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.
My first thought whenever the topic of Pro-Choice versus Pro-Life comes up, is that it's not a debate. Something that is so highly emotional and so personal. Something where each and every instance of it coming into play (any unwanted pregnancy) is so drastically different each time. The idea of there being one yes or no answer to this question seems archaic. Which is why it's called pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Abortion is never a good thing, no one is happy to have one. But the choice is sometimes the only choice for some people, for others its not. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter, as long as the choice is that persons to make, and that person alone. Not some judge, not some republican, and not some small town mayor from Alaska.
Are you serious? That's political suicide. And they wont get anything out of it.
I tell you what. Lets have a standing bet that if McCain and Palin win and they pass laws (within 4 years of being elected) ordering the arrest of doctors that give abortions, then you win. You'll have to decide what you want though. Maybe I can write a debate claiming you to be the world's greatest debater or the one with the most foresight ever, or something. Deal?
"If Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion outlawed, McCain said he believes doctors who performed abortions would be prosecuted. 'But I would not prosecute a woman' who obtained an abortion."
As for the bet, well, if McCain or Palin outlaw abortion, I'll be happy if you just say to yourself, "Wow, Jesse was right. I should listen to him more often."
I accept the conditions of the wager. Now if I win, I'll be happy if you just say to yourself, "GD that JC! I hate it when he's right." ;)
You know, if (and this is a Giant IF) Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion outlawed, then (by definition) doctors who performed abortions would be prosecuted. Anyone who breaks the law is prosecuted. McCain just stated an obvious fact.
A spokesman said that McCain "has a 17-year voting record of supporting efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He does that currently, and will continue to do that as president.”
Though McCain has gone back and forth on this issue, his current stance is that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
First, he could appoint justices to the Supreme Court that would overturn it.
Second, Roe v. Wade states that abortion is protected by the Constitution. Thus, McCain could amend the Constitution and render Roe v. Wade null and void. Once again, this is something he has said he would do.
I think he would have an up hill battle if he tried to pull that off. Remember, this race is going to be close. He's not going to have a "mandate" and he's going to have a hard time dealing with the pissed off Democratic Party.
That's at the very least in the ball park of what they'll do. Palin has been VERY vocal about women not having the right to choose in the event of a rape. That would be forcing them to go to term...
Again, I agree 100% and couldn't have set it forth better myself. You've said what needed saying...even if everyone needs to be reminded of it from time to time.
Thanks, that's kinda what I was going to say when I saw the debate, probably not as well.
And would ad that making abortions illegal does not and I'll repeat it does not, never has, and never will cut down on the number of abortions. All it does is force women into basements to get them performed by people who may or may not be doctors, and it increases the mortality rate for women a hundred times.
So you have to ask yourself what really is the goal of the pro-life group? If no one is really saved, and infact more life is lost by making it illegal.
Pro-Life does not support the most important point behind Pro-Choice.
This question is heavily debated, which indicates to me that people cannot decide who is right about the issue.
Obviously, because it's a governmental issue, you support the idea that covers most people, and is less restrictive. Like I said, that would be Pro-Choice as it does not conflict with Pro-Life, and does not infringe on people's rights to make their own choices... why would a government unsure of who is right about the issue wish to enforce the more strict ideology?
It makes perfect sense to allow people to make their own decisions about this. All of the Pro-Life people need to get used to sharing the nation with people who don't think the way they do... I'm looking at you GOP. 0_O
Yeah, I agree. I'm "pro-life" but you're entitled to your decision. It's between you and your maker after that. The reason I'm pro-life is because I have 2 kids and I could have had 3. I made a choice and although it may have been the right choice at the time, I would like a do over.
What I'm saying is that when I say I'm pro-life, I mean that I would try not to choice and abortion. I do not mean that I would force my views on others.
