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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
I was going to be funny and put for the Negative Position "Kill all the unwanted babies!" Because well that's what abortions are! You're murdering an unwanted child. (Murder as in killing something alive. Don't get started on animals and vegetarians stay on topic!) And that's terrible. I firmly stand on the opinion of "No, abortions should not be allowed in the USA." I've read other people's opinions on the matter and it gives me even MORE reasons to hate abortions. For starters, in statistics shown there is no good result for teens and how their will take pregnancies with abortions around! I hate teen sex enough as it is. And to think that abortions will allow teenagers to have sex and not fear a baby is.. just horrible.
Look on Google images for abortions.. (Warning: Much blood and decapitated babies. Horrible sadness and depression may occur.)
Also abortions are no better than disposing of your problems. Someone can't just dispose of their problems. Or someone unwanted. Especially a baby. That person chose to have sex and now they must deal with their result!
(I do have a few exceptions to the abortion deal. But abortion should be something that rarely occurs. Very few exceptions)
Murder and killing is human nature. We are a violent species, no debate there. But it isn't up to you to make that call for someone. It is her body and her child (possibly) and we can't pretend to know the circumstances, especially us men. Your views are yours, but don't force your views on others with no proof that your side is the right one. It is just your opinion, same as me.
You do realize that you just implicitly admitted that it was murder, correct? You also, therefore, implicitly admitted that murder should not go punished, since our views might be different from the one murdering.... wow.....
Do sleeping people know they exist? No. Would you kill them? Fetuses are humans.. no one is doubting that. You would have to deny modern science to argue that (Law of Biogenesis). The issue is whether its a person, which it most certainly is.
Biology informs us that, as do some religions, that a unique living thing with its own genes is an individual. If those genes came from human beings then it the individual is a human being.
It ins't murder if it is in the early stages of the pregnancy. You can't murder something that lacks consciousness, that's like saying you can murder a plant.
You can't murder something that lacks consciousness, that's like saying you can murder a plant.
Thats begging the question sooo much. Who cares whether there is consciousness? Would you kill a sleeping person? No. Do they have consciousness? No. Do they have disposed consciousness? Yes. But so too do babies. You're playing a dangerous game of picking and choosing. Human life is what is valuable in and of itself; if it isn't, then the killing of sleeping people is acceptable.
A sleeping person still has a mind is a sentient being. Even in sleep your mind still is present however early fetuses have no minds so can't be killed more than a plant.
A sleeping person still has a mind is a sentient being. Even in sleep your mind still is present however early fetuses have no minds so can't be killed more than a plant.
So, we're going to base this off of the mind? Who decides at what point a mind is viable? Couldn't one say that your mind isn't really a mind? Couldn't we say that babies who have been born do not have mind? Who's to say when a mind is actually a viable mind? You're begging the question soooo much, by assuming that the mind is based in a physical element. But if the mind is built into an abstract entity, such as a soul, then you're dead wrong. Stop begging the question, and stop being a mini Hitler.
Viability of a mind is objectively measured based on the level of development of the central and peripheral nervous systems. Simply put, a fetus is physically lacking the capacity to think, feel, or perceive anything until partway through the second trimester, for more or less the same reason that a victim of, say, paralysis lacks the ability to feel in the paralyzed limb. It is not a problem with a paralytics 'soul' that prevents it, it is physical damage to the bodys infrastructure for communicating sensations.
Conscious thought and self awareness don't begin to form until some time after the baby has been born; this is observable via EEG comparisons from before and after key points in development.
You're begging the question soooo much.. Philosophy has always had a dispute about the fundamental difference of the brain and the mind. Do not conflate the two. You're assuming for naturalism, and begging the question soooo badly.
It's one thing to note philosophical debates over the fundamental difference of the brain and the mind.
It's another thing to say, with certainty, that even if there is a 'mind,' there is no capacity for it to feel, much less process any kind of thought or sensation. We know that perception is directly linked to an intact nervous system.
I mean, do you believe that the mind and body of a fetus have some kind of special non-nervous-system perception that is lost upon development of the nervous system? Because even young paralyzed children and those suffering from certain types of deafness and blindness can be shown to have a loss of various types of perception due to physical damage to the nervous system; obviously any type of pre-developmental perception would by necessity be lost.
We know that perception is directly linked to an intact nervous system.
We know that physical, naturalistic perception requires a nervous system.
I mean, do you believe that the mind and body of a fetus have some kind of special non-nervous-system perception that is lost upon development of the nervous system?
Assuming the soul to be true, then all humans have a unique and specialized mind, that is independent of the physical.
We know that physical, naturalistic perception requires a nervous system.
We also know that the subjective experience of perception requires an intact nervous system, due to the ability of patients who have suffered damage to such being able to communicate their lack of perception. If there is some kind of perception granted by the soul, it is not our selves in this world, in these bodies that experience said perception. Are you suggesting the soul is some kind of meta-self that is experiencing our lives alongside us, that we can neither perceive, nor are we privy to the perceptions of? That is an interesting outlook, but that would also mean that my soul really isn't 'me' as I experience things now.
Assuming the soul to be true, then all humans have a unique and specialized mind, that is independent of the physical.
And that would include being completely independent of a damaged or dead body as well; at no point in this process is a soul being harmed.
We also know that the subjective experience of perception requires an intact nervous system, due to the ability of patients who have suffered damage to such being able to communicate their lack of perception. If there is some kind of perception granted by the soul, it is not our selves in this world, in these bodies that experience said perception... And that would include being completely independent of a damaged or dead body as well; at no point in this process is a soul being harmed.
If you can't understand how all of this is relevant to the subject at hand, then I think I'm rather done with you.
It is irrelevant. Who cares about any of it? If there is a soul in that body, regardless as to whether it can feel anything, then that means a person is there. We could say that we were there at one point; thats what most people would think, that we were actually existent at that moment of conception. It doesn't matter if we can feel. If there is a soul, and we kill the living thing, then it is murder. Who cares whether the person can feel it? Who cares?
I already told you I was done with you, but I'll clue you in on one bit: whether there is such a thing as a soul is debatable. Again, your argument is founded on basic premises that I simply can't accept as premises for the discussion. Further debate is absolutely pointless, and you're just going in circles.
I'm done replying after this; the last word is yours to take as you will.
Of course it's debatable! Did I ever say it wasn't? That being said, if there is no soul, then morality does not exist, and we can all become Hitler: there would be no metaphysical differentiation between humans and computers. We can do what we want, when we want to. Abortion would be fine; rape would be fine; murder would be fine; theft would be fine; all things that we innately think to be wrong would be considered as fine.
