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.
Depends on how far along the child is, if the pregnancy is not past the first trimester then no it is not taking a life.
For it has nothing to be innocent of, it has not yet lived to experience things that would make it innocent or guilty which are both conscious thought processes that a baby does not possess especially as a fetus.
A fetus is a parasite, living off of the host until the pregnancy has been full filled and the baby has been birthed. Only then would it be the taking of an innocent life.
But it is going to be life most people regret having abortion. Just because it is not completely formed does not mean it is alive. Why is it not okay to murder a kid at lets say 12 but its okay to kill a baby before it is even born?
Yes. killing a baby is killing an innocent life. Why? well first of all, you don't give the baby a chance to live. second Some of you may say "its to much pressure on the mom". It was her mistake and she should at least give it for adoption. Third, I think a child would rather live even if the parents mistreat them when they are born.
are you serious it doesn't matter if the baby doesn't have an age or if he / she is 15 you should never be able to kill a life
An embryo and foetus are not lives. A life has a developed brain and body. The best argument you can make is that 10% of abortions might involve a foetus that is on the brink of being a life.
What if it was not the decision of the mother in the first place to get pregnant?
"She should at least give it up for adoption", surely this is not a viable solution. The adoption system would become over run with babies, more than it could handle.
Also by the way if you dint give the baby a chance to LIVE then how could you be taking its life?
But it is going to be life most people regret having abortion. Just because it is not completely formed does not mean it is alive. Why is it not okay to murder a kid at lets say 12 but its okay to kill a baby before it is even born?
Because the 12-year old is aware, it is alive. A foetus when aborted 40% of the time isn't alive. It doesn't have a heart, 50% of the time it doesn't have a brain.
It may not be a aware it alive but it is a life, so your killing a life and we say murder is wrong and we kill life and its ok?
Murder is about killing a person. Abortions terminate embryos which are just cells, they aren't people. The majority of the time, what is aborted cannot be construed in any rational sense to be a life in the sense of being a person.
so what if it doesn't have a brain yet still is going to get one and still has a whole future in front of him/her.
No brain = no life. We don't care about what might happen, we care about present reality. By the way, why do you care about preserving life? You're a Christian fundamentalist. Shouldn't you be out burning witches, nonbelievers, and homosexuals?
Yes, but that 12 year old wasnt aware once. That 12 year old didnt have a heart or a brain but look at it now, its living a life. imagine all the LIFES that were aborted 12 years ago, they would all be children now. Going to school, planning their future but they were deprived of this which to me is completely immoral.
Yes, but that 12 year old wasnt aware once. That 12 year old didnt have a heart or a brain but look at it now, its living a life. imagine all the LIFES that were aborted 12 years ago, they would all be children now. Going to school, planning their future but they were deprived of this which to me is completely immoral.
It doesn't matter what would become of the foetus. We don't defend the rights of something based on a merely possible future outcome. What matters is what the foetus or embryo is today. Anything after that is a single possibility out of an infinity of choices. This is why we don't consider ejaculations or ovulations as life. They too have a small possibility of becoming the child in your hypothetical future.
This is what you're comparing to a 12-year old. It has no heart, nor does it have many of the organs you do. It's in development. No proper brain, because that's forming. For all intents and purposes in this early stage, it's not a person.
A kid at 12 is already able to feel pain, think, comprehend, and hypothetically has his/her whole life ahead of themselves.
Whereas a fetus has nothing, it is only alive as a parasite. It is not able to feel pain past the first trimester, it isn't able to comprehend anything or think. It is just a complex organism.
Why would you ever describe a human as a parasite. Apparently we are nothing but
but a bunch of disease ridden single celled organisms. First of all we cannot be parasites because we are multi-cellular organisms, an unborn baby is still a human, it is okay if it dies by natural causes but on purpose to kill it is just wrong.
Its what a fetus is. It lives off of the host in order to survive, taking nutrients from it in order to survive. Thats why I would describe a FETUS as being a parasite not a human.
We are not parasites as we do not directly live off of another live creatures nutrients. Taking part of another's life in order to survive itself thats what a parasite is and essentially a fetus. We however obtain our own food.
A fetus however does not, a fetus lives off of a host. Making it a parasite.
You aren't killing a human being. A fetus has no thought process, has no memory other than immediate, and for the first trimester has absolutely no feeling.
There is a myriad of reasons as to why a pregnancy would not need to be carried through. Such as a complication in the pregnancy, where giving birth would mean a death to the bearer etc etc.
If this debate was about babies then it would be taking an innocent life sure.
However if this debate was on what I thought it was taking the life of something that directly lives off of another organism for survival is nothing but a parasite. In other words taking the life of a fetus.
It is indeed a parasite; it takes from its host without returning. That fits the definition of a parasite.
This doesn't mean fetuses are bad, obviously, it just means that they rely on their host for survival and have no right to exist in her body without her permission.
I would like to see your source for most women being depressed after an abortion. Yes, there are some, but I would hazard a guess that most of those women were either already suffering from depression or mental issues, or they were women who were coerced or pushed into abortion which is just as awful as a women being coerced into keeping a baby.
Why can't the 31 year old women in your scenario have a baby now that she is ready?
Does not a high percentage of women also get depressed after giving birth? Making a mother keep a baby she does not want is ultimately worse or at least just as bad.
Too many children are being born into situations where there is no love, money or parental guidance.
Abortion is killing a life. Why is it illegal to kill a human life at 1 years old and it is legal to kill a human life before it is born before it has a chance to see the wonders of this world. Those who support abortion are just as guilty as those who go through with abortion! I REST MY CASE
If you are responsible enough to have sex, you are responsible enough to take care of a baby. The child shouldnt pay for your mess up. So yes abortion is killing an innocent life.
That is not a human or an animal it is a plant. Killing a plant is okay especially weeds. It should be considered murder to kill a baby before it is born though. It is a living human just because it isn't out and about doesn't mean that its not a living organism.
Normally I would sarcastically dismantle your post by duplicating your logic and applying it to another subject to illustrate it's various absurdities... but previous experince tells me that would be a futile effort with you since you wouldn't get the point. So I'll just walk through this mess step by step.
"That is not a human or an animal it is a plant. "
So if it was an animal it would make a difference in whether or not it was murder? If not, why did you feel the need to point out a weed is not an animal?