Yeah, most people are as agreeable about their beliefs, and by that I simply mean that they do as they please and, for the most part, leave others alone. It seems like there are a lot of people out there though, that are fighting to implement their philosophies on life, in other people... I say seems because there aren't that many in actuality. As soon as you have people that all believe in the same thing, and are speaking out against other people, and are organized, it starts to look like a bigger issue than it really is.
i understand where you're coming from, I haven't formed an opinion about your opinions so you didn't need to explain yourself. I couldn't imagine having one kid, let alone two and an abortion. I am smart enough to keep myself from getting to the point in my life to where I need that choice, and I plan to keep it that way... but I also know that accidents do happen, and sometimes abortion may be the only reasonable choice.
"...smart enough to keep myself from getting to the point in my life to where I need that choice..."
Now, I am going to have to disagree with you on this statement. What about a woman who was raped? Is she not smart enough to keep her self out of this choice? That is just plain insensitive to think that all people who have abortions were just not smart enough to not get pregnant!
(Sorry, I just needed to play Devil's Advocate on this one!) ;)
Pro-Choice all the way. The last thing we need is more parents with unwanted children.
While we are on the subject, Pro-Life shouldn't be called that. It should be called Anti-Abortion. Life is a much more general term that could be applied to war and capitol punishment.
So if parents decide that they don't want children they should have a right to end their lives? What about parents whose children are already born? Sounds like the ends justify the means here. That the extinguishing of a life might lead to fewer "unwanted children" hardly justifies the intrinsic evil and relative gravity of this action.
Women deserve a choice Men like me and every other guy don't deserve to take that painful choice away from women. I don't believe anyone likes an abortion especially women. The reason they have them isn't because they want to see a baby die. There are hundreds of reasons why. Work, there damn lives, who the hell knows what else the point being its called pro-choice not pro-abortion.
Come on now, how are you going to force someone currently alive to ruin their life for a reason you can't understand. I'm pro choice because killing a fetus is no more wrong than killing a animal. They are alive only enough eat, sleep, and breathe. They are in fact more of a hassle at this point.
well, i disagree with the idea of completely eliminating abortion. i mean, yes, it would protect the rights of the baby inside the mothers, but a stream of post menstrual feminazis will stop having sex with their husbands... and i can't allow this to happen to my fellow man.
so i do support up to 3 months because at least the baby is unaware of it's death (thrown into a trashcan, shit like that), but i do support that fetus going into some kind of medical research so at least it's life was worth something... god, i'm so glad i wasn't aborted... imagine that, never existing? never doing what you did? i would never want that to happen... but once again, post menstrual feminazis... it's basically the greater good.
hmm, what would have been interesting is if every person who currently supports abortion was aborted so they had never been able to continue that movement. funny thing to think about...
difference between feminazis and feminists. i guess though if you wanna ban "sexist" video games and think that the right to abortion is the same as the right to vote... then i can see how you're offended.
Actually, I think that women have the right to vote, the right to choose, and that 18+ year old men have the right to play video games that I might not agree with due to their possible sexist content. I do not agree in censorship in that regard. I think that we have the right to do what we want with in reason!
why only 18+ men? so many video games are considered sexist by the feminazis. hell, Fat Princess was considered sexist. GTA is allowed to be bought by kids with parental consent (which is virtually all) and any game with a female lead character is considered sexist because God forbid the game designers make the female lead hot.
otherwise, yeah, women do deserve the right to vote... but it's not EQUAL to their right to having an abortion.
:) This is in response to the "I guess though if you wanna ban sexist video games...." comment.
I am a woman, but sometimes, I swear that the female sex (in the mainstream hub) do not possess brains, but believe that they do. Please all those wonderful government schools out there TEACH LOGIC FOR A CHANGE! Don't just push feminism down all of our throats. There ARE differences between men and women & we each have amazingly different roles in which we are to fulfil. Stop making EVERYTHING an issue for the feminist agenda!
