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.
Killing babies IS wrong. However since a baby is defined as an infant that has gone through the process of birth and abortion is all about terminating the fetus BEFORE birth, this has nothing to do with abortion. Use your words correctly, or people get confused.
Killing babies is wrong because they are innocent human lives. They have not done anything wrong really. I'm surprised that most of the people on here is going with disagreeing side and saying it's okay to kill babies. Wow, such a shame that people are siding on that issue. Makes me want to question their morals, on why they would say that killing babies is alright.
Human life is precious that's why it's wrong to take an innocent human's life. Plus they never did anything wrong so why do they deserve to die in the first place?
Is it not amazing how difficult it is for people to answer the very basic questions? People found their beliefs on assumptions they take purely for granted, and have so little idea what to do when they are confronted with that reality.
Did God kill babies during the flood? Did God condemn all babies to die because Adam and Eve ate a fruit? Did God order killing babies of tribes rival to the Jews and for living in a town that believes in another God?
Thank you for this debate. You are a good debater, so it is an honor that you care about this issue. I believe that killing babies is wrong unless the mother has an ectopic pregnancy.
It is okay to kill the baby if the pregnancy is ectopic, because that is the only time that the pregnancy would kill the mother. Otherwise, they can deliver the baby and let nature take it's course.
What I am reading is that you are explicitly, in no uncertain terms, most definitely saying... it is okay to kill babies. Therefore it obviously can not be inherently wrong.
Just to assure you I read your argument in it's entirety, and am not pulling out one or two words to benefit my stance, I'm am referencing how you added a clause. The clause was that if the baby is endangering the mother it is okay to kill.
What's important though, is that a clause can be added to justify killing a baby, as you clearly agree simply by what you stated. The basis of my argument being, if justification can be found in any way shape or form, that the thing being justified is not inherently wrong.
Yes. You are correct. I think it is okay to kill the baby in an ectopic pregnancy because that is the one situation where the baby threatens the mother's life, as long as it is done in a humane way. Otherwise, if the mother needs to deliver the baby for health reasons and let nature take its course, I support that. I respect that you are prochoice because I was myself until I changed my mind. Stay awesome. :)
I think it is okay to kill the baby in an ectopic pregnancy because that is the one situation where the baby threatens the mother's life
Ectopic pregnancies are certainly not the only type of pregnancy that is dangerous for the mother (trophoblastic/molar, etc.) nor complication of pregnancy that is life-threatening to the mother (hypertension/pre-eclampsia, embolism, etc.) nor exacerbation of existing conditions (cardiovascular, etc.) which could result in the death of the mother.
Also, what if rather than life-threatening, continuation of the pregnancy only poses severe danger of organ damage, loss of ovaries, etc.?
What about the case of severe deformation where the fetus is very likely experiencing pain and is condemned to a short life if any life at all? (severe cephalic disorders, etc.)
I often contend that there are many people who consider themselves pro-life in that they would not get an abortion themselves and would typically advise others the same except in rare circumstances, yet they would not want the government outlawing abortion and investigating all miscarriages as potential homicides and jailing/executing women for having abortions even when they were raped, etc. etc. Would you consider yourself in this category?
Your position seems to contradict itself. In the case of ectopic pregnancy where the mother's life is in danger - they should be allowed to abort it, but in all other cases where the mother's life is in danger, they should die trying to have it.... ??
Please clarify (and then please address the other statements in my argument...)
Okay. In an ectopic pregnancy, removing the baby will kill it but but I support abortion in this case, because if the mother does not abort, she will die. Prolife is about saving as many lives as possible. As to delivering the baby, if the mother is further along and there is a life threatening problem, they can deliver the baby without ripping its arms and legs off which happens in most abortions.
