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.
Until a child is born it is basically a Parasite living within the mother and it's survival relies on the mother. It is better to have access to hygenic and "safe" abortions than women try and deal with unwanted pregnancies themselves or using backstreet abortionists which will happen if abortion is banned.
As long as that baby is in the mother and 100% dependent on her, it's not something that can be considered a separate part of her. If she dies, it dies. It's completely dependent on her, and as such, whether or not that baby is aborted should be up to the mother. Not to mention, to spin the argument on itself, if a woman is raped, she should have to endure pain and suffering for 9 months? That effectively turns the mother into the slave of the child.
To paraphrase markml0528, imagine a pair of twins. One is dying of kidney disease, the other is the only matching donor. Should we compel one twin to undergo a painful and potentially fatal procedure to give a kidney to the other ?
i completely agree! I believe it's not intentional of the baby to die. And if it were it just wasn't meant to be. We all die in the end and instead of making the baby suffer we should pt it to rest then lead it to believe everything will be alright. Especially if it a baby from rape. In my opinion i would not keep the child if i were to be raped i wouldnt want anything to do with him and have anything/anyone that resembles him!
Jawkins20 made an interesting comparison between slavery and abortion and cited the Dredd Scott decision. However in that decision the key term was "Living Person". A fetus cannot be a slave because it is not a living person.
As others have pointed out rape victims fall pregnant, these are people who have had their freedoms taken from them and been tortured already should the torture be extended by forcing them to have the baby. You cant be anti rape, anti slavery and anti abortion.
Slavery is about stealing and destroying someone's future, happiness and freedom for the sake of one's own personal agenda. It's about thinking that we're superior, more valuable and more entitled than the one we subjugate to our mercy. And to justify such oppression, we try to dehumanize the oppressed - they are not humans, they have no rights, they are not persons, they do not deserve anything over me.
Even if we look at the general rethoric of pro-choicers, it mirrors that of the slavery supporters:
Blacks are not persons, therefore they have no rights.
If you don't like slaves, don't own/have one, but don't tell me what I can and what I can't do. This is a free nation.
We are not ready for such extensive protection of human rights - the pragmatic needs of the society (whites) come before the rights of the few (blacks).
If I did not have slaves, I would have so many new responsibilities and as such, I wouldn't be able to follow my career and academic ambitions.
Just replace ''blacks'' with ''fetuses'' and ''slaves'' with ''abortions''.
Today we find these pro-slavery arguments to be patently absurd and we find ourselves asking - How could have something like this ever been possible. I'm convinced that in the next 100 years (hopefully much sooner) or so, we will have the same view on abortion.
Do you see abortion as acceptable at any point during the pregnancy? Because there is a very large biological difference between a zygote and a fetus in the 3rd trimester.
Absolutely not. In fact I strongly support most late term abortion bans. I'm comfortable with a ban on abortions after the first trimester or so, unless the mother's life is in IMMINENT danger
Abortion is not acceptable at any point during the pregnancy. The only exception I can think of is when there's a very good possibility that the mother may die. In this case I feel that the mother has the right to defend her life. Cases like these are incredibly rare and really shouldn't be mentioned when the main discourse is about selective abortions, not hard case abortions.
I'd like to know what that very large biological difference is? Is the fetus in the 3rd trimester ''more human''?
A zygote is a maximum of 8 cells. To put that into perspective, a cockroach has 1,000,000 in its brain alone. The zygote has no recognisable features, it does not have a beating heart, it does not have a brain, it does not have extremities or the foundations of a sexually reproductive system. It is an invisible cluster of cells that is parasitic in nature.
The fetus in the third trimester is far more than 8 cells. It's instantly recognisable, it has a beating heart, a functional brain, it has extremities and the foundations of a sexually reproductive system. It is not parasitic at this point, and can survive independently.
If that is not a large biological difference, I don't know what is.
I would also like to ask for what reasons you believe the zygote should be protected? I'm aware of the arguments against aborting third trimester fetuses, but none other than religious arguments for zygotes.
A zygote is a maximum of 8 cells. To put that into perspective, a cockroach has 1,000,000 in its brain alone. The zygote has no recognisable features, it does not have a beating heart, it does not have a brain, it does not have extremities or the foundations of a sexually reproductive system. It is an invisible cluster of cells that is parasitic in nature.