So, we're going to base this off of the mind? Who decides at what point a mind is viable? Couldn't one say that your mind isn't really a mind? Couldn't we say that babies who have been born do not have mind? Who's to say when a mind is actually a viable mind?
Once brain activity can be seen. You can not say that babies that have not been born but are at a further point in pregnancy because you can see that brain activity is present.
But if the mind is built into an abstract entity, such as a soul, then you're dead wrong.
There is no evidence to show a soul exists. The only thing that you know exists are the mind and the body.
stop being a mini Hitler.
I never though it would be you of all the headcases and nutters on this site who likens me to a fascist.
Once brain activity can be seen. You can not say that babies that have not been born but are at a further point in pregnancy because you can see that brain activity is present.
At what point is brain activity viable? Who decides? At what point are we to decide that the brain is even there? Who even cares about the brain being there?
There is no evidence to show a soul exists. The only thing that you know exists are the mind and the body.
Actually there are several proofs in philosophy for the soul.....
I never though it would be you of all the headcases and nutters on this site who likens me to a fascist.
Well, if you are in any way in favor of abortion, you must be likened to Hitler... It is logically the same.
At what point is brain activity viable? Who decides? At what point are we to decide that the brain is even there? Who even cares about the brain being there?
The mind comes from the brain and you are your mind so obviously it is important. You can decide when it becomes a sentient being.
Actually there are several proofs in philosophy for the soul.....
No there isn't. Most philosophies are bullshit anyway and laws regarding important matters shouldn't be decided by them.
Well, if you are in any way in favor of abortion, you must be likened to Hitler... It is logically the same.
Hitler killed living people where as abortions in early pregnancies only kills what will become a person.
The mind comes from the brain and you are your mind so obviously it is important. You can decide when it becomes a sentient being.
The mind does not come from the brain. The brain is merely a conduit for the physical to the mind, which one might say is the soul, though no necessarily.
No there isn't. Most philosophies are bullshit anyway and laws regarding important matters shouldn't be decided by them.
Most philosophers are bullcrap? hahaha so, now we know logic isn't your favorite.... You do realize that all Ph.D programs are named after philosophy, correct? Philosophy is the most innate academic discipline in the world, playing on every aspect of academia: science, history, math, politics, relationships, art, etc. To reject philosophers is to reject academia, but I don't think you would take too kindly to that end.
Hitler killed living people where as abortions in early pregnancies only kills what will become a person.
Hitler killed living humans. Abortion kills a living human. All humans have souls. The soul is basis for personhood. Hence, Hitler killed living people. This is why we can say, as most people do say, that we were there in the womb. No one thinks that some other living thing was there; everyone, except for the stubbornly, insubordinate pro-choices/abortionists, thinks themselves to have been there, actually existing in the womb. I was there in the womb, not moby dick.
The mind does not come from the brain. The brain is merely a conduit for the physical to the mind, which one might say is the soul, though no necessarily.
If the mind is not produced from the brain then how come the mind changes when the brain does. For example you can tell someone has alzheimer's/dementia by scanning their brain and seeing loss of brain tissue or when someone suffers damage to their hippocampus they lose memory.
Basic neuroscience shows that the brain is where the mind comes from.
Most philosophers are bullcrap? hahaha so, now we know logic isn't your favorite.... You do realize that all Ph.D programs are named after philosophy, correct? Philosophy is the most innate academic discipline in the world, playing on every aspect of academia: science, history, math, politics, relationships, art, etc. To reject philosophers is to reject academia, but I don't think you would take too kindly to that end.
Philosophy is a mickey mouse/soft subject. My cousin took it and she admits that she took it as do most people because she thought it would be easy.
Abortion kills a living human.
They are not alive as they have no minds.
All humans have souls.
First give proof that souls exist. Second prove that the soul enters the body at conception and not later on during the pregnancy or even at birth.
If the mind is not produced from the brain then how come the mind changes when the brain does. For example you can tell someone has alzheimer's/dementia by scanning their brain and seeing loss of brain tissue or when someone suffers damage to their hippocampus they lose memory.
The brain is a conduit for the mind, which means that it affects how the mind perceives of things, and how the mind transmits things to the body.
Basic neuroscience shows that the brain is where the mind comes from.
You're assuming for naturalism. Neuroscience does not prove that the mind comes from the brain; it only shows that the brain works the body. Thats all it can and has proven.
Philosophy is a mickey mouse/soft subject. My cousin took it and she admits that she took it as do most people because she thought it would be easy.
Intro to philosophy is easy. No one denies that; its an intro class..... Philosophy as a whole is purely academic. You might want to actually research it some.
They are not alive as they have no minds.
They do, though...
First give proof that souls exist. Second prove that the soul enters the body at conception and not later on during the pregnancy or even at birth.
Well, the Bible's true, and the Bible says it. Thats good enough proof for me. If you want philosophy, then you can look very simply to Descartes' real distinction proof.
Well, the Bible's true, and the Bible says it. Thats good enough proof for me. If you want philosophy, then you can look very simply to Descartes' real distinction proof.
I don't know why I bother debating with you kind of people. Just stating that the bible is true isn't a valid argument.
Well, if the Bible is true, then my argument is true. Everything in this world reverts into whether the Bible is true or not. Seriously, God being real, especially the Christian God, is a huge point in which the rest of one's worldview is shaped. You can't debate anything until the presupposition of Christianity is answered.
Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. Every woman has the right to control her body. Forcing a woman to give birth is reproductive slavery.
It isn't murder, at least not so long as it is legal.
Murder is the intentional, unlawful killing of another person. Intentionally killing a person in a lawful way (such as acting in self defense, or being a soldier in wartime) is not murder. Unintentionally killing a person in an unlawful way is also not murder; it's manslaughter and criminal negligence. Intentionally killing a non-person in either a lawful or unlawful way is not murder; it is something to the effect of animal cruelty/euthenasia.
As you can see, there are three criteria for killing to be classified as murder. It must be intentional, it must be unlawful, and the victim must be a person. In the case of abortion, Intentional is a given, but unlawful, at current, is not. Even then, the status of a fetus as a person is debateable.
