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.
Back alley abortions really is not a good argument because people who can't afford abortions right now are doing it. If there was not an option of getting abortion people would not be lining the streets waiting to get an unsafe unclean abortion, they just wouldn't. They would most likely give birth and adopt the baby out which is a much better situation for the mother and child.
Nope, in places where abortion is banned there are lots of abortions. They are not much more likely to give birth. How much more likely is good enough? Are you satisfied with eliminating one abortion and making all the rest more dangerous?
Yes, because there are already unsafe abortions happening everywhere in clinics that aren't up to code because everyone will just look the other way. Given the option of giving birth in a hospital than using a coat hanger to perform an abortion, yes women are going to give birth.
Did I ever say that? No. I don't agree in abortions in any situation ever. Prior to abortions being legalized 90% of "back-alley" abortions were done by doctors in their practices. Also if there is a law put in place most people are going to follow it and that is true for abortions too.
Yes, you did. I asked a yes or no question and you answered yes.
I don't agree in abortions in any situation ever. Prior to abortions being legalized 90% of "back-alley" abortions were done by doctors in their practices.
Wait a second. You mean to tell me that when abortion is not legal abortions still happen?
Also if there is a law put in place most people are going to follow it and that is true for abortions too.
So what. Most people don't have abortions now. How many abortions need to be prevented for you to think that banning abortions worked?
I don't want abortions ever. Not healthy ones, not unhealthy ones.
I never said they didn't happen they just don't happen as much as you're making it out to be. Also your argument is invalid now because you are saying that without an abortion law in place all of the horribly done procedures are happening which isn't true.
Really??? There are 3,288 abortions that take place each day in the U.S. That translates to 1 abortion every 28 seconds.
So what i'm saying is that if a law is put in place not everyone is going to rush to get illegal abortions, they are going to give birth.
I don't want abortions ever. Not healthy ones, not unhealthy ones.
Yes, I was able to figure that out about you. What I don't understand is why you favor the unhealthy ones over the healthy ones.
I never said they didn't happen they just don't happen as much as you're making it out to be.
I just said they would increase, which has been known to happen.
Also your argument is invalid now because you are saying that without an abortion law in place all of the horribly done procedures are happening which isn't true.
You are the one who said it.
Really??? There are 3,288 abortions that take place each day in the U.S. That translates to 1 abortion every 28 seconds.
If you reduced that number to 3287, but 100 were dangerous, did you succeed because that number came down by 1?
So what i'm saying is that if a law is put in place not everyone is going to rush to get illegal abortions, they are going to give birth.
There are 4.2 births per second. Compared to 1 abortion every 28 seconds, most people aren't rushing out to get abortions. We have seen people go out of their way to get illegal abortions. It doesn't work.
If "back-alley" abortions are happening right now why aren't you worried about those?
No you are saying that if abortion becomes illegal all of the horrible procedures will start happening. What I said is that when abortion was illegal 90% of abortions were done by a doctor in his practice.
I am no way in favor of unhealthy abortions. I'm just saying that the whole concept of abortions is horrible to begin with.
Your choice would clearly lead to an increase in unhealthy abortions, right?
If "back-alley" abortions are happening right now why aren't you worried about those?
The number of back alley abortions you are claiming is higher than reality.
No you are saying that if abortion becomes illegal all of the horrible procedures will start happening. What I said is that when abortion was illegal 90% of abortions were done by a doctor in his practice.
Ok, so what percent are not done by doctors right now?
I am no way in favor of unhealthy abortions. I'm just saying that the whole concept of abortions is horrible to begin with.
The best way to prevent abortions is to prevent pregnancy.
No it would lead to a decrease in abortions all together.
Do you think the percentage of unhealthy abortions will go up?
I wasn't claiming that they were huge, but obviously you would care if a law was put into place but why don't you care now?
It doesn't happen, you lie.
I'm not sure if there is a statistic on that. Even abortions done by some doctors are done in horrible conditions for example the Gosnell case.
So, you use this fake 90% statistic and don't consider any other possible statistics. If you don't take into consideration how things will change, how do you know that the change is a good thing?
I agree and the best way to prevent pregnancy is to be responsible with sex. Which most people aren't.
So, since people aren't responsible about sex, let's ban abortion. Maybe you should try tackling the right problem.