Killing a plant is okay especially weeds.
Why "especially weeds"? Because you like them less? Is it less ok to kill a flower? How about a tree?
It should be considered murder to kill a baby before it is born though
Well it's probably a good thing that's impossible then. Just like it's impossible to kill your husband before you're married.
Damn! I slipped. That will undoubtedly sail right over your head. Oh well...
It is a living human just because it isn't out and about doesn't mean that its not a living organism.
And we're back at the beginning. So what if it's a living organism? SO WERE THE WEEDS I PULLED.
Weeds and other plants have no soul o who cares if they die as long as there is enough so that we can survive i think it is wrong to kill and animal for the fun of it.
A weed is not an animal because of the traits any kindergarten kid knows that.
And you think animals DO have souls? Your parents told you your pet puppy went to puppy heaven didn't they?
As for why you think anything you just said is relevant to the abortion debate... well, I'm mystified. But then most of your "arguments" leave me in a similar state so I'm getting used to it I think.
Are you familiar with the phrase "making an argument"?
For example... if you say "It is murder if you end a life" and I point out an example of ending a life which is CLEARLY NOT MURDER, thus demonstrating that the criteria you listed for classifying something as murder was incorrect... that is what some people refer to as "debunking a claim".
I see Mr. Charlie Brown has decided to speak. I guess i have to be a little bit more simple because i thought these people were masters in understanding the words of other people. Instead of saying life i will say human life instead okay. Is that better now.
Actually, how about you try and actually define murder instead. You clearly don't know what the word means if you think "ending human life" is what it is.
Sorry, doesn't work that way. You thinking something SHOULD be murder doesn't make it accurate to say it IS murder just because you want it to. Although I should have anticipated you would have difficulty with this concept since you seem to be of the general opinion that all of your beliefs re-shape reality around you and that anything you believe in is true because you think it is.
Or, in other words, you live in a world of self-constructed delusions.
No, genius, it is NOT just opinions. The law is a real thing that doesn't depend on your freaking opinion.
You thinking something should be illegal DOESN'T MAKE IT ILLEGAL. You really need to step outside your personal little fantasy world and deal with reality.
It is opinions i am not the only who thinks abortion is wrong. The people who want abortion is their opinion. Abortion got voted in because the majority of the people's opinions supported it.
Right now you are the one who cannot comprehend this.
As of right now abortion is legal. Other people though do not agree (like me) that abortion SHOULD be legal. Murder is an unlawful killing. I am saying it is people opinions. They MAY BELIEVE abortion is okay and some MAY NOT it is their OPINION.
I am sorry if I'm "forcing" my opinion on people saying you better believe or else... if i am tell me and i will try to be more easy going. I just want people to come to God other wise they will perish. Its hard to explain Christians just have this feeling they not what they say is right but it is very hard to try to prove it. People now a days want pure you can see evidence but if people would just start seeing with there hearts more then they would realize they were missing out of even more wonderful things. I know what i say is the truth, I have that deep down in my gut feeling that what i speak is truth about God and Christianity.
You do not have to be more easy going on the restrictions you chose to place on your own life, but you must realize that people place different values on different things depending on what is important to them. To me, 'seeing with my heart' is a nonsensical concept that entails someone blindly believing something they have been told without trying to verify if it is true. However, I realize you place more value on faith than logic, and I do not think that logic is inherently better than faith so I would never try to force you to accept logic over faith. I think you should afford people the same courtesy, realize God and the Bible are not important to everyone, and not try to extend your judgments and morals to include them.
Is the termination of a pregnancy the termination of a biological process?
Yes. But you must also be aware that "termination of a biological process" applies to just about everything. Taking an aspirin terminates a biological process.
The error in the syllogism is the distribution of the middle term. And had I distributed the middle term to read:
“Taking an aspirin terminates any biological process.”, it would be valid. Hence the error is in the distribution of the middle term. But that is not the error you have claimed.
Now, having gone through the trial of assessing your comprehension of refutation, twice no doubt, I am left wondering why “taking an aspirin” has any relevance to the abortion of a pregnancy and its attributes.
Did you assume I am one of the run-of-the-mill participants at CD?
The error in the syllogism is the distribution of the middle term. And had I distributed the middle term to read:
“Taking an aspirin terminates any biological process.”, it would be valid. Hence the error is in the distribution of the middle term. But that is not the error you have claimed.
You were conflating the wrong subjects in your premises. I tried to point that out with three obviously wrong syllogisms.
Did you assume I am one of the run-of-the-mill participants at CD?
If so, I understand the assumption.
I assumed that your reasoning capabilities were faulty.
Now, having gone through the trial of assessing your comprehension of refutation, twice no doubt, I am left wondering why “taking an aspirin” has any relevance to the abortion of a pregnancy and its attributes.
You responded to my argument that abortion isn't taking a life, as a foetus doesn't qualify. You asked if an abortion ends a biological process, presumably because life is a biological process. I replied that aspirin ends a biological process, implying that a biological process is just another name for metabolism, or biological pathways.
In other words, abortion ends a biological process, but life isn't the only biological process.
Has history not shown that Muslims and Jews approve of murder? Muslims with their Jihadi ways; Jews according to their own history books?
You're right, but if I said "Only Christians, etc." including those religions, I'd be dead right now with a note attached to the blade in my back saying "Allahu ahkbar!" Or, I'd be called an anti-Semite. Face it, Christians are the most acceptable target right now.
Rarely have I encountered a band of Christians planning on blowing up a building. It is even quite rare for Christians to kill abortion doctors.
But it still happens. Only religions like Christianity permit otherwise sensible people to commit these deeds.
You are generalizing a religion based on the warped acts of it's followers.
A religion is a series of canonical texts. The followers may interpret these texts and do deeds in the name of their religion, but that does not mean that they are actually acting under the blessing of the 'religion'.
A religion is a series of canonical texts. The followers may interpret these texts and do deeds in the name of their religion, but that does not mean that they are actually acting under the blessing of the 'religion'.
You'd better tell that to the thousands of sects in Christianity, then, among others. If what you said were true, then we wouldn't have such division among followers.
There is no religion that approves of murder! And it does involve a life that God and only God created.. so who are you to take away this life?!
God didn't create it, the woman created it in her reproductive system.
