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 abortion be made illegal?
Abortion should be made illegal execpt in certain cases. I think that the fetus has a life and that fetus did not asked to be planted in the mother. For those of us that supports abortion, do you think that abortion will make a person become more responsible for their actions? How many people are having reapeated abortion? Can we not consider adoption instead of abortion? Why sould the government continue paying for the repaeated abortion of those on welfare causing a constraint in taxpayers?
I suggest you guys read up on the case Roe Vs Wade whic hwas decided by the Supreme Court and the real truth behind this case and abortion.
Guys post your thoughts. Anyone who would like to challenge me, i am open for challenges. Also check up my other arguments such as death penalty etc.
I'm going to take for granted the notion that federal sanctioning of the taking of human life, be it in favor of whatever "greater good," should not be tolerated. If anyone would like to contest this, let me know and I'll elaborate.
While even the most ferocious of pro-borts openly admit that human life is scientifically defined as beginning at conception, others still insist that it is not, and some of their arguments should be taken into consideration.
But while we're pontificating on the nature of human life, it is extremely irresponsible to allow potentially millions of human beings to die in the name of another's convenience. Better to err on the side of life.
I'm very against abortion, but I'm not stupid; I know there are times where it is a necessity. I think it should ultimately stay legal, but should be a lot more restricted. I don't see anything good from a 25-year-old going in and getting an abortion because she just doesn't want the baby.
So are you are saying that because she wants an abortion she should have it? Then why are you even against abortion? We are talking about a life here not just a fetus. I believe that everyone has a right to live. No fetus should pay the consequences because of a decision made by it's mother. In the year 2000, there were 1.3 million fetus that were killed and the same amount of families were waiting for children to adopt.
If you are saying that nothing is wrong if a woman needs an abortion, the you are saying she can have repeat abortions. What if a woman who has unprotected sex and knows the consequences of her actions but later decides she wants an abortion? What is your opinion on that?
I think so too. Every father should have a right to have a say when it comes to an abortion because that fetus was formed from their chromosomes and genetics. I am surprised that advocates for abortion are saying that men have no right to tell a woman how to control her body but yet they don't have a problem with the decision of the U.S Supreme Court in which all of the judges were men.
I'm very against abortion, but I'm not stupid; I know there are times where it is a necessity. I think it should ultimately stay legal, but should be a lot more restricted. I don't see anything good from a 25-year-old going in and getting an abortion because she just doesn't want the baby.
Why should it matter to you if a person does that? That's awfully nosey and judgmental.
No sometimes it is...there is a a type of pregnancy that kills the mother AND the fetus unless its aborted....I pretty much agree that abortion is wrong otherwise though!!
What is the opposite of 'LIFE?' Answer, 'DEATH.' Stop saying 'Pro-choice' the opposite of Pro-life is 'Pro-death' You're not Pro-choice you're Pro-death if you are for abortion
The life of a fetus should have as much value as any other human life.
it is generally accepted that people can kill in self-defense with varying levels of imminent harm as justification - if you apply that same principle to the mother fetus relationship that would permit abortions with varying degrees of danger to life and health of the mother.
If abortion was made illegal but women still got them, would that not make them criminals? I would believe so, therefore they should have the same consequences as criminals. Right?
Any Federal law on abortion is inherently illegal because the Federal government has no authority to regulate abortion. The States individually have the power to. I would be ecstatic if every State in the Union outlawed abortion, just like murder is outlawed.
Any Federal law on abortion is inherently illegal because the Federal government has no authority to regulate abortion. The States individually have the power to. I would be ecstatic if every State in the Union outlawed abortion, just like murder is outlawed.
Abortion isn't murder. A foetus is not a person in the meaningful sense of the word.
What? Ending a life isn't cruel? So i guess we should let murders and rapes takes place too because those are not cruel acts. Oh and i posted some information on the methods of abortion for you. These are the cruel methods stated again:
METHODS OF TERMNATION OF PREGNANCY
There are three abortion classifications—surgical abortion, medical abortion, and chemical abortion. They are defined as follows:
Surgical abortion: These are abortions that involve an invasive procedure. Major types of surgical abortions include:
Suction aspiration: This is the procedure most often used in the first trimester of pregnancy (the first three months). The abortionist inserts a suction tube (similar to a vacuum hose with an extremely sharp end) into the mother's womb. The suction and cutting edge dismember the baby while the hose sucks the body parts into a collection bottle.
Dilation and curettage (D&C;): In this procedure, the abortionist uses a loop shaped knife to cut the baby into pieces and scrape the uterine wall. The baby's body parts are then removed and checked to make sure that no pieces were left in the mother's womb.
Dilation and extraction (also known as D&X;or partial-birth abortion): Used to kill babies well into the third trimester (as late as 32 weeks old), the abortionist reaches into the mother's womb, grabs the baby's feet with a forceps and pulls the baby out of the mother, except for the head. The abortionist then jams a pair of scissors into the back of the baby's head and spreads the scissors apart to make a hole in the baby's skull. The abortionist removes the scissors and sticks a suction tube into the skull to suck the baby's brain out. The forceps are then used to crush the baby's head and the abortionist pulls the baby's body out the rest of the way.
Dilation and evacuation (D&E;): This form of abortion is used to kill babies in the second trimester (24+ weeks). The abortionist uses a forceps to grab parts of the baby (arms and legs) and then tears the baby apart. The baby's head must be crushed in order to remove it because the skull bone has hardened by this stage in the baby's growth.
Hysterotomy: Performed in the third trimester, this is basically an abortive Cesarean section (C-section). The abortionist makes in an incision in the mother's abdomen and removes the baby. The baby is then either placed to the side to die or is killed by the abortionist or nurse.
Medical abortions: These are abortions that involve the administration of drug specifically intended to abort the child. Common drugs used for medical abortions include:
Mifepristone (RU-486): Mifepristone blocks the hormone that helps develop the lining of the uterus during pregnancy (progesterone). This lining is the source of nutrition and protection for the developing baby. The tiny boy or girl is starved to death and then a second drug, misoprostol, causes contractions so that the dead baby is expelled from the womb.
Methotrexate: this highly toxic chemical directly attacks and breaks down the baby's fast-growing cells. It also attacks the life-support systems the baby needs to survive. When the systems fail, the baby dies. Misoprostol is then used to cause contractions and push the dead baby out of the womb.
Salt poisoning: This technique is used in the second and third trimester. The abortionist sticks a long needle into the mother's womb. The needle contains salt which is then injected into the amniotic fluid surrounding the baby. The baby breathes in, swallows the salt and dies from salt poisoning, dehydration, brain hemorrhage and convulsions. Taking nearly an hour to die, the baby's skin is completely burned, turns red and deteriorates. The baby is in pain the entire time. The mother goes into labor 24 - 48 hours later and delivers a dead baby.
Prostaglandins: Used during the second and third trimester, prostaglandin abortions involve the injection of naturally produced hormones into the amniotic sac, causing violent premature labor. During these convulsions the baby is often crushed to death or is born too early to have any chance of surviving.
Chemical abortions: These are abortions caused by drugs that, at least some of the time, prevent the implantation of the already-created baby in the uterine lining. Some of the more popular methods of birth control that can be responsible for the deaths of newly-created children are:
The Ortho-Evra® birth control patch works by suppressing gonadotropins, which may inhibit ovulation, change the cervical mucus to prevent sperm from reaching the uterus and change the lining of the uterus thereby preventing the implantation of the newly-formed human (Physicians' Desk Reference. 60 ed. Montvale, NJ: Thompson PDR; 2006. 2402).
The NuvaRing® vaginal ring works by suppressing gonadotropins, which may inhibit ovulation, change the cervical mucus to prevent sperm from reaching the uterus and change the endometrium thereby preventing the implantation of the newly-formed human (PDR. 2357).
Depo-Provera® Contraceptive Injection, when administered at the recommended dose to women every 3 months, inhibits the secretion of gonadotropins which, in turn, prevents follicular maturation and ovulation and results in endometrium thinning. These actions produce its contraceptive effect (PDR 2620).
Plan B® is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization, by altering the tubal transport of sperm and/or ova. In addition, it may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium (PDR 1068
[What? Ending a life isn't cruel? So i guess we should let murders and rapes takes place too because those are not cruel acts]
I believe Avasked said mistreatment counted as cruelty. Last I checked, mistreating someone includes murder and rape. Cruelty must involving hurting someone, physically or mentally. The fetus cannot think nor can feel.
So are you saying that murder is not cruelty? According to the laws it is and also a person can commit rape in a cruel manner by hurting the victim mentally and physically through the ordeal.
Like i asked aveske, a person who is paralyzed has lost their consciousness, so should we kill them because they cannot think or feel too?
No one kills a fetus because it isn't a conscious being.
A paralyzed person is not in a literal parasitic relationship with another human being. If they are on life support, they are being kept alive by machines. They are not infringing on anyone's rights to bodily autonomy.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that the fetus is more of a parasitic entity? It is not a conscious being but so are the people who are paralyzed who depend on other people to take care of them even though they are on life support machines. According to you a fetus is not a conscious being so how can it infringe on a person's right to her own body?
In the case of paralyzed or comatose patients, if a caretaker becomes unhappy with the situation, they are legally allowed to quit or otherwise cease their involvement. This is also not an issue of bodily autonomy.
The only evidence I need for the parasitism of the fetus is the definition of the word parasite: an organism that lives inside another organism (its host) and siphons resources without reciprocation. The fetus uses the mother's body as its host. It depends solely on her for survival; no one else can step in and take her place if she is unhappy with the situation. If someone or something is using your body to survive, you should have a say in whether or not it is allowed to continue doing so. You should be permitted to decide what medical procedures you will undergo or forego. If you do not get to decide this, then your rights to bodily autonomy are being infringed upon. When the interests of the fetus and the mother collide, the mother should take precedence.
This, more than a lack of consciousness in the fetus, is why I support abortion at the discretion of the mother and no one else.
You mentioned the term parasite so my question to you is does parasites posess the DNA which identifies us each as a human? And if the fetus is indeed a parasite then how come it belongs to the race of homo sapiens referred to as humans? To the extent of my knowledge i was taught that parasites feed from their host in return causing injury to the host which is completely the opposite in terms of the fetus.
A fetus is formed from a sperm cell and a egg cell which identifies it as a developing human with developing organs. If the fetus is indeed a parasite then you are implying that all humans are parasites at the fetal stage and any doctors or scientist will prove you wrong.
The body of a woman is not infringed upon because the fetus is formed from a natural process of reproduction which involves the reproduction of human organisms developing into human beings. Parasites are formed from foreign materials that enter the body but the fetus is formed from the cells of the human body itself which makes it a special function of the sex organs of the human body.
Also you said that people who are caretakers of other people can denounce their rights to take care of that person who is paralyzed but what happens if that person signs a irrevocable power of attorney to stand for the person giving power of attorney. In this case it is a permanent legal contract between the appearer and the person recieving power. And even if this person recuses himself or herself from taking care of the paralyzed person wouldn't that person also depend on the help of doctors to survive? And what about newborns that are one day old? Don't they also feed from the body of the mother? Does that makes them a parasite?
I am just going to repeat what I said before in different terms because I am not sure how I can make it any more clear.
A fetus makes its home inside the mother's body and leeches energy and nutrients from her, which is very taxing on her body. The fetus does not contribute anything in return. This is, without a doubt, the definition of a parasitic relationship. I don't know how you can interpret this relationship as the 'opposite' of what I stated as that would entail the mother leeching from the fetus without contributing anything in return.
The bodily autonomy of the woman is infringed upon if she doesn't want the fetus to continue using her as a host and she is forbidden from seeking an abortion.
Back to the patient: I admit that I am unfamiliar with legal complications like that. However, it still seems that everyone involved has a way of disentangling themselves from a situation of caring for a paralyzed person, if they wish to do so. The person with power of attorney can recuse, as you said, and doctors voluntarily take care of patients because it is their job. If they didn't like it, they could quit or transfer. No matter what kind of bizarre hypothetical one can pose with a paralyzed person, it is still not an issue of the caretakers' rights to bodily autonomy being challenged.
If you have a newborn baby and a mother who does not want to take care of that newborn baby, then the solution is simple; she gives up her rights to the baby and someone else takes care of it. It still needs her permission to be able to use her body for survival, but in this case, if she chooses not to grant it, it can survive in other ways. This is not the case with an inviable fetus.
How can the body of a woman be infringed upon when a woman knows the result of sexual intercourse is a fetus? You are failing to understand that a parasite can only be from the animal kingdom and not the human kingdom because the fetus itself is from the family of homo sapiens. A parasite feeds from the host and also injures the host at the same time causing injury. There is no proof of that in a fetus. For a parasitic relationship, those elements of science have to exist.
But a mother should not recuse herself from the birth of her fetus when the fetus contains her DNA and is equivalent to murder. Murder is the intentional taking of a human life which in this case refers to abortion itself as well. If a mother chooses not to take care of her child after she gives birth to it, she can be criminally prosecuted for criminal negligence. And if she chooses to give the child away for abortion, then the child will still need the help of another foster mother for survival.
How can the body of a woman be infringed upon when a woman knows the result of sexual intercourse is a fetus?
When she is prevented from dealing with her body as she sees fit, her rights to her own body are being infringed upon. This is self-evident and if you disagree you are going to have to explain yourself.
You are failing to understand that a parasite can only be from the animal kingdom and not the human kingdom because the fetus itself is from the family of homo sapiens. A parasite feeds from the host and also injures the host at the same time causing injury. There is no proof of that in a fetus. For a parasitic relationship, those elements of science have to exist.
There is no such thing as a 'human kingdom'. Humans are as much a part of the animal kingdom as cats, chimps, and mice.
Do not assume I don't understand what you are trying to say. It just irrelevant. Regardless of species, the fetus leeches nutrients from the mother and does not return them. Again, this is a parasitic relationship: one organism leeches from another without returning anything. Some definitions include the stipulation of separate species, and others do not. But either way, you cannot possibly argue that the fetus has anything to contribute to the biological relationship. It only takes, it does not return. The claim that pregnancy causes no injury to the woman leads me to believe you have never even spoken to a pregnant woman. Pregnancy is extremely taxing on the mother's body, even in environments where she has no shortage of food and does not need to be active. It often leads to malnutrition, anemia, or high blood pressure, and even when it doesn't do any of these things, it is still exhausting, painful, and their bodies will never be the same. This is technically injury to the woman, even though in some cases it may be minor, and is completely natural. If a woman were to be forced to endure a pregnancy based on what someone else think she should do with her body, I am sure the mental toll would also be enormous.
But a mother should not recuse herself from the birth of her fetus when the fetus contains her DNA and is equivalent to murder. Murder is the intentional taking of a human life which in this case refers to abortion itself as well.
You are studying law and you are trying to say abortion is legally murder? A fetus is not legally considered a human life and so it cannot fit the definition of murder as you are using it.
The fetus having possession of the mother's DNA has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is murder. Your skin cells have your DNA but you are not committing murder when you scratch yourself. This point is also of subjective importance; don't assume that what matters to you is what matters to everyone.
Even if I did consider a fetus to be a human life, I still maintain that the mother's rights override the rights of the fetus. I would be ashamed to live in a country that forced unwilling mothers to incubate babies they didn't want, effectively reducing them to subhumans whose bodies were at the mercy of someone else's whims. This sounds like a nightmare. The government has no right to tell you or any other citizen what medical procedures they must undergo or what medical procedures they may not undergo.
If a mother chooses not to take care of her child after she gives birth to it, she can be criminally prosecuted for criminal negligence.