Women are horribly affected by abortion every day because abortion clinics aren't regulated which is considered an unhealthy abortion. I'm not lying.
It wasn't a fake statistic. I actually did do looking for your statistic it but I found no results. Since it was a question you asked why don't you find the statistic? So far nothing has changed. This guy Gosnell got away with what he was doing for over 15 years.
I'm just saying you don't try to cut off the top of the weed and hope it goes away, you have to find the root. The root of pregnancy is sex and as much as people like to think abortion is a responsible thing. It's not, it is an easy way out.
Women are horribly affected by abortion every day because abortion clinics aren't regulated which is considered an unhealthy abortion. I'm not lying.
I believe this is a false statement or overblown by you.
It wasn't a fake statistic. I actually did do looking for your statistic it but I found no results.
Where did you find yours? Isn't it a little suspicious that you have the percentage of abortions before laws were enacted, but you can't find the current breakdown any where? You would think current wouldn't be so hard to find.
This guy Gosnell got away with what he was doing for over 15 years.
How many abortions did he perform?
I'm just saying you don't try to cut off the top of the weed and hope it goes away, you have to find the root.
Yes, pregnancy. I got you that's good.
The root of pregnancy is sex
Ok, addressing the issue, on the right track.
and as much as people like to think abortion is a responsible thing.
Wait, what? How did you just jump from the roots to the top of the weed?
It's not, it is an easy way out.
Which means that it will happen regardless of it being banned.
I think the amount will actually decrease because the horrible clinics will be shutdown. Un-healthy abortion can be and are performed by doctors.
Sorry you feel that way I guess.
Can you not find a statistic to the question you're asking? I told you I couldn't but that doesn't mean you can't.
40,000 within thirty years of him being a doctor, so at that specific practice you could estimate 20,000
Because people think that you can be irresponsible with sex and have an abortion like it's no big deal. Yes I agree it will probably still happen but in way smaller amounts then it is happening now.
I think the amount will actually decrease because the horrible clinics will be shutdown. Un-healthy abortion can be and are performed by doctors.
You live in a fairy tale if you think your change will have no negative impacts.
Sorry you feel that way I guess.
You have given me no reason to feel differently.
Can you not find a statistic to the question you're asking? I told you I couldn't but that doesn't mean you can't.
You want to claim that things will go a certain way if we make your change. How come you won't provide me with the current situation so that I can make an informed decision?
40,000 within thirty years of him being a doctor, so at that specific practice you could estimate 20,000
In his 30 year career he performed a small portion of abortions that is seen in one year. Why does finding someone who performed a miniscule amount of abortions have any bearing on this discussion? Plus, he was performing banned abortions. So, he is a good example of how your system won't work.
Because people think that you can be irresponsible with sex and have an abortion like it's no big deal.
So your solution is to completely ignore that fact?
Yes I agree it will probably still happen but in way smaller amounts then it is happening now.
Way smaller? Doubt it if you won't fix the actual problem. How much smaller do we need to go for you to count it as success?
I count ignoring me as disrespect. You insulted everyone who decides to attack the top of the weed instead of the root, and refused to stop attacking the top of the weed when I pointed out that you were doing that.
The bottom line is abortion is murder of a baby.
Murder of a fetus.
A voiceless innocent child and I can see that. I hope one day you can too.
And, you completely ignore the voice of the mother so I guess you are a great person.
I'm sorry you feel like I ignored you but our conversation kept going tin circles so it was hard not to.
A fetus is a baby
Using women's rights as a cover up is stupid. I'm sorry it is. More girls are aborted then boys so really you are the one who is ignoring the women's voice. Just because I don't allow the murder of the innocent doesn't mean i'm "ignoring the voice of the mother".
I'm sorry you feel like I ignored you but our conversation kept going tin circles so it was hard not to.
No, a circle goes all the way around. You go 75% and get stuck, then call it circular, than run away.
A fetus is a baby
Funny, why have the word fetus in the first place? Why are you so intent on using a more generic word. The only reason is for deception.
Using women's rights as a cover up is stupid.
Using babies rights like they are so much better than women is stupid.
More girls are aborted then boys so really you are the one who is ignoring the women's voice.
Babies are now women, man you are really obscuring the English now.