Speaking of prisons... What do you think happen to those women who are found guilty of commissioning an illegal abortion? If you define abortion as murder then logically these women would be sentenced with murder, embryonocide as it were.
NOTE Sorry, I noticed that I setup a straw man. Just correct me if that isn't your position.ENDNOTE
You may not favor abortion, and you may not favor killing fetuses but clearly someone does or all of this wouldn't be an issue. Some "pro-choicers" may not favor abortion but it's utterly ridiculous to claim that nobody favors abortion. (forgive my pun)
Women who get abortions don't get them because they want to kill a fetus. They regard abortion as a necessary evil. They get an abortion because they feel the consequences of not getting an abortion are worse.
Saying pro-choicers are pro-abortion is like saying America is pro-mass-murder because we nuked Japan.
What do you mean? I'm for sterilization. The reason I went to get one of those government sponsored vasectomies is because I have two kids. The reason I have two kids is because I don't want three. I have a hard enough time keeping up with the two I already have.
Actually, if you sterilize them at birth and then make them take a test which they must pass before the operation can be reversed, you can solve lots of problems ;)
I'll keep this simple. The abortion issue is an issue because people continue to make bad choices. There are plenty of ways to have safe sex, and can considerably reduce the risk of a pregnancy. To me an abortion is more than murder its a refusal by the parents of the unborn child to take responsibility for their actions. Though I'm not willing to concede that a fetus is not a living thing or at the very least a group of cells with an extremely high probability of developing into an individual organism, I will for the moment put that issue aside. It's hard to imagine that anyone can argue that except for cases of rape, and perhaps even threat to the mother's health, the choice to have an abortion is the choice to run away from a potential "problem." It's a choice that is akin to foisting one's child off to a relative because the parent(s) would rather go off and live their lives free of the worries of parenthood. Not only is it irresponsible its utterly disheartening. Have we as a society really become so selfish?
I agree that it's stupid and irresponsible to get pregnant, considering safe sex is possible. However no matter how dumb the girls maybe i refuse to have a say in what she does with her body. I simply cannot command someone to have a baby, or to get an abortion. It's her and her parents choice not mine. It's really none of my business to be able to vote pro choice or pro life and possibly end up forcing a young woman to have a baby.
I don't believe that life begins at conception. That idea stems from the Christian idea of the soul, a belief that is baseless and irrational.
I believe that there is a continuum whereby a fertilized egg gradually becomes a human.
I believe there is certainly nothing wrong with destroying a single fertilized egg.
However, I do believe that aborting a fetus toward the end of a pregnancy (say 8 months) is in fact murder. You are taking a human life (or at least something very close to human), and that is certainly against the law.
A woman should not have a choice about whether to have a late-term abortion for the same reasons she should not have a choice to commit the murder of an adult.
Our laws need to take this progression from potential life to realized life into account.
OK let me get this straight, you're in favor of laws that recognize that a fetus is in fact a future baby; is in fact human life. But you're against outlawing abortion outright? Look there's no gray area in this issue. Either we allow abortions or we don't. Just because a fetus at 8-months looks more like an already born baby doesn't mean that it's any different from the embryo that was formed in the mother's womb 8 months earlier. I don't see how there is any difference between a late-term abortion and an abortion the morning after. In both cases a human life is being extinguished before it ever had a chance to be born.
I assume your position is this: At the moment an egg is fertilized, it has been infused with a soul -- it has been "touched by God" and therefore destroying it is a kind of blasphemy.
Well I don't believe in God and I do not believe in the Christian version of the soul, so this framework doesn't work for me.
The way I see it you do not have a "human life" until the entity can think and feel. Since a fertilized egg or an embryo can neither think nor feel, it is for all practical purposes no different than a clump of dirt out of which life can spring.
There is nothing wrong with destroying a potential human, but there is something wrong with destroying a realized human. So where is the line between a clump of cells that can neither think nor feel and a human being? Well, the fact is, it's not a line, but a continuum. I'm saying it's a difficult moral problem and our laws should reflect that complexity.