The reason the mother is and should be culpable is that, at that point, the child can depend on someone else for life, so if she does not want the responsibility, she is able to someone who will care for the child. Before the fetus is viable, it cannot depend on anyone else for life, so if she does not want the responsibility, she is unable to find anyone else who will finish the pregnancy for her. Abortion is currently the only option for women who do not want to remain pregnant; if there were some way to remove the fetus and put it in the body of a willing surrogate, I would be all for this.
And if she chooses to give the child away for abortion, then the child will still need the help of another foster mother for survival.
Since this is nonsense, I am going to assume you mean 'adoption' instead of 'abortion'. This does not change a single thing about my argument; at this point, the child can depend on someone but its biological mother for survival, so abortion is not necessary if the biological mother no longer wants to care for it.
--
In addition to my previous point, I would like to pose a hypothetical situation. Someone has a child. When their child is 10 years old, he becomes gravely ill. Only an organ transplant will save him. Unfortunately, the only person who can give him a matching organ in time is one of his parents. For whatever reason, the parent is unwilling to give their child the organ he needs. Should the government get involved and force one of the parents to give the child an organ, under threat of punishment? If yes, why draw the line at a parent-child situation? Why not force every citizen to have their unnecessary organs surgically removed and given to people on the donor list? If no, why not? After all, the humanhood and citizenship of people on the organ list is not even under debate, and you have shown you think it is okay to force people to conserve life/a living human at the expense of their own bodies.
So the laws say that a woman should not use her body for the purpose of prositution. So would you say that the laws are infringing upon the body of the woman?
Check up the details of science. A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship. A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source. A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being. When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host.
When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
Abortion was and is considered murder in some countries and states so what are you talking about. What about in Wade vs. Roe when Jane Roe was charged by the DA for attempted murder because she wanted to commit an abortion. She claimed she was raped but the truth is she was never. She had consensual sex. That is the root towards the leglaization of abortion before it was and is still known as murder in some countries. You say a fetus is not legally considered a human life but perhaps you should read up on the case Webster vs. Reproducitve Health Servies in which the U.S Supreme Court in their ruling concluded that life begins at conception which means that the fetus is legally considered a human life. Can your skin develop into a human being or develop heart or organ cells?
So the laws say that a woman should not use her body for the purpose of prositution. So would you say that the laws are infringing upon the body of the woman?
Yes.
Check up the details of science. A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship. A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source. A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being. When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host.
You do not need to imply that I am so stupid as to not realize a fetus and mother are not the same species. I have already pointed out that some definitions of parasitism include a stipulation about species, and others do not. The distillation of the relationship, however, as I have explained I don't know how many times, is that one organism takes without returning and one organism gives involuntarily without receiving. This exactly describes the relationship between both a mother and a fetus and a parasite and its host.
For the sake of not being stuck on this semantic point forever, I will stop using the term 'parasitic relationship' and use the phrase 'a relationship in which the fetus siphons resources without contribution and the mother gives involuntarily and may very well suffer ill consequences of varying severity due to the presence of the fetus'.
Abortion was and is considered murder in some countries and states so what are you talking about.
I am not familiar with the abortion issue in other countries and thus my arguments are concerning abortion in America only.
In America, the Supreme Court does not consider abortion to be murder. This is evidence by the fact that doctors who perform abortion in legal states are not arrested and charged with murder, and unless I am mistaken, the women who receive abortions, legal or not, are not arrested and charged with murder either.
What about in Wade vs. Roe when Jane Roe was charged by the DA for attempted murder because she wanted to commit an abortion. She claimed she was raped but the truth is she was never. She had consensual sex. That is the root towards the leglaization of abortion before it was and is still known as murder in some countries.
It doesn't matter to me whether or not abortion was first legalized because of a lie or that one of the involved parties was later arrested for anything. What matters to me is that abortion is a right women should have or continue to have, even if they became pregnant during consensual sex. My feelings on this are not based on any legal precedent.
You say a fetus is not legally considered a human life but perhaps you should read up on the case Webster vs. Reproducitve Health Servies in which the U.S Supreme Court in their ruling concluded that life begins at conception which means that the fetus is legally considered a human life.
It ruled the fetus is alive. Not that it is equal to a human life. Bacteria, plants, and chickens are alive but they are not human lives. Do you understand the difference? If the Supreme Court had ruled that fetuses are not just alive but also human lives, they would have no choice but to rule abortion as murder.
Can your skin develop into a human being or develop heart or organ cells?
Well if you say yes then it seems that the laws have a right to infringe upon the body of the mother even if it means that it is against the choice of the mother.
According to your opinion, the fetus is a parasite but i challenge you to produce to me evidence pointing to the point that the fetus is a parasite. Those details i mentioned to you have been proved scientifically and if the courts have determined it as being a human life then how can you call it a parasite? So what if an organism takes and does not returns? Does it means that it is always a parasite? Again one of the laws of parasitism that the source has to be an outside source but in this case the fetus is from the body of the mother itsel. You seem to be confusing the terms parasitic with fetal. Because the relationship between a mother and a fetus can be described as being parasitic does it mean it is a parasitic relationship because what you are looking at is the deinition of the term itself and not the deeper contexts or elements involved in this relationship.
Abortion is still considered murder but is not being practised in society becuase of the ruling which was made in as much as the death penalty is part of the laws of New York but is not being practised. And if the fetus does not have life or killing a fetus is not considered legal then how come when a mother along with her fetus is killed, The District Attorney will charge the accused with double counts of homicide. One for the mother and one for the fetus. How is this psssible if the fetus is a parasite? And how does the human body not fight against the fetus but rather undergo changes to accept the fetus?
Abortion is murder and should not be given as a right to women. You need to be alive inorder to have have rights. Inorder to have life you must be able to be distinguished from the dead. Animals have lives but they are protected by rights. Right?
Thank you. You said it yourself. Your skin cells cannot develop into a human or heart so stop comparing it to a fetus.
Well if you say yes then it seems that the laws have a right to infringe upon the body of the mother even if it means that it is against the choice of the mother.
I did not say this at all and I am baffled as to how you came to this conclusion.
According to your opinion, the fetus is a parasite but i challenge you to produce to me evidence pointing to the point that the fetus is a parasite. Those details i mentioned to you have been proved scientifically and if the courts have determined it as being a human life then how can you call it a parasite? So what if an organism takes and does not returns? Does it means that it is always a parasite? Again one of the laws of parasitism that the source has to be an outside source but in this case the fetus is from the body of the mother itsel. You seem to be confusing the terms parasitic with fetal. Because the relationship between a mother and a fetus can be described as being parasitic does it mean it is a parasitic relationship because what you are looking at is the deinition of the term itself and not the deeper contexts or elements involved in this relationship.
I have given my reasons why the fetus-mother relationship could be defined as parasitic in literally every post since the issue came up. If you are going to blatantly ignore them, I am not going to rephrase them again.
Abortion is still considered murder but is not being practised in society becuase of the ruling which was made in as much as the death penalty is part of the laws of New York but is not being practised.
Abortion is legal.
Murder is not legal.
Therefor, legally, abortion cannot be murder.
And if the fetus does not have life or killing a fetus is not considered legal then how come when a mother along with her fetus is killed, The District Attorney will charge the accused with double counts of homicide. One for the mother and one for the fetus.
I do not agree with this precedent unless the fetus has passed the threshold of viability.
Abortion is murder and should not be given as a right to women. You need to be alive inorder to have have rights. Inorder to have life you must be able to be distinguished from the dead. Animals have lives but they are protected by rights. Right?
Sorry, abortion is still not murder and yes, it should be a right to women.
I am not trying to claim that fetuses are dead, so I am not sure why you brought that up. I realize that they are alive. I just do not put that expression of life on the same level of the expression of life you see in actual conscious human beings.
Animals are alive but they are not considered human. That was kind of my point. Being composed of living tissue does not automatically mean you are a human and you get all the rights that come along with that.
Thank you. You said it yourself. Your skin cells cannot develop into a human or heart so stop comparing it to a fetus.
Don't ignore the part of the sentence that is inconvenient to you. An aborted fetus is equally incapable of developing into a human.
The Laws have a rigght to infringe upon the body of anyone in order to control criminal activity especially since it was created by the majority of the people of this land.
I don't want to hear your reason. I need you to produce evidence pointing that the fetus is indeed a parasite. What is your opinion is your opinion but that does not mean you are correct. Everybody knows what a parasitic realtionship is but there is a deeper relationship here in which several elements of science were combined to provide a deeper scientific relationship. Scientifically, in order for the realtionship to be considered parasitic, therehas to be the elements of parasitism to exists. Those elements are not here. Let me put it this way for you, every adult person has personhood but if the elements of personhood are absent, it means that person does not have personhood at all even though some might consider him or her as having personhood. Again, i dont need to hear your opinions. If you want to prove your point, then produce evidence and i will believe you.
So who cares what is legal and what is not legal. Laws change all the time. Wasn't slavery considered legal? Isn't it illegal now? Aobrtion is the intentional taking of a human life and murder is also the intentional taking of a human life. Let me put it this way to you, I am standing holding a gun to a man's head, and i have two choices, one is to kill him and the other is not to kill him. If i kill him i will be doing something that is both morally and legally wrong. If i save him, i will be doing something that is both morally and legally right.
You still used the term fetus so the laws still apply to fetus and homicide which means that the fetus is still considered as human life.
But one of the laws of science in defining the term of life states that inorder for an individual to be referred to as having life, they have to be able to be distinguished from the dead. Again, not my opinion but the findings of scientists.
So is that why you want to kill a fetus? Because you know it will develop into a human being because according to you an aborted fetus cannot develop into a human being. Why would it develop into a human being if you already took the life of it? Furthermore, when a fetus is formed, organ formation begins about three weeks after the fetus itself is formed including a beating heart which pumps blood.
NB: When i mentioned the term "you" i am referring to pro choice supporters and not you specifically. Furthermore let me also be clear that i support spontaneous abortion and not induced abortion since spontaneou abortion since spontaneous abortion is beyond the control of the woman.
The Laws have a rigght to infringe upon the body of anyone in order to control criminal activity especially since it was created by the majority of the people of this land.
To quote you, who cares what is legal and not legal? Laws change all the time. I do not consider it a criminal activity for a woman to choose to have sex in exchange for money; I consider it another example of religious moral being passed into law. However, this is a different debate topic.
I don't want to hear your reason. I need you to produce evidence pointing that the fetus is indeed a parasite. What is your opinion is your opinion but that does not mean you are correct. Everybody knows what a parasitic realtionship is but there is a deeper relationship here in which several elements of science were combined to provide a deeper scientific relationship.
Okay. I am going to try one more time to explain to you in simple terms why the mother-fetus relationship is parasitic. This is the last time I am going to try to explain it. If you do not understand after this, I will not address the point again; this does not mean I am assuming I am correct by virtue of ending the argument, just that I have thoroughly exhausted all the evidence there is, only to have it ignored by you, and I am not longer going to waste time on it.
When two organisms interact on a biological level, they enter a symbiotic relationship. This relationship can be mutual, commensal, or parasitic. Mutual relationships are relationships in which both organisms involved reap a benefit. Commensal relationships are relationships in which one organism benefits, and the other is not affected at all. Parasitic relationships are relationships in which one organism benefits at the expense of the other organism. (Source: http://adventuresinscience.edublogs.org/ 2009/05/20/symbiosis/) )
Now, pick the relationship that describes the mother-fetus interaction: Mutualism, commensalism, or parasitism.
Additionally, here are several sources that do not add the stipulation of species to the definition or parasite. Note that these are not simply English dictionaries, but biological dictionaries intended to define terms as they can be used in a scientific context.
So who cares what is legal and what is not legal. Laws change all the time. Wasn't slavery considered legal? Isn't it illegal now? Aobrtion is the intentional taking of a human life and murder is also the intentional taking of a human life.
It's the human life part you seem to be having a problem with. Yes, the fetus is alive, and it has human DNA, but I think it is foolish to place its life on the same level as, say, an actual baby. To do so is to say abortion is identical to the murder of a 6 month old baby.
Let me put it this way to you, I am standing holding a gun to a man's head, and i have two choices, one is to kill him and the other is not to kill him. If i kill him i will be doing something that is both morally and legally wrong. If i save him, i will be doing something that is both morally and legally right.
If another organism (human or not) is using a human being as a life support system, the human that is functioning as a life support system has a right to order the end of such a relationship. In your example, the man you are about to shoot is perfectly capable of living without using your body; if you wish to end your involvement with him, you can walk away. A woman who wants to get an abortion does not have this luxury, so the situations are incomparable in that respect. I posed a hypothetical situation in a previous post that I believe you also ignored:
Someone has a child. When their child is 10 years old, he becomes gravely ill. Only an organ transplant will save him. Unfortunately, the only person who can give him a matching organ in time is one of his parents. For whatever reason, the parent is unwilling to give their child the organ he needs. Should the government get involved and force one of the parents to give the child an organ, under threat of charging them with murder if they do not? If yes, why draw the line at a parent-child situation? Why not force every citizen to have their unnecessary organs surgically removed and given to people on the donor list? If no, why not? After all, the humanhood and citizenship of people on the organ list is not even under debate, and you have shown you think it is okay to force people to conserve life/a living human at the expense of their own bodies.
You still used the term fetus so the laws still apply to fetus and homicide which means that the fetus is still considered as human life.
The homicide laws do not apply to fetuses in America because a fetus is not legally considered a human life. Do you live in country where they do, or do you live in fantasy America?
I also fail to see how my use of the term 'fetus' means that the law suddenly applies to it.
But one of the laws of science in defining the term of life states that inorder for an individual to be referred to as having life, they have to be able to be distinguished from the dead. Again, not my opinion but the findings of scientists.
You do realize that I am not arguing that the fetus is dead, right?
So is that why you want to kill a fetus? Because you know it will develop into a human being because according to you an aborted fetus cannot develop into a human being. Why would it develop into a human being if you already took the life of it? Furthermore, when a fetus is formed, organ formation begins about three weeks after the fetus itself is formed including a beating heart which pumps blood.
It is nonsensical to imply that anyone wants to kill a fetus because it will develop into a human being. People get abortions because they do not want to be pregnant, and pregnancy should be a voluntary process. If there was a way in which the pregnancy could be terminated and the fetus preserved, that would be ideal. As it is, no such thing exists, the interests of a fully developed and conscious human being should override the interests of a fetus that has no more consciousness than a human lung.
NB: When i mentioned the term "you" i am referring to pro choice supporters and not you specifically. Furthermore let me also be clear that i support spontaneous abortion and not induced abortion since spontaneou abortion since spontaneous abortion is beyond the control of the woman.
Even the accidental loss of human life merits an investigation, and it is quite possible to purposefully induce a miscarriage through many avenues. If a fetus is placed on the same level as a human being, then women who miscarried should be immediately subjected to an investigation and arrested for murder if it was determined she is at least partially responsible for the miscarriage, either through intention or negligence.
It is not what you care about. What you think or care about is different from the view of the laws. Selling sex has to do with whether one has the freedom to choose in regards to their body which is however prevented by the laws.
You keep saying that the mother fetus relationship is parasitic but you are still failing to produce proper proof. The first evidence you produced is a blog. Who cares about a blog? Ablog is the exchange of information between people who talks about a subject. In the dictionary the term parasite was defined. Again anyone knows the definition of parasite so prove to me or produce any scientific findings that proved the fetus is a parasite. So far, you have failed to produce any proper evidence to prove that. All you keep doing is defining what the term parasite means and then applying it to the term fetus because of the existing relationship.
You seem to be forgetting that the fetus not only has a human identity but a separate human identity which identifies the fetus as another human being. The only difference between an actual baby and the fetus is one is outside the womb and the other isnt. So why is it foolish? Organs are a part of the human body but can organs develop into a human being?