Just because I don't allow the murder of the innocent doesn't mean i'm "ignoring the voice of the mother".
Mother says "I can't give birth to this fetus." You say "I don't give a flying fuck what you want, no matter what you say, you can not have an abortion." Uh, yeah it's you doing that ignoring thing again.
It's a stage in a HUMANS life. It's still a human just in its early stage. I merely use the word baby because people don't thin that a fetus is alive but they think a baby is alive and they are virtually the same thing.
Fine let me restate that so you can understand.
"More females are aborted than males so really you are the one who is ignoring the female's voice"
No I say just because you "can't give birth" doesn't constitute the end of a human beings life.
You're delusional. That was the second time you mentioned circles, and I was just explaining that your assessment was inaccurate.
It's a stage in a HUMANS life.
So is adulthood.
It's still a human just in its early stage.
But, not a baby yet.
I merely use the word baby because people don't thin that a fetus is alive but they think a baby is alive and they are virtually the same thing.
Virtually the same means not the same.
"More females are aborted than males so really you are the one who is ignoring the female's voice"
You said fetuses are voiceless. So, it would still be you. I was talking about the already born pregnant woman. You changed the words again to deceive us all.
No I say just because you "can't give birth" doesn't constitute the end of a human beings life.
You really sound like you have listened to what the pregnant woman had to say, good for you.
Just because a child hasn't become a teenager yet doesn't give anyone the right to murder them because they are alive in both stages of their life.
They are voiceless which is why people need to be the voice for them. Just because the baby isn't born doesn't mean it's not a female or male it has a gender. I just changed the words you were confused about so you could comprehend what I was saying. It did not change the meaning.
What if the pregnant women wants to give birth to the child but she thinks she can't because she already has four other children. So she decides to kill one of her four children so she can give birth. Oh but that's ok it's her right to decide as a woman and we should listen to the pregnant woman.
And yes good for me. I'm standing up for something that is right and good, and I will defend all of those babies until I die.
You are weird. You accuse me of being stuck on you saying circle when I mentioned it once and you can't drop it.
Exactly but is it ok to murder an adult?
You would be fine with it if that person had to die to give birth.
Just because a child hasn't become a teenager yet doesn't give anyone the right to murder them because they are alive in both stages of their life.
Another weird wording choice, but I guess I just disagree with this statement. That is the fundamental difference between us.
They are voiceless which is why people need to be the voice for them. Just because the baby isn't born doesn't mean it's not a female or male it has a gender. I just changed the words you were confused about so you could comprehend what I was saying. It did not change the meaning.
I have let this go on long enough. You are using the gender inequality in the rest of the world cloud your argument. You are wrong. Simple as that.
"Many articles about sex selection take it as a foregone conclusion that U.S. parents would overwhelmingly choose to have boys, if they had a choice. Although this is sadly the case in some parts of the world, in the United States it's a different story. It turns out that there's plenty of good evidence that U.S. parents want daughters just as much as sons."
What if the pregnant women wants to give birth to the child but she thinks she can't because she already has four other children. So she decides to kill one of her four children so she can give birth. Oh but that's ok it's her right to decide as a woman and we should listen to the pregnant woman.
I have drawn a line in the sand. Once a fetus is born it is treated differently. You draw the line in the sand that once the genetic material from the father joins with mother it is treated differently. I don't think this argument here fits anything.
And yes good for me. I'm standing up for something that is right and good, and I will defend all of those babies until I die.
There is always a chance that both the mother and child could survive.
You sound like Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber. "So you're saying there's a chance!"
If a fetus isn't a human what is it?
I am saying it isn't born and that matters.
I'm not just talking about abortions in the U.S.
Now you are a double idiot. You want to ban abortions in America because Chinese people are aborting girls.
So do you think that abortions should be given up until birth?
Does asking a completely stupid question make you feel better? I say that before a women is 3 months pregnant she can decide to get an abortion, and if there are some complications she can get an abortion later in the pregnancy.
So your saying that a fetus is a human and you're ok with a woman "disposing" of a human.
Yes.
Let me say this again, I'm not just talking about the U.S. abortions should be illegal everywhere.
You want to ban U.S. abortions in China, you're weird.
It's not stupid, your logic is stupid.
Your question was worded very poorly. You were not actually asking a real question. I shouldn't have insulted you without explaining. You wrote gibberish.