In an ectopic pregnancy, removing the baby will kill it but but I support abortion in this case, because if the mother does not abort, she will die. Prolife is about saving as many lives as possible. As to delivering the baby, if the mother is further along and there is a life threatening problem
Here is where I think you are not fully understanding. If a woman has pulmonary hypertension, an embolism, cardiovascular issues, etc. the process of either inducing labor or performing a caesarian is generally more likely to result in the death of the mother than an abortion and typically still results in the death of the child. This would not seem to comport with "saving as many lives as possible".
ripping its arms and legs off which happens in most abortions
most? that is factually VERY inaccurate.
Since you have still not answered, I will ask again - given the complexities and guesses of probabilities for both the mother and the child, do you think the final determination should be left up to the woman and the doctor, or should the government make a blanket law?
Ripping the arms and legs off of unborn children rarely ever saves the life of the mother. I am not going to support abortion. I only support abortion for the life of the mother.
Ripping the arms and legs off of unborn children rarely ever saves the life of the mother.
I don't think you have done/seen the research to know what percentage of the time this is the case, but either way "rarely" is significantly different than never.
I am not going to support abortion. I only support abortion for the life of the mother.
Those 2 statements are contradictory. Do you now concur that there are many threats to the life of the mother other than ectopic pregnancy?
Also, since you have still not answered, I will ask again - given the complexities and guesses of probabilities for both the mother and the child, do you think the final determination should be left up to the woman and the doctor, or should the government make a blanket law?
You may consider yourself "pro-life" since you might not get an abortion or might advise others not to get one with certain exceptions, but if you don't think there should be a law against what the woman does - aren't you also "pro-choice" in a way?
What I am saying is that sometimes people are both.
You may be pro-life in your way, but if you are for ("pro") the legality of leaving the the final decision ("choice") up to the woman, then you are also "pro"-"choice", at least to a certain extent. Do you see what I mean?
One either thinks that abortion should be legal or not.
When I asked what laws the government should impose, you said "I will have to think about your last question. I am not sure what should happen if abortion was legal."
There is no middle ground on the murder of unborn children.
Actually there is lots of middle ground. You already agree with abortion in the case of saving the mother's life, and said you at least agreed in concept with preserving the most life. Moreover, you have not indicated what role government should play.
As I have shown you - the reality of abortion is not as simple as pro-baby vs kill-baby.
Sometimes people could be personally pro-life - they would not have elective abortions themselves, etc.
and legally pro-choice - in that they don't think the government can/should intervene.
Do you now have an opinion on what laws the government should impose?
Well you believe in "killing" the embryo before it is implanted (contraceptives) so that is the middle group. You are advocating killing babies but only very young ones
While you deliberate, I'll offer this bit of info - banning abortion does not generally reduce the number of abortions that occur, but banning does tend to make them more dangerous.
Some pregnancies threaten the life of the mother (including, but not exclusive to ectopic pregnancies). You say that you support abortions to protect the life of the mother, correct?
You do realize that a c-section is a very involved surgery which could certainly exacerbate complications of pregnancy and increase mortality compared to an abortion, right? Do you dispute this?
Killing babies ("The term infant is typically applied to young children between the ages of 1 month and 12 months; however, definitions may vary between birth and 1 year of age, or even between birth and 2 years of age. A newborn is an infant who is only hours, days, or up to a few weeks old. In medical contexts, newborn or neonate (from Latin, neonatus, newborn) refers to an infant in the first 28 days after birth;[1] the term applies to premature infants, postmature infants, and full term infants. Before birth, the term fetus is used.") is wrong.
This negative value you just attached to suffering is itself another assumption. Effectively, your argument is that one assumption is correct because you are making another one to defend it. Morality is inherently non-objective, as is any process of value ascription.
Suffering is negative by definition. If severe pain and distress could be positive things to experience, you would have a point.
Morality can be objective when viewed from points of social science. It can be argued that it is objectively wrong to kill babies because it goes against the core of our being, as we have evolved to see babies as something to protect.
Suffering is negative by definition. If severe pain and distress could be positive things to experience, you would have a point.
Suffering is not by definition negative; suffering is very simply the experience of pain. You are conflating displeasure/aversion with value judgement, and they are not the same thing.
