDonald's for lunch. it requires prior planning, and most importantly, an appointment, which is a plan. Abortion does harm to the unborn, and as i have already established, an embryo is in fact a human being, and is indeed alive. So explain to me how you believe that abortion is not the killing of a human being with malicious forethought.
the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought
Key word... Unlawful. Abortion can be perfectly legal and thus not murder. Exactly What I have been saying from the start. Thanks for proving my point.
Well define murder bud. Murder in almost every definition if not every definition is the unlawful killing of_ so since abortion is currently legal therefore not unlawful therefore not murder.
There is no scientific definition of when life begins. I can see no reason to pick conception as the start of life, nor can I make an argument for birth. You could very easily make an argument that mastrubation is murder, because there goes potential life. Or, if you're a woman and you have your period, that's murder because you chose not to get pregnant in the past month. I honestly don't see how that logic is separate from saying that once the baby is growing in the womb, it's a human life.
And with that gray area, I think it is far more important to take care of the humans who are already functioning in our society and let them have control of their own lives.
So you'd condone the ending of a potential new Einstein or a new person that could find the cures to various diseases or potentially revolutionize the world? For all we know the world could be such a better place today due to someone significant but they were killed in the womb.
For all we know the world could be such a better place today due to someone significant but they were killed in the womb.
Two things:
1) My point is that while that is true post conception, it's also true pre-conception. Seriously. If a woman gets her period, that means that she now has one fewer egg. That egg could have contained the genetic material for the next Einstein. Has she just killed someone by choosing to not get pregnant? What about the use of condoms? Why is conception the only point where that argument applies?
2) Do you know what actually defines the people who are the 'Einstein's and scientists of the future instead of genetics? People who go to school. Do you know what happens to women who get pregnant when they're in college? Usually, they drop out.
I believe that every American citizen has a right to life liberty and happiness. Now most pro-life people would say I am denying the unborn it's right to life. I argue that a person becomes a American citizen by A: being born in America. or B: going through the proper legal channels of immigration. seeing as the unborn has done none of these I believe the child is not a citizen thus does not have the right to life. I also do not consider the unborn fetus to be a human life until said fetus is no longer connected to the mother. Until the fetus is living on its own and note I said living on its own not capable of living on its own it is still a part of the mother. The mother should be able to choose what she does with her body. Abortion doesn't kill a human it stops the potential for a new human.
Apparently, when I'm eating an egg I'm also eating a real live chicken. No wonder I'm putting on weight! They don't call it the "breath of life" for nothing!
Conservatives believe in proclaiming themselves "pro-life" until you pass through the birth canal, at which point they become "pro-Go screw yourself" and couldn't care less if you don't have health insurance, can't feed your family, go bankrupt paying off the hospital and your family (including said baby) is out on the street, or if you were raped to get to this point! At that point you become a lazy liberal and ALL of you deserve to die (including said baby). Aren't religious conservatives EVIL!??