But what does the zygote have? It has a distinct genetical signature, it's sex, eye color, height, body type etc have all been determined.
It's current stage of development has no bearing on its humanity. You imply that a human's rights are contingent on his aesthetic characteristics - as in the more human the fetus looks, the stronger his/her right to life is. However, it becomes inexplicable as to why such a relationship wouldn't extend outside birth - as in that a more physically developed 25 year old has a greater right to life than a less developed 2 month old.
The fetus in the third trimester is far more than 8 cells. It's instantly recognisable, it has a beating heart, a functional brain, it has extremities and the foundations of a sexually reproductive system.
Once again, do you maintain that the more human the subject looks - the greater his/her right to life is? What is your criteria by which you define whether the fetus is a human or not?
It is not parasitic at this point, and can survive independently.
This point, when taken to its logical conclusion, has very absurd implications.
A fetus in the 3rd trimester is viable only when the mother has access to modern western medical technology. Women who live in africa, middle-east and other less developed regions - to them, 3rd trimester fetuses are not viable - they will most certainly die.
Basically it's the geographical location that will determine whether the fetus is human or not. Viability has very little to do in this question.
And about a fetus being a parasite? Does a woman have any obligations to the fetus during the time it is considered a parasite?
If that is not a large biological difference, I don't know what is.
Your large biological differences are essentially aesthetic characteristics that have no bearing on whether the organism is a living, developing member of the human race or not.
I would also like to ask for what reasons you believe the zygote should be protected? I'm aware of the arguments against aborting third trimester fetuses, but none other than religious arguments for zygotes.
Intellectual honesty is the reason why zygotes should be protected. If we follow what the embryologists tell us - then every human being begins their life as a fertilized egg. Therefore, a zygote is also a developing human being. If we are going to grant rights to the fertilized egg, then we must inevitably do the same for the zygote. Humans have the right to life by the sole virtue of being human beings, not because they grow ears or 2 arms or any other superficial characteristic.
Well, a human being begins as a fertilized egg, meaning for a human to come into existence the sperm must merge with the egg.
Abortion entails the termination of an already existing human being whereas killing sperms and eggs does not kill already existing humans. For a human to be harmed, the human must first exist.
It all depends where you want to draw the line on what constitutes a human being. Personally I don't see a blood clot with no organs, limbs, nerves, etc as a human being, I see it as something that could become a human being. So why not bring it one step back and say every human being begins it's life as a unfertilized egg and a single sperm cell? Is that not a true statement?
Like if you were building a house and you had all the wood for the framework laid out on one side, and all the sheet-rock for the walls laid out on the other, those are still the essential required ingredients to build the house, even though they're not touching, yet. If you were to go and smash up the wood or the sheet-rock, the house couldn't be built. So an unfertilized egg and single sperm is just a human being one step back... presumably the protein shake you drink to produce the sperm could also be considered a developed human being.
Point is, if you're in the business of equating 8 cells to a developed human being, I don't see why you should stop there.
It's current stage of development has no bearing on its humanity. You imply that a human's rights are contingent on his aesthetic characteristics - as in the more human the fetus looks, the stronger his/her right to life is. However, it becomes inexplicable as to why such a relationship wouldn't extend outside birth - as in that a more physically developed 25 year old has a greater right to life than a less developed 2 month old.
I don't believe I've mentioned human rights in this debate yet, but I might as well now. What is your foundation for your belief in rights? Is it God given, provided by society, etc.
And the point of that comparison was to answer your question "what is the large biological difference between the two" (I paraphrase). I will go into rebutting the claims on rights when I know what your foundational belief in rights is.
Once again, do you maintain that the more human the subject looks - the greater his/her right to life is? What is your criteria by which you define whether the fetus is a human or not
As I said, I will delve into rights when I know where you stand on them (I don't want to start criticising God given rights if you're an atheist, for example).
And yes, the fetus is a human. The zygote I'm not so sure on. For me, there are two key features to being human; sentience and structure. Sentience being consciousness and self awareness, structure being our skeleton, muscles and organs. The zygote possesses neither of these, and thus, biologically, I'm not sure whether it truly is human. I see it more as the prelude to humanity, in the symphony of life, if you see where I'm going.