Have you ever read the Bible or Koran?
Bible:
Deuteronomy 20:10-18 (New International Version)
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
Koran:
Surah 9:5
5Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Yes i did read the Qur'aan.. unfortunately though, when i came to read the Bible,, i didn't know which to believe because they each said something different even though they were supposed to be the same verses.. How can you have a New International Version(aka New Testament) of a HOLY book that was written by God in the first place and there are no messengers left in the world to reveal it??!
Furthermore,, the verse in the Qur'aan that u referred to has got nothing to do with abortion.. it has to do with Christians..
To conclude,, God is The Creator,, and if HE wishes anything to be created it shall be created...
Furthermore,, the verse in the Qur'aan that u referred to has got nothing to do with abortion.. it has to do with Christians..
Both the Koran and Bible verses support killing, in a manner that is illegal and therefore murder.
This contradicts your statement of
There is no religion that approves of murder! And it does involve a life that God and only God created.. so who are you to take away this life?!
Yes i did read the Qur'aan.. unfortunately though, when i came to read the Bible,, i didn't know which to believe because they each said something different even though they were supposed to be the same verses.. How can you have a New International Version(aka New Testament) of a HOLY book that was written by God in the first place and there are no messengers left in the world to reveal it??!
They are translations from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Arabic depending upon the verse. Those languages are not divine, however, they are human.
I agree that abortion is murder, but people who side with the pro-choice front don't think that way. They don't believe that the fetus is alive until a certain point in development, or birth in some opinions. I believe life begins at conception and I have based this on biological and scientific knowledge. However, many pro-choice advocates don't believe life begins until the heart beats or until the fetus moves for the first time, etc. That's where the true debate is.
IT IS STILL HUMAN. It is a human, it will become a human, it will stay a human. I also guess you think humans are an unintelligent race of animals/other "things" since you compare humans to them.
IT IS STILL HUMAN. It is a human, it will become a human, it will stay a human. I also guess you think humans are an unintelligent race of animals/other "things" since you compare humans to them.
Cancer is human. It's not a person, however, and being human doesn't automatically make you a person.
I'd consider it on par with a human being. But that is only because I believe human life begins at conception and that each and every human is bestowed with a soul at that time as well. However, I would give the mother precedence over her fetus, like in a case where her pregnancy can kill her. In cases like these, I think it's best for the mother to survive at all costs.
Foetus: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal. Terminator, I don't think you know what Foetus means? Definition: a developing fetus.
I know you try real hard to sound like an intellectual to all of us, but the question you are presenting to us has already been answered by each individual that posted on this topic. You found a different word for Fetus, I find your question amusing. So to that conclusion my Dear Terminator you have the answer to your question, it is all up to one's own moral values and beliefs.
Do you know what fetus means? I don't think you've a faintest idea about dialectology and lexicography. For one, 'foetus' is the British spelling of 'fetus'.
I don't think you know what Foetus means? Definition: a developing fetus.
Now that your dialectological error has been made known, I shall state your lexicographic error: one does not include the word being defined in the definition of said word. For example, if I asked you what the word 'cantaloupe' meant, you would not include the term 'cantaloupe' in your definition.
Also, you will note that my question was directed to MKIced - a biology student. The question is not meant to be answered in a moral or religious or philosophical or linguistic context, but from a biological one.
Terminator you're wrong about the origin of the word Foetus, I really don't think you do know what Foetus(Fetus) means?The word foetus is from the Latin fetus.It has Indo-European roots. It arose as a hypercorrection based on an incorrect etymology ( due to insufficient knowledge of Latin)Fœtus or foetus is the English and Commonwealth spelling, which has been in use since at least 1594. Regardless to disputing your response, this is a public Website Right! The issue at hand is not a biological issue alone, not at all. Where does life begin? Depending on the individual that is asked the question will depend on the Answer. You could always ask an expert the question" Is abortion killing an innocent life?" Ask your Mother.......
You are claiming that I, somebody who can understand half a dozen languages, read most of 3 alphabets, and has spent years on-and-off studying dictionaries, grammar books, etc. does not understand English! There is no difference to my writing 'fetus' or 'foetus', other than the location where one is used! I simply wrote with the latter because I was bored with the regular American spelling. I, myself, am Canadian - a part of the Commonwealth of Nations - and thus 'foetus' is the accurate term for my dialectological background.
Sure, this is a public website, the inclusion of my reference to the history of the question was so that you would understand that, regardless of who may wish to answer the question, it was directed to MKIced.
Terminator, now that you have told everyone how smart you are, the simplicity of knowing where the origin of a word originated from is pretty simple. Again it does not matter to me who you addressed your question to, I'm questioning You. When a person assumes to be intelligent his reflection is staring back at him in the mirror. It is none of my business if you wish to answer my question I would appreciate it, "how old are you?"
Why is it that you believe I am writing this out of arrogance? I'll admit, I am very arrogant. However, if I truly were attempting to express my arrogance on this site I would write better, more thoughtful debates and arguments.
Thus, I'll request that you cease criticizing my argument as an act of arrogance.
You seem to believe that I found the term 'foetus' in a dictionary, and thus am using it in an attempt to make myself seem intellectually superior to the other users of this site. I assure you that that is not the case. I am an Anglophile - I have a deep love of all things Britannia, including their system of spelling. That is the reason I wrote 'foetus' rather than 'fetus'.
Terminator, I'm not suggesting that you are arrogant. I'm suggesting that you try to display that you are arrogant. There's a difference. I will respect your request, I will stop the alleged criticism on this topic. If I may? Anglophilia represents an individual's preference for English culture over their own.(the word comes from French, and ultimately from Latin) I find it strange that you refer to Anglophile as a deep love of all things! Anglophile is the preference for English culture. Foetus origins are Latin, meaning Fetus. Foetus has nothing to do with English Culture. Am I missing something? Britannia system of spelling is Old English, where is the connection with Anglophile?
I hate to intrude; I know you can justify our view.
And based upon the irrational arguments in this debate I withdraw my previous offer. (I despise debating people with thinking problems, current company excluded.)
Cause thats when the process starts, the baby has been made.
The baby has a father and a mother already.
The baby will develop and thats the most important thing, its not like the baby isnt going to develop or the parents need to do something to validate its development.