If the baby isn't alive until birth then why is it wrong for abortions to be done after 3 months?
Arbitrary number. No real reason. It is long enough to figure out that you want the abortion. It is the standard now, so I see no reason to change it.
I never said that why aren't you understanding this? I never said I could make abortion illegal everywhere but it needs to be. The U.S. can't force laws upon China.
It's a human in the womb and a human outside of the womb. I don't support murder.
You're sexist. Ooh, now we are on to name calling.
I never said that why aren't you understanding this?
Wrong, you did.
I never said I could make abortion illegal everywhere but it needs to be.
You don't even understand the cultural differences, and you want to push your admittedly incorrect ideas. At least I haven't been caught admitting that I stand for a solution I think is the wrong solution.
The U.S. can't force laws upon China.
I am glad you figured that out.
It's a human in the womb and a human outside of the womb. I don't support murder.
I am sure we can find a time when you do.
It's because they can feel the pain of dying.
That is the compromise I make with you. We give ourselves just a 3 month window and you want to close that to.
No, there is no way to get farther with people who think your beliefs are disgusting.
Two suggestions before I go, use facts that actually apply to the country you want to make laws for. Don't describe what you are doing as a bad idea, you really lost me when you started attacking the top of the weed.
but level of abortion will decrease, because majority of those girls(women) who wants to do the abortion will stop the law. I am agree that they will have opportunity to do it illegally, but low percent of them will have brave to do it so.
You are exactly right. This is a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor. We can not foresee all possible situations or conditions. It is not like you can just go out there and any doctor will do it. I do agree if there were more support for people to adopt and more support for single women who feel they can not financially keep there child that there would be less abortions.
If single women don't feel she can financially keep her child she should protect her self from pregnancy. This is not a reason to make abortion. If this happened already it is her responsibility and she can leave this child in the orphanage, but still give this child opportunity to stay alive. I know that from moral side this sounds rude, but think what's better to kill child before he/she will born or leave him !alive! in orphanage. Maybe he/she in future will be someone who will make contribution for our world.
As long as abortion is only allowed before the fetus is sentient... then I am all for it, after I am against it to degrees depending on how sentient it is.
I do believe that all sentient beings are of ethical concern, but there usually serious reasons for getting an abortion, and there are ways to end a fetus' life without pain. In fact, banning abortion makes it unregulated, and therefore more suffering will be generated. Also, if killing a sentient being ought to be banned by law, then all meat and leather production would have to be banned.
I do believe that all sentient beings are of ethical concern, but there usually serious reasons for getting an abortion, and there are ways to end a fetus' life without pain. In fact, banning abortion makes it unregulated, and therefore more suffering will be generated.
I would agree. But non-sentient beings aren't a concern. Which is the core of my stance on abortion.
Also, if killing a sentient being ought to be banned by law, then all meat and leather production would have to be banned.
I never said killing a sentient being ought to be banned by law, but that considering a being on ethical grounds, we first must determine whether or not it is sentient. To be honest, meat and leather, and all that jazz I have some conflicting views on, and the only thing that I can say to justify that, is that it is instinct for us to eat meat. Though I've contemplated on the pros and cons of vegetarianism. I haven't contemplated much on furs though. Another thing that is should be taken into consideration, is society is humans method of survival, not method of survival for all animals, it is there just to benefit us. So sentience within animals might not be a relative matter to me in farming, because society is for humanity, sentience does matter with the fetus, because the fetus, sentient or not, is a developing human, not a developing species of any other.
It would hardly be instinct for you to eat a dog, let alone most of the meat that actually exists in nature. Every culture has four to seven different species they'll actually consider edible. Suppose that instinct does matter. Cows are currently the biggest marine predator around, is it instinct for them to eat fish?
society is humans method of survival
Then why have there been hundreds of recorded automated nuclear launches triggered by defense systems, stopped at the last minute by human hand? Why aren't societies which are undermining human survival, say for instance the United States (used nuclear weapons twice, and is propagating climate change), seen as completely worthless? An alien observer might as well conclude that society is human's method of extinction...
the fetus, sentient or not, is a developing human, not a developing species of any other.
... but this on the other hand is why we shouldn't answer the cosmic telephone in the first place. The only reason you can use such a distinction is because all of the transitional forms between human and ape happen to be extinct.