Pro-lifers, vegans, animal rights activists, etc love to do this- 'abortion/meat/fur is murder.' It's sensational, and an excellent way to underscore and convey your feelings on the matter through hyperbole. If your intent is to simply make yourself feel better by having stood up for what you believe in, then that's fine. But, if you want to help meaningful change take place, you need to consider your audience. You are trying to sway those who are pro-life to your side- accusing them of being in support of murder is not likely to do this. In the first place, disparaging those who you want on your side is rarely a good idea, and in the second it's obviously untrue. Calling it murder weakens your position on the matter overall.
TLDR: Murder is never allowed anywhere- legal killing is not murder by definition.
Governments do not set what murder is. They set what they will classify as murder, based upon what moral law dictates. Its murder, and it is allowed in many nations.
You're right and you're wrong. Government's dont set the definition of murder, per se. We have all kinds of words for killing. Murder is, specifically, intentionally unlawfully killing someone. That's not the government definition; that's simply the distinction between 'murder' and 'killing' that makes it it's own term.
What government does do, however, is pass the laws that determine whether or not any particular type of killing is lawful or unlawful. As such, while they don't set what murder IS, exactly, they do set the conditions that determine whether or not a particular killing can be classified as murder. They determine what is lawful, and what is unlawful.
You could call it 'heinous killing' or any number of negative terms for it, but calling it murder is factually incorrect. With many of those, though, you'd still run the risk of undermining your own position.
And classification is up to governments, then murder is not longer ontologically based, but subjectively based, making it logically inconsistent. Murder is based in a moral law, which necessitates the bases as being objective, meaning that the standards of including x or y in murder are not up to governments, but dictated by moral law, though people might disagree on what it is.
Exactly my point; in the absence of government classification and legal structure, the labels 'murder' is purely subjective. Legislation provides an objective definition within it's jurisdiction, making 'murder' a legitimate and useful term. 'Murder' does not exist in the absence of law, except insofar as some individuals may label it as such under their own subjective moral law- those doing so are using the term incorrectly. Calling it 'murder' when such is not applicable, as you did previously, is pure sensationalism, and damaging to your cause. That's the only point I was trying to make here. Calling it murder is incorrect, and it hurts your cause. Wouldn't it be better to call it something else?
Calling it 'murder' when such is not applicable, as you did previously, is pure sensationalism, and damaging to your cause. That's the only point I was trying to make here. Calling it murder is incorrect, and it hurts your cause. Wouldn't it be better to call it something else?
You're agreeing with the point, but not agreeing with the point. Thats logically inconsistent. Murder is an objective standard; governments simply legislate what they will consider murder to be. X government saying p to be murder is irrelevant to it actually being murder; it might not be considered murder by some governments, but that is irrelevant to it actually being murder. Murder is under an absolute and objective moral law, which transcends governmental regulations. Abortion is murder, though many governments don't think it to be.
There is no absolute and objective moral law. If you disagree, please explain what it is in detail, and further specifically how abortion would fall under murder within that context. I maintain that there is no such thing- and without that, the only laws under which the 'unlawful' portion of murder would apply are those of the government.
If there were an absolute and objective moral law to go from, any legislation to that effect by a government would be redundant.
But you're right- the only basis for this is preference; most people generally agree that indiscriminate killing is a bad thing, so it's most people's preferences. People differ significantly on what kinds of killing are and aren't acceptable; in theory, the laws regarding killing/murder enacted in a republic reflect an aggregate of individual preferences regarding what kinds of killing are and aren't acceptable. In practice, however, there is frequently values dissonance between the population and the law due to the roundabout path taken by a republic.
That would still render legislation to that effect redundant; they could simply enforce the objective moral law. Codifying it with legislation would be redundant.
Codifying it is simply the establishment of what the government prescribes to being the objective moral law. It doesn't make anything redundant. And even if it were, it doesn't matter.
But you're still wrong in classifying abortion as murder; you've yet to establish a case for that, and I don't believe bickering back and forth over our wording is getting us anywhere. You were trying to establish that there was an absolute objective moral law of some kind, right? Where were you going with that?
First and foremost, 'God' does not represent an objective, absolute moral standard. There have been countless gods worshipped throughout history, and every single one has a different moral code. Even amongst those who worship the same god, the moral code understood can vary significantly between different branches of the religion. In the Abrahamic religions, compare the moral codes outlined by Judaism, Islam, and Christianity respectively- QUITE different. Within Christianity alone, compare the moral codes between a Catholic Church and a Southern Baptist one- AGAIN quite different.
As you've assigned absolute moral authority to God, I must now ask the following:
1) Which God, of the countless ones that have been worshipped throughout human history, do you feel is the 'real' one?
2) Do you have any evidence for the existence of this specific God?
3) Which interpretation of this specific God do you adhere to?
4) Do you have any further evidence that suggests that this specific interpretation is the correct one?
5) Do the writings in the sect/subset/denomination of this religion specifically decry abortion, or is this interpretation and extrapolation?
You've got a pretty sizeable burden of proof to demonstrate that this absolute moral standard exists, and that the morals are in line with what you suggest.
And even through all that, there are still holes in it.
The moral law in this case would still not be objective, but subjective to the deity in question.
You still won't have established a case for your 'no' vote to this debate; we have specific legislation barring enforcing a religion upon people- as such, if the only reason for your 'No' vote is 'god said so,' then yes, abortions should be allowed in the USA.
First and foremost, 'God' does not represent an objective, absolute moral standard. There have been countless gods worshipped throughout history, and every single one has a different moral code.
Who cares whether there have been countless gods worshipped? Bad argument.
Even amongst those who worship the same god, the moral code understood can vary significantly between different branches of the religion. In the Abrahamic religions, compare the moral codes outlined by Judaism, Islam, and Christianity respectively- QUITE different.
Those are different religions... Muslims deny the authenticity and inherency of the Bible. Jews don't even follow their own book, saying that it is out dated. Christians are the only ones who actually try to obey the Bible, with reason. Bad argument.
Within Christianity alone, compare the moral codes between a Catholic Church and a Southern Baptist one- AGAIN quite different.
Catholics are not Christians. And yet again.. who cares whether they have different views on what God has established as moral? Who cares? This is the same point about governments.. they each try to interpret what the absolutes are... who cares that they have differences. Bad argument.
1) Which God, of the countless ones that have been worshipped throughout human history, do you feel is the 'real' one?
Christian God.
2) Do you have any evidence for the existence of this specific God?
Irrelevant. 2+2=4 regardless as to whether or not you believe in the number 2. But even so, yes I do.
3) Which interpretation of this specific God do you adhere to?
Christianity. Christianity is one. Heresy has been widespread in the church, and it is condemned widely.