What do you mean the homicide laws do not apply to fetuses in America? Last time i had a conversation with a Judge he told me that the double counts of homicide still applies to all fetuses. And it is still in practice so where are you living in? In Fantasy America?
It seems that you are having a tough time understanding the message i am trying to convey. According to scientists one of the rules for life and not living to exist in a individual, the first rule that should be present is that the individual or entity MUST be able to be distinguished from the dead. If this rule exists, then the entity or individual can be referred to as having life.
Abortion again is the taking of a human life. Why do people not want to get pregnant? Because they are unable to accept responsiblity of the unborn for some reason or the other. So it is the process whereby the fetus is killed in a procedure.
If a person has the intention to abort the child so engages in an action that will knowingly cause a miscarriage, then that no longer counts as spontaneous abortion but rather induced abortion. For an action to be determined whether it is criminal or not, there has to be intention to commit the action itself.
It is not what you care about. What you think or care about is different from the view of the laws.
I hope you remember this very quote in a few minutes, when I point out again that abortion is not considered homicide because the law does not recognize a fetus as a human being, therefor does not extend the same protections to it. The fact that you think abortion is murder has no influence on whether or not the law considers abortion to be murder.
As I said, the parasitism issue will no longer be addressed because you continue to ignore very basic evidence and qualified unbiased sources, in favor of presenting me with a page from a pro-life website.
You seem to be forgetting that the fetus not only has a human identity but a separate human identity which identifies the fetus as another human being.
When the fetus is inside the mother, it is inseparable from her system, and its lack of a fully formed or functioning brain prevents it from developing or retaining an identity.
The only difference between an actual baby and the fetus is one is outside the womb and the other isnt. So why is it foolish? Organs are a part of the human body but can organs develop into a human being?
That is so far from the only difference between a fetus and a six month old baby.In the fetus, the brain does not even possess all its parts. That is where the organ comparison comes in. It has absolutely nothing to do with their potential; it has to do with capacity for awareness. In this case, the organ and the fetus have equal capacity for awareness: none.
Six month old babies are capable of feeling pain, reacting voluntarily to external stimuli, and their consciousness is not contested in any form. I actually think it is kind of monstrous to suggest abortion is in any way comparable to killing an infant, implying that women who get abortions are exactly the same as people who beat their infants to death.
Note that when I use fetus, I am not referring to all fetuses but to fetuses before the stage of viability, well before the thalamus is formed or functioning. A fetus beyond the point of viability is another matter, I think, as the interests of both the fetus and the mother could be preserved through an early delivery or c-section.
What do you mean the homicide laws do not apply to fetuses in America? Last time i had a conversation with a Judge he told me that the double counts of homicide still applies to all fetuses. And it is still in practice so where are you living in? In Fantasy America?
1. I already said I do not agree with this precedent and I think it is contradictory, again, unless the fetus is past the point of viability.
2. People who perform and receive abortions are not charged with homicide. How could this be true if fetuses were protected under homicide legislation?
It seems that you are having a tough time understanding the message i am trying to convey. According to scientists one of the rules for life and not living to exist in a individual, the first rule that should be present is that the individual or entity MUST be able to be distinguished from the dead. If this rule exists, then the entity or individual can be referred to as having life.
At no point did I contest any of the things you just mentioned. Why is this the third time you have repeated this? I have never said I think fetuses should be classify as dead. I have said numerous times I know they are alive. The fact that something is biologically classified as living is not what makes it a human life. Where is the disconnect? What do you not understand about this?
I am frustrated with your apparent refusal to understand simple statements, but please understand I am not asking the following question with the intent of being insulting or belittling. We are clearly having a problem understanding each other. Is English your first language?
If a person has the intention to abort the child so engages in an action that will knowingly cause a miscarriage, then that no longer counts as spontaneous abortion but rather induced abortion. For an action to be determined whether it is criminal or not, there has to be intention to commit the action itself.
In order for one to determine whether a miscarriage was induced or spontaneous, they would have to investigate. Therefor, if a fetus was given the same rights as every other human, then every miscarriage would lead to an automatic investigation because every miscarriage could potentially be a murder. If it had been determined that the mother engaged in any activity that led to the miscarriage, even through negligence, she would be treated as though she contributed to the death of a human being, with all the legal punishment this entails.
One thing we are taught in law is not to accept any fact until proper evidence is produced and you check those sources you produced and tell me what the problem is with them. You never used sources like that in an argument because of the validity of the facts become a question. Abortion is murder but became known as a woman's right to choose after the case Roe vs. Wade tried. Why do you think abortion in society was considered murder? Point out atleast one phrase in those source which talks about the fetus being a parasite and has evidence to show that it is indeed a fetus?
So are you trying to say that a person who has lost the functioning brain has lost their identity as well? Our brian does not gives us identity. DNA gives us human identity and the human heart gives us life within our body or maintains it.
Why does it have nothing to do with their potential when the six month old baby was a fetus? Dont that demonstrate the potential aspects of a fetus? Abortion is the killing of the fetus because it has a beating heart and according to you it is alive. If something is alive and you are in the process of destroying its existence completely, isnt that the process of killing it?
Again, i am in Criminal Law and i was taught that fetuses are protected by homicide laws. So it isnt about what you agree with or not, it is about what the laws are. Why do you think when the a accused is accused of murdering a woman and if she is pregnant, the District Attorney will institute a charge of double homicides against the accused? The homicide laws comes into effect when the life of the mother is taken or when the life of the fetus istaken without the consent of the mother. Let me ask you this, if a licensed doctor performs an abortion on a woman without her permission or consent and knowledge, what do you think the DA will do? The DA will institute a chage of homicide?
But according to doctors and scientists you refer to something as having life (and i quote life not alive) when they can be able to distinguish it from the dead. What part of this statement are you having a tough time with? Did i ever say that you referred to the fetus as being dead? English is my first language. We are having a problem in this debating because you are basically just giving your opinion without lack of evidence. I understand that you do not contest this fact so then why are you arguing about life then? This is not what i state but what scientists and doctors states. That is why i mentioned it for the third time because i believe you have a tough time understanding the true aspect of the statement i made. I dont want to hear because something is alive does not mean it has life. I need evidence to back that up.
Every miscarriage could be investigated if the laws permitted it to investigate it. The fetus is protected by human rights to certain extents.
Firstly, unless I missed it, you still have not answered my hypothetical question regarding mandatory organ donation to sick people. Why is this?
One thing we are taught in law is not to accept any fact until proper evidence is produced and you check those sources you produced and tell me what the problem is with them. You never used sources like that in an argument because of the validity of the facts become a question. Abortion is murder but became known as a woman's right to choose after the case Roe vs. Wade tried. Why do you think abortion in society was considered murder? Point out atleast one phrase in those source which talks about the fetus being a parasite and has evidence to show that it is indeed a fetus?
You gave me a page from a pro-life page, basically biased by default because they are trying to convince readers that their agenda is the correct one. I gave you four scientific and unbiased sources that defined a parasite-host relationship between two organisms. Not two species. Two organisms. If you cannot see how the fetus fits that definition, which you clearly cannot, then you are beyond being reached by explanation.
So are you trying to say that a person who has lost the functioning brain has lost their identity as well?
Perhaps. But, regardless, their life is not dependent on the body of another, therefor there is no need for their death if someone does not want to be involved with them. I am saying this to cut off another rebuttal about euthanizing comatose patients.
Our brian does not gives us identity. DNA gives us human identity and the human heart gives us life within our body or maintains it.
If it is not a brain or a consciousness that gives us our identity, but rather the simple possession of human DNA and the act of being kept alive by a heart, then again, I contend that a fetus and a human liver are equally alive and deserve comparable rights.
Why does it have nothing to do with their potential when the six month old baby was a fetus? Dont that demonstrate the potential aspects of a fetus?
This is absolute nonsense. I really have no idea what you are trying to say.
Abortion is the killing of the fetus because it has a beating heart and according to you it is alive. If something is alive and you are in the process of destroying its existence completely, isnt that the process of killing it?
I think I have said before that nobody kills a fetus because it is alive, or because it has a heart. Please pay attention to the implications of sentence structure. People might kill a fetus because it is dependent on their body and they do not want it to reside in their body anymore, and there is no way to remove it without causing its death.
Again, i am in Criminal Law and i was taught that fetuses are protected by homicide laws. So it isnt about what you agree with or not, it is about what the laws are. Why do you think when the a accused is accused of murdering a woman and if she is pregnant, the District Attorney will institute a charge of double homicides against the accused? The homicide laws comes into effect when the life of the mother is taken or when the life of the fetus istaken without the consent of the mother. Let me ask you this, if a licensed doctor performs an abortion on a woman without her permission or consent and knowledge, what do you think the DA will do? The DA will institute a chage of homicide?
I am not in criminal law so I almost hesitate to say this, but it seems as though you were taught false or, at best, misleading information.
But according to doctors and scientists you refer to something as having life (and i quote life not alive) when they can be able to distinguish it from the dead. What part of this statement are you having a tough time with?
It's relevance.
Did i ever say that you referred to the fetus as being dead? English is my first language. We are having a problem in this debating because you are basically just giving your opinion without lack of evidence. I understand that you do not contest this fact so then why are you arguing about life then? This is not what i state but what scientists and doctors states. That is why i mentioned it for the third time because i believe you have a tough time understanding the true aspect of the statement i made. I dont want to hear because something is alive does not mean it has life. I need evidence to back that up.
Okay. I think I understand your train of thought and why you keep harping on the whole not dead = alive thing. If this is incorrect, point out where I went wrong.
Anything that is distinguishable from the dead = alive
Anything that is alive = a life
The act of ending a life = killing
Killing = murder
Murder = homicide
If this is a correct summary of your line of thinking, then you draw no distinctions between different forms of life, their capabilities, and the rights they are afforded, and additionally, you draw no distinction between murder and any other method of ending any form of life. It would mean that shooting someone in pure self defense = homicide. Accidentally striking a pedestrian who was not in a cross walk = homicide. Slaughtering a chicken for food = homicide. Plucking a flower = homicide. Using antibacterial soap = homicide.
If this is incorrect, then I actually do not have any idea why you keep bringing this point up, because clearly you are capable of
a) distinguishing between different forms of life
b) realizing that life with higher functions are granted more rights under the law, and
c) understanding that the law does not protect any form of life from being ended by any means.
Every miscarriage could be investigated if the laws permitted it to investigate it. The fetus is protected by human rights to certain extents.
People estimate that as few as 15% and as high as 78% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, many times before the woman even knew she was pregnant. Even on the low end of the estimate, that is a lot of women to subject to a homicide investigation directly after they experience miscarriage. Then, if it has been convincingly shown the abortion was not 'spontaneous' (how? I have no idea), then comes the problem of deciding how responsible a woman is. What if she smokes or drinks, possibly causing a fatally premature birth? What if she fell down a flight of stairs, how will she prove she didn't do it on purpose? What if she stays in a relationship with an abusive man who eventually beat her so bad she miscarried; is this not causing death through inaction? What if she didn't obey her doctor's order of strict bed rest? What if she went on a roller coaster ride or ate some sushi? What if she just stressed herself out too much? How much jail time do the women in each of these situations deserve?
Frankly, anyone has the right to abortion because of free will and liberty, and nobody has the right to tell anyone what to do with their body.
HOWEVER,
The only problem I have is the definition of fetus and human.
If it is isn't murder, then why is that when a person murders a pregnant woman, whom is carrying a fetus, is charged with double homicide? How can that be? Where is the justice? Shouldn't it be only homicide? The person did in fact murder only one person because the fetus is not human
Quite the contrary. Most people who murder a pregnant women will get charged only once homicide, the exception being if the woman was pregnant for around 8 months or more.
You said the fetus is not human then what is it? Again read up on Webster v. Rp
For your information why don't you read up on an important case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services which upheld that life begins at conception and this view was also supported by doctors. Isn't the fetus referred to as a developing human being?
The whole concept is that the fetus posses life and if the fetus comes from the family of homosapiens which in other words is referred to as human beings then don't that make it a human being also or a plant?
If it is isn't murder, then why is that when a person murders a pregnant woman, whom is carrying a fetus, is charged with double homicide? How can that be? Where is the justice? Shouldn't it be only homicide? The person did in fact murder only one person because the fetus is not human
It's probably because a pregnant woman is seen as being more vulnerable, and motherly, so killing such a person is especially heinous.
It's probably because a pregnant woman is seen as being more vulnerable, and motherly, so killing such a person is especially heinous.
The vulnerability of a woman is completely irrelevant. So, vulnerability is your justification for double homicide of a pregnant woman with a fetus, yet a woman getting a abortion is not because the fetus is not human.
I am vulnerable of getting hit by a car walking the street, so should the driver of the car be charged with murder or manslaughter?
The vulnerability of a woman is completely irrelevant. So, vulnerability is your justification for double homicide of a pregnant woman with a fetus, yet a woman getting a abortion is not because the fetus is not human.
I am vulnerable of getting hit by a car walking the street, so should the driver of the car be charged with murder or manslaughter?
You asked why and I told you some of the potential reasoning behind it. I don't agree with it either.
For your information why don't you read up on an important case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services which upheld that life begins at conception and this view was also supported by doctors. Isn't the fetus referred to as a developing human being?
The whole concept is that the fetus posses life and if the fetus comes from the family of homosapiens which in other words is referred to as human beings then don't that make it a human being also or a plant?
For your information why don't you read up on an important case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services which upheld that life begins at conception and this view was also supported by doctors. Isn't the fetus referred to as a developing human being?
I'm more interested in science, I.E. knowledge of nature, than legal rulings which are a matter of politics.
If you don't have a functioning body that can exist on its own, it follows that you lack developed organs, and even more importantly a developed brain. This means you lack awareness of your own life.
It would be nice if you researched the developmental stages of fertilisation through foetal development, and birth. Then you might appreciate the fact that while a fertilised egg is alive, it isn't a life, or at least not worthy of being granted the rights of a born human life.
The whole issue that you are so passionate about is actually over the killing of fertilised eggs and tiny, unaware foetuses.
The whole concept is that the fetus posses life and if the fetus comes from the family of homosapiens which in other words is referred to as human beings then don't that make it a human being also or a plant?
If you're going to grant something the rights of a human simply because it is Homo sapiens sapiens, then this would extend to tissue cultures and blood as well.
Then why are you even debating a topic that you fail to research on? Legal rulings has nothing to do with politics. If that was the case then why is political science different from law. Laws are formed out of the decisions made by politicians i agree but at the same time amendments to the laws are also made by the supreme court as well. Whether you are dealing with science or business etc at some point you will have to abide by the instructions of the laws.
And again debating my friend is based on facts and research not just what you think.
Then why are you even debating a topic that you fail to research on?
I did research it.
Legal rulings has nothing to do with politics. If that was the case then why is political science different from law.
Law IS a form of politics. It's about appeasing many different voices on an issue by creating legislation that they can all agree on.
Laws are formed out of the decisions made by politicians i agree but at the same time amendments to the laws are also made by the supreme court as well. Whether you are dealing with science or business etc at some point you will have to abide by the instructions of the laws.
Which at some point are influenced by those with a voice in the matter.
If you did i will not question because i do not judge but it is as you say. That is referred to as political affairs and not laws. Laws are the rules that are to be followed upon in society, designed to control crime and to allow fair dealings in terms of crimes and business.
Didn't you develop from tissues and cells so what are you referring to? Furthermore if you hurt a person or wound them, does that not involve a damage of the cells, tissues and or organs as well? Isn't that is why they are charged with assault or attempted murder?