A fetus in the 3rd trimester is viable only when the mother has access to modern western medical technology. Women who live in africa, middle-east and other less developed regions - to them, 3rd trimester fetuses are not viable - they will most certainly die.
A fetus in the third trimester is a fetus until it is birthed. If what you were saying were true, it would be impossible for anyone to birth successfully in lesser developed regions, which while it is more difficult, is not impossible.
And about a fetus being a parasite? Does a woman have any obligations to the fetus during the time it is considered a parasite?
Biological obligations? Moral obligations? You'll have to be more specific here.
Your large biological differences are essentially aesthetic characteristics that have no bearing on whether the organism is a living, developing member of the human race or not.
I think not having a heart or a brain is quite a large biological difference compared to a creature that does. That is not an aesthetic issue.
Intellectual honesty is the reason why zygotes should be protected. If we follow what the embryologists tell us - then every human being begins their life as a fertilized egg. Therefore, a zygote is also a developing human being. If we are going to grant rights to the fertilized egg, then we must inevitably do the same for the zygote. Humans have the right to life by the sole virtue of being human beings, not because they grow ears or 2 arms or any other superficial characteristic.
The difference between "life" and "humanity" is a large one though. No-one disputes that the zygote is alive, however it is disputed, in the scientific community as well as socially, that the zygote is human. The standards by which we measure humanity would see a zygote classed as not human. However, in the interest of honesty, let it be known that there is no fundamental definition of species, humanity, or any other key term we may use in discourse.
Calling the fetus a clump of cells is nothing more than a euphemism. Clump of cells, a sack of flesh, lump of meat - call it what you want, but the fact is that it is a developing human being at its very first stages of development.
Science has given us a very clear answer in this question - that every new member of the human race begins their life as a fertilized egg. Modern embryology has played an instrumental part in my conversion to the pro-life position.
Certainly every human being begins as a fertilzed egg. The point though is that it is a fetus, with the potential to become a human being. Our challenge is to figure out when that potential is realized. IMO consciousness is key. It is well established that higher brain function is associated with the folding of brain matter. This and coincidentally the perception of pain happen in the 2nd trimester. This is why I personally support a ban on abortions sometime after 12 weeks.
Become a human being? The zygote in my case is already a human being. It may not be a person, but it certainly is a human being in the sense that it is an organism that belongs into the Homo Sapien species - it will go through the lifecycle of all human beings.
The fetus does not develop into a human, it develops as a human. A zygote will develope into a fetus which will develop into a baby which will develop into an infant which whill develop into a young adult etc etc until death.
For this discussion to continue, I need to know exactly what you mean by consciousness.
Yes, IMO a fetus in the 3rd trimester is more human than a fetus in the first hour of development. IMO humans are more than a collection of parts. At some point the brain develops enough complexity to become conscious. The current science seems to indicate this happens between 14 and 20 weeks.
Nicely written. But the fundamental difference is that even assuming that a fetus is a person with rights, with abortion we have to choose between the rights of two induviduals. If a raped woman is forced to carry an unwanted child isn't she now the slave ?
When a rapist suspends the bodily autonomy of the woman, violates it for his own ends - we call that rape.
When the woman suspends the bodily autonomy of the unborn human, violates his/her body for her own ends - we call that the woman's right.
How is it that rapist is condemned for his actions while the woman gets a free pass for something that essentially mirrors the crimes of the rapist?
When it comes to rights of the unwanted child against the mother - I think one would have to be a mad man to suggest that limited control over your body for 9 months outweighs the entire future lifetime of another human being.
We can also draw some very interesting conclusions here - When the child is unwanted, the mother is a slave. If the child is wanted - is the mother still a slave? If so, does she have any moral obligation to her unborn child even if that child was planned and wanted?
However slaves are living people and unborn children are not. In fact the term "unborn children" undermines your argument. How can an "unborn" child be living ?
Just because someone is not born yet, doesn't mean their not living. What do the nine months mean, if they weren't living. I guess when the mother feels kicking and moving inside her, it's nothing because it's not living until born. Life starts at conception, cell, fetus, baby. No matter what you chose to call it, once you stop something from life, then that is taking away the sanctity of life.
I respect your opinion and think your a good thinker, but I disagree. Until personhood is LEGALLY defined to begin at conception your position is only an opinion and should not be forced upon others by weight of law. Voters in Mississippi, one of the most conservative states in the union agree with me and voted down personhood laws.