4) Do you have any further evidence that suggests that this specific interpretation is the correct one?
The Bible.
5) Do the writings in the sect/subset/denomination of this religion specifically decry abortion, or is this interpretation and extrapolation?
Yes.
You've got a pretty sizeable burden of proof to demonstrate that this absolute moral standard exists, and that the morals are in line with what you suggest.
Not at all. Much of the burden of proof you want me to answer is not relevant to the statement, "God is the basis of absolute moral law." Its called a red herring.
And even through all that, there are still holes in it.
There are no holes in it.
The moral law in this case would still not be objective, but subjective to the deity in question.
That does not follow. Absolute and objective means that it applies to everyone, regardless as to what one thinks. God's moral objective and absolute law applies to everyone, including Himself, His nature actually being the basis for it. The Euthyphro dilemma has been disposed off in modern times. It has been for a long while, actually. Study up on it.
You still won't have established a case for your 'no' vote to this debate; we have specific legislation barring enforcing a religion upon people- as such, if the only reason for your 'No' vote is 'god said so,' then yes, abortions should be allowed in the USA.
Do I care what the United States says?
So all in all, you have no presented any argument, asked question that are red herrings, and need to study up some more on the philosophy of religion.
I see that we fundamentally disagree on most topics, so further debate on much of this is irrelevant. We can't agree on a basic premise for the debate, after all- you are only willing to debate under the premises that the specific god you believe in exists, the relevant texts themselves are accurate, and your interpretation of them is correct. To someone who questions any or all of those premises, however, these are non-answers. We should probably just leave it at that.
I will address one thing, though.
Do I care what the United States says?
Yes, you do. The Bible, in several places either directly or implicitly commands that Christians submit to the laws of the land. That includes submitting to the laws dictating the way our laws are formed- direct voted in some cases, voted on by elected officials in others, but never simply transcribed from The Bible. According to the letter and spirit of the law of the land, the United States should allow or disallow any given activity based on the consensus of the people- and there is simply far more support for pro-choice at the moment.
I see that we fundamentally disagree on most topics, so further debate on much of this is irrelevant. We can't agree on a basic premise for the debate, after all- you are only willing to debate under the premises that the specific god you believe in exists, the relevant texts themselves are accurate, and your interpretation of them is correct. To someone who questions any or all of those premises, however, these are non-answers. We should probably just leave it at that.
As I said, none of that matters. It doesn't matter whether my God is true or not. I told you it was a red herring. Morality is the basis we're discussing, not God. God being necessary for morality is a necessary condition, not the sufficient, which is morality. Morality by definition necessitates itself being objective and absolute. It is an analytic truth. This has nothing to do with God; God is simply the basis for the absolute and objective truth. As I said, your argument was a red herring. None of it mattered.
Yes, you do. The Bible, in several places either directly or implicitly commands that Christians submit to the laws of the land. That includes submitting to the laws dictating the way our laws are formed- direct voted in some cases, voted on by elected officials in others, but never simply transcribed from The Bible. According to the letter and spirit of the law of the land, the United States should allow or disallow any given activity based on the consensus of the people- and there is simply far more support for pro-choice at the moment.
Read in context. It very clearly says in Acts that we are to obey God first, and then the authorities. What you just said was fundamentally either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. You know better than that.
As I said, none of that matters. It doesn't matter whether my God is true or not. I told you it was a red herring. Morality is the basis we're discussing, not God. God being necessary for morality is a necessary condition, not the sufficient, which is morality. Morality by definition necessitates itself being objective and absolute. It is an analytic truth. This has nothing to do with God; God is simply the basis for the absolute and objective truth. As I said, your argument was a red herring. None of it mattered.
God is not necessary for morality. God may be necessary for such a thing as a morality that is 'objective' insofar that it is applied to everyone in the same way- but tgat would still not be objective morality, just subjective morality that nobody can oppose. In practice, there is no real need for an 'objective' morality like that. Certain views of morality are simply unsuited for living in any kind of society, and our species is poorly suited for individual survival. It's not as if everybody would suddenly have an uncontrollable urge to kill everybody without a God telling him to do it; most people, even christians, feel free to ignore those things God tells them that don't suit them, offering up any number of reasons (and thats where they feel any kind of obligation to offer reasons). The reason we have a need for enforced laws is because of individual differences in morality; our laws (in theory, at least) represent a general consensus on what should and should not be allowed.
The argument was not a red herring; your assertion that there is any kind of objective, absolute moral law is based on premises that I am unwilling to accept as factual. We can't have a debate without agreeing on basic premises, now, can we?
Read in context. It very clearly says in Acts that we are to obey God first, and then the authorities. What you just said was fundamentally either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. You know better than that.
Acts isn't the only place that states it. Romans as well, and even more directly and specifically. I acknowledge that you obey God first, then the authorities. But this isn't you obeying God- this is you attempting to force everybody else to obey what you perceive to be one specific law of Gods. And I'm really not certain where abortion in particular is ruled on in the Bible, for that matter- you had said yes to that before.
God is not necessary for morality. God may be necessary for such a thing as a morality that is 'objective' insofar that it is applied to everyone in the same way- but tgat would still not be objective morality, just subjective morality that nobody can oppose.
You're not understanding what objective morality is.
In practice, there is no real need for an 'objective' morality like that.
It doesn't matter if there is a need for it. If I say that there is no need for 2+2 to equal 4, it doesn't negate it being true.
Certain views of morality are simply unsuited for living in any kind of society, and our species is poorly suited for individual survival. It's not as if everybody would suddenly have an uncontrollable urge to kill everybody without a God telling him to do it; most people, even christians, feel free to ignore those things God tells them that don't suit them, offering up any number of reasons (and thats where they feel any kind of obligation to offer reasons). The reason we have a need for enforced laws is because of individual differences in morality; our laws (in theory, at least) represent a general consensus on what should and should not be allowed.
This is irrelevant. As I said, who cares about whether or not x person thinks morality to be this or that? It doesn't mater what we think; what matters is what actually is.
The argument was not a red herring; your assertion that there is any kind of objective, absolute moral law is based on premises that I am unwilling to accept as factual. We can't have a debate without agreeing on basic premises, now, can we?