The baby develops in the course of time. Unless you have a miscarriage
your now officially going to have a baby. Having an abortion is ended the process.
Stopping it, denying it the right to live,
Isnt ending someones life denying someone the right to live?
thats like saying wearing a condom is killing a life. because it "could" have created a fully functional child, yes not aborting a fetus could create a fully functional child but so could not using protection?
But all of this arguments go back to the mom of this "forming baby" it is her own fault she is pregnant and shouldn't of you guys know what if she didn't want a baby. If you are a follower of God and believe in abortion shame on you.
If God loved killing babies would you not be dead?
God loves children you fool.
Your just an idiotic athiest who doesnt even know what he's talking about.
Have you ever read the bible? The biblical god has smote children on more than one occasion. The common examples are the flood (children were among those to be drowned), and the first-born of Egypt (as if a first-born child has any idea of what's going on at that age, and deserves death). Then there are battles in which the god-approved side was given the approval (blessing) to kill everyone in the opposing side, including sacking their cities, and their women and children. Also, do not forget that a kid who is disrespectful towards his or her parents is to be put to death.
That is Old testament life was more strict back then but if you have "read" the New Testament in the Bible you would have learned we are all set free from the Old Testament.
That is Old testament life was more strict back then but if you have "read" the New Testament in the Bible you would have learned we are all set free from the Old Testament.
No you aren't. Jesus approves of the old testament, it's just that the writings are so brutal even you, a supposedly faithful servant, cannot bear to live so uncivilised.
Matthew 5:17-19 (King James Version)
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Until the second coming, the final judgement, the law of the old testament is to be upheld.
You need a better interpreter then me but i will give it my best. Jesus here is speaking that the Old Testament was speaking of his coming. (verses 17-18)
In verse 19 he is talking about the 10 Commandment. When Jesus was crucified it ended some of the laws in the Old Testament not including the 10 Commandments.
You need a better interpreter then me but i will give it my best. Jesus here is speaking that the Old Testament was speaking of his coming. (verses 17-18)
In verse 19 he is talking about the 10 Commandment. When Jesus was crucified it ended some of the laws in the Old Testament not including the 10 Commandments.
I read it from the supposed word of god itself. The bible is very clear that Jesus said that the laws are to be obeyed until heaven and earth come together, and he fulfils his role (because it mentions heaven and earth, this means the crucifixion is apart from it).
You need to stop reading apologetics and try reading the bible, the book that is supposed to be infallible according to your beliefs, but you seem to require others to interpret it for you.
You do not understand the Word of God because you are taking everything literally. If you would actually study the Bible and have someone interpret it for you because obviously you do not understand the true meaning. Yet you still criticize me for going to a different source for evidence other then the Bible even though you want me to use different sources. Explain.
You do not understand the Word of God because you are taking everything literally. If you would actually study the Bible and have someone interpret it for you because obviously you do not understand the true meaning. Yet you still criticize me for going to a different source for evidence other then the Bible even though you want me to use different sources. Explain.
If you're debating science, you use scientific evidence. If you're debating a particular mythology, you use that mythology's canon as a reference. Is this so strange to you?
Why shouldn't I read the text literally? Because it doesn't give you answer you like? Christians are very strange this way, whenever you read the bible in a way that doesn't put your hindsight into it, or gives an answer that doesn't seem favourable, they say something like "you're reading it literally" but when you discuss science, or medicine, or politics, the same Christians will go right ahead ans say "science is wrong!!! because it literally says the earth was made in six days."
Try being consistent. If you want everything to be metaphorical, then stop saying that the earth is six thousand years old, that science is wrong, etc. If you want everything to be literal, then accept that the old testament still applies.
Lots of parts in the Bible are literal but there are that have a different meaning then what stands out. Jesus said a lot of parables that contained a specific meaning. A lot of science is correct except evolution, the big bang, etc... Your are not a Christian at least for now so your understanding of the Bible is not as great as mine.
Lots of parts in the Bible are literal but there are that have a different meaning then what stands out. Jesus said a lot of parables that contained a specific meaning. A lot of science is correct except evolution, the big bang, etc... Your are not a Christian at least for now so your understanding of the Bible is not as great as mine.
Being a Christian has nothing to do with it. I don't have your prejudice and theological blindness, and that is why I don't dismiss scripture that I find inconvenient, like you do. What Jesus said was quite clear but you continue to ignore it because you don't like the outcome of it being true. But hey, ignore me and Jesus on this matter, you apparently think you know more than he did when he was speaking. I guess when you're roasting in the flames of hell, you'll realise your mistake in not following the old testament.
God did not kill any babies so you should maybe study the Bible and ask someone to interpret it for you because obviously you do not understand.
Hosea 13:16 (King James Version)
16Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Numbers 31:15-18 (King James Version)
15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Hosea 9:11-17 (King James Version)
11As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception.
12Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them!
13Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer.
14Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
15All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.
16Ephraim 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.
17My God will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto him: and they shall be wanderers among the nations.
Judges 11:30-40 (King James Version)
30And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
31Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
32So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.
33And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
34And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
35And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.
36And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.
37And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.
38And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
39And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
40That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
2 Kings 2:23-24 (King James Version)
23And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
1 Samuel 15:2-3 (King James Version)
2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Remember that refuting me is tantamount to refuting god's infallible, perfect word.
In other words you don't like what the bible says and need someone else to read it for you. You don't even know what the religion you follow teaches, instead you follow the words of people other than your supposed holy book as infallible.
I like what the Bible says. Some things in the Bible makes me sad but it is the truth so i fallow it. You are not understanding. You probably did not even read the link. You're the one who says the Bible is a lie so you need other evidence. That is what i just did and you criticize me for not going to the Bible for information.
I like what the Bible says. Some things in the Bible makes me sad but it is the truth so i fallow it. You are not understanding. You probably did not even read the link. You're the one who says the Bible is a lie so you need other evidence. That is what i just did and you criticize me for not going to the Bible for information.
We are having a biblical argument. Extra-biblical information is therefore unnecessary, unless you're adding more biblical sources. When you debate science, or non-biblical topics, THEN you provide proof, logic, evidence, etc. When you're debating a specific mythology, you have to hold to that mythology as the final authority.