If you have an opinion on abortion, then you must have an opinion on why you/your family/your parents/etc do not have any adopted children. I'm interested where anti-abortion groups want all these adopted children to go, since most "pro-lifers" do not adopt.
Where do you draw the line (8 months)? Why 8 months? If we are a "continuim" than why can't it be 9 months gestation or even 1 day old?
With your strain of logic the whole issue of pro choice becomes even more subjective than before. You are saying that you are autonomous & you can decide when life really begins for you and I can decide for me. There are even schools of thought out there (google it) that believe that a woman should have 30 days after she gives birth to decide whether or not she wants to abort.
And, furthermore why would you concede that abortion in the last trimester is considered murder? By what standard can you make such a claim? Why is murder wrong? You could appeal to the fact it is written in our laws that murder is a crime, but where did that come from? I would encourage you & anyone (pro-life or pro choice) to really study the beliefs & standards your very founding fathers stood upon. The very reason that we can have this debate rests on a freedom that was handed down to us. The very least we owe those that have gone before us is to study & listen to their reasons for establishing this nation. I guarantee you that they believed we all have a soul.
One last comment & I'll be through.....if we don't have a soul then we do not have a real hope. This topic is a completely different debate, but I believe that as our culture embraces your line of thinking more & more (that we do not have a soul) we will become more & more obsessed with youth & become so self obsorbed to the point that we will no longer procreate b/c of our own hopelessness. Just a thought....
i don't know, that's what they say. feminazis have actually made it a case that taking away any abortion rights is like taking away their right to vote.
i think it is OK to be pro-choice as long as you give the baby the choice to live or die. another good pro-choice is abstinence, birth control, and adoption. if you don't want to have a kid chose one of thoes
I am PRO-LIFE. Life begins at the moment of conception. However, I find it diffucult to understand the justification of pregnancies from rapes and molestations. Not just 'mistakes'. I believe that if it is going to cause harm to the baby, that is when an abortion should be considered. I'm not saying abortion for down-syndrome children. That's not an exception. However, if the baby will live ONLY in misery, without any moment free of pain. You want what is best. It's a sensitive topic. With lots of controversy, but DO NOT tell me it's the womans 'right'. I will NOT tolerate such absurb comments.
Do you mean to say that you cannot justify an abortion if a woman was raped or molested? If so, do you also rule out abortion for a 12 year old child or a mother who might die giving birth? The only point I can possibly agree on is that it's NOT an inherent woman's right but a question that has been passed into law making it a right. But it is, no matter what, a woman's choice...and I mean a WOMAN, not a child.
Oh my, here I go again. Listen buddy, if your going to start contradicting EVERYTHING I say PLEASE have the courtesy of reading the article! Dimwit. I said I'm not sure on how to approach that. If it endangers the life of ANYONE that time, and ONLY that time should abortion be even considered. I am pro-life when a woman becomes pregnant by 'mistake' then you should either have the child and care for it to the best of your ability or give it up for adoption. Something I find interesting about your uhh shall we say 'rebuttals' is that they contain no stance of your own? So, tell me. Are you another narrow-minded liberal, or can you stand to hear me out and possibly change you beliefs??? I bet I could tell you...Well, since currently you are boring me I will bring this one to a close...TaTa
1. I am NOT your buddy and I haven't begun to contradict EVERYTHING you say...yet!
2. Since YOU, as the creator of this debate, did NOT allude to an article nor give us the courtesy of providing the URL for it, it's good I've already apprised myself of their differences.
3. NEVER call me a dimwit or any other name!
4. You specifically stated it was the life of the baby and not ANYONE if endangered.
5. You find it interesting that my rebuttals contain no stance of my own. Even though I didn't register a true argument in this debate I did choose to rebut your ill-advised argument. You may see my argument in due time and when I have time.