Yes, it was a red herring. Morality requires things as being determined as evil and good. But when we say that something is good or evil, we are making an objective ontological claim. We are saying that the thing is a certain way. Something being a certain way is irrelevant to what we think about it. The only way you can agree with subjective morality is to say that something is our preference. But that neglects moral judgements and claims, which are necessary for morality. This is what philosophers have noted: emotivism and ethical relativism are logically incoherent, since they are using a term that is analytical objective. It is logically contradictory, what you are saying. It is analytically, objectively, and logically impossible. This isn't even an argument; this is intro to philosophy subject matter, things that are almost taken for granted in philosophy, since they are obvious and objective.
That being said, the only way for something to be objective is if it has a basis in objectivity. Abstract concepts, such as morality, have no basis in physicality, making them necessarily a part of an abstract absolute. What abstract thing is objective and absolute, something that can establish moral truths? The only answer is God. This is what many religious philosophers have noted also. Your position is logical impossible and fallacious.
Acts isn't the only place that states it. Romans as well, and even more directly and specifically. I acknowledge that you obey God first, then the authorities. But this isn't you obeying God- this is you attempting to force everybody else to obey what you perceive to be one specific law of Gods. And I'm really not certain where abortion in particular is ruled on in the Bible, for that matter- you had said yes to that before.
It is obeying God to fight against murder.
Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, / and in sin did my mother conceive me." This is an establishment that I was at conception.
Well, I don't think children being born in violent homes, homes with parents with drug or alcohol issues or homes with parents who do not have ability to take care of the child should be allowed either...
I think this would be best in a Perspective Debate, but whatever.
Alright, yes, I am not okay with abortions. But, it depends on why you are aborting the baby. If it's because it was unplanned, aw hell naw, you keepin' dat baby! But if it was serious, as in like an apocalypse where there was no hope.... Still no, really, because the baby would be a help to the group by bringing up the next generation of humans.... Forget what I said about the apocalypse. Anyway, if it was an absolute serious "I can't have this baby," then I guess I'm okay with it. But abortions should be avoided as much as we can, but think about the population, if abortion was completely illegal before the human race could spread out among the stars, what would be the affect? There would be restrictions on how many babies people could have, how old they were allowed to grow, stuff like that. To sum up; Humans should start slowly reducing the amount of abortions, and once we spread out over the solar system, stop abortions (for the most part). Boom.
I agree! Abortions do need to be avoided as much as possible. Yes defiantly there, if it was unplanned they're keeping that baby! (and they're going to love it too.) And yes that's where the exceptions come into place. (Don't we all just love exceptions and the confusion they make?) If there is truly a time where "I can't have this baby." Then maybe.. But then again they chose to have sex. Sex makes babies. You can't really complain.
And if organized religion didn't make birth control so hard to obtain, we would have no need for abortion (except in extreme cases). They did this to themselves. You can't stop the basics of human nature. The only thing to do is to try to help the women who are left with this hard choice.
Tell me whats the difference between an unplanned baby and "an absolute serious I can't have this baby".
I totally agree with you in the sense that people need to take their consequences. But an abortion is not something you just go through with, without any thought trough. It's a lot of feelings mixed into this situation. A woman who has found out that she is pregnant with an unplanned baby would probably think it through a million times before she would go through with the abortion, and if she decides to go through with the abortion she would probably give you an absolute serious "I can't have this baby"
If it's because it was unplanned, aw hell naw, you keepin' dat baby!
Do I get to make some rules that you have to live your life by?
But if it was serious, as in like an apocalypse where there was no hope
Forget what I said about the apocalypse.
Why write it at all? There is a backspace key for a reason.
But abortions should be avoided as much as we can, but think about the population, if abortion was completely illegal before the human race could spread out among the stars, what would be the affect? There would be restrictions on how many babies people could have, how old they were allowed to grow, stuff like that.
This doesn't make any sense. You are saying that getting rid of abortions would cause a massive problem of having to decide who can and can't have kids. Why would we want baby restrictions? You haven't solved anything. You admit that abortions are a solution.
This is not true. 'Usually' rather than always, or even just the word 'almost' before always would have made it true.
Fact is, even in this day and age, there are sometimes cases where either the choice is between losing mother and baby, or just baby. This is also the only circumstance under which I could personally stomach late term abortion.
Fortunately, as I am not a doctor of any kind, am not in possession of a uterus, and am married with a child I'm keeping and hopefully another one on the way, I'm not taking out an innocent life anyway you slice it; when I'm content with the number of children I have, I intend to have a vasectomy.
I presume you are neither a doctor nor female, so it's not like you'd be in that position either, so it's purely hypothetical anyway.
Still, consider though- the cases are exceedingly rare these days, but your stance is, in those rare cases, essentially choosing to allow both the mother and fetus to die, when at least the mother could be saved. That's not something I can condone, personally. I don't like the idea of abortion, at all, to be honest. But I see it as a necessary evil given a number of factors, and as such I am pro-choice with the caveat that it be limited to the first trimester, before the fetus is able to feel such things as pain and fear.
Pro-choice isn't always necessarily pro-abortion, just as being pro-life isn't necessarily being anti-woman.
Your opinion is completely fine but in my case instead of trying to save one life I would go for both. It's sad of men want a vasectomies when they have control over their bodies.
It's not an 'instead' situation. The default is to do everything possible to save both mother and fetus. Cases where the mother and fetus are both at risk are actually extremely common- the rare cases I'm referring to are ones where both dying is nearly certain, regardless of medical intervention, with the possibility of saving only the mother. Yes, this happens.
By 'control over their bodies' are you suggesting self-control and using the withdrawal method? Because the withdrawal method is only 96% effective when performed flawlessly. As such, yes, I intend to have that procedure when I have all the children I desire. There's nothing sad about it; it would be far more sad to have an additional child beyond what I'm comfortable with not supporting, but actually fathering. Being a father to me is more than just simply supporting ones children, but also involves raising them into adults and giving them the best head start on life possible. I can comfortably support three children while ensuring all have a rich variety of activities, a HEALTHY diet, and a college fund. I would have to make compromises on all of these if I were to have a fourth child.
Not in my case. If for some tragic reason I became pregnant, would need an abortion for mental health reasons. Shrinks would refuse to prescribe my medications because they cause birth defects, any child I would have would have a 100% chance of major medical problems, and pregnancy would make me suicidal. I wont get into how, but pregnancy would trigger my PTSD to the point that i would overdose on pills, and I doubt that is prolife, and before you ask: i refuse to have unprotected sex. Im not even having sex right now, but if I do, I will use contraception.