Morality can be objective when viewed from points of social science. It can be argued that it is objectively wrong to kill babies because it goes against the core of our being, as we have evolved to see babies as something to protect.
You say social science, but then you discuss the hard science of evolution; you will pardon my skepticism that the social sciences have much to contribute objectively to considerations of morality. Arguing that we are evolved to feel wrong about killing babies and that we have evolved to feel good about protecting babies in no way demonstrates that morality is objective; in fact, it demonstrates the converse: that morality is subjective. The definition of objectivity is something that exists external to and independent of our minds; feelings do not meet that standard.
Social science and evolution do have a lot to do with each other. My argument is that a human being feels the need to protect a child. To go against this, for a human being, is wrong (immoral).
Social science is not any less a science than evolutionary biology. As the bodies and minds of creatures evolve, so do their societies and interactions with each other. Some of these interactions become hard-wired, such as the protection of young. Morality is not subjective, as all people who posses moral judgement will feel bad about killing children. Something does not need to be external of our minds to be subjective, because subjective is personal, not unanimous. Morality can be viewed as a crude evolutionary framework or a reflection of the need for order in a society to survive. (Kind of the same thing)
Also, the definition of suffering you used was different from the one I used (The state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship, oxford dictionary). Of course someone can enjoy pain. But if they can enjoy pain, they are not suffering from it.
I never said that social science is not a science or that it had nothing to do with the study of evolution. My point was that you have not demonstrated that social science is a hard science based upon objective reality. Consequentially, it cannot contribute anything by way of demonstrating that morality itself is objective.
I have also never argued that morality is not an evolutionary (by)product. That (most) humans experience a perception of morality does not mean that subjective perception exists in actuality; we can think that hurting the young is wrong but that belief/feeling does not exist outside of our own minds which makes it inherently subjective.
For the record, subjectivity is defined both by Merriam-Webster and by Oxford as something "[d]ependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for its existence".
The definition of suffering that you use also does not define "suffering" as being negative; the definition is strictly an observation that suffering is the experience of pain. The perception of negativity is something you are projecting onto that experience; it is dependent upon the mind for its existence.
if you were a mother wouldn't you want your baby to grow up and have a normal and fun life.you got to so why can't they.they can have a life and if you kill them there is no point to life so don't kill babies for a lot of reasons
Why do people use they argument it's the woman's choice . Does being comfortable really take precedence over life . For those of you familiar with Edgar Allan Poe , in one of his stories a man murdered someone because that man made him uncomfortable . I have no right to kill someone because they make me uncomfortable .
Please, killing babies is the same as killing a twenty year old. God sees them both as humans, except that babies are more helpless. Who knows, one of them could've grown up to be the next president. This undermines my argument, but women have a choice too, so back off haters.
I know what you mean, and face a similar dillema myself. I thought maybe we could skip over optional abortion and mandatory abortion and just start shooting pregnant women. We still get to kill unborn babies, and the women don't get to have a choice either. Everyone important wins :D
What if me make sure the fetuses have the right to choose, and simply require them to indicate that they wish to survive to opt mother and child out of the shooting?
How do you define wrong? If you're a Theist you would decide that God decides whether or not thigns are good or not. however, even theists must accept the Euthyphro Dilema. Are things good because God wishes them to be, or are morals and ethics separate of God?
Well, God would not truly be omnipotent if he did not have control over things like morals and ethics, and thus also not truly omniscient. However, if God decided whether something is wrong or not, and he decided infanticide was morally good. Would it then be? Of course it would. But according to an independent set of moral rules, it might not. And if God were to decide whether things were good or not, then this embraces his benevolent attribute- namely that he is all loving/caring. Everything he would do would be in our interests, whether we realised it or not.
So, Killing babies may appear wrong, but maybe it is right and we are in fact all being deluded. Either way we cannot know.
Well, unless you're an atheist, then it's simple ;)