Didn't you develop from tissues and cells so what are you referring to? Furthermore if you hurt a person or wound them, does that not involve a damage of the cells, tissues and or organs as well? Isn't that is why they are charged with assault or attempted murder?
You missed the point entirely. Assault isn't a crime because we care about dead cells, it is a crime because we have decided that it is bad behaviour. Same with attempted murder.
And we have decided it is a crime because it results in causing injury to the person. Would we make it a law if it didn't cause damage to the body of the person?
So great .. if a fetus isn't a person, if someone is deemed not responsible enough to raise a child (say a woman convict who wants the child) then it should be fine to force the abortion on her right? It should be like not allowing her to have a car. "Oh don't worry, it wasn't a real life anyhow, off you go."
So are you saying that because someone is not responsible to raise a child, we should kill that child? A human being with life? We keep thinking about the body of the mother but let us also think about the body of the unborn. So for every woman that is not ready, we should kill the child because of the foolishness of their actions? You are a human being and let us put it this way, would you want to pay for the mistake of someone whilst you are innocent?
What puzzles me is the fact that a mother can have an abortion but if someone else kills the mother and the child dies in her, then that person can be slapped with a charge of double homicide.
What puzzles me is the fact that a mother can have an abortion but if someone else kills the mother and the child dies in her, then that person can be slapped with a charge of double homicide.
Exactly i know why i made that statement. If the fetus does not have life then why does the state and the federal government institutes a charge of double homicide if the fetus dies through the death of the mother because according to those supporting abortion the fetus does not have life. Are the laws therefore wrong?
Exactly i know why i made that statement. If the fetus does not have life then why does the state and the federal government institutes a charge of double homicide if the fetus dies through the death of the mother because according to those supporting abortion the fetus does not have life. Are the laws therefore wrong?
Really check up back on the responses list and furthermore didn't you say there is no life in the fetus so why don't you trying answering why is there a double homicide charge there for the death of the fetus and the mother? So you are saying you asked this question so are a profile or prochoice because that question is a pro life question.
I am really against abortion. I know that most of the abortions are cause by the teens because they arent prepared to raise a child. First of all i dont think thats a good reason to kill a baby. There are always other options not just that. I come from a family of 10 people and my mom raised us all by her self aborting never crossed her head. So what im basecly trying to say is that aborting is not a way to solve things so i think it should just be illegal.
I am really against abortion. I know that most of the abortions are cause by the teens because they arent prepared to raise a child. First of all i dont think thats a good reason to kill a baby. There are always other options not just that. I come from a family of 10 people and my mom raised us all by her self aborting never crossed her head. So what im basecly trying to say is that aborting is not a way to solve things so i think it should just be illegal.
I am really against abortion. I know that most of the abortions are cause by the teens because they arent prepared to raise a child. First of all i dont think thats a good reason to kill a baby. There are always other options not just that. I come from a family of 10 people and my mom raised us all by her self aborting never crossed her head. So what im basecly trying to say is that aborting is not a way to solve things so i think it should just be illegal.
I am really against abortion. I know that most of the abortions are cause by the teens because they aren't prepared to raise a child. First of all i don't think thats a good reason to kill a baby. There are always other options not just that. I come from a family of 10 people and my mom raised us all by her self aborting never crossed her head. So what I'm basically trying to say is that aborting is not a way to solve things so i think it should just be illegal.
There are many issues in today’s United States government. Government workers from different political parties have trouble working together, the education system is poorly regulated, and taxes are steadily climbing. There is, however, an issue that is more important than the aforementioned. It is literally a matter of life or death. It’s called abortion. And it’s legal.
I believe a better name for “abortion” is “convenient murder,” and I’m not the only one who thinks this. In the court decision of Roe v. Wade, the case responsible for abortion becoming legal, one of the judges noted that the court valued “the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries.” That’s right. A judge in Roe v. Wade admitted that there is life at stake in a situation of abortion, and that most abortions are a choice of convenience over life. This is an obvious indication that the Supreme Court’s decision was flawed, and that pro-choice supporters’ way of thinking is flawed.
But the flaws don’t end there. 18% of American women who have abortions are teenagers. One would think that, if a teenager was going to get an abortion, she would have to get parental consent or at least notify her parents. But in 14 different states, teenagers can get an abortion without doing either of these things. As of 2007, in every state that requires parental consent or notification, minors can go around their parents and try to obtain a court approval. If they do, then their parent’s or parents’ say becomes completely invalid. Because of these laws, over 200,000 teens get abortions every year.
As staggering as that number is, it gets worse. 22% of all pregnancies, teen or otherwise, end in abortion. In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed. The year before, it was 1.31 million. Between the time that abortion was legalized in 1973 and the present, over 50 million abortions have occurred. To give you an idea of how significant that is, 50 million people is almost 7% of the current United States population. Abortion isn’t a small issue. It’s causing millions of lives to be lost through the years, thousands of lives to be lost daily. It needs to be stopped.
This isn’t to say that abortion should be completely eradicated. If the mother’s life or health would be severely endangered if she carried her baby to term, she should be given the option of abortion. The issues of rape or incest should be considered when contemplating the outlaw of abortion, as well. This is a tricky objection. What if a twelve-year-old girl was forced to give birth to a child? A possible solution to this is making abortion illegal in cases of rape or incest after a certain age, perhaps 16. Pro-choicers also argue that a woman shouldn’t be forced to carry the child of her rapist. With the number of child care services available today, however, the mother is not necessarily required to care for her baby after it is born, so this argument is losing strength. Another common argument from pro-abortionists is that even if abortion was outlawed, illegal abortions would still take place. Out of the three arguments mentioned in this essay, this argument is the most ridiculous. Though stealing is outlawed, it still takes place. If abortion were illegalized, it would not cease entirely. The number of convenient murders, however, would decrease significantly.
Now that the arguments for legal abortion have been dealt with, I will mention one of the strongest cases against abortion. This case is not one tried in a court, but one tried in the mind: abortion versus conscience. Despite slanted denials that abortion and negative mental conditions coincide, post-abortion trauma is real. In the words of an anonymous pro-life supporter, “Yes, abortion does traumatize women -- especially the females that are aborted. There are two victims in every abortion.”
In addition to unprofessional opinions, there are several studies done by doctors and universities in the recent past that support the correlation of abortion and poor mental health. In 2008, Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University, and her coworkers published a study in the Journal of Psychiatric Research. The results showed that induced abortions increase risks for a several mental health problems, including anxiety, depression, and substance abuse disorders. The research team also found that the number of cases of mental health issues rose by as much as 17% in women that had abortions compared to their abortion-abstaining counterparts, and the risks of each individual mental health problem rose as much as 145% for post-abortive women. For 80% of the negative mental health outcomes examined, a woman’s decision to have an abortion in the past resulted in an increased risk of experiencing one of those outcomes.
In a study done outside of the United States, researchers at Otago University in New Zealand found that abortions increased the risk of extreme depression and anxiety in women by one-third.
A third study, from a team at the University of Queensland and published in the December issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry, discovered that “women who have an abortion are three times more likely to experience a drug or alcohol problem during their lifetime.”
There is yet more proof that abortion is wrong: in 1995, Norma L. McCorvey, who went by the alias Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade, stated that she became pro-life. She attempted to get the case retried, but though she failed, her opposition is notable. She published a novel on why she became pro-life, and continues to support anti-abortion.
In short, abortion is wrong. It is convenient murder, obtained by minors who do not have parental consent, and responsible for over 50 million deaths. Abortion can cause severe trauma, possibly haunting the almost-mother for the rest of her life. It is not something to be taken lightly. It is a severe issue in our society today.
I would like to tell the situation of abortion in Central Asia, I live in Almaty, Kazakhstan and we have very bad stereotypes. In central Asia it is an extremely shame to have a child without getting married and for that reasons very young and naive girls make abortion because of parents, relative and society. Kazakhstan, like other Central Asian countries, dedicates considerable attention and funds to family planning. Girls and boys should get an education about sex and birth control options. In Central Asia countries we have stereotypes that family planning is about having fewer children but actually it means healthier family.In conclusion, in order to have healthier family government, schools and parents should work out a program that will decrease the quantity of abortion among young girls.
That's a good suggestion. A lot of pregnancies come about because girls don't know how likely it is they'll become pregnant if they are sexually active without birth control. About 85% of sex had without birth control results in conception.
Did you know that if your parents had decided to abort you, you wouldn't be here right now? Abortion should definitely be made illegal. The fetus isn't just a bunch of tissues. With the technology we have, you can look closely and see the baby moving around. Abortion also has the probability of resulting in cancer.
Most abortions that occur are before it is even a foetus. The second most likely stage aborted is that in which the foetus is barely developed, barely has a brain and only might have a heart.
The figures are roughly 50% and 30% respectively.
I support abortion because we need mothers who want their child and are prepared to raise it well. What we do NOT need are unprepared, overworked mothers giving their babies to an already flooded adoption market, or attempting to raise a child that gets less than optimal care because the mother can't be there for him.
Well yeah you are right but read up on the case which The U.S Supreme Court ruled that life begins at conception. I think that is wrong in the whole to take a life. How many of us would even be here today if our parents had chosen abortion for us regardless of poverty or unpreparedness.
Really? Give me one reason why? So are you implying that when you were in the womb of your mother you were unworthy of human rights? We are talking about the "life of a developing human being for your information". Why don't you save me some time and read up on that historic case i made reference to? For your information again we are talking about the cells of the sperm and zygote which when fuse brings about the reproduction of a developing human being. Furthermore scientifically the fetus is referred to as a human organism. Define the term organism for me?
That statement you made is full of arrogance and wrongful judgment. Many of my friends who were born out of poverty or unpreparedness are now successful lawyers, doctors, singers etc? Would you say that they should have been killed as a child too. That does not make any sense at all.
Really? Give me one reason why? So are you implying that when you were in the womb of your mother you were unworthy of human rights? We are talking about the "life of a developing human being for your information".
Life is not "a life" intrinsically because it has no proper brain. A mass of cells knows nothing.
Now that I was born, I earned human rights.
Why give an unintelligent mass of tissues or cells human rights?
Why don't you save me some time and read up on that historic case i made reference to?
I don't care about it. The court has little relevance to reality. If it was a scientific journal, I would care.
For your information again we are talking about the cells of the sperm and zygote which when fuse brings about the reproduction of a developing human being. Furthermore scientifically the fetus is referred to as a human organism. Define the term organism for me?
It doesn't matter if the tissue is human. When you donate a kidney, is that kidney "a life" or just "life" Hmm? A foetus isn't self-aware.
Organism is the most inclusive term for life.
That statement you made is full of arrogance and wrongful judgment. Many of my friends who were born out of poverty or unpreparedness are now successful lawyers, doctors, singers etc? Would you say that they should have been killed as a child too. That does not make any sense at all.
What I said was a rational statement. I still support it no matter how you try to appeal to my emotions.
The simple fact is that abortion culls unwanted offspring from the population. A child should be wanted, and prepared for.
Go ahead. Try to make an argument that an unwanted child or a child raised as a burden are both GOOD things for society.
But it is growing into a human being? Am i right or wrong? You should understand that these cells are different from the other cells within our body. Cells that are developing with it's own genetic uniqueness and has its own DNA and blood type. Then why do the laws protects that very mass of cells by recognizing the homicide of a fetus as a separate offense if it is unworthy of human rights according to you?
Well that case i am referring to has a lot to do with this debate because it is a dispute on whether or not life begins at conception and it is a scientific controversy which resulted in the court ruling that life begins at conception after hearing arguments from both sides. So does a person who has Alzheimer is also not self aware which is why they are described as being in the baby stage? Well let us consider adoption instead of abortion and stop making it seem as if abortion is the only way out. Who is responsible for bringing them into existence? Did they asked to be brought into existence or to be related?
You got frustrated with Avesked (however his name spelled) and banned him. That is just like abortions. Your were unprepared for Avesked intelligent rebuttals, and aborted him. This is just like abortion, but slightly worse, because Avesked is a human and can tell whats going on. A fetus is neither human (yet), nor can tell whats going on.
I did not intentionally banned him. Sorry about that. I dont ban people unless you start name calling and shift from public argument to personal argument. I mistook his name for the guy i wanted to ban. Why would i want to ban people that would give their opinions but anyway lets focus on your argument now.
Oh i was unprepared? Maybe you should have a look at our arguments and if i was unprepared for him, then how come i add him as my ally? I am not going to repeat myself because like i told aveske if the fetus is not a human then what is it? And doctors and the U.S Supreme Court has ruled that the fetus has life. I have proof of this. Lastly aveske referred to the fetus as a human organism. The deeper scientific meaning of the word organism refers to life so he himself referred to the fetus as human life.
And lastly if you read my arguments you would know that i debated this topic 10 times already and you would have learnt i am a student in criminal law.
oh and further more, all my arguments i had proof for aveske and if his arguments were indeed intelligent, then how come i had evidence to support my claim and i brought up every important point that he avoided?
And i am never unprepared because i am a student in criminal law again. These debates are nothing new for me. One thing i hate on here though is people give all sorts of opinions without evidence and expect them to be true.
Oh and one more thing. If you say that organism refers to life then a human organism referred to as a fetus by doctors and also in the legal field will mean in other words human life? right?? because human organism (life according to you) can also be referred to as human life?
First of all, don't argue about something you can't even spell correctly. Second, abortion is completely wrong whether or not it is economically beneficial to an adoption market. Third, if adoption is truly a market, then the correct name is human trafficking, and you mean to tell me abortion is fixing that? Please. Most abortions occur in high school teenagers, so an overworked mother is out of the question for the most part. I am so adamant about this because my mother had two abortions before my birth. I am now a junior in high school with a 3.48 GPA. Abortion is supposed to fix that?
Ever think that it is because your mother had 2 abortions before you that you are doing well now? It is just as hypothetical to assume that those 2 abortions were just little yous that got denied a chance as it is to assume that those 2 abortions occurred at a time when your mother wasn't ready and when she was ready she did have you and you are being successful.
Hopefully people here aren't against adoption - it is one of the few options for mothers who can and do go through with a pregnancy even when the mother and or father cannot support the child.
One other thing to mention - while you may feel strongly that one choice is better than the other - making something legal or illegal should meet a different test; for example - if a woman is 5 months pregnant and finds out she needs chemotherapy - should the government force her to not get the treatment and risk killing herself and the child all at once? Government cannot imagine every potential abortion scenario and in a free country is not the one that should make those decisions.
I was also born out of child pregnancy and poverty. Today i am a student in pre law with a G.P.A of 4.0 and also a straight A student. Should i have been aborted i would have been robbed of my life and accomplishments.
If your mother thought that was best, then yes. Those accomplishments had not happened yet, and did not exist. Anyone can accomplish something good, but there is a much smaller chance being born into poverty.
Thank you for making that point. So infact we don't know what accomplishments these unborn can make but yet we want to abort them? What do you mean there is a much smaller chamce of being born into poverty? Do you read about poverty worldwide? Do you study world history or facts? Read up on thirdworld countries and poverty and pregnancy worldwide.
Also aveske himself told me i have potential to be a great debater so i don't need to explain myself to you. Ask him yourself.
Only a hypocrite would act as if he is perfect. Neither me nor you are perfect. We as humans are prone to mistakes no matter what our intelligence levels are.
"Most abortions that occur are before it is even a foetus. The second most likely stage aborted is that in which the foetus is barely developed, barely has a brain and only might have a heart."
So maybe this is true. But these stats are completely irrelevant. Does killing someone who is less developed make it right, or justify it? Would you kill a ten year old and say "he isn't an adult yet. He's not developed." You couldn't get away with that alibi in any court system of today.