It would hardly be instinct for you to eat a dog, let alone most of the meat that actually exists in nature.
It is not instinct to eat any type of meat in particular but instinct to eat meat in general. I suspect human beings in general are predisposed to have desire to consume meat now and then so strong that some would find it heavily difficult to become a vegetarian, thus humanity becoming completely vegetarian is an unrealistic expectation. Ergo a vegetarian society is an unrealistic expectation.
Then why have there been hundreds of recorded automated nuclear launches triggered by defense systems, stopped at the last minute by human hand? Why aren't societies which are undermining human survival, say for instance the United States (used nuclear weapons twice, and is propagating climate change), seen as completely worthless? An alien observer might as well conclude that society is human's method of extinction...
Well these societies aren't perfect but they still contribute greatly to the survival of those living inside of those societies. If you were to take away all forms of goverment and society away from America, and we had to survive on a tribal level or less, but still out in nature, majority of us would probably die. Society isn't perfect, yes we do, do things that are counter-productive to our survival, that is what evolution is about, we will either learn to stop doing these things, or eventually go extinct.
... but this on the other hand is why we shouldn't answer the cosmic telephone in the first place. The only reason you can use such a distinction is because all of the transitional forms between human and ape happen to be extinct.
No the reason I make the distinction is because society is our species method of survival, if we didn't have society, then we would all start dropping like flies. The issue of abortion is an issue within society, society is there for the well being of humanity, not animals. Though don't get me wrong I do believe there should be some animal rights, especially for those that we allow in our society (I.E. dogs, circus animals, zoos) depending on the situation.
some would find it heavily difficult to become a vegetarian
There are plant-based alternatives to meat that the average person couldn't tell apart. A New York Times-reporter for instance could not tell the difference between chicken and a soy based alternative.
Well these societies aren't perfect but they still contribute greatly to the survival of those living inside of those societies... society is there for the well being of humanity, not animals.
An utility brush may nicely fit inside your mouth, but that doesn't mean that it's purpose is tooth brushing. Society has no innate purpose, instead, it's tooled to meet human need, as well as greed. If you want to define a "proper purpose" for society you must define a proper purpose for people.
There are plant-based alternatives to meat that the average person couldn't tell apart. A New York Times-reporter for instance could not tell the difference between chicken and a soy based alternative.
Enough to feed an entire civilization?
n utility brush may nicely fit inside your mouth, but that doesn't mean that it's purpose is tooth brushing. Society has no innate purpose, instead, it's tooled to meet human need, as well as greed. If you want to define a "proper purpose" for society you must define a proper purpose for people.
Humanity has no purpose defined for it, how ever evolutionarily speaking, as a species we have instinct that demands us to survive, civilization offers a huge advantage to our survival and I personally think that this is the biggest reason civilization has came about. If civilization were to crumble, we had no hospitals, no government, etc, we wouldn't be as well off as we are right now. Without it, we wouldn't have the scientific progress we have, without that, the medical knowledge that has increased our life spans, the habitation from the wild, etc would not exist. Society does have an innate purpose like you said to meet human need, as well as greed. Which sounds a lot like to me, bettering the condition you are living in, which is the struggle for survival, to survive as best as we can, surviving efficiently means thriving. Thriving means trying to satisfy our needs as best as we can, as well as our greed. Your analogy is off, it would be more correct if the utility brush was efficient as brushing your teeth even though it was never designed to. Society wasn't created with evolution in mind, however it was a natural thing for our species to come to, and was a result of our genetic predisposition.
The animal is just eating plants for you and producing less in return. 90% of current soy production goes towards factory farming. If there was no meat production, there would be enough resources to feed the whole of humanity.
Society does have an innate purpose like you said to meet human need, as well as greed. Which sounds a lot like to me, bettering the condition you are living in, which is the struggle for survival, to survive as best as we can, surviving efficiently means thriving.
I said that society has no innate purpose. Its purpose is defined by people who make decisions. I don't that decisions are natural. Therefore I said society has no innate purpose, not even to the extent that a natural thing can have. Altogether, I think we can agree to disagree on that point.