Sure, ok, if you are a woman who would personally chose to have an abortion, having one could save your education and future career... At the expense of women who are pressured to have abortions but refuse. For the sperm donor of these women, they see their responsibilities to be a father as void because the woman apparently made an active decision to keep the baby. It comes at the expense of women who have abortions and later regret it, leading to depression and suicide. It comes to the expense of the rare breed of men who would joyfully step up an start a family, but are not given the choice.
While this is about control for some people, certainly, I don't think pro-lifers in general see themselves as having some sort of right to the womans body; they simply see the woman as having limited rights regarding what they can do to the body of the fetus. They anthropomorphize the fetus and assign it rights. This is misguided for many reasons, but I don't believe it's fair to continually speak as if a pro-life stance is about invading a woman's body.
Denying an abortion isn't an invasion of a womans body. It's an invasion of her rights, but not her body. That's a very important distinction. By the logic that calls this an invasion of a womans body, a case could be made stating that laws banning heroin are an invasion of peoples bodies.
Now, an unwanted child could be called an invasion, but denying someone the right to deal with an existing invasion is not another invasion unto itself.
I'm pro-choice myself, but I still feel that you're letting your life experience cloud your judgement on this case. It's an invasion of rights, but not an invasion of the body.
No, it is not an invasion of her body. When a woman is denied an abortion, her body is not touched or invaded in any way in association with that.
The invasion occurs when the woman is fertilized. You could label the man she was with as the invader. You could label the fetus itself as an unwitting invader. You could decry pro-lifers as denying a woman the ability to repel an invader. But denial of abortion does not constitute an invasion of ones body. Invading ones body requires an actual invasion of ones actual body- neither of which are taking place in this scenario. It is an invasion of rights, and you could even call it reproductive slavery (though I think that's a bit extreme). Remember, for the most part pro-lifers aren't trying to control women and oppress their rights- they're trying to fight FOR the rights that they assign to the fetus. I know it's an emotional issue, but making bogeymen out of the other side does not help our cause :)
This is exactly right. The unwanted pregnancy is an invasion of the body. Abortion is one method to end said invasion. A pro-life standpoint does not constitute a further invasion of the body, it is simply a stance that would prevent the simplest way to end an existing invasion. It is an invasion of rights. This isn't attempting to legitimize it, mind you- but it's important for the pro choice movement to maintain accuracy, rationality, and credibility.
Nobody is asking you to to apologize for fighting the pro-life movement; Its a fight that I wholeheartedly support, and that's one of the reasons I argued this point with you.
It's also fair to say that prochoice is prowoman, but you should also note that stating that tends to imply to some that prolife is antiwoman, which is not necessarily the case.
Thank you for the compliment. I would like to know, but I'd prefer it to kind of arise naturally on your own than ask you about it directly, if that makes sense. Prying into someones personal life isn't very comfortable for me, but I also feel that understanding someones motivations is far more useful than simply knowing their stance on a matter.
When there is a child involved, neither the man nor the woman have rights to their own body they have become one now. So they own each others body, so all decisions should be done together, not through one person.
Understandable that its your body but you have to accept responsibility for letting the seed inside of you, unless it was rape.
You can't just say "well I want an abortion now"
Its the mans child too, so if you aborted a child and the man said no, how is that fair at all?
No, no, no. When BOTH PARTIES have consented to HAVING A CHILD, then that means it is NO LONGER up to the woman to decide what happens with the fetus.
IF YOU CONSENT to having unprotected sex, and you and the man know FULL WELL there is a chance of pregnancy, then it must be decided BY BOTH PARTIES what will happen to the child.
If YOU don't want to give birth, and the man WANTS THE CHILD, and you abort it, then that is morally unacceptable.
This no longer has to do with "my body my right" This has to do with the seed being the man, literally, it is a part of him, and if you don't want it but he does, then you CAN NOT ABORT IT, if you do, then there may be no actual consequences, but do you not understand what is happening?
That is the most fucked up thing I have ever heard of.
If you and the man BOTH consent to unprotected sex, both parties know full well the risk being involved.
We are not arguing whether it is the right of a man to go use a womans body to produce a child, obviously it is not.
What we are discussing is a man who wants a child and you both agreed to unprotected sex, yet you think you have full owner ship? How about fuck no you do not, you better have that child and give it to me if you don't want it, because at that point, its MY child, NOT YOURS. You obviously don't want it, and I do. I want to raise it and teach it the ways of life.
If you were to somehow interefere with that, i think i could justify murder.
Just saying.
If it was rape, it would be a completely different story, but I already covered that, and it seems like you didn't read it whatsoever.
That pisses me off that you think that way when BOTH PARTIES CONSENT TO UNPROTECTED SEX.
A womans body belongs to her. Women are not obligated to be pregnant. Women do not have to let something use their bodies. What you promote is reproductive slavery. Not your body? Not your choice.
Read this very carefully: WHEN BOTH PARTIES CONSENT TO UNPROTECTED THEY BOTH KNOW IN ADVANCE THE RISKS OF BEING PREGNANT SO IF YOU DONT WANT TO HAVE A CHILD USE A CONDOM.
You can refuse sex if you are not ready to have a child and the man doesnt want to use a condom, but if a woman and the man have unprotected sex, they know damn well the risk they are taking and abortion should be illegal in that case.
Source 1: "To inspire and equip individuals to make positive decisions for life and relationships based on the word of God." - Biased, with no source citations for their statistics and one outdated medical reference.
Source 2: Over-extension of conclusions based upon data cited. For instance, comparing abortion mortality to overall birthing mortality ignores the case by case context; we cannot conclude from the available data whether the abortion moralities were not also high risk pregnancies that could have led to mortality had the pregnancy been carried to term.
Also, frequent failure to cite sources to substantiate claims or incomplete citations (e.g. "A 2000 government-funded study in Finland").
Also, filled with contradictions (e.g. "Less than one in ten thousand pregnancies results in the mother's death. [1] Government statistics indicate that the chances of death by abortion are even less." precedes "The evidence overwhelmingly proves that the morbidity and mortality rates of legal abortion are several times higher than that for carrying a pregnancy to term.")
Source 3: No source citations, only assertions. Just as bad as your initial post.
You have only stated the errors in the sources rather than the arguments present. I am not the one who created the website therefore I am not liable for its errors.
Source 1 has stated numerous side effects and it also has been cited by a physician. "NOTE: Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and the Physician’s Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth stated in 1996 that this type of procedure “… is never medically necessary to protect a mother’s health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.”