You also say that you don't want an overflooded adoption market. According to the National Committee for Adoption, over 1.5 million couples want a child to adopt in the US. Every time a couple adopts, there are another 40 in line.
It is not our decision to end a life. It is God's, and unborn babies are human persons. What if you were aborted?
Obviously nothing that I can say to you will change your mind, so I won't try to change your mind. But I find it sad you can't understand the fact that an embryo is not a living person.
Obviously nothing that I can say to you will change your mind, so I won't try to change your mind.
Rather than make assumptions, you should try to defend your position, or invalidate mine. This is a debate website after all.
But I find it sad you can't understand the fact that an embryo is not a living person.
I think you have an extra not in there... Here again you are making an assumption, I never said any such thing. But I find it sad that you enjoy the taste of orphan meat.
See, when someone fabricates a position that you don't hold, it does nothing to progress the discussion. For the record my position of embryos as a living person is based on your definition of "living person".
No it should not. I am pro-choice. It's the woman's decision and it's not anyone's business what she should do with her body. The father shouldn't have a say because it's not their body. If a woman wants an abortion, let her have one.
Really? Then if it's about a woman's right to control her own body, then why is it that the laws forbid her from controlling her own body when it comes to prostitution or the use of drugs? How come you guys are saying that a woman should have her own right to control her body but yet the laws prohibits us from committing suicide, the use of drugs or even prostitution? Doesn't these have to do with everybody's right to control their own body too?
actually prostitution isn't illegal at the federal level (with some small exceptions ref) and there aren't any federal or state laws left that ban suicide ref and many libertarians and liberals would want some of the same principles to apply to drugs and euthanasia (in case that is what you really meant by suicide).
PS suicide can only be illegal if you don't succeed. ;)
Suicide is not banned but at the same time, the state has every right to keep a person in custody if there is a chance that the person will hurt himself or there is a strong likelihood that the person is at risk of committing suicide. Let us not concentrate on the federal level as we are concentrating on state levels. The duty of the federal level is to prosecute and regulate laws that are in the best interest in the people of America not just a specific state. In other words, the federal government cannot and will not intrude upon the laws of a state. Prostitution and suicide are minor issues for them when the security of their country is at stake.
The father would have some say after the child is born (whether to give the child up for adoption, etc.), but the physical relationship during pregnancy is unique to the mother and fetus.
I think the opinion you present is the crux of the debate. If it is the woman's body, then she has the choice. If its another person, then that person has the right to life. If it's not quite a person (no brain and such) but isn't quite just a part of the woman (it will be a person if it's born) then who has a right to decide?
I'd say that it has a right to life because it would be a person if it did. Because even if its not a person, it can become one if you just don't destroy it.
Why don't you grow up? Do you think abortion is going to make people more responsible. I am not just out here throwing stuff because i want to. I am here because i believe it is wrong. Why don't you read up on Roe Vs. Wade. Do you want to know how abortion came into effect? Jane Roe presented to the Supreme Court that she was raped and the Supreme Court agree with her to have an abortion. It so turned out that she was never raped but she had consensual sex. Now she is against abortion. That is the story that created the legalization of abortion.
This is debating not about silly preferences. For you it is but not me. If it was would it be a national controversy? I don't even see a proper reason for your rebuttal except that it is childish. Would you say that to a District Attorney that he is childish because of what he believes in too?
Do you think abortion is going to make people more responsible.
Exactly where in my post did I write anything that sounded even remotely like this???
I am not just out here throwing stuff because i want to.
Hmm... didn't say anything about this either. =/
I am here because i believe it is wrong.
Always a great way to justify a position. =/
Do you want to know how abortion came into effect?
No. I don't care. Not even a little bit.
But since you went through the trouble of telling me anyway... nope, still don't care. =/
This is debating not about silly preferences.
No, you're debating about your silly preferences. Not getting an abortion is your preference and you're debating about it, also it is silly. Therefore, you are debating about your silly preferences.
If it was would it be a national controversy?
Ah, you're right. There's no way something could be both stupid AND controversial...
Would you say that to a District Attorney that he is childish because of what he believes in too?
Would you say to a pregnant mother that she must keep her unwanted child because YOUR morality dictates it?
Really, what's with the appeal to authority sayyad? Do you think I care what some hypothetical district attorney thinks? Do you think a district attorney can't be stupid?
You kept saying that abortion is right? Why don't you answer me if abortion makes people more responsible? You speak as if i am here throwing out stuff just like that. I am surprised that you even want to discuss abortion but yet you don't care. To me that is just childishness. How can a person argue about a topic and say they don't want to know about the rest? If i am silly about my preferences then how come you don't know anything about abortion? Who looks more silly? Me or you? You don't tell me my preference is silly when you can't even give a justification for your choice? Maybe you should come when we are debating and you will have to see how debating goes and why we law students choose our topics. Your opinions are based on arrogance or ignorance without any proof or evidence. Why don't you try becoming a District Attorney and if you can become one then judge them.
Try answering my questions and then we can continue this debate because i don't have time to waste on any argument filled with arrogance. If you are so skillful in researching the field of abortion then do me a favor and respond to the following questions;
When does life begins? Use a reference to support your claim.
Does prostitution involves a woman's right to control her own body?
What are the amount of women that undergoes repeat abortions?
How many abortions results in death of the mother yearly?
Why does the very people who say the government should stay out of their business are the very ones that wants the government to pay for the abortion especially if they are on welfare?
If you say you don't care or you avoid these questions then you are clearly showing that your level of knowledge in this area is based on merely your opinions and not facts. If we law students would do what you just did in a debate we would be disqualified. Last night we concluded as debate on Hitler on whether he was innocent or not and which we agreed that he was innocent and came out on the wining end.
When does life begins? Use a reference to support your claim.
Doesn't matter.
In cell culture life begins after the cells separate in mitosis.
We're talking about when a foetus has independent thought and recognises that it is being killed. This is highly dubious if the foetus just barely started brain development, and barely has functioning organs.
Does prostitution involves a woman's right to control her own body?
Different topic.
What are the amount of women that undergoes repeat abortions?
Who cares? It's not your business. Should the number of feminist activists out there decide our choice to maintain womens' suffrage?
How many abortions results in death of the mother yearly?
You don't actually care about the mother, so why bring this up?
It's more of a loaded question anyway because most medical procedures have a mortality rate, and are legal. Also women who undergo late-term abortion themselves are under increased risk of harm.
Why does the very people who say the government should stay out of their business are the very ones that wants the government to pay for the abortion especially if they are on welfare?
Welcome to universal healthcare, or attempts at it anyway.
If we law students would do what you just did in a debate we would be disqualified. Last night we concluded as debate on Hitler on whether he was innocent or not and which we agreed that he was innocent and came out on the wining end.
Being a good lawyer isn't about questing for the truth, it is about defending a conclusion in a convincing way. Your conclusion is that abortion is wrong, so you'll only care about that which supports your ability to persuade others.
It is interesting that you bring that up. So if the fetus does not recognize that it is being killed then should we kill the mentally retarded too or the people that are paralyzed because they cannot recognize the fact that they are being killed or because their organs are not working? If all the cells in our body had died then wouldn't the human body die too? Isn't a cell the formation of tissues then organs then to the body systems?
It is funny that you say different topic when both are related to the point that it is questioned whether a woman has a right to control her own body or not. Why would it not be my business? If it wasn't any of our business then why do they make those record public. You want to know why? Because the public has a right to access those information.
I have a feeling that you wouldn't be able to tell me and i also think you wouldn't be able to tell me about the number of deaths in abortion cases. Again you are retreating from my questions and giving opinions rather than facts. I am puzzled by your response on the government. I need a fact and again not opinion. Well my goal is to become a criminal state lawyer so for your information we fight for the truth and we do not make opinions without facts because any court of law would take that into account against us. And again persuasion comes from a strong argument backed up by facts not opinions or refusing to say you don't care or refuse to answer to an argument because if you were in a debate the judges would already sanctioned and scolded you for that.
It is interesting that you bring that up. So if the fetus does not recognize that it is being killed then should we kill the mentally retarded too or the people that are paralyzed because they cannot recognize the fact that they are being killed or because their organs are not working?
Mentally retarded people are self aware. Paralysed people are self aware. A person in coma on life support with no change of recovery is not self aware. We should be able to terminate them. They are at this point shells.
If all the cells in our body had died then wouldn't the human body die too? Isn't a cell the formation of tissues then organs then to the body systems?
The key note is "all" or "most" or even "vital" cells. We lose cells every day, without suffering harm.
It is funny that you say different topic when both are related to the point that it is questioned whether a woman has a right to control her own body or not. Why would it not be my business? If it wasn't any of our business then why do they make those record public. You want to know why? Because the public has a right to access those information.
Abortion != prostitution. If you have an important point to make, then make it.
How many abortions a person obtains is irrelevant to whether it should be legal. It is not pertinent and it is a personal affair.
I have a feeling that you wouldn't be able to tell me and i also think you wouldn't be able to tell me about the number of deaths in abortion cases.
Not important to the topic. We don't ban vaccinations because of the rare but dangerous side effects. We don't ban surgery despite the very likely possibility of malpractice.
Whatever point you are trying to make is a cover for the fact that late term abortions lead to severe complications when performed by pregnant women at home. An operating room is much safer.
Again you are retreating from my questions and giving opinions rather than facts. I am puzzled by your response on the government. I need a fact and again not opinion.
I am out-maneuvering you. You only think one step at a time, but I'm several steps ahead of you. Learn to concede when you are off topic and we'll get along fine.
Well my goal is to become a criminal state lawyer so for your information we fight for the truth and we do not make opinions without facts because any court of law would take that into account against us.
How young are you? A teenager? You sure are wide-eyed if you think law and the justice system are about truth.
Juries are made up of peers, average blokes. Many are easily distracted by irrelevancies, just like you were when you brought up prostitution and abortion death rates.
And again persuasion comes from a strong argument backed up by facts not opinions or refusing to say you don't care or refuse to answer to an argument because if you were in a debate the judges would already sanctioned and scolded you for that.
What makes a strong argument? To most people it is an argument that is easiest to comprehend, and it should appeal to their prejudices.
You want to win points with me? Argue in a way that is clear, has few red herrings, and is rational rather than an appeal to feelings.
Really? So why if a mentally retarded person or a person with alheizmer's attacks me then the state does not criminally prosecute me and also they are not responsible for any criminal or civil damage?
Again my response to you is whe na person is wounded or hurt by another person which invovles the damage of cells, tissues, blood cells and or organs, does that not make them reliable for a criminal charge against them? Does that not mean that in these very cells are proof of life? Why does the jury and court of law requires pictures of the wounds and a complete medical examination then?
You seem to be lacking the understanding of these topics. Again, abortion is the killing of the fetus in a woman's body but prostitution is the selling of a woman's body over which she has total control. So to make it simple both has to do with whether a woman has a right to choose or control what she does with her own body. Why then are there laws preventing her from selling her body when according to you women should have everyright to choose what they do because it is their topic. The last guy i asked that question gave me the same response you did in a debate and it resulted in points being deducted from his team because if you look deeper into these two subjects both have the same context or idea about a woman's right to control her own body.
If the records of abortion that are done publicly and the expenses are endured by the government then does't that make it taxpayers money? Don't taxpayers have a right to see where their money is going? Again you are making it seem as if the names of these persons will be made public and you are forgetting that we are talking about statisitics and not individuality.
Check up on the deaths caused by abortion and you will see that we are talking about thousands and not hundreds. So then do mean that these lives have no value when it comes to terminating abortion. Read up on some women who did abortion but regrets it deeply now and also don't forget that abortion can cause future infertility.
Why is it not important to the topic when it is related to the topic? Isn't part of our argument based on whether it will make women more responsible or not? Last time i asked that question, the opposing team again was forced to produce that facts before me because that fact backs up the point i am trying to make that abortion does not makes people more responsible. Almost half of all abortion cases (48%) according to the Center For Disease Control are repeat abortions.
It does not matter whether or not you are steps ahead of me or not because my arguments are strong and backed up by facts whereas you are giving opinions so what you are saying does not and will not have any effect on me because i have won this debate two to three times face to face because of my facts and the strength of my arguments. My opposing team lost because they were giving opinions and had no evidence to support their claims.
Debating is all about critical thinking and you are percieving me as being off topic but then you yourself don't understand some of the questions i am asking you so how can you say i am off topic?
I might be a teenager but i am releasing my first book soon, i am a student in pre law and i have held several positions in my country of origing including a personal assistant to the Supervising Police Superintendent of Juvenile Affars, Legal Clerk for The Attorney General in my country and also Assistant Sworn Clerk of The Supreme Court of my country. Now i am pursuing my studies in Criminal Law.
Again you need to understand that debating invloves critical thinking not just easy to understand as you make it seem. Maybe on this website but not in reality. And because i am a teenager does not mean that i don't understand what society is because there are many adults that would never be able to accomplish what i have done.
Really? So why if a mentally retarded person or a person with alheizmer's attacks me then the state does not criminally prosecute me and also they are not responsible for any criminal or civil damage?
A person with Alzheimers has started to lose their awareness, their brain is literally being destroyed. We grant them this exception out of mercy.
However refer to what I said before: laws are not based on reality, but what people feel ought to be. I don't care about what law says.
Again my response to you is whe na person is wounded or hurt by another person which invovles the damage of cells, tissues, blood cells and or organs, does that not make them reliable for a criminal charge against them? Does that not mean that in these very cells are proof of life? Why does the jury and court of law requires pictures of the wounds and a complete medical examination then?
When you kill cell, you kill life, but not A LIFE. Same with early-stage abortion.
You seem to be lacking the understanding of these topics. Again, abortion is the killing of the fetus in a woman's body but prostitution is the selling of a woman's body over which she has total control. So to make it simple both has to do with whether a woman has a right to choose or control what she does with her own body. Why then are there laws preventing her from selling her body when according to you women should have everyright to choose what they do because it is their topic. The last guy i asked that question gave me the same response you did in a debate and it resulted in points being deducted from his team because if you look deeper into these two subjects both have the same context or idea about a woman's right to control her own body.
I answered you before on this topic: laws are not required to be consistent with each other. That one is allowed and the other forbade is not representative of our stance that a woman ought to have control over her body, but is representative of our legal system's inconsistency.
If the records of abortion that are done publicly and the expenses are endured by the government then does't that make it taxpayers money? Don't taxpayers have a right to see where their money is going? Again you are making it seem as if the names of these persons will be made public and you are forgetting that we are talking about statisitics and not individuality.
I did not say this. I said that how much it is performed has no bearing on whether it should be illegal. This is about granting a woman the ability to terminate her pregnancy, a very personal choice that affects her body. It isn't about punishing women who have abortions commonly.
Check up on the deaths caused by abortion and you will see that we are talking about thousands and not hundreds. So then do mean that these lives have no value when it comes to terminating abortion. Read up on some women who did abortion but regrets it deeply now and also don't forget that abortion can cause future infertility.
Since you're being obtuse, I'll explain this to you explicitly:
Deaths caused by surgical abortion in a hospital (where trained physicians and emergency equipment reside): some number.
Deaths caused by surgical abortion at home (since abortion is illegal and the woman has to operate on herself): higher than the previous number.
Why is it not important to the topic when it is related to the topic? Isn't part of our argument based on whether it will make women more responsible or not? Last time i asked that question, the opposing team again was forced to produce that facts before me because that fact backs up the point i am trying to make that abortion does not makes people more responsible. Almost half of all abortion cases (48%) according to the Center For Disease Control are repeat abortions.
Again, explicit language:
Abortion exists to end unwanted pregnancies. Your concern over repeat abortions is based on personal feelings of morality and a desire to punish irresponsible women, it is irrelevant to the aim of abortion: ending unwanted pregnancies.