The naturalistic fallacy however is equating "natural" with good. What happens to be a purpose of society is irrelevant. The relevant question is: what ought to be the purpose of society? When we're answering a question like that, I think many distinctions tend to disappear. Things like nationality, class, sex, race and even "me" as opposed to someone else, are hard to define on the philosophical level, and don't seem that very relevant to what morality is.
The animal is just eating plants for you and producing less in return. 90% of current soy production goes towards factory farming. If there was no meat production, there would be enough resources to feed the whole of humanity.
However, people are conditioned to meat... To try and get all of humanity to become vegetarian would be incredibly difficult, unless you used vegetation that could easily offer what we have been conditioned to with meat, which I doubt enough of that type of vegetation exists for all of humanity.
The naturalistic fallacy however is equating "natural" with good. What happens to be a purpose of society is irrelevant. The relevant question is: what ought to be the purpose of society? When we're answering a question like that, I think many distinctions tend to disappear. Things like nationality, class, sex, race and even "me" as opposed to someone else, are hard to define on the philosophical level, and don't seem that very relevant to what morality is.
I am not saying that natural is always good, you asked why we don't ban production of meat and furs, and etc if sentience is the core concern of ethics. I responded back by trying to explain why society only looks out for humans. Society isn't always moral, however even if you were to convince me that meat products should be banned, and etc the whole nine yards, I would still be on the side of legalization of abortion as long as the fetus hasn't became sentient yet, just a huge animal rights activist, which I've contemplated going that route. If something isn't sentient, it can't experience, if it can't experience then there are no consequences to the thing's well being. There is no consequences to the trees well being because the tree isn't sentient, we cut down trees, and in individual cases there is no reason to care, because a lot like an inanimate object trees don't care what you do to them. (though it is an ethical concern with trees in general because if too many trees were to be cut down it could effect the well being of other sentient life). A fetus before it has developed sentience has no care of what you do to it, it is no more alive than any old tree you could find in a forest.
vegetation that could easily offer what we have been conditioned to with meat
Making "meaty" dishes from plants is a skill that many, many cultures of the world practice. Seitan for instance is just made from wheat, and is consumed by millions of Asians as we speak. There are loads of alternatives.
To try and get all of humanity to become vegetarian would be incredibly difficult
Most of humanity consumes what I believe to be justifiable and sustainable amounts of meat. Since animals are often important to their survival, they're not relevant to my point. Factory farming is.
society only looks out for humans
Factory farming is a heavy burden on society in general. If republicans voted to delay the farm bill, milk would cost 7 dollars a gallon. Because there are so many reasons to become a vegan, chances are the average person should be a vegan by their own standards. It doesn't matter whether society looks out for animals. If it looks out for humans, it would stop the massive subsidies to factory farming.
Society isn't always moral
If we're so immoral that we don't care about sentient animals, then, in the end, we're very likely to be so immoral that we don't care about sentient fetuses either. Therefore your argument is shaky. When it comes to something as important as what we do with our lives, there should be a more concise way to weigh in on our conduct.
Making "meaty" dishes from plants is a skill that many, many cultures of the world practice. Seitan for instance is just made from wheat, and is consumed by millions of Asians as we speak. There are loads of alternatives.
Great now we just need to start integrating it into our culture.
Factory farming is a heavy burden on society in general. If republicans voted to delay the farm bill, milk would cost 7 dollars a gallon. Because there are so many reasons to become a vegan, chances are the average person should be a vegan by their own standards. It doesn't matter whether society looks out for animals. If it looks out for humans, it would stop the massive subsidies to factory farming.
I should clarify that society is SUPPOSED to look out for people. That is typically considered what society's intention should be when influencing it via politics.
If we're so immoral that we don't care about sentient animals, then, in the end, we're very likely to be so immoral that we don't care about sentient fetuses either. Therefore your argument is shaky. When it comes to something as important as what we do with our lives, there should be a more concise way to weigh in on our conduct.
It's not that we are immoral, but that society on its own just doesn't care about sentient animals. You have to admit an animal in society is treated less then a person, because society has a bias towards humans. It's not that we are immoral, but that, that's just not a moral possessed by our civilization when considering our rules and politics. Sentient fetuses are different though, because society/civilization does care about sentient fetuses (hell they care about non-sentient fetuses a lot) because we recognize them as being one of us, as being human.
society is SUPPOSED to look out for people ... society has a bias towards humans.