6. I would again suggest that you stop or, at the very least, curtail your use of name calling when someone calls you on something. It is nothing more than a tactic as is your feigning boredom then dismissing the individual.
Ok let me continue this pathetic exscuse of a debate (oops, that doesn't offend you does it?)
1. I use buddy sarcastically my uhhh friend. Trust me when I say you are the farthest thing from either a friend or a buddy. That clear? I guess I didn't realize you that you didn't have the ability to recogonize sarcasm?? I'll try to point it out if I use it again...
2. By article I mean my ENTRY, my WRITING, whatever you call it. Lack of communication there...
3. I am sorry I offended you. However, you show no reason for me to think otherwise. I apoligize for writing that, but not for thinking that. I am WAY too opionated for my own good.
4. Huh? No, not specifically. By the way when I say endangered I mean having over 50% chance of losing their life, OR causing permanant damage.
5. When you have time? If you had the time to write this far-fetched argument, why not enough to take a stand???? Hmm, is your name by any chance Obama?
6. Ok, I uhh again shall state: I apoligize for the dimwitted comment (haha..get it?) BUT you didn't call me on anything???? It is no tatic my ally (SARCASM ALERT) but it is just an expression of my anger towards you. 'feigning boredom' I love that! So original! So unique! So wrong! I not only called you a dimwit (maybe you could use some thicker skin?) I gave other details to support my argument...
So I guess my 6 addresses your 6....How neat (SARCASM ALERT) Well, nice to have this chat.
I will change my stance on one thing I said.
You are no longer boring me! I am intriguied by your very liberal ways...
So sorry, now that I know how old you really are, I must tell you I don't waste my time speaking with children in these matters...and most especially not one such as yourself. AMEN!
I'm curious why you believe that life begins at the moment of conception. At that point all you have is a single cell, similar to the ones that are everywhere on your body, thousands of which die every day. I guess my problem is that you think that a sperm and egg separately are nothing, but when they are combined, life magically starts. At that point, the cell can't see, can't hear, can't even think. There is no consciousness, no feeling. The only thing it can do is multiply and eventually the cells that multiply specialize.
To say life starts at conception is a fairly simplistic view. There is no specific moment where something not alive becomes alive. In fact as far as we know, this only happened once: during abiogenesis.
Absolutely agree. A more significant milestone would be the point at which a fetus can start to feel pain. Before this point, what significance is there in getting rid of a collection of cells that cannot think, feel, hurt, sense, etc? Scientific consensus on this issue is that the establishment of thalamocortical connections is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain, and this happens around the 26 week mark.
"At that point all you have is a single cell, similar to the ones that are everywhere on your body, thousands of which die every day."
No, there is a severely big difference - the cell is fertilised with someone elses DNA and can become a functioning, multicelluar organism.
"At that point, the cell can't see, can't hear, can't even think. There is no consciousness, no feeling. The only thing it can do is multiply and eventually the cells that multiply specialize."
The fertilised egg divides and specialises until it becomes a functioning, multicelluar organism. A skin cell cannot do this.
"To say life starts at conception is a fairly simplistic view."
So? Why not say life starts at conception? Seems a fairly logical place to define it. Life begins when two organisms' DNA combines and leads to cell division - how about that? No room for fuzzy wiggling there.
"There is no specific moment where something not alive becomes alive."
I don't appreciate your patronization... I am very aware of the difference between a skin cell and a fertilized egg. My point was that, like a skin cell, a fertilized egg cannot see, feel, think, or do any of the other fun things multicellular organisms can.
As far as your question "Why not say life starts at conception?" I think that's pretty obvious, it doesn't!