Should we ban condoms because some people have dozens of partners and are avoiding the consequences of disease? No. Condoms exist to prevent pregnancy.
It does not matter whether or not you are steps ahead of me or not because my arguments are strong and backed up by facts whereas you are giving opinions so what you are saying does not and will not have any effect on me because i have won this debate two to three times face to face because of my facts and the strength of my arguments. My opposing team lost because they were giving opinions and had no evidence to support their claims.
Sorry to disappoint you, but your arguments are all over the place. You have no direction and I have to keep you on topic.
You're free believe that you'll somehow "beat me," but if this is your best caliber of argument style, you'd better just ask me to help you learn how to improve your debate tactics.
Debating is all about critical thinking and you are percieving me as being off topic but then you yourself don't understand some of the questions i am asking you so how can you say i am off topic?
Of course I understand your questions. I can tell you're off topic because whenever you ask a question that appeals to an authority or my emotions rather than the issue at hand, a woman's right to end her pregnancy and the scientific fact that most aborted foetuses cannot be self aware, I know you're obscuring the topic.
I might be a teenager but i am releasing my first book soon, i am a student in pre law and i have held several positions in my country of origing including a personal assistant to the Supervising Police Superintendent of Juvenile Affars, Legal Clerk for The Attorney General in my country and also Assistant Sworn Clerk of The Supreme Court of my country. Now i am pursuing my studies in Criminal Law.
You're still but a child, and could learn a few things from seasoned adults who know much more about these topics than you.
Again you need to understand that debating invloves critical thinking not just easy to understand as you make it seem. Maybe on this website but not in reality. And because i am a teenager does not mean that i don't understand what society is because there are many adults that would never be able to accomplish what i have done.
And you don't think that critical thinking on my behalf has prevented me from engaging your red herring topics, hmm?
Winning an argument is real life has little to do with the truth. That's why politicians engage in petty topics and the news is full of mud slinging. That's why in the United States, half the population believes the earth is under 10000 years old.
You might have had a busy few years of your life, but don't forget that you're still young and have a lot more to learn. Now please, proceed in the debate but focus of the issue of foetal awareness, and compare it to the woman's level of awareness. Also look into the dangers of illegal abortions, and discuss the societal effects of forced pregnancy on unprepared mothers.
I am surprised you say that you don't care about what the laws say. Try telling that to a trial judge. Anyway, it is good that you made that point because a fetus is at a point where the brain is now developing making them unaware of the surrounding which is why people refers to them as being in the baby stage. But you are failing to understand that because of the destruction of those cells, the life of the person might be in danger which is why a criminal charge has to be instituted. The type of cells and tissues however that we are referring to is referred to as a developing human being who is growing into complete human form with a complete DNA and blood type. But didn't you say that what a woman does with her body is nobody's business then how come there are laws to prevent her from prostituting her body?
Okay. According to statistics released by the WHO in terms of abortion, the number of abortions that performed for the year 1995- 45.5 million of which 19.9 million were illegal.
According to a report from The Guttmacher Institute, Unsafe abortion causes an estimated 70,000 deaths each year, and an additional five million women are treated annually for complications resulting from unsafe abortion. Approximately three million women who experience serious complications from unsafe procedures go untreated.
The following methods describe the different methods of abortion. Since you are also a person of science read up on horrifying methods of abortion in which we do not even do this with animals;
METHODS OF TERMNATION OF PREGNANCY
There are three abortion classifications—surgical abortion, medical abortion, and chemical abortion. They are defined as follows:
Surgical abortion: These are abortions that involve an invasive procedure. Major types of surgical abortions include:
Suction aspiration: This is the procedure most often used in the first trimester of pregnancy (the first three months). The abortionist inserts a suction tube (similar to a vacuum hose with an extremely sharp end) into the mother's womb. The suction and cutting edge dismember the baby while the hose sucks the body parts into a collection bottle.
Dilation and curettage (D&C;): In this procedure, the abortionist uses a loop shaped knife to cut the baby into pieces and scrape the uterine wall. The baby's body parts are then removed and checked to make sure that no pieces were left in the mother's womb.
Dilation and extraction (also known as D&X;or partial-birth abortion): Used to kill babies well into the third trimester (as late as 32 weeks old), the abortionist reaches into the mother's womb, grabs the baby's feet with a forceps and pulls the baby out of the mother, except for the head. The abortionist then jams a pair of scissors into the back of the baby's head and spreads the scissors apart to make a hole in the baby's skull. The abortionist removes the scissors and sticks a suction tube into the skull to suck the baby's brain out. The forceps are then used to crush the baby's head and the abortionist pulls the baby's body out the rest of the way.
Dilation and evacuation (D&E;): This form of abortion is used to kill babies in the second trimester (24+ weeks). The abortionist uses a forceps to grab parts of the baby (arms and legs) and then tears the baby apart. The baby's head must be crushed in order to remove it because the skull bone has hardened by this stage in the baby's growth.
Hysterotomy: Performed in the third trimester, this is basically an abortive Cesarean section (C-section). The abortionist makes in an incision in the mother's abdomen and removes the baby. The baby is then either placed to the side to die or is killed by the abortionist or nurse.
Medical abortions: These are abortions that involve the administration of drug specifically intended to abort the child. Common drugs used for medical abortions include:
Mifepristone (RU-486): Mifepristone blocks the hormone that helps develop the lining of the uterus during pregnancy (progesterone). This lining is the source of nutrition and protection for the developing baby. The tiny boy or girl is starved to death and then a second drug, misoprostol, causes contractions so that the dead baby is expelled from the womb.
Methotrexate: this highly toxic chemical directly attacks and breaks down the baby's fast-growing cells. It also attacks the life-support systems the baby needs to survive. When the systems fail, the baby dies. Misoprostol is then used to cause contractions and push the dead baby out of the womb.
Salt poisoning: This technique is used in the second and third trimester. The abortionist sticks a long needle into the mother's womb. The needle contains salt which is then injected into the amniotic fluid surrounding the baby. The baby breathes in, swallows the salt and dies from salt poisoning, dehydration, brain hemorrhage and convulsions. Taking nearly an hour to die, the baby's skin is completely burned, turns red and deteriorates. The baby is in pain the entire time. The mother goes into labor 24 - 48 hours later and delivers a dead baby.
Prostaglandins: Used during the second and third trimester, prostaglandin abortions involve the injection of naturally produced hormones into the amniotic sac, causing violent premature labor. During these convulsions the baby is often crushed to death or is born too early to have any chance of surviving.
Chemical abortions: These are abortions caused by drugs that, at least some of the time, prevent the implantation of the already-created baby in the uterine lining. Some of the more popular methods of birth control that can be responsible for the deaths of newly-created children are:
The Ortho-Evra® birth control patch works by suppressing gonadotropins, which may inhibit ovulation, change the cervical mucus to prevent sperm from reaching the uterus and change the lining of the uterus thereby preventing the implantation of the newly-formed human (Physicians' Desk Reference. 60 ed. Montvale, NJ: Thompson PDR; 2006. 2402).
The NuvaRing® vaginal ring works by suppressing gonadotropins, which may inhibit ovulation, change the cervical mucus to prevent sperm from reaching the uterus and change the endometrium thereby preventing the implantation of the newly-formed human (PDR. 2357).
Depo-Provera® Contraceptive Injection, when administered at the recommended dose to women every 3 months, inhibits the secretion of gonadotropins which, in turn, prevents follicular maturation and ovulation and results in endometrium thinning. These actions produce its contraceptive effect (PDR 2620).
Plan B® is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization, by altering the tubal transport of sperm and/or ova. In addition, it may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium (PDR 1068
I agree but the only purpose abortion serves is to kill the fetus, a human life or organism. Condom does something better than what abortion does. Condom prevents the spread of diseases. And i also agree but how can it be explicit language when i have proof to back up my opinion released by the U.S Gov? Are we aborting a fetus because of fear of infection?
That i will agree with you. I am but a teenager not a child. There is a difference between a teenager and a child. A child is an individual who has not meet the stage of puberty. A teenager is an individual who has or is already going through the stage of puberty. And i also agree with you that there many things i can learn from adults, as long as i am learning it from the correct source. Well we are not discussing a debate based on politics; we are discussing abortion and the law. And i also agree with you that i do have a lot to learn. Oh and by the way now you are starting to use your critical thinking skills. I love that. Now i feel tha twe can openly discuss any topic.
Sayyad, stop straw-manning me right now. I never once said anything even close to "abortion is right". You keep putting words in my mouth. Do you understand how a debate works?
Why don't you answer me if abortion makes people more responsible?
This isn't even something I've said either. I don't care if abortion makes a person more "responsible" so I never said anything about it. I, unlike you, do not need to justify abortion to myself to allow others to do it.
You speak as if i am here throwing out stuff just like that. I am surprised that you even want to discuss abortion but yet you don't care.
Again, nothing you've said thus far has anything to do with anything I've said. When did I say I don't care? I'm here aren't I? I didn't care about you're story, but I do care about the issue and your story is irrelevant to it. When did I say you were "throwing out stuff just like that"? Wtf does something like that even mean?
Either you have the wrong address, or you're the single worst debater I've spoken to thus far.
How can a person argue about a topic and say they don't want to know about the rest?
How abortion started doesn't matter. Why would it? It has nothing to do with the issue now.
If i am silly about my preferences then how come you don't know anything about abortion?
Does this pass for logic these days???
If I don't know anything about abortion then how come you added the number "99" to your user name? =/
(note: I'm saying your question doesn't make sense)
Who looks more silly? Me or you?
You or I<<
You don't tell me my preference is silly when you can't even give a justification for your choice
Do you not even see your own conceitedness?
You're saying "I've decided abortion is immoral and I've also decided that everyone should conform to my morality because my morality cannot be wrong, I came up with it!"
Well, how great full these women must be to have someone like you do decide that abortion is wrong for them. =/
And you say this is not silliness?
Maybe you should come when we are debating and you will have to see how debating goes and why we law students choose our topics.
Oh dear god. YOU got into law school? Hopefully not to be a lawyer, you'd end up sending all your own clients to the chair.
You think I care that you're a law student? Do you think that makes you infallible? You sir, are beyond egotistical.
Your opinions are based on arrogance or ignorance without any proof or evidence.
Now you're just projecting. ;)
Why don't you try becoming a District Attorney and if you can become one then judge them.
You're not even trying to make sense now, are you? Are you a troll? You must be, no one else could string together so many irrelevant "arguments" and walk away feeling like they've accomplished something.
i don't have time to waste on any argument filled with arrogance.
Ah, that explains why you didn't bother proof reading your argument. =/
When does life begins? Use a reference to support your claim.
Alright, so a reference is pointless because where life begins is a philosophical question, it isn't proven based on how many more people agree with you.
Life is a continuum. It doesn't "stop" or "start", it just changes.
Does prostitution involves a woman's right to control her own body?
jeez, I don't know what I'm more disappointed in; your poor grammar or the fact that I understood that perfectly =/
A person's profession has nothing to do with their ability to control themselves. Unless she's being raped for money, then shes exercising self control by being a prostitute.
What are the amount of women that undergoes repeat abortions?
I don't care. Women could get abortions as a hobby for all I care, I don't need to justify abortion to myself to allow others to do it, I'm not as egotistical as you.
How many abortions results in death of the mother yearly?
Again, I don't care and it doesn't matter. It's their choice. They're making the risk, not you, not I. It's none of out business.
Why does the very people who say the government should stay out of their business are the very ones that wants the government to pay for the abortion especially if they are on welfare?
When did I say this? I didn't, because it's not my position.
Try again.
If you say you don't care or you avoid these questions then you are clearly showing that your level of knowledge in this area is based on merely your opinions and not facts.
Or it means you're an idiot and you can't tell the difference between relevant facts and appeals to emotion/authority.
Anyone can pull up an infinite amount of facts, it mean nothing if they aren't relevant. Though, it's cute how you thought writing this would somehow convince me to answer all your questions as though they were relevant. XD
If we law students would do what you just did in a debate we would be disqualified.
You keep saying "law student" like being a law student matters. it doesn't. And I don't care if someone would "disqualify" you for what I've done because
1. It's irrelevant to this debate
and 2. I happen to know for a fact that calling "non-sequiter" on an opponent during a debate is not only allowed, but frequently taken advantage of.
So, either you are a liar or your debating league is full of idiots.
Judging by your argument thus far the former seems much more likely.
Last night we concluded as debate on Hitler on whether he was innocent or not and which we agreed that he was innocent and came out on the wining end.
Why did you write this? It has nothing to do with anything EITHER of us has written.
"Well, we decided that Hitler was innocent last night, therefore abortion is WRONG!" << does this make sense to you??? Or are you purposefully using non-sequiters in an attempt to distract me from your paper-thin argument? =/
Well you are confusing yourself now because if you are claiming abortion is not right then what is the purpose of your argument? You never said that it is right i agree but reading from your statement you are supporting the fact that it is right. Why don't you care about whether abortion makes people more responsible or not? Is it because you are denying the fact? The whole purpose of a debate is to justify and prove so i do not know where you got that idea from because again without justification then a debate based on opinion is none but a fruitless debate serving no purpose when we are supposed to educate then convince.
Well remember you said in your first statement that it is my silly preferences. If you were using your critical thinking skills you would have been able to realize that i meant you are failing to realize my facts but yet you were criticising me as i was just giving my opinions alone. Why do you mean how abortion started does not matter whe nit is the origin of the case. And the fact that there is a major dispute in the origin itself. Look at our arguments and would you say that i am worst or you? Who have produced facts and strenght in their arguments and who keep saying not related or does not matter? Me or you? You are running away from my questions because you yourself knows the truth.
If you know my name is 99 then tell me what does 99 means on my name?
Is that all you can say "you came up with it?" because you do not even have facts to justify your position but you are giving mere opinions and to me that does not matter and is irrelevant unless you can prove your opinion. Really? But i guess they would love you for deciding that it is right for them? I don't want them to be grateful to me, i want that child to be grateful to me. A life and a develping human being who are the young people of our society.
Well well i said that to illusrate what true deabting is all about and not what you think. If i was a bad debater i would not have lead all of my teams? Would i and end up coming out on the winning end?
Because i am portraying to you what a debate is all about and what are the proper ways of responding to an argument. You think you are going to convince a group of people by saying you do not care or does not matter if asked something in debate because if that is the cae then you would be a loser in debating.
You said a District Attorney can be stupid or childish so my advice to you is why don't you try becoming one first and them judge them, and that is if you can ever become one.
Really are you referring to life as in daily activities or the human life because i never know life can change? If that was the case then the human life could have been altered to different forms.
Well the reaon i called you that is because you are building an argument filled with non supportive inforamtion and i agree i had no right to but then think of all the facts you are runnig from.
And lastly my friend if you had strong critical thinking skills you could have simply figured out that last night we concluded a debate on hitler and if our information was merely based on opnions rather than facts we would have came out losing instead of winning. Come on use your head and not only your eyes. Do i have to explain everything to you?
Well you are confusing yourself now because if you are claiming abortion is not right then what is the purpose of your argument?
You're so wrapped up in this duality you've created you haven't even considered that my position is not one of morality. I'm not "for" or "against" abortion.
It's called "pro CHOICE" not "pro abortion". =/
You never said that it is right i agree but reading from your statement you are supporting the fact that it is right.
No, you've IMPOSED this position on me. This is a matter of your prejudice, not my implication.
Why don't you care about whether abortion makes people more responsible or not? Is it because you are denying the fact?