I've read that site before, they usually change the topic or frame the question away from what was asked and then answer that. They are also superfluous, because the subject was abortion, then "god doesn't disapprove of killing children or babies" with the corresponding scripture. It says right there in black and white, in the KJV scripture I provided that god has no issues with killing children or unborn offspring. What they have to say on the matter isn't important, because they have authority that is below the bible.
The offspring of the corrupted will also be corrupted. The flood for example every one was corrupt except Noah and his family. Sodom and Gomorrah God gave Abraham to find righteous people the number lowered until finally God said find 10 righteous people Abraham could not and so was the destruction of the cities. Before the cities were destroyed God sent and Angel to worn the righteous people which was only lot and his family which still were not to righteous but they were righteous enough that they listened to the Angel and left. These are only a 2 examples.
16Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Numbers 31:15-18 (King James Version)
15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Hosea 9:11-17 (King James Version)
11As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception.
12Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them!
13Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer.
14Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
15All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.
16Ephraim 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.
17My God will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto him: and they shall be wanderers among the nations.
Judges 11:30-40 (King James Version)
30And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
31Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
32So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.
33And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
34And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
35And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.
36And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.
37And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.
38And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
39And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
40That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
2 Kings 2:23-24 (King James Version)
23And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
1 Samuel 15:2-3 (King James Version)
2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
You guys are missing the point. This argument all goes back to the mom who has this "forming baby" in her stomach and is her own fault for doing you know what so it isn't the baby's fault that it has to be killed before it is even born because of the mom's mistake. And don't tell me all of this "fetus" stuff because it doesn't matter whats stage it is in. It seems like all abortions are done by pregnant teens which is completely stupid and foolish to do and yet they go and do you know what and get pregnant. All of you guys are telling me all of this scientific stuff which I don't give a care about! All of what you are saying doesnt matter and i don't want to hear stuff about how my stuff matters because it does so shut up!
NOPE...... we talk about life here... and fetus don't have a life... they don't have heart.. and they don't even have any brain to think( in young age of pregnancy i mean..), whether they agree to eliminate by someone or not..( yeah, human right..)
so... i bring new proposal in this case.. ABORTION IS KILLING AN INNOCENT LIFE WHEN ABORTION TRANSPIRE IN OLD AGE OF PREGNANCY... AND ABORTION IS JUSTIFIABLE IN YOUNG AGE OF PREGNANCY..
I'm sorry Jesus freak but your statement is stupid. You are suggesting that you a (do I dare say it) a Fetus your question, do you want to live or die? As if the mass of DNA cells are going to respond back to you with an answer. An the Fetus will say to you, "Of course not, I don't want to die, I'm a fetus."
Yes it is. The baby is still alive no matter how far along. If you dont want the baby, give it to foster care. That one baby could stop war, or save an animal that is endangered. All babies have potential, and when you end their life, it ends the potential.
A baby does not become a mass murderer because it decided it when he is born. A main cause is when the child experiences a tragic time in his/her life.
I am just trying to illustrate the futility of godfreakj's argument that the baby could be an awesome person. It could just as easily be a rotten person, so I think that point is inapplicable.
Well i know the baby could be a mass murderer but most people do not grow up as a mass murderer. The chances are slim but you are right it is possible.
It is, but just for the record I don't think people should get abortions based on that possibility. I meant to point out the potential quality of a fetus's life is not really part of the argument.
Yes it is. The baby is still alive no matter how far along. If you dont want the baby, give it to foster care. That one baby could stop war, or save an animal that is endangered. All babies have potential, and when you end their life, it ends the potential.
There is so much truth there. I don't believe there is anything on this earth as precious as a human baby. It's almost shocking to see how flippantly some describe the termination of a pregnancy, no matter how far along it may be. If only there really was an all-powerful all-knowing god who was intelligent enough to put in place a system of procreation that doesn't happen by accident, or when not wanted.
Obviously there isn't. If you believe that God has a "perfect plan" for all of us, you're surely insane. What type of God considers having your life snuffed out before it truly begins a perfect plan?
If you had been aborted you wouldnt be alive today.
Imagine all those years that you would have been deprived of.
An aborted child could grow up to become someone important, if you cant handle a human life use a condom or give it up for adoption. Theres many families that would really want that child. Imagine if Albert Einstien had been aborted? Would we have electricitiy.. How would life have been right now? Imagine all the human life thats being destroyed everyday. ITS A LIFE. Once that egg has been fertilised its a human life. Its a living thing and it shouldnt be killed. Abortion is murder and its wrong
I understand if the person is in danger if it has that baby like in the Last King of Scotland where her life is in risk if she has the baby.
But killing a baby cause you think you cant handle it is completely selfish.
Who says you have the right to stop that life from living? Not even giving it a chance, if your an mother you probably love your children to bits, i'm sure they was moments in your life where you felt like it was getting too hard. Even if you were raped you should still let the baby live, if you cant handle looking after it, give it to adoption so that it has the chance to live a life.
Fetuses have been shown to masturbate in the womb. Innocent? Pa. I think not.
If abortion were declared murder, I wonder if they'd be required to change all the tombstone epitaphs to date of conception through date of death, as opposed to date of birth through date of death.
The only time an abortion is allowed is when the continuation of the pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk! Otherwise, under whatever circumstances, abortion is a crime.. It's a crime against the unborn baby; against the mother - even if she doesn't want the baby(for a further explained reason); against humanity and our morals and most importantly against God.. Even if this pregnancy occurred due to unsafe sex or it was unexpected by a couple, no one has the right to object to what God has created.. If it's because of unsafe sex, when are you going to take responsibility of your own life and live with the consequences of your mistakes?! It is therefore your duty to have that baby because you chose to have sex ignorantly.. Who, nowadays, is not educated enough to know that somehow unsafe sex can lead to pregnancy?! In the case where you were "raped", then i suggest you get yourself together and talk about what happened to you before it's too late and you'd be more miserable than ever.. In the case where the pregnancy is unexpected - or so it's called - why do you think it happened in the first place?! Everything happens for a reason and only God knows why.. so again, who are you to question fate?! No one has the right to decide the fate of another creature.. NO ONE! but God...
When you have proven the existence of God to everyone, then maybe you will have a better argument for trying to force his morals on unwilling people. Until then, 'God' is only a valid deterrent for people who chose to accept his existence on faith.