In all do respect, I don't much think of some of the laws in this country. I know what is right inside me, my conscience is written on my heart by God. I truly believe that everyone should have the same right to life, no matter what. Life is a gift, and those unborn babies have that GOD given right, that no LAW maker should take away.
You'll understand, though, if we don't change our laws based off of what you perceive as gods moral instructions written on your heart? Separation of church and state and la-de-da?
Also you're saying life is a god given right and using that in conjuncture with "abortion = slavery," but in doing so I think you've kind of shot yourself in the foot, because according to Christian scripture, slavery is also a god given right. So if all our rights are not the result of societies progress into a civilization and are just hand-me-downs from god, god actually gives us the right to own slaves, and he lays out pretty specific rules for how you should procure and own one. So slavery actually does equal abortion in the sense that god approves of both and both should be legal, from your point of view.
In reference to pregnant women, the term "with child" occurs twenty-six times in the Bible. The term "with fetus" never occurs once.
In Luke chapter one, verses 36 and 41, we are told that Elisabeth conceived a "son" and that the "babe" leaped in her womb. God does not say that a "fetus" leaped in her womb! He says THE BABE leaped. This is the exact same word that God uses to describe Christ in the manger AFTER He is born (Luke 2:12, 16). In God eyes, an unborn babe and a newborn babe are the same. They are both living human beings!
Dear reader, please answer a question: What is an "infant?" Get the answer in your mind and keep it there for a moment. Do you have it? Okay, please consider Job 3:16: "Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light." Did you see that? Job referred to unborn children as INFANTS. Not fetuses! Not masses of tissue! INFANTS! In God's eyes, an unborn child is a living human baby. God never says once that an unborn child is anything less than a human being.
David said in Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." He did not say that a fetus was shapen in iniquity and conceived in iniquity. David, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said that HE was conceived. David, not a blob of tissue, was conceived.
The same is the case in Psalm 139:13-16:
"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."
Who was in the womb? David! A literal and living person. The Bible never uses anything less than human terms to describe the unborn.
Notice that in Jeremiah 1:5 we are told that God KNEW Jeremiah:"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
To further confirm the fact that God views the unborn child as a person, please consider Exodus 21:22-23:
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,"
If the woman has a premature birth and the child lives ("no mischief follows"), then there's no death penalty. However, if the child dies (or the woman dies) God says the death penalty applies: "thou shalt give life for life." Why would God require the death penalty if He didn't consider the unborn child to be a human being?
Friends, like it or not, God says that life begins at conception, and the unborn child is a human being.
But the Bible isn't alone in declaring this truth. Science also declares that an unborn child is just as much an independent human being as you. The original human cell consists of 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent. At no point during pregnancy does the mother contribute any new cells to the child. The original cell divides itself and multiplies to provide development and growth for the child. Scientifically speaking, the child is just as independent at six months before birth as he will be six months after birth. Yes, the mother does provide nourishment to the unborn child, but she also provides nourishment to the newborn child!
At two weeks pregnancy, the "fetus" can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother.
Friends, abortion is wrong because abortion is MURDER!
In reference to pregnant women, the term "with child" occurs twenty-six times in the Bible. The term "with fetus" never occurs once.
This (and most of the scripture you copy/pasted below it) does absolutely nothing to refute my argument and, if anything, shows the ignorance of the people living in those times. A fetus is not an infant. "Fetus" specifically refers to unborn, developing offspring, while "infant" typically means birth to one year. So how could a word that explicitly refers to our young before birth possibly be the same as a word that specifically refers to our young after birth?
So basically the people in the Bible were pointing to a basket of unhatched eggs and going, "Look! Chickens!" In all fairness, it's not like they had the collective medical knowledge and technology necessary to make such a distinction, but their mistake should now be thrown out as it has been refuted by modern science, as have so many other mistakes in the Bible.
So you posted scripture scripture scripture, all of it interpreted by you to mean that fully developed children (or infants) are crawling around in their mothers wombs for some 9 months prior to birth. Then you spouted off more emotional arguments (i.e. "look at the little toes!"), which I don't buy, and nowhere at all did you address my point.
SO I'LL REPEAT MYSELF.