I don't care because it doesn't matter. I have no right to decide what is good and what is not for other people. Perhaps some people end up more responsible, perhaps some don't.
The whole purpose of a debate is to justify and prove so i do not know where you got that idea from because again without justification then a debate based on opinion is none but a fruitless debate serving no purpose when we are supposed to educate then convince.
To justify and prove, eh? A debate is a means, the purpose is invented by the individual. This is still a debate whether my method is through debunking your conclusion or putting forth my own.
Well remember you said in your first statement that it is my silly preferences. If you were using your critical thinking skills you would have been able to realize that i meant you are failing to realize my facts but yet you were criticising me as i was just giving my opinions alone.
You seem to be under the delusion that one can derive a position from facts without forming an opinion. A position without opinion is just facts, a position without facts is just opinion. You need both.
I'm not arguing against the facts, I'm arguing against your stupidity. Don't try to shift the blame onto the facts, they can't help what they are.
Why do you mean how abortion started does not matter whe nit is the origin of the case.
Because your argument is rooting in morality, mine is rooting in questioning your morality. If you disagree with the origins of abortion for the same reason then it makes no difference, you're still arguing from your personal preferences.
And the fact that there is a major dispute in the origin itself.
Then start a debate "How did Abortion Originate?". It's another topic and doesn't bare any relevance to this one.
Look at our arguments and would you say that i am worst or you?
You wouldn't like my answer =p
Who have produced facts and strenght in their arguments and who keep saying not related or does not matter? Me or you? You are running away from my questions because you yourself knows the truth.
Can you please get through just one sentence with proper grammar? You can pull up "facts" until your fingers are worn to stubs. It means nothing if they aren't relevant.
If you know my name is 99 then tell me what does 99 means on my name?
You... totally missed the point -_-
Is that all you can say "you came up with it?" because you do not even have facts to justify your position but you are giving mere opinions and to me that does not matter and is irrelevant unless you can prove your opinion.
Are you dyslexic? That made almost no sense. =/
Again, look up the term "debunking".
But i guess they would love you for deciding that it is right for them?
Again, I've said no such thing. At least try to make relevant arguments. =/
I don't want them to be grateful to me, i want that child to be grateful to me. A life and a develping human being who are the young people of our society.
Well well, what a noble man you are; placing the value of life above the value of a good life...
Did I say noble? I meant retarded.
Well well i said that to illusrate what true deabting is all about and not what you think. If i was a bad debater i would not have lead all of my teams? Would i and end up coming out on the winning end?
Again, either you are a liar or your league is full of idiots. ;)
Because i am portraying to you what a debate is all about and what are the proper ways of responding to an argument. You think you are going to convince a group of people by saying you do not care or does not matter if asked something in debate because if that is the cae then you would be a loser in debating.
Debating 101: debunking and calling out opponents on non-sequiters IS how a debate works.
There's no need to "prove" someone else's abortion is none of my (or your) business. Debunking your reasons for being "pro-life" does that by itself. Do you understand?
You said a District Attorney can be stupid or childish so my advice to you is why don't you try becoming one first and them judge them, and that is if you can ever become one.
1+2=3 << you understand this, right? Well, here's a line of reasoning almost as simple and easy to comprehend.
District attorneys are people. People can be stupid and childish; therefore, district attorneys can be stupid and childish.
There's no need to become a district attorney to understand that they aren't infallible.
Really are you referring to life as in daily activities or the human life because i never know life can change? If that was the case then the human life could have been altered to different forms.
Everything is constantly changing. You're heart pumps fresh blood, your skin falls off and is replaced, sperms turn into zygotes etc. etc. etc.
Life and death aren't opposites, they're complementariness.
Well the reaon i called you that is because you are building an argument filled with non supportive inforamtion and i agree i had no right to but then think of all the facts you are runnig from.
Wrong again. I'm not building an argument, I'm debunking yours. There's no "running" here, simply wading through the things you've said.
And lastly my friend if you had strong critical thinking skills you could have simply figured out that last night we concluded a debate on hitler and if our information was merely based on opnions rather than facts we would have came out losing instead of winning. Come on use your head and not only your eyes. Do i have to explain everything to you?
Nothing you just wrote changes that your Hitler debate has nothing to do with this debate. you could be lying about the whole thing for all I know.
Come on use your head and not only your eyes. Do I have to explain everything to you? ;)
In a debate either you are for or against. Ask anyone that and they will tell you. Are you that foolish enough not to realize the difference between pro choice or in other words pro abortion or pro life or anti abortion. If i recalled my opposing team was pro choice. Why? Because they are against abortion. You seem to be lacking common sense. Really? As far as i am concerned whatever a person say portrays the idea of that person as in reading a book and trying to figure out the idea or goal of the writer. Again you don't care. That to me is pure selfishness and lack of knowledge. Your debate is filled with inconsistent information filled with opinions without any evidence. Please do me a favor and read up on the rules of debating because according to you, you are a person of science. You seem to be failing to recognize that any opinions should be built on facts. Please, you are a person of science one day you will stand against an opposing team face to face and then you will understand what i am talking about. When you say that i am retarded lets say that a woman who intentionally has unprotected sex aware of the consequences but now goes to the extent of killing the fetus, are you implying that there is no innocence or good in that fetus? Are you saying that there is nothing wrong with that? To me that is just selfishness. Well in order to debate a topic you need to know the origin of that case and then identify the weakness in that origin. If it was a speech called informative speech and lets say you were referring to reasons why abortion should be made illegal then the origin would have been completely different as my professor advised me last week. Well Actually you do not need to say who is worst or not because i have friends in pre law on here and have already taken a look at this debates and has already given me a response.
Why are you running from the truth? Point out to one statement which you made that had an authoritative reference? Exactly. When you think you know everything or do not want to know then your perception might be wrong. Believe me do not even make my team read this part that you said or else they would not be too happy. Believe me and my team comprises of at least 25 members who are excellent at debating. I would suggest you stop making remarks about my team instead of me because all 25 of them would challenge you in a debate on here.
You are a person of denial and lack of common sense filled with ignorance. You think about topics and not what the speaker is trying to convey. Maybe you are better off in science. When you debunk don't debunk with opinion because even an idiot knows that. Debunk with facts.
And one last thing i do not need to lie to you about what my abilities or capabilities are. Because i know what i have and is presently accomplishing so i would not even bother paying attention to such a foolish statement.
There is no law of debating that says you cannot use appeal to authority or emotions to win a debate especially if the person in question can have a huge impact on the debate you are trying to dispute. Check up on your book again my friend. And i do not lie? Maybe you love to judge which you said you do not but your statements tells me you are incapable of taking on a person in a debate and failing to using your common sense. You need people to explain everything to you. And furthermore, this is not a debate this is selfishness.
In a debate either you are for or against. Ask anyone that and they will tell you.
Just asked my brother. Nope, one can be neither for nor against abortion. It's called CHOICE. It's not a matter of "abortion is good/bad!" abortion is just an act. "Good" and "bad" are labels imposed by you.
Are you that foolish enough not to realize the difference between pro choice or in other words pro abortion or pro life or anti abortion.
I'm 90% sure you're a troll now. Pro choice =/= pro abortion. Say it with my now; Pro choice =/= pro abortion. Pro choice is about individuals choosing to either get an abortion or not based on their own unique situation.
Again you don't care. That to me is pure selfishness and lack of knowledge.
Man, you're really judgmental, aren't you. ;)
I don't particularly care if you find me selfish and ignorant, you have yet to give a relevant reason as to why abortion should be illegal. Not once in all your barely comprehend able posts have you done this.
Your debate is filled with inconsistent information filled with opinions without any evidence.
Actually, this is YOUR debate, or did you mean argument? ;)
There is no inconsistent information in my argument because I haven't posted any "information", I've only been debunking you, so now you're a liar. And a bad one at that, do you think I don't comprehend my own posts or something? XD
Please do me a favor and read up on the rules of debating because according to you, you are a person of science.
I never even said anything remotely like that... -_-
You seem to be failing to recognize that any opinions should be built on facts.
No, opinions should be built on RELEVANT facts. For example; I say you have made the logical fallacy known as "appeal to emotion" this is a fact. You say "Woma have died from abortions, therefore abortion should be wrong" This is also a fact, it just isn't a relevant one. And if your argument is based on fallacies and irrelevant facts >>YOU ARE WRONG<<
Believe me do not even make my team read this part that you said or else they would not be too happy.
... Do you think I care? Really? Let them read it. I'll debate them too if they carry your idiocy with them.
I would suggest you stop making remarks about my team instead of me because all 25 of them would challenge you in a debate on here.
And are they all "pro-life" too? If so, I've nothing to worry about. ;)
You are a person of denial and lack of common sense filled with ignorance.
You're projecting again ;)
You think about topics and not what the speaker is trying to convey.
Oh, I've thought about what you're trying to convey; I've just decided it's wrong relative to the topic is all, ;)
When you debunk don't debunk with opinion because even an idiot knows that. Debunk with facts.
Again, I'm not against facts. I'm against your stupidity. I'm against the conclusions you've derived from these facts. Stop trying to pass the blame onto the facts, they can't change, but you sure as hell can.
And one last thing i do not need to lie to you about what my abilities or capabilities are. Because i know what i have and is presently accomplishing so i would not even bother paying attention to such a foolish statement.
... And yet you have. Is your dunce cap on too tight or something?
There is no law of debating that says you cannot use appeal to authority or emotions to win a debate especially if the person in question can have a huge impact on the debate you are trying to dispute.
Man, it takes a lot of repetition for you to learn, doesn't it? I never said you can't use these things, hell you may even win a debate with them if you're talking to someone even dumber than you (insert your own "country full of idiots for you to talk to" joke)... but when you're talking to someone intelligent enough to recognize a logical fallacy (e.g. Myself... and everyone else on this site) you're bound to get called out on it.
And, if you're entire argument is based on a fallacy, then you're wrong. Thus, you lose.
And i do not lie? Maybe you love to judge which you said you do not but your statements tells me you are incapable of taking on a person in a debate and failing to using your common sense. You need people to explain everything to you. And furthermore, this is not a debate this is selfishness.
Selfishness? THIS IS SSSSSSSSSayyad99's attempt at hurting my feelings? I have a hard time taking offense to insults written by someone with a third grade writing level. =/
When you say that term neither you are portraying to me that either you are confused or you are not sure which side to take. How can you be neither when everything you said so far has supported pro abortion? If there were two teams and each of these teams were either pro life or pro abortion, which one would you choose? Obviously, there is no way that you can say neither, so which team will you choose? When people say pro choice they are referring to a woman's right to have an abortion. Do some research on the topic please. You words tells a lot about you and to be very honest with you that is why my response is coming so low graded to you because expect to get what you portray. Well i do not care what you say because like i said am the creator of this debate and you are the person challenging me so to me it means less. You seem to forget that you are debunking without facts so if i am liar good for me. Again i will not have you calling me names and if you do not stop then i will restrain you from posting any arguments in relation to my debates because name calling is childishness to me and the same goes for comparing. Really? I think your problem is you love to judge and if you continue doing that then again i will restrain you from debate and then we will see who is the debater and the respondent. Let us keep it to a professional level please. By doing this you are making both of us look like two children which we are not. My conclusion is drawn from facts which i have demonstrated in my arguments but you point to one part where you made reference to facts? Did you see my entire argument was based on fallacy? Because if you said so then i think you are jumping to an inconsistent conclusion. And again i do not care what you call me because like i said i have already proved myself to a panel of judges. You can say all you want but it wouldn't affect me but lets just keep it as a debate on a professional level.
When you say that term neither you are portraying to me that either you are confused or you are not sure which side to take.
I am pro-choice. I've been pro-choice since the beginning of this debate and I've made that clear several times. If you haven't realized this by now then it is you who is confused, not I.
How can you be neither when everything you said so far has supported pro abortion?
Exactly what did I write that gave you the idea I'm "pro-abortion"? Do you think I want to make abortions mandatory or something? I'm not pro abortion or anti abortion, there are cases where abortion is a good choice, and cases where it is a bad choice; but regardless of the case, it's not our choice. It's hers.
If there were two teams and each of these teams were either pro life or pro abortion, which one would you choose?
If there were two teams, one was pro-rape and the other was pro-arson, which one would you choose? -_-
Obviously, there is no way that you can say neither, so which team will you choose?
Neither.
Huh... I guess I could say neither, couldn't I. ;)
It's almost as though I have... a choice. o.O
When people say pro choice they are referring to a woman's right to have an abortion. Do some research on the topic please.
When did I say pro-choice was NOT referring to a woman's right to have an abortion? What are you even talking about?
You words tells a lot about you and to be very honest with you that is why my response is coming so low graded to you because expect to get what you portray.
You're lying again. You've been acting like an idiot since the beginning AND you've been acting like an idiot towards others. Or are they all "low graded" as well? But even if what you say is true, you'd still be an idiot because that is the only kind of person that would purposefully debate poorly to "match" his opponents wit.
Well i do not care what you say because like i said am the creator of this debate and you are the person challenging me so to me it means less.
What means less? You haven't connected this sentence to anything so I have no idea what you're talking about.
You seem to forget that you are debunking without facts so if i am liar good for me.
I'm not using facts... so it's good that you're a liar? You make less and less sense every post.
You seem to think facts are some holy grail and whomever has the most of them "wins" or something. Let me tell you, in matters of philosophy logic trumps facts. you can string together miles of facts, if the logic doesn't follow then you're wrong.
Again i will not have you calling me names and if you do not stop then i will restrain you from posting any arguments in relation to my debates because name calling is childishness to me and the same goes for comparing.
I repress nothing about myself. If I feel like calling you an idiot then I will and if you aren't mature enough to handle such criticism then perhaps your better off banning me.
It would only show your insecurities.
I think your problem is you love to judge and if you continue doing that then again i will restrain you from debate and then we will see who is the debater and the respondent.
Once again, you're projecting. If "judging" is a ban-able offense in your books then you should of banned yourself a hundred times over.
Let us keep it to a professional level please.
I agree, lets keep it professional. I'll stop calling you names and you stop:
Straw-man-ing
Lying
Red-herring....ing
Appealing to authority
Appealing to emotion
And going off topic
I think this sound more than fair.
My conclusion is drawn from facts which i have demonstrated in my arguments but you point to one part where you made reference to facts?
Yeas, I have you an example where I used a fact. What, you want me to re-type EVERYTHING I've written out thus far and highlight everything that qualifies as a fact???
Look, I've debunked you're conclusions. Now you either concede or go about un-debunking me. THAT'S how a debate works. It's not about who has the most facts, it's about who's position makes the most sense.
Did you see my entire argument was based on fallacy? Because if you said so then i think you are jumping to an inconsistent conclusion.
Inconsistent with what? Do you even know what the word inconsistent means? (rhetorical)
Everything you've said so far has been one of the things I asked you to stop doing earlier in this post. They are all fallacies, so yes, your entire argument is based on fallacy. You've even admitted that your arguments are based on appeals to emotion/authority, so I'm not sure exactly what you're complaining about here...
And again i do not care what you call me because like i said i have already proved myself to a panel of judges.
Really? Just 2 (two!) paragraphs ago you threatened to ban me based on what I call you. You, once again, are lying.
You can say all you want but it wouldn't affect me but lets just keep it as a debate on a professional level.
I will ban you because you are over stepping your limits not because i care because you don't go around judging people and calling them names like you do. If you keep out of that then perhaps our debate will be good. I create the rules when i create my debates and if you question whether it is my debate or not then you are pushing me to show you whose court the ball is in.