No form of contraception works all the time. Plenty of pregnancies happen in spite of at least one form of contraception in place. The only 100% surefire way to avoid a pregnancy is to be abstinent.
I think it's kind of disturbing to refer to an unplanned pregnancy as though it is some kind of well-deserved punishment visited on couples who dare to have sex. A pregnancy should be a happy, welcome addition to a family that is ready for it. Not a 'consequence'.
In the case where you were "raped", then i suggest you get yourself together and talk about what happened to you before it's too late and you'd be more miserable than ever..
Why is raped in quotation marks and what does your partially intelligible advice have to do with abortion?
Read any of the Holy Books.. There's no greater proof...
And since there is no form of contraception that works all the time, then abstinence is the answer.. A married couple has all the right to practice sex however they like and therefore if pregnancy occurs they will be happy about it.. It is some people who aren't married that dislike the idea of a child with a single-parent...
"Raped" is quoted because unless a woman practices sex against her will then there's no reason to believe that she wasn't aware of the possibility of a pregnancy.. And its because some women use being raped as an excuse to have an abortion just because they can't handle the responsibility of their actions...
Holy books are not proof of anything. Much of what they say is unprovable, and still more of it is obviously impossible or proven false. Using it to guide your own life is well and good, but not to guide other people's lives.
You do not have the right to limit a woman's choice to either abstinence or keeping an unwanted fetus. Sex is healthy and it is an important part of most relationships, and fortunately, we are intelligent enough to realize it is not just for procreation anymore. Also, many people who get abortions are married, or in a committed relationship. Marriage doesn't automatically mean a couple is ready for a pregnancy, then or ever.
I don't think anyone needs an excuse to have an abortion, and while I am sure that some women do use rape to justify it, I doubt it happens very often. However I guess either way, that is straying a little from the topic.
The only time an abortion is allowed is when the continuation of the pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk! Otherwise, under whatever circumstances, abortion is a crime..
Let me ask you a question. Are you aware of foetal development? The first four weeks after having unprotected sex, there isn't even an embryo yet. Once you have the embryo it's weeks before it even develops into a foetus, which means it is a few cells with no mind or organs. 50% of abortions happen before the woman even has a foetus inside her. Once it becomes a foetus, it's another 7 to 9 weeks before it even has a heart pumping blood. The brain is still in the process of growing. 40% of abortions happen before this point in foetal development.
You are acting emotionally when you should be detached. This is a rational situation, not an emotional one.
It's a crime against the unborn baby; against the mother - even if she doesn't want the baby(for a further explained reason); against humanity and our morals and most importantly against God.
The unborn baby has no rights at this point. It isn't a person yet. Maybe it bothers you to think of people in a way that allows them at some point to no longer be people. Humanity doesn't suffer from abortions, the only way it could suffer is if abortions were so common that our death rate exceeded our birth rate, but this isn't the case. Morals and god are irrelevant, because those are beliefs and values that belong to you and only you, they aren't exactly shared by the women having abortions so it is a case of you imposing your god and your morals upon someone else against their will.
Even if this pregnancy occurred due to unsafe sex or it was unexpected by a couple, no one has the right to object to what God has created.. If it's because of unsafe sex, when are you going to take responsibility of your own life and live with the consequences of your mistakes?!
The woman is taking responsibility by terminating the pregnancy. In her case it would be irresponsible to have a child that isn't wanted and would grow up lacking the support it needs.
Who, nowadays, is not educated enough to know that somehow unsafe sex can lead to pregnancy?!
Protected sex can lead to pregnancy, depending upon the failure rates of the contraceptives used. Also bear in mind that the religious groups you're supporting by bringing god into this are often against contraception, and spread misinformation about it, such as "condoms contain holes" or "condoms have HIV inside of them." In this respect they are against the methods that prevent pregnancy and are against the tools that stop pregnancy as well, they seem to want women to function as baby-factories, or live a celibate lifestyle.
In the case where you were "raped", then i suggest you get yourself together and talk about what happened to you before it's too late and you'd be more miserable than ever..
And then she has a child who is a reminder of the man who abused her. The child will suffer for this, and that's how you end up with a more dysfunctional society: children neglected by their mothers who wind up on the streets as thieves or gang members.
In the case where the pregnancy is unexpected - or so it's called - why do you think it happened in the first place?! Everything happens for a reason and only God knows why.. so again, who are you to question fate?!
If it's unexpected, it could be that the child will be raised in poverty because the mother can't afford it.
No one has the right to decide the fate of another creature.. NO ONE! but God...
Yet you're here telling pregnant women what their fate should be.
You are acting emotionally when you should be detached. This is a rational situation, not an emotional one.
Morals and god are irrelevant, because those are beliefs and values that belong to you and only you, they aren't exactly shared by the women having abortions so it is a case of you imposing your god and your morals upon someone else against their will.
Also bear in mind that the religious groups you're supporting by bringing god into this are often against contraception, and spread misinformation about it, such as "condoms contain holes" or "condoms have HIV inside of them."
Yet you're here telling pregnant women what their fate should be.
Dear opponent, let me ask YOU a question.. do you even know how to debate?!
In a PROFESSIONAL debate, you do not attack any opponent but attack the argument.. I suggest you concentrate on attacking the argument instead of attacking the opponent next time.. First of all, i do not follow any religious groups and personally i think that that information about condoms is just ridiculous and built on ignorant opinions.. Secondly, if i were to follow your "style" of debating, I'd say: You are acting irrationally and a person with no beliefs or morals. Third of all, exactly as you said, these are my beliefs and morals and as i said only God decides the fate of all mankind, so i am simply sharing my point of view and debating. I am not forcing anything on anyone and every person is free to follow what they believe...
Now, to rebut your arguments..
Are you aware of foetal development?
Yes i am. In the case where a woman practices unsafe sex and does not want a pregnancy to occur, there are certain pharmaceutical drugs that should be taken between 48 - 72 hours after intercourse.. Otherwise, expect anything..
The woman is taking responsibility by terminating the pregnancy. In her case it would be irresponsible to have a child that isn't wanted and would grow up lacking the support it needs.
And then she has a child who is a reminder of the man who abused her. The child will suffer for this, and that's how you end up with a more dysfunctional society: children neglected by their mothers who wind up on the streets as thieves or gang members.