You're argument is flawed because we shouldn't base our laws on "because the Bible says so." Posting more scripture is not an adequate way to refute this.
Your argument is flawed because you say "abortion = slavery," but god is the final law giver and ultimate authority in your worldview and your god condones and encourages slavery.
And (I'm adding a new one, now, dispute the fact you haven't managed to even address the first two) even if you can show that the Bible, as the divinely inspired word of god, equates the life of an unborn fetus with that of a born child, it's not like the god of the Bible particularly values the life of children. The god of your Bible says we should kill children for talking back, among other things. So what whats the problem with killing children, all a sudden? That's how god behaves.
Yes, god was a big fan of casual genocide, either by his hand or his command. I remember one choice bit is Psalm where he says we should be "happy" and "blessed" should we smash the infants of the enemies of god on the rocks. And we should kill all the men, animals, and woman who have known men, but we should keep the young virgins for ourselves as war booty.
Yes, god is a singularly unpleasant character when it comes to needlessly killing children, which is why I have a problem believing he'd have any problem with abortion... most people who "kill" their "babies" via abortion have a much better reason for doing so than "he talked back to me" or "he wasn't the same bloodline."
I belive life starts sometime in the first trimester, but don't have the science to pin it down at the moent. I think the main critria should be someting like coherent neural activity but I'm not a doctor.
Look up abortion procedures and tell me that babies don't feel pain, when you hear them screaming while being torn apart. That is sickening and I my heart breaks for the babies.
It's called the silent scream. Ultrasound imaging show as the abortionist’s suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a “silent scream.” The child’s heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument.
The abortionist’s suction tip begins to rip the baby’s limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed.
In an effort to “dehumanize” the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby’s head as “number 1.” The abortionist crushes “number 1″ with the forceps and removes it from the uterus.
Women are victims, too. They haven’t been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge. NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion.
Look it up, this stuff is horrible and clearly shows the baby has feeling and struggles for survival while the abortion is taking place. How sickening this is legal.
What about when the "baby" doesn't have a face, or a mouth, or limbs, or any of the other things you're using to instil an emotional response from the readers?
When abortion is a doctor scrambling up and removing something about the size and shape of a blood clot, the whole process seems a whole lot horrific than the very choice examples anti-choice advocates use.
That wasn't the point of my post and you didn't answer my question. Clearly, as it's physically possible to abort a baby the week before its born, some aborted babies have heads, mouths, limbs, etc.
But what I'm wondering is if you still feel as strongly when the "baby* is just a lump of a few dozen cells, invisible to the naked eye, and absent all of the things you used in your emotional argument.
No, they didn't change my opinion, but perhaps that's because I've been the subject of more successful emotional arguments than that one, already. Also something I find hilarious about anti-choice people posting pictures of gristly abortions is that the most horrible and disgusting abortions occur in places where abortion is illegal. It's more dangerous for the woman and much more brutal for the fetus, and a lot of pictures used as propaganda against legal abortion are actually pictures of illegal abortions, just like a lot of abortion "horror stories" are back-alley abortions women are forced into because they have no safe medical alternative.
Anyways, my question:
But what I'm wondering is if you still feel as strongly when the "baby is just a lump of a few dozen cells, invisible to the naked eye, and absent all of the things you used in your emotional argument.*
Your argument thus far has essentially been, "Look at the little fingers and toes and it has a heart so it must be human so don't kill it!" So I'm wondering if you still feel as strongly when the "baby" is a group of 8 cells hanging out inside a blood clot.
All the pictures that are shown are of later term abortions. There are lots of abortions that do not look like that. They physically cant, the fetus has not developed any limbs or a face yet. Forget about later term abortions for now (like those pictures). Would you feel as strongly about the immorality of an abortion if the fetus had no face or limbs yet (such as a few week old embryo)
That's a ridiculous argument. One could substitute "unborn child" for "pet rock", or "milk jug", or "ant". A slave is forced into doing things, a fetus cannot do things. There is a very big difference, one which renders your argument impotent.