Source: ProtectTexas, Texas Department of Health, 2003
Source 2 does not over-extend any conclusions. Would you kindly give statement saying such over-extension? We can conclude from the given data since it has been proven through statistics and trends in the research.
As for source 3, you should consider analyzing the argument rather than simply looking for sources since from the statements of the website itself can their points be assessed. Again I am also not responsible for the errors of the websites since I am more focused on the scientific effects of abortion to the body rather than looking for citations.
It would be a better argument if you just stated reasons why abortion does not have detrimental effects on the human body since that is my argument in the first place. Disputing and stating errors on websites would stray far from the topic of the debate.
You have only stated the errors in the sources rather than the arguments present. I am not the one who created the website therefore I am not liable for its errors. & It would be a better argument if you just stated reasons why abortion does not have detrimental effects on the human body since that is my argument in the first place. Disputing and stating errors on websites would stray far from the topic of the debate.
You are not liable for errors in the research you are citing, but you are liable for not substantiating your assertions with reliable research. At the point where your arguments are founded in fallible sources they do not merit refutation. I am not straying from the topic of debate; I am holding you accountable to advancing an informed opinion.
Source 1 [...]
This source remains unsubstantiated. The only reference it makes is to a reference made in another source to something published almost 20 years ago (which is seriously outdated); and that was in reference only to a late term abortion method not to abortion generally.
Source 2 [...]
I already gave you an example, and thoroughly explained it. Your rebuttal also fails to address the matters of frequent non-substantiation and internal contradiction.
Source 3 [...]
Do you genuinely expect me to just accept the correctness of an assertion on faith? Forgive me if my standards are not so low as yours appear to be. I will reiterate once more that an unsubstantiated claim is an empty assertion, and add that such claims have no legitimate role in informing laws restricting human behavior.
You clearly have no actual evidence to substantiate your view. I am done with this farcical debate; expect no further reply.
It's a form of murder. I don't see how that's OK. If you didn't want to have a baby, you could have made that decisions in the bedroom. I think that in some cases-like rape- abortion should be allowed. If you wanted to have sex, you are going to have to deal with the consequences, not murder it. I don't see how abortion is any different than cutting off the baby's head once it is born.
It ins't murder if it is in the early stages of the pregnancy. You can't murder something that lacks consciousness, that's like saying you can murder a plant.
Only in very exceptional circumstances (when the mother's life is in danger etc.)
For small reasons, such as a persons financial circumstances changing, I think that it is most definitely wrong to rid the world of someone who could contribute so much good to it: the person who could cure cancer or a new technological inovater. Furthermore, when their are so many people in the world who can't have kids of their own, adoption by a happy and loving family is a far better solution than an abortion.
Biology informs us that a living thing with a unique set of genes is an individual. If it comes from a giraffe, it is an individual of that species. If it comes from a human, it is of the human species.
We shouldn't permit the killing of innocent members of the human species.
Abortions are at least as old as humanity. They are a part of our nature, however repugnant a person may find them. Consequentially, they will persist regardless of their legality. The primary difference is whether the practice is driven underground and left wholly unregulated, which opens up room for black market abuses of women, or not.
The solution to the abortion issue is not to make abortions illegal, but to target the root causes of unwanted pregnancies: poverty, lack of education, poor sexual education, etc. If you genuinely care about saving the lives of the unborn then you should care at least as much about these issues (though that is rarely the case for anti-abortionists). Anything less and you are giving superficial lip service to an ideal without fully and genuinely addressing it.
target the root causes of unwanted pregnancies: poverty, lack of education, poor sexual education, etc.
- Agreed.
The primary difference is whether the practice is driven underground and left wholly unregulated, which opens up room for black market abuses of women, or not.
- If the fetus is a human being, then why would we make it safer for a person to kill it? Perhaps this analogy would help:
If you murder a pregnant woman you are charged with the death of two people. That is a dirty business, murdering people. It isn't safe. A person who does that is often mixed up in the black market of untraceable guns which is very dangerous and a person is likely to be taken advantage of or abused, aside from becoming acquainted with all kinds of undesirable people.
We shouldn't make it safer for that person or for those who are getting abortions.
What we should do is make pregnancy as safe and as comfortable for pregnant women as possible.
- If the fetus is a human being, then why would we make it safer for a person to kill it? Perhaps this analogy would help [...].
The analogy does not help, largely because it non-responsive to my point. Abortion is as hold as humanity (older, probably). Criminalizing it will not make it go away; that is a fact. I am wholly uninterested in the morality of the matter, and entirely invested in the pragmatics. If we know a thing is going to happen and we do not want it to, then we should both take action to deter it and also to ameliorate its harms.
I would also charge you to substantiate your claim that those who kill pregnant women are caught up in the black market, and also that those persons become victims themselves in that context.
What we should do is make pregnancy as safe and as comfortable for pregnant women as possible.
We should do that regardless, and whether we do that is wholly independent of whether we also permit legal abortions.
The woman who is pregnant should be the only one making the decisions about her body. Other people should have no say in the matter. Politics need to stay out of women's bodies.
Why is it wrong to get rid of a bundle of cells? You do the same when you bite your fingernails.
I bet most abortions occur when the fertilised cell has only matured to a zygote, and no further, so there is nothing to constitute an infant.
Perhaps it become less moral upon fetal development, but still, imagine a baby being born into a poor family, that cannot fend for themselves as it is, or a young single mother. That is no life to live - a constant struggle. I wouldn't want a child of my own to experience such daily hardship.
Of course! I would definitely say it would be better to "kill an unwanted child" than bringing a child to the world who would live a life without security. To have parents who are loving and ambulatory is everything a child needs. No one deserves to be born into a living hell with parents who are not able to take care of them. To be born into a troubled life is something no one deserves, and I would definitely say that if thats the case, abortion should be allowed.
To say that allowing abortions will cause more teenage sex and would make the teenagers not understanding the seriousness in getting pregnant, is a bad argument in my point of view. To get pregnant with an unwanted child is in any part of life a terrible mistake, but the ones who do go though with abortion have to live with this for the rest of their life, this feeling of killing a living organism, in my point of view this is a very big consequence to live with.
It is the parents' fault that the child was made, but why should this unwanted child get all the consequences of a mistake their parents did?
Yes but only in the first trimester. Abortions at like 20 weeks and later in my opinion are immoral but an early fetus doesn't have brain activity so isn't a person.