Is she really? As i mentioned in an earlier argument, by keeping quiet she is the one allowing herself to go through all this pain.. She may be scared but if she thought of the consequences of keeping quiet - which is a pregnancy maybe - then she should realize keeping quiet isn't the wisest thing to do.. You speak up, you get help and there would be no reason for abortion anyway...
Is she really? As i mentioned in an earlier argument, by keeping quiet she is the one allowing herself to go through all this pain..
This is victim blaming. Rape is an incredibly traumatic experience and, understandably, victims do not always deal with it in a rational, consistent, or logical manner. They are shocked, ashamed, afraid and confused, and to put any responsibility on the victim for reacting 'unwisely' to being the target of a brutal crime is callous.
Dear opponent, let me ask YOU a question.. do you even know how to debate?!
In a PROFESSIONAL debate, you do not attack any opponent but attack the argument.. I suggest you concentrate on attacking the argument instead of attacking the opponent next time..
Don't change the topic.
First of all, i do not follow any religious groups and personally i think that that information about condoms is just ridiculous and built on ignorant opinions..
You identify as Muslim, which is a religious group, and Muslim religious authorities have spread misinformation about scientific issues. The Catholics however are the primary offenders when it comes to issues of birth control misinformation.
Secondly, if i were to follow your "style" of debating, I'd say: You are acting irrationally and a person with no beliefs or morals.
Whether or not I have morals or beliefs is not the topic of this debate. You should be more concerned with my statement about imposing your morals and beliefs upon others.
Third of all, exactly as you said, these are my beliefs and morals and as i said only God decides the fate of all mankind, so i am simply sharing my point of view and debating. I am not forcing anything on anyone and every person is free to follow what they believe...
It is often best to not base a position on beliefs but instead form a position from data and evidence, that way you can form an unbiased solution for dealing with the problem at hand. If you take a random handful of people, and ask them how they feel about abortion, they'll give you widely varying starting times for when it is killing an innocent life, ranging from conception to birth. However there is only one true answer, and this is why science is important here.
Yes i am. In the case where a woman practices unsafe sex and does not want a pregnancy to occur, there are certain pharmaceutical drugs that should be taken between 48 - 72 hours after intercourse.. Otherwise, expect anything..
Fertilisation begins 3 weeks after intercourse. About 50% of abortions occur before the zygote becomes an actual foetus, and about 40% occur before the foetus has a developed heart.
Is she really? As i mentioned in an earlier argument, by keeping quiet she is the one allowing herself to go through all this pain.. She may be scared but if she thought of the consequences of keeping quiet - which is a pregnancy maybe - then she should realize keeping quiet isn't the wisest thing to do.. You speak up, you get help and there would be no reason for abortion anyway...
Yes. Getting an abortion is a form of personal responsibility.
Do you have trouble understanding rape? If a woman is raped, the social stigma of being pregnant is less important than the persistent reminder that your child is unwanted, forced upon you by a violent sexual act, and the offspring of the man who did this to you.
This is why using god as a basis of ethics and morality can lead to some very unrealistic solutions to simple problems.
sure, call it murder, death, killing, assenting.............. who cares!!!!!!!!!!! Its a persons private decision to do with their private doctor in a private appointment with privacy!!!!!!!
No, the baby has not been born yet, it cannot live on its own if it was ripped out of its mother, plus with population increase we should probably be having less kids any ways
i'm going to assume all of you who are saying abortion is murder are male? you will never become pregnant. you will never go through the mental and physical struggles of being pregnant. having a baby is a huge responsiblity. maybe women getting abortions are not capable of supporting another person or maybe they have been raped. they do not want that child they do not want to remember what happened to them and they don't want this baby to know how it was brought into the world. it is not killing a life, it is saving a life
If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose.
If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America.
You are a murderer if you believe in that!!! A woman who has a baby in her stomach does not have the right to kill it before it is born because it is her own dang fault! Why not give it up for adoption!
"A woman who has a baby in her stomach does not have the right to kill it before it is born because it is her own dang fault!"
I would like to point out that a woman who has a "baby" in her stomach is already in the process of digesting it though the stomach's protein-digesting enzymes and strong acids.
'Stomach' is often used as a generalization for the abdominal cavity. While precision would dictate that the poster write 'uterus' of 'womb', 'stomach' is ofttimes viewed as acceptable.
If they have the right, how do they exercise that right without conscience. As was said earlier on here, 40% of abortions occur before the brain has formed, meaning the fetus is incapable of conscious thought. Therefore, that fetus is unable to make a clear or sober decision.
You are a murderer if you believe in that!!! A woman who has a baby in her stomach does not have the right to kill it before it is born because it is her own dang fault! Why not give it up for adoption!
Over 50% of abortions don't even involve a foetus. The remaining 40% involve a foetus that doesn't even have a heart. The last 10% involve later term abortions. Get your facts straight.
So just because it hasnt fully developed, it isnt worthy to live? You had to develop, so you would have been happy if your mum had been like "Fuck This, Its not even fully developed DIE BABY DIE!"??
So just because it hasnt fully developed, it isnt worthy to live? You had to develop, so you would have been happy if your mum had been like "Fuck This, Its not even fully developed DIE BABY DIE!"??
I believe I said that an undeveloped human isn't worthy of the rights bestowed upon developed humans.
Do you even know what this debate is about? Have you seen images of what is aborted in 90% of cases?
No the question is what do you not understand. You are the one saying that an undeveloped human hasn't the rights of a developed human an yet we were all once "undeveloped" so we technically have no rights since we were undeveloped. So you would not care if your parents decided that oh we want an abortion because it is undeveloped so it does not have the rights that we developed humans do.
No the question is what do you not understand. You are the one saying that an undeveloped human hasn't the rights of a developed human an yet we were all once "undeveloped" so we technically have no rights since we were undeveloped. So you would not care if your parents decided that oh we want an abortion because it is undeveloped so it does not have the rights that we developed humans do.
Are you developed or undeveloped (an embryo or foetus)?
This is a binary question. You are either one or the other.
If you are a foetus (you aren't, right?), then you have no human rights.
If you are post-birth, aka a developed human, you have human rights. The rights or lack thereof of one of these categories doesn't affect the other. Rights are granted upon birth.
I don't care what the facts are you are still killing a life that either will become one or is already one. It is still the same in my opinion no matter what. Shut up "get your facts straight."