In an argument the term pro choice refers to the killing of the fetus. Change it all you want but you will never be able to change the true meaning of the word. Pro Choice is another way of saying pro abortion. The question here is to kill or not to kill the fetus so i do not know what is the goal of your question? I want an answer not a meaningless question. Rape and Arson is in no way to compare to this topic because they do not even involve the taking of a human life and also both are morally wrong as in abortion where one side is considered morally wrong.
Are you in your right state of mind, then do me a favor and stop debating about abortion if you are not referring to it. Pro choice refers to the term supporting abortion.
I am not going to go further debating you. You are an immature idiot filled with nonsense. There is no point in even debating you. Maybe you should go back to junior high school and grow up. You have proved to me what stupidity is like so goodbye! And by the way it is not the length of the argument but the quality of the argument.
I already did that is why i could. You made improvements in your last few arguments but other than that take a look at the rebuttals where you kept saying do not care. Do you know how childish that sounded?
Like i said i would i banned you. Learn to act professional next time and then we will get along. Don't act like a child. I have no time for your worthless arguments. You are no way as compared to a challenge for me and you yourself told me i can be a great debater so you yourself proved your statements to be a liar.
Oh and one more thing since you are on a debating website then maybe you should read up on the rules of debating especially about the part that said if you don't have facts to support your claims then what it the purpose of that debate. And as i said to my opposing team in the last face to face debate which lasted for 5 hours in two weeks and was based on abortion, "DON'T TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK BECAUSE WHAT YOU THINK MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE FACTS PORTRAY."
Use your head for once and try to figure out the whole purpose of my argument.Who says you can't you use appeal to emtion or authority in debating? I would like to say who said that? And who says you also can't use different topics if they are similar in the point you are trying to make?
Use your head for once and try to figure out the whole purpose of my argument.Who says you can't you use appeal to emtion or authority in debating?
Perhaps YOU need to use your head. Go re-read my comment and tell me exactly where I said you cannot use appeal to emotion/authority.
You can't, because I didn't. You're free to use them at your discretion. It's widely known that these are logical FALLACIES and can prove nothing but the ignorance of the person using them, but feel free to express this side of yourself through them anyway... =/
"And who says you also can't use different topics if they are similar in the point you are trying to make?"
Again, nobody has said this....
You do understand the difference between things that are similar and things that are related, don't you? ;)
"Do you think abortion is going to make people more responsible."
You're saying that like having a child it their punishment for being irresponsible, let me tell you, its not just a punishment for the terrible parents but also the unwanted and unloved child you forced them to have.
Maybe you should check the statistics to show how many women are having repeat abortions. Do you think that the unborn should pay for the mistakes of it's mother? Most women according to statistics are having repeat abortions. I was born out of child pregnancy. My mother regardless of being challenged with poverty and unpreparedness brought me up. Today i am a student in pre law with a G.P.A of 4.0 and straight A student. Do you think that bringing me up made her a responsible woman or abortion?
Furthermore, for every mistake there is a punishment. Didn't parents punished you for a mistake, don't the laws punish you for a mistake, don't your job punish you for a mistake?Why? Before consensual unprotected sex, every woman have a choice to protect themselves and is fully aware of the consequences of their actions. So why should they claim they are unprepared after learning they are pregnant?
Abortion is going to happen. Its been going on forever. People that are against it do so for moral reasons. I completely understand, but you are failing to realize that it will happen regardless of the legality of the procedure and in some cases is completely warranted. For example, what if your 14 year old daughter is raped and becomes pregnant. Does that not constitute a valid reason for the termination of a pregnancy. What if you are going to give birth to a child with a severe birth defect or extreme retardation. If it wasn't for new advances in medicine these people would never survive anyway, so how is it any different? It sounds harsh and heartless but it is reality none the less. Its like people that are against stem cell research because some of the stem cells come from aborted fetuses. Ok, you object on moral grounds, I get it but what if you're paralyzed and the researchers say a dead baby will help you walk again are you really going to tell me that you're not going to give the green light. The child was aborted regardless of what decision you made, at least let the horrible process have some good that comes out of it.
While some women may still have abortions, the abortion rate will definitely decrease by; it is my guess about 90% or even more. How many people would commit murder if it was legal, do you think? Obviously making something illegal is always a deterrent for a large amount of people.
That people will do it anyway is no argument to legalize something heinous. By the same token, should we legalize rape now so that no rapist will have to do it in secret, or because he would do it otherwise anyway?
Why should we abort a child because of mental retardation etc? In the same way should we kill a person because they are mentally ill?
When you talk about horrible process; what is more horrible being half awake whilst doctors are ripping your fetus out of you are giving birth to a life? What if a woman dies from abortion? You are talking as if carrying a pregnancy is more traumatic than doing an abortion. We are against abortion because we are talking about a life and as one professional once said it seems that those who supports abortion are the ones that are already born.
If a person is raped then give the baby up for adoption. There are other choices available. Don't make it seem as if abortion is the only way out.
Why should a woman have to carry the child of her attacker? I'm not saying I agree with abortion, what I'm saying is that people have the right to make that decision on their own. I don't think you or anybody else has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body. She has to live with the guilt of what she has done. If she want's to carry that burden then so be it.
Really? So how come when a person commits suicide the state has every right to stop that person from doing it? Why don't you answer that then?
Why do you keep saying her body. The fetus is inside her body but not her body. The fetus has a completely different DNA and blood type than the mother and if the blood type of the fetus comes in contact with the blood type of the mother it can be fatal.
Really? So how come when a person commits suicide the state has every right to stop that person from doing it? Why don't you answer that then?
It's because a bunch of angry and sad victims of a suicide decided to give government that right. It has no bearing on a person's autonomy, however.
Why do you keep saying her body. The fetus is inside her body but not her body. The fetus has a completely different DNA and blood type than the mother and if the blood type of the fetus comes in contact with the blood type of the mother it can be fatal.
Parasites, bacteria, and protists all have different DNA from us but still reside within us. We have the final say over their existence because they reside in our bodies.
Wrong. It is because of the people living in this land who saw it as being wrong gave government that right and they also gave government the right to make abortion illegal until the Supreme Court decided that the state had no right to intervene and made their decision based on a lie. I do not think the Court had the authority to make that decsion becasue it was the majority of people who conferred that right upon the state and not the Court.
How can you compare a fetus DNA with a parasite DNA? Are parasites or bacterias from the human race? I never know that the human race can also be a parasite? Can it? The DNA of a fetus is fromed from the Chromosomes of the mother and father which posess a different but unique DNA. Oh and by the way does parasites and bacterias has a unique but different blood type also?
Hells no. If a woman wants to rid her body of a bunch of extra cells (and thats all a fetus is) then let her. Besides, we could use the fetus for its stem cells.
Maybe not to the same extent as, say, scraping the inside of your cheek or scratching a layer of epidermis with your fingernails, but they lack any human fetus or vertebrae features until well into 3 months of development. Otherwise, what you'd see under a microscope really would just be unremarkable "cell" reproduction.
I'm sure what Hollow more accurately meant to say was "blastocyst," which is really just a scientific term for the pre-fetus stage of conception in which the developing embryo really IS just a clump of cells that begin reproducing after the fertilized ovum has attached itself to the uteran wall. For the technical definition, see:
Blastocyst: A thin-walled hollow structure in early embryonic development that contains a cluster of cells called the inner cell mass from which the embryo arises. The outer layer of cells gives rise to the placenta and other supporting tissues needed for fetal development within the uterus while the inner cell mass cells gives rise to the tissues of the body.
A human embryo is a discrete entity that has arisen from either: the first mitotic division when fertilization of a human oocyte by a human sperm is complete or any other process that initiates organized development of a biological entity with a human nuclear genome or altered human nuclear genome that has the potential to develop up to, or beyond, the stage at which the primitive streak appears, and has not yet reached 8 weeks of development since the first mitotic division.
Well the fetus feeds through it's mother. An egg is not a developing human being neither does it possess life. The fetus cannot be hugged i agree but why then when you go to a doctor they normally detect the heartbeat of the unborn to check whether it is alive or not. Does the heartbeat not indicates the presence of life? Does the fetus not have a separate DNA and blood type? Does the fetus not have a growing human body?
I know the way I would state my opinions would not prove helpful towards this discussion, so here is a quote, in place, by respected novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand. I find that this quote, in the end, sums up my opinions on this matter.
"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"
Well, of course, I would be very happy if an anti-abortion law was passed...on one condition. Since we passed an anti-abortion law, why don't we pass a law similar to, say, the buddy system. This way, all pro-life supporters who really really really wanted to take away the rights of Americans should have to pay 118,590 dollars over 18 years (average expenditures for a child in a low-income single-parent home). I'm sure when they are finally frustrated with paying for that child unnecessarily (like a mother who could have had an abortion), the pro-life supporters will stop denying the rights of others.
Because, you see, not all Americans are as rich as you are and many can't afford one or more child to take care of, especially teenage mothers. Forcing a mother to have a baby will, in most cases, exacerbate the economic conditions and welfare of the child as well as the parent(s).
So my answer to you is should we pay rapists not to commit rapes and cause unwanted pregnancies too? What about their rights? If you are saying that because we believe abortion is wrong then we are taking the rights of Americans then what about the rights of the child as a developing human too? Isn't that an American too?
[If you are saying that because we believe abortion is wrong then we are taking the rights of Americans then what about the rights of the child as a developing human too?]
Isn't that an American too?Its not an American till it's born.
[So my answer to you is should we pay rapists not to commit rapes and cause unwanted pregnancies too?]
No, they should pay. Them causing unwanted pregnancies is just as bad as people that would deny a woman an abortion. People taking away the right to have an abortion. Screw the "morals" your thinking about. You are trying to take away someone's right. That's another common thing with gun control, people are trying to take away other people's rights. You are taking the rights of the citizens of America. You sir, are the kind of people who send our country down the drain.
Really? Then why don't you try telling that to the laws that prevents a woman from prostitutions, suicide or use of drugs. Doesn't these laws prevent a woman from controlling her body?
Arent the laws taking away the rights of a woman here? And further more why don't you check up on the statistics of woman with repeat abortions, yearly death of the mothers from abortion, effects of abortion on a mother and also the horrific methods of abortion
Of course not. Pro-choice doesn't mean forcing every pregnant woman to get an abortion. Every pro-lifer seems to have deluded themselves into believing so. Pro-life means forcing every pregnant woman to have her baby even if she doesn't want it. There are plenty of women out there who want to have children. But if it's just some teen who got screwed over (No pun intended (Just kidding. Pun totally intended)) and she isn't ready to take on a child, especially since her boyfriend is likely to desert her after finding out she's pregnant or if it was just a one night thing between two strangers, she should be aloud to get rid of that extra conglomeration of cells (since that's all it is) and go on with her life. There's no need to change your life for one kid you don't even want. Besides, the fetus can be used for it's stem cells.
This is my argument for all the pro-lifers out there:
Pro-lifers argue that all human beings, born or not, have human rights. And with those human rights comes the right to live. Therefore abortion should be made illegal.
Here are the holes I have found in this argument:
When a mothers' unborn child is in the womb, pro-lifers claim it has human rights and the mother should not be able to terminate the pregnancy. But in the instance that the unborn child is harming the life of the mother, the pregnancy is terminated. So in this case, the unborn child is then stripped of its human rights, and the mothers rights trump the unborn child's.
So which is it, pro-lifers? Does an unborn child have human rights or doesn't it?
So my question to you also is a man who holds a gun to shoot another man also has legal rights but wouldnt the cops kill the one holding the gun to save the life of the other one, even though both have legal rights of personhood?
If someone is irresponsible enough to avoid having the baby, they are not responsible enough to have the baby. If there is choice, then there is chance to ruin only one life. But if a baby is raised by people not ready, or incapable of raising a baby, then that would ruin two lives. The babies and the mothers at least. Maybe three, including the father.
I admit, I am very unapologetically not pro-life. I also know that most abortions are done as a form of birth control (not good). But wanting to make abortion illegal is saying that the life of a woman is not that important.
If abortion were to be made illegal we could safely say that the government has taken away our right to our own bodies. Not to mention the higher death rates that would be caused by the "back alley abortions" that were extremely prominent when abortion was outlawed.
Is the unborn child a human 'when is a cake a cake'
Rights to our own body
Double dutch
all these questions and many more must be addressed i have written a huge essay for ethics and will edit and upload later since it does give a balanced overview on this exact question :3 But answering this quickly i think the women has a right to her own body.
No one pro-life is really pro-life because if they were they wouldn't be alive. You have to eat, and everything we eat comes from something alive, that's just the way things work.
The life those hypocrites are supporting is a human's life and the question I have is why? Because they'd feel guilty to let something that's going to look like a human die? What is the importance of a human life, I mean really? There are so many of us that we have no major role on this planet, no individual anyway.
I think that once the foetus has started kicking, abortion shouldn't be allowed, but otherwise I think that it is necessary to lose an unborn life in the case of something like a teenage pregnancy or parents that are unable to provide for their child. Women have the right to control their own bodies and the government should not be telling them what to do with their gift of reproduction.
1. According to the World Health Organisation, 19-20 million abortions are performed illegally, that is to say by those without the necessary medical training. Approximately 68,000 women per year die as a result of illegal abortion, with many more injured. [1] Of this number, 97% are performed in LEDCs-- in which it remains one of the top five causes of maternal death-- in which access to safe, legal abortion is rare. A good case study would be in Turkey, in which restrictive abortion laws have led to an increased incidence of unsafe abortion over other countries with a similar level of development, particularly in rural areas. [3]. Furthermore, according to Cates (1982), the increase prevalence of legal abortion in the United States led to a decline in deaths due to illegal abortion, as well as several other benefits to women's health. [4]. It can thus be seen that keeping abortion legal will prevent deaths from illegal abortion in almost all cases.
2. A 2005 study, Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), has indicated that the possibility of fetal pain is unlikely prior to the third trimester, due to a lack of thalamocortical connections in the fetal brain; said connections are only formed after 23 weeks in the womb. [5] A study by Dr. Stuart Derbyshire confirmed that an intact cortical system was necessary for pain: such a system only appears intact at 23 weeks, and the full system of pain reception is most likely not formed until 26 weeks. [6] It is interesting to note that 26 weeks is above the minimum abortion age in the UK. [7] This suggests that many laws restricting access to abortion are not grounded in biological fact.
3. Contrary to what some politicians have said, there are many conditions which can kill or permanently maim a woman during pregnancy and which cannot be cured using current technology. [8]. An example of such a condition is an ectopic pregnancy, which affects up to 1 out of 50 pregnancies. Such pregnancies occur when the egg implants itself outside of the uterus, usually inside one of the Fallopian tubes, and are rarely if ever viable and in most cases must be aborted [9]. Another example of such a condition is severe preeclampsia, which causes high blood pressure in pregnancy and which can lead to a stroke [10]; milder forms of this condition can occur in 6% of pregnancies [8]. As we have established in point number 2, it is more moral from a scientific point of view to abort the fetus rather than to allow the mother to die. In addition to the point above, there exist many conditions which can leave a child permanently and profoundly mentally disabled, and in some cases such a situation would justify an abortion.
4. Finally, I will talk about maybe the most controversial aspects of this debate: abortion and rape. According to the NCBI, 5% of rape victims are likely to become pregnant, with rape making up about 32,000 pregnancies a year in the US; the majority of these cases occur amongst adolescents. Of these women, 50% chose to voluntarily abort. [11]. Furthermore, 44% of rape victims in the US are under 18, according to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN). [12]. Teenage pregnancy can lead to an increased risk of preeclampsia, as well as postpartum depression, and it also increases the likelihood of having a unhealthily light baby [13] As a result of this and other medical concerns, abortion should be available in cases of rape to prevent the health risks that come with it, as well as to address the attendant moral issues.
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.