There's a clear difference here: what society does and what society SHOULD do. The relevant thing is that individuals can come to realize that their actions are unjustifiable, as have hundreds of millions of vegetarians and vegans. If their numbers increase, society will function differently, and in my view, it should.
society on its own just doesn't care about sentient animals.
I don't see much merit in that generalization. Pets for instance are cared for and looked after. In fact, there are laws against cruelty to animals. They're just not applied consistently.
Sentient fetuses are different though, because society/civilization does care about sentient fetuses (hell they care about non-sentient fetuses a lot) because we recognize them as being one of us, as being human.
Jewish law for instance defines a penalty for causing a miscarriage. It's a fine, a small payment for the inconvenience caused. Secondly, most societies worship non-human gods. How could anyone conclude that being human is necessary, when some of the most exalted beings around the world are non-human?
Banning abortions won't stop it. Why not have it legal so it will be a lot safer. Banning abortions will just make it to where women have to go to some place like Mexico to get it done. Not to mention abortion doesn't effect anyone's life but the person receiving the abortion. Why make a fuss over something that has nothing to do with you?
Abortion is nothing more than wholesale murder. Congress had no say so. Only that silly supreme court used its powers to act as a super legislative body!
what if the pregnancy is a result of a rape or incest? You can't murder something that is biologically not a living organism. biologist and doctors say that the fetus until week 36 for human is an extra organ with the future mother. A fetus before 24 weeks can't survive on its own. So you can't murder something that is legally and biologically not a live and its a women personal choice to do so. KEEP RELIGION AND PERSONAL BELIEFS OUT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ON SOCIAL ISSUES, including SAME-SAME MARRIAGE, DRUG USE AND ABORTION.
legal abortion will decrease level of demography of the country for a huge number and whatever orphanages can have more children's in there they will have opportunity to stay alive and this is much better then don't even born. We can loose talented people, new inventors, new scientists, teachers, doctors who can help our community and help society to make world better even for a little but still.
legal abortion will decrease level of demography of the country for a huge number
Funny hasn't done this yet where abortion is legal (or illegal for that matter).
The rest of your argument is what is called a subjunctive fallacy. 'If I was there I would have done X'. It is basically an opinion masquerading as an if/then statement. It can take other forms too but it is always some form of unreality in which we have no real way to confirm the result.
We can loose talented people, new inventors, new scientists, teachers, doctors
So if we have abortions, we can then lose talented people.
How about this 'If we have abortions then we can prevent new Hitlers, Pol Pots, Stalin's etc.'
See why it isn't a convincing stance? There is no way to prove one way or another, it is just wishful thinking or poor justification of a stance.
Hey we actually agree on something. I am against abortion personally, but the states should decide.
However, if I got my way, abortion would be legal in only the following states.
New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, California, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Minnesota, Maryland, Rhode Island
As far as I am concerned, every woman in those states should have as many abortions as possible. The population of those states would dramatically decrease and they would lose alot of electoral votes, ensuring Republicans control of the White House for decades. Every abortion in these states means one less most likely liberal to vote one day.
And by the way, the only way republicans will ever control the whitehouse again is if you kill all the Hispanics, blacks, asians and jews in this country, not counting all the athiest and gays, so good luck with that, if anything your party is finished, Libertarians will take your place within the next 20 years or so.
You are correct that the Republican party is in trouble on the national level. It will be difficult for the Republicans to take back the White House in 2016. However, if Obama keeps screwing up peoples' lives financially, the Republicans have a shot with the right candidate.
Keep in mind that this still is a center right nation and people generally vote their wallet. That could change as the demographics of the US continue to evolve toward a more dependent attitude on the government, something Obama is desperately working on.
Finally, certain groups political affiliations change over time. I can see blacks one day moving more to the Republican party in the future, as Democrats continue to coddle Hispanics. Not saying blacks will vote majority, but the 90-10 split right now could go 70-30 one day, which would drastically hurt the Democrats.
I absolutely believe that it is the mothers choice, however, I also believe you are murdering your child if you partake in this. I do think that, yes, it would happen illegally but it would decrease the abortion rates and decrease the guilt of these mothers. I think all child should be born and taken care of whether it is by the mother or an adoptive family. Every child deserves to live!