The woman's freedom is gone, once she invites someone else's freedom inside her. She no longer should have freedom to take another's freedom away. Life is equal, no one should have the upper hand. If two women were stranded on an island and started running out of food. They started starving to death, so the more powerful, stronger woman decides to kill the other to prolong the food supply. What gives her that right to do so? Are not both their lives equal, and it should not matter who is stronger. In the case of a mother, she isn't even starving to death, she's taking the life of the weaker just because she doesn't want to deal with the burden she brought upon herself. Later on she will realize it wasn't a burden at all, but her very own flesh and blood. Her baby.
Your basic premise is flawed. What about the case of rape where the pregnancy was forced upon her ? A woman who is raped certainly didn't "invite" this upon herself. If I follow your logic it sounds like you support abortion in the case of rape.
I'd agree with you there because if you did'nt allow the mother to abort she would be a slave to the child for at least 9 months, or is slavery supported in rape cases?
Rape or incest are issues only one percent of the time. Ninety-three percent of all abortions in America are performed just because someone doesn't want a child.
In the cases of rape which are quite rare, I am still pro-life. Yes rape is a horrible act for one person to commit to another, but so is murder. I don't think it's right answering one hanis act with another. The baby that comes out of the rape, has just as much right to life as a baby that came out of consensual sex. Let's punish the raper, not the product of the rape.
Asking the woman to bear for nine months is much less than asking the baby to bear for eternity. Nine rough months, can't compare to having no months at all to live.
At least they had the chance at life, everyone should have that chance. In cases of rape of being 1% of all abortions being done, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.
Ask yourself what if you found out you were a product of a rape. Would you say O MAN I wish I were aborted! I don't think so, if anything you would thank your mom and tell her how much you appreciate her bravery and sacrifice. Letting you know it wasn't your fault, and she wasn't going to punish you by death.
Good argument, and some women do make that choice. But I still disagree with the basic assertion that the baby is a person and has rights that trump the mothers. I especially disagree with the state forcing this upon her. BTW who should pay the medical expenses ? Are you asking me to spend my tax dollars for this pregnancy ?
The government makes me pay for abortion support, by taking it right out of my check and giving it to that cause. Something I STRONGLY disagree with, I am forced to pay for by ''big Brother''. Why don't I have the right to not pay my tax dollars to something I don't support?
I am not saying the babies rights trump the mothers, but that they are equal and should be treated as such. Letting the baby live proves they're equal, going through with an abortion proves the mother is superior.
"Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion"
One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living
That's a really tough one. The most cited legal definition comes from People vs Guthrie "The fetus be fully brought forth and establish an independent circulation before it can be considered a human being.... Independent circulation can be established by evidence of the fetus having breathed, but such proof usually is not conclusive in the absence of the evidence of life, such as crying."
But I personally think technology will bring about a significant change here. I think science will push the age of viability WAY back in the coming years. At some point viability may push back to conception. At that point I would probably support the banning of all abortions
Well, yes... if we take birth to be the start of ''living'' - we can draw quite a few absurd conclusions from here.
A 6 month old fetus who is born prematurely is essentially ''more human'' than a 9 month old fetus still in the womb, even though the older fetus has far greater resemblance to a baby, is physically more developed etc etc.
Secondly, if rights are obtained after birth - it is obvious then, that before birth the fetus has no rights. Therefore, the mother should not limit herself from alchohol, smokes etc. If the unborn child has no rights - then clearly it has no rights to a toxin free environment. Later on if the child is born with deformities (no arms for example, or blind), is the mother guilty of this? It would appear that she isn't, because the fetus had no right not to be damaged.
The deformed kid should, in fact, be grateful he/she got to be born at all.
Wow !!! Your second point is very thought provoking. Currently as you suggest the woman can do as she pleases. Although most mothers choose to behave responsibly. But let's assume a world where we have Personhood laws in place and a mother who smoked during her pregnancy miscarries, would that me murder ?
No, it wouldn't be murder. The damage was done before birth and before birth, the fetus has no right not to be damaged.
If we accept birth to be the point of ''living'' - then this is the logical conclusion. Only after birth does the child obtain a right to life and consequently the right not to be harmed. Any harm that happens before birth is.. acceptable.
There are four basic types of abortion being performed in America today, while two more types may be added in the near future.
First, there's the suction type abortion. This is where the unborn child is literally vacuumed from the mother's womb during the early stages of pregnancy.
The currette-type abortion is where the child is cut from the mother's womb with a spoon-like object.