I don't believe that thoughts, ideas, and dreams are being asserted here; since he's using the 20 week figure, I presume what he is concerned with is pain. We go out of our way to avoid causing excessive pain to our livestock. In those states in the US that still have the death penalty, the majority opt for the most painless execution methods possible. Partway through the second trimester, generally by around week 25 or so, the central and peripheral nervous systems have developed to the point where stimuli, including pain, and the fundamentals of emotions can be experienced. More complex emotions aren't present, but more basic primal ones such as fear are; this is evident from analysis of brain activity.
Abortion in the first trimester, while still causing death, does not cause pain or fear; it is physically impossible for the fetus to feel these during that stage. Late term abortion is horrific specifically because of the things you noted- no thoughts, no ideas, no dreams, and negligible stimuli until the procedure; a fetus who is aborted late has had essentially no emotion or sensation other than pain and fear for its entire existence. It doesn't need to be a person yet for that to be wrong; that's worse than the way we treat veal calves.
I'm not going to dispute you because I'm pro-choice and don't want to add a vote to the other side, but...
"Life begins at birth" is quite possibly the most incorrect analysis one can make. Biologically, life begins at conception. Capacity to feel begins during the second trimester. Nothing particularly special happens at birth aside from the fact that suddenly stimuli are available to the fetus. Actual 'personhood,' the development of self-awareness and independent thought, however rudimentary, does not begin in most cases until well into the first year after birth.
Being anti-abortion means holding that life as sacred from the moment of conception; I don't agree with this angle.
Being pro-choice but opposed to causing suffering means allowing early abortion, but not late term abortion.
But late-term abortion is something I can't support; if abortion is fine up until the moment of birth, then infanticide within the first few months should be equally fine. Of course, cases where the mother is at significant risk are an exception to this.
I'm not trying to push women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, mind you- but if the decision is made to abort, it should be made early enough so as to not be causing pain. Cases of denial notwithstanding, it's exceedingly rare (though far from impossible) for a woman to get to the second trimester without realizing that something is up. Pregnancy tests are cheap- the Dollar Tree near my house sells them for, you guessed it, $1.
"Life begins at birth" is quite possibly the most incorrect analysis one can make. Biologically, life begins at conception. Capacity to feel begins during the second trimester. Nothing particularly special happens at birth aside from the fact that suddenly stimuli are available to the fetus. Actual 'personhood,' the development of self-awareness and independent thought, however rudimentary, does not begin in most cases until well into the first year after birth. It is your belief that is crap. Everyone with a brain know that life begins at birth. Born infants have self awareness and you are really insulting the prochoice movement by saying that. Edit: Im the one who downvoted this my own comment.
It is your belief that is crap. Everyone with a brain know that life begins at birth. Born infants have self awareness and you are really insulting the prochoice movement by saying that.
Unfortunately, you are incorrect in this statement. Actual self awareness typically arises at around 18 months in. This has been verified scientifically both in terms of observation and ability to react to specific stimuli, as well as via EEG. I've also personally observed this shift in my own son- I do not exaggerate at all when I say that having an infant is more like having a very needy pet than a little person.
And think about it for a second; what you're suggesting is ridiculous. You're implying that self-awareness spontaneously forms at the moment of birth, because otherwise you would have to acknowledge that life begins BEFORE birth. You aren't seriously suggesting that some kind of magical, high-speed developmental shift occurs through the process of labor, are you? Do babies born via caesarean section then never attain self awareness?
Also: You do know that your dispute cast a vote to the pro-life side, right?
We were disagreeing over whether life began at birth, I believe. I was asserting that birth is a poor place to mark the beginning of life because it doesn't represent any particular stage of development; in fact no two babies are at exactly the same place in their development when born. My suggestion was that the beginning of life should be based on some developmental point; I noted conception as the beginning of biological life as one milestone, development of the central and peripheral nervous systems in the second trimester as another milestone (when the fetus is capable of feeling pain and fear, even if it is not actually capable of anything as complex as thought or more complicated emotions), and I noted the emergence of self-awareness and independent thought (typically around 18 months after birth) as milestones in development that would make sense to call the beginning of life, to me. I'm sure there are other milestones that could be noted- I don't believe there are any significant ones between conception and the ability to feel pain, but there are certainly some between then and full 'personhood.' I just don't believe that birth represents a developmental milestone, is all. I did throw some ridiculous hyperbole in there too, I believe.
Well, I'll need to qualify that a bit because there is more than one definition for person/people, but, that's correct- by which I mean that a newborn infant does not (yet) possess the traits that we typically attribute to personhood. In that regard, a newborn infant (just like an unborn fetus) remains a 'potential person.' The newborn/fetus is human, and alive, but not yet a person by any meaningful definition of the word.
While there is certainly a difference between a brain dead individual and an undeveloped brain, thats my best comparison. A brain dead individual is alive in a biological sense, just as an infant is. But everything that made the brain dead individual who they are, everything that made them an individual, a person- is gone. An infant doesn't have these things either, though there is some reasonable expectation of these things arising in an infant over time.
This is not to suggest, btw, that I am in support of late term abortion or early infanticide; I believe the line should be drawn at the capacity to feel pain and fear, rather than at something more nebulous like self awareness.
If abortions aren't allowed already, then they should!
If you're saying that abortions shouldn't be used as a method of contraception, then you are absolutely right. There are health risks involved in it, so i agree with you.
But if it was an unplanned pregnancy, and both the parents (or just the guy and the girl) are not ready to be parents yet, then you simply can't force them. It's important to remember that the parents' lives are changed forever once they have a child.
if, as you say, abortions were made illegal, then every unplanned/unwanted child will be given away or left on the streets (as we know happens in asian countries). If the child is lucky enough to be adopted, then that's great! But not all kids will get to be so lucky.
Pro-life advocates are so often ignorant when it comes to the natural processes of a woman's body. The female body naturally rejects about 80% of fertilized eggs (read, the female body naturally aborts about 80% fertilized eggs) (sourcex2). So I'd love to see a pro-lifer try to drag Mother Nature into court and call "her" a murderer.
That aside, abortions are a personal decision the mother, and sometimes the father, makes. It's no one's damn business what she decides to do with her body, whether you like it or not. And if you have a problem with your tax dollars going towards the upkeep and operation of abortion clinics, maybe you should either work harder to change the socialist-type economy you live in or consider relocating to an area more suited to your ideals. Because the fact of the matter is, in a country revered (outwardly, anyway) for its individual freedom, you cannot claim to support such an ideology only when it suits your personal beliefs.
Does a woman have the right to an abortion under the U.S. Constitution? 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.