Let me give you the scientific definition: organisms are capable of reacting to stimuli, reproduction, growth and maintenance as a stable whole. It's funny that a sperm cell actually meets as many, or arguably more of these criteria than fertilized eggs do. Let's make a checklist:
Reaction to stimuli- Fertilized egg: yes, Sperm cell: Yes
Maintenance as a stable whole: Fertilized Egg: No, Sperm Cell: Yes
The issue is that the egg cannot survive outside of the host. Now I admit that the fertilized egg has the potential for life, but so do an unfertilized egg and sperm cells next to each other...that doesn't mean anything.
My overall point is that the issue is complicated and a simplistic view that states there is a single moment where "life" starts is an inadequate way to resolve the issue.
Being a Christian I believe that God has a purpose for that particular sperm-egg ferilization...Seeing how this country is 'One nation under God' my beliefs should be justified....I see your point though...I think...
"Seeing how this country is 'One nation under God' my beliefs should be justified"
Nope, "one nation under God" was added during the cold war as a response to "godless commies." There is a separation of church and state in this country so...no... your religious beliefs don't mean shit.
1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
OK then. Why did we keep it? Obviously it isn't wanted, so why not just erase? That doesn't make any sense...My religious beliefs do mean something. To me, not you. America supports MY RIGHT to believe how I want to....Regardless. So...yes...my religious beliefs mean alot...Maybe not to you...
In case your unaware many groups have tried to get "under god" removed from the pledge of allegiance, but unfortunately many conservative Christians have opposed this.
America does support your right to believe, but not to force your beliefs on others. By making a law based on a religious belief that is what you are doing, forcing your religion on others.
I don't know if pro-chice is the ONLY way to be. or everyone would think that way...
However, goverment and one's convictions are NOT the same, and should NEVER be lumped together. It is interesting to hear the strong arguments presented here.
If life began at conception, every woman who miscarried before implantation would be a murderer. Nearly every woman has conceived without becoming pregnant at some time or other. Millions of women around the world would be the worst sinners of all.
Sorry, anyone who believes in a loving, forgiving God cannot possibly take that stand.
That doesn't make any sense at all. The difference is that mothers don't plan on having a miscarraige - it is a tragic accident. The idea is that murder involves some willful intent. Per Wikipedia, "Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification."
OK so you think it's homicide to have a miscarriage or 'spontaneous abortion.' You going to charge me and millions of other women? Have us serve time? Or change the law to accommodate your religious perceptions--as opposed to scientific and medical evidence?
Please note the definition says "elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification." Abortion is never malicious, always has justification, and is lawful.
Nice cliche but I cannot agree with that line. The issue of when a fetus actually becomes viable continues to be argued. I see that you are Catholic and probably believe that a baby is viable from inception. This, I strongly disagree with but you are entitled to your opinion and I will not talk you out of your belief.
why does everyone assume that my catholic beliefs tie into my opinion ? while it contributes to what i think is right, i was prolife since i was little nd back then i didn't know that it was also an opinion my faith agreed with.
do me a favor and don't even talk about fucking religion in this debate. i'm tired of having to talk about religion in a subject when that can simply be avoided.
No one answered you but myself so not EVERYONE assumes anything about you! I happened to look at your profile when you wished to add me as an Ally yesterday...without knowing me nor I you, under this name.
People speak about the things they believe in and religion enters into the abortion dilemma to a very large degree. No one is chastising you for being a Catholic but Abortion IS something they feel very strongly about. If you have believed in being pro-life since you were a little kid I don't think you could have possibly known or understood all the ramifications of both sides of the issue. Adults struggle with it and always have! And there's no need to be crude in describing religion...not yours not anyone's. If you don't care for the ways in which people frame their opinions or arguments then you may wish to avoid those in which religion is mentioned. Why do I have the distinct feeling I am dealing with someone I've dealt with in just the past two days? Let my get out my Psychic crystals and guess you've re-entered CD under a new name and the name you had prior to this one was Repubgal!
Life begins when the fetus is able to live outside the womb. If it can't live on it's own there is no baby. While no one likes abortions, it is a mother's right to chose. She is the one that will have to live with her decision.