A third type is similar to a Caesarean operation. The baby is surgically removed from the mother and allowed to suffocate, because the child's lungs aren't developed.
The fourth type of abortion is the Salt Brine technique. With this method, the unborn child is literally "pickled" to death by the injection of a strong salt solution. A few days after the injection the child is still born.
If this sounds like just a basic procedure to you, there's a problems, this is clearly murder and not giving the baby the right at life. Babies are slaves to their mothers and have no choice of life, they have to accept death.
No ones arguing that it is a basic procedure and its not something someone forgets in a hurry at the moment whilst abortion is legal the mother gets councelling and help before and after the operation, something that they would be denied if abortion was made illegal and they had to use underhand ways to get rid of the unwanted pregnancy or had to have a backstreet abortion. Instead of trying to tug at peoples heart strings why dont you try answering some of the questions people have put to you.
All reasonable questions I have answered. We have different opinions clearly, but the MAIN difference is. I am on God's side on this topic, you are on mans. No matter what stuff people say or don't say about abortion being ok. I will stand firm to the end knowing in my heart that abortion is murder, and that simply I am hoping to enlighten the ones still on the fences about this VERY important topic. I respect all of you people in this discussion, and pray for healing in this country, but I will not back down for what I know to be right in God's eyes.
I do have one unswered question for you Jawkins20:
To paraphrase markml0528, imagine a pair of twins. One is dying of kidney disease, the other is the only matching donor. Should we compel one twin to undergo a painful and potentially fatal procedure to give a kidney to the other ?
I deeply respect your honesty and civility. While we do not agree I enjoy reading your posts, they are thoughtful and compelling. On the point of whether we should rule by religious or secular laws, I again assert you are entitled to your opinion but disagree. Using your logic if a Muslim man walking the streets of Des Moines happened to see an unveiled woman he would be justified in beating her. That is God's law.
All over the world people have a concept of right and wrong, that is called our conscience given from God. When someone's conscience tells them this is wrong by convicting them inside, we should listen and not go against that internal compass. Most cases of abortion the woman's conscience tells her how wrong the decision is after or before the abortion. If abortion is o k, why does her conscience prove otherwise. When people go against there conscience for long enough it becomes broken, not being able do discern anymore between wrong and right. That is a scary place. Also in your analogy in legalistic, it no longer apply's to the Bible and God. Jesus came and restored what was broken between us and God by giving his life as the sacrifice for sin. Is you ask me how do I know something is wrong or right, I will say I am sensitive to my conscience because my conscience was given by God.
It is wrong to kill. When I joined the Army I thought long and hard about how I might have to kill someone. Many soldiers can relate stories about having to shoot a 14 year old, or shoot someone in the back or worse and how they are haunted by these memories. Yet it is legal and appropriate and sometimes necessary even though it goes against their conscience.
Yes my argument is legalistic. But laws are guided by moral precepts. In many respects they are the codification of of our morals. From this perspective many parts of the Bible are extremely legalistic. And the term "The Law" appears over and over.
I don't agree with you comparing the army with abortion, people in the army kill to protect our country and themselves. abortion kills the innocent for no reason besides convenience. A big difference.
See, here's the problem with that. You may believe in God, but not everyone else does. Why should we force your beliefs on them? That's taking away their freedom. By bringing religion into it you're saying "It's my way because I know my God exists." Well, there's lots of people who believe in a lot of different things as far as religion goes. Just because your particular religious beliefs forbid abortion doesn't mean anyone else of any other faith should have to abide by those same standards. It's like getting drunk. Your bible tells you not to get drunk, but Christians aren't out trying to ban alcohol. If you truly believe in the bible, you'll want people to come to your God in their own way, not by calling them murderers for having abortions. That's going to drive people away from your religion.
The child is not a person until it gains consciousness, which can be measured by brain waves. Therefore, before this point, the fetus is not a human being, and therefore is not be subjected to slavery if aborted at this time.
Though, after the fetus exhibits brain waves, it is a person. Therefore, any abortions done while the fetus is conscious is murder, and slavery.
Consciousness is key. There is a strong consensus that consciousness is connected with folding in the Cerebellum. This occurs in the early to mid 2nd trimester. An interesting coincidence is that the perception of pain occurs in the mid to late 2nd trimester. I support a woman's freedom to choose till sometime around the beginning of the second trimester.