I don't care what the facts are you are still killing a life that either will become one or is already one. It is still the same in my opinion no matter what. Shut up "get your facts straight."
Over 50% of abortions don't even involve a foetus.
The remaining 40% involve a foetus that doesn't even have a heart.
The last 10% involve later term abortions.
The facts say that it isn't a life in at least 90% of abortions. Opinions are worthless.
You guys are missing the point. This argument all goes back to the mom who has this "forming baby" in her stomach and is her own fault for doing you know what so it isn't the baby's fault that it has to be killed before it is even born because of the mom's mistake. And don't tell me all of this "fetus" stuff because it doesn't matter whats stage it is in. It seems like all abortions are done by pregnant teens which is completely stupid and foolish to do and yet they go and do you know what and get pregnant. All of you guys are telling me all of this scientific stuff which I don't give a care about! All of what you are saying doesnt matter and i don't want to hear stuff about how my stuff matters because it does so shut up!
It's okay, really, you can type the word 'sex'. We are all adults rationally and maturely discussing a serious matter...right?'
Once again, telling your opponents to 'shut up' has a place in an elementary school playground, not a place at createdebate. You will not find it very effective here.
Most abortions are not performed on pregnant teens. Most abortions are performed on 20-24 year olds, then 25-29 year olds, and only then 15-19 year olds. Do not cite false facts. Many of these people are married, or in a serious relationship, and their contraceptive was ineffective. They do not deserve a pregnancy because of this.
Since it is clear you will not be convinced of a fetus's lack of personhood, I would like to look at this from another angle. If the fetus and the mother are both people, why on earth would the fetus's right to bodily integrity override the mother's right to bodily integrity? The fetus is using the mother as a life support system, it is reliant 100% on her and nobody could possibly take her place as its host. It may not be the most admirable decision, but the government and everyone else has no right to tell anyone they must serve as a life support system for another being for any length of time, unborn fetus or not. Essentially, when the rights of the fetus and the mother are at odds, the fetus's rights should be the ones that are overridden.
Of course a fetus has no rights because it is not yet recognized as a citizen of the United States but this argument kind of makes that a nonissue.
No, a fetus is not a baby! A baby can live outside of it's mother; A fetus can not survive outside of it's protective environment. However When having a legal abortion the law and most moral people are referring to the first trimester. Anything after that the individual has to live with that. As to a 12 year old child vs a fetus that's just ridiculous. I'm not going to give the fetus Milk money for school lunch, but I am going to give my 12 year old milk money.
So you are saying a fetus is not human and it is undeserving to live and yet we were all once a fetus and we are living. Abortion is depriving that human of experiencing life.
Is a fetus a human being because it has a complete set of human DNA?
A fetus is a potential human being, and not an actual individual, because it does not have physiological independence outside its host—the pregnant woman.
(Toward the end of a woman's pregnancy, a fetus does have the physiological means to live independently outside its host, the pregnant women, which makes the birth of a healthy child possible, though it remains physically dependent until birth. At birth the fetus becomes a physically independent baby/child.)
Is a baby a fetus?
A baby, infant, or child, is not a fetus. A baby is an actual human being. A baby, or adult, is a fetus actualized, just like a young oak tree is an acorn actualized
You asked me is a fetus a human being the answer is NO. Science says NO!
Jesus-lives, thought Jesus was the only one who Judged? Isn't that what you are doing? As far as killing a 12-14 year old child, that comment is rediciculous to compare a fetus to killing a 12-14 year old child.
A fetus is a potential human being, and not an actual individual, because it does not have physiological independence outside its host—the pregnant woman.
(Toward the end of a woman's pregnancy, a fetus does have the physiological means to live independently outside its host, the pregnant women, which makes the birth of a healthy child possible, though it remains physically dependent until birth. At birth the fetus becomes a physically independent baby/child.)
Is a baby a fetus?
A baby, infant, or child, is not a fetus. A baby is an actual human being. A baby, or adult, is a fetus actualized, just like a young oak tree is an acorn actualized
You asked me is a fetus a human being the answer is NO. Science says NO!
I do not consider a fetus to be a baby. I am providing another argument which disregards that one; even if a fetus were a person, the mother's rights to her own body take precedence.
What does lunch money have to do with it? If a 12 year old somehow got into the same situation of parasitism as a fetus, where they are 100% biologically dependent on another human, and no other person or machine can take the place as their host, then I still believe the person who is functioning as a sole life support system has the right to chose whether or not the process continues and nobody else has the right to make that call for them. Person or not person is not part of the equation in my argument
A 12 year old child does not need a host to survive, but a fetus does? What are you even talking about. You make no sense. A fetus can not feel, think, breath on it's own, can not survive outside of it's mother. A 12 year old child can think, feels, breaths on his/her own. As to the lunch money you really should read the post that I was responding to where my statement about the 12 year old has lunch money was approprate to the other person debating with me. The debate was not with you, but with myself and another person. Thank you anyway. In other words if you are going to argue with me read all the post first instead of just assuming.
A 12 year old child does not need a host to survive, but a fetus does? What are you even talking about. You make no sense.
Actually, that makes perfect sense. A fetus is dependent on its mother for survival. It leeches nutrients from her body without benefiting her so it is a parasite and the mother is its host. My argument is that it doesn't matter if a fetus is considered a human or not, if a person has a living organism of any kind using them to survive, it is up to them to decide whether or not that process continues. It is irrelevant if the living organism is a 12 year old or a fetus, it's just that there is really no way for a 12 year old to get into that situation.
Although I don't think it was phrased well, I know what you meant by the lunch money comment, so I guess that doesn't need to be pursued.
The debate was not with you, but with myself and another person. Thank you anyway. In other words if you are going to argue with me read all the post first instead of just assuming.
You replied to me, so I assumed you were debating with me. I think if you read my post more carefully you would realize we are on the same side of the issue.
I agree with you on that, we are on the same page. However when you question the lunch money, may I explain? A fetus, is just that a Fetus. Living cells, DNA. A 12 year old child is a human being. The mother of said fetus has the right to terminate said pregnancy. My point to the other viewer is that it is a little to late to compare a 12 year old child with a fetus. You can not terminate the 12 year old child. I am glad we cleared that up. Hope to hear from you soon