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.
Pretty much all the way through. The only thing is that if you're 2 months from delivering and deciding to abort it there and then, you probably are either very stupid or something very severe has happened to you that you need mental treatment for.
I have no problem with the first half of your definition for murder and can easily see how that applies to roughly 99% of the abortions done in the US. How do you now define whether an abortion is "justified" or not? Are you relying on societal laws for determining what is justified?
I'm a vegetarian, so I don't even like the killing of animals. But it happens, and we can't do anything about it. The animals have actually lived and experienced life, and many animals grieve deaths of family members, experience deep emotions, and are more empathetic than humans. Unborn babies on the other hand, have never even been alive. They haven't experienced life at all, in fact they are not even conscious. And if no one will even love them after they are born, isn't it better if they are not given life? We have the power to create humans whenever we want. Anyone could say "oh, but imagine if you were aborted?". Yeah, there was the potential of that. But there is also the potential of anyone being born at any given point, and if the parents decide not to have a baby then, maybe someone else wouldn't have been born.
Killing is bad because it affects people. Living people have worldly attachments, like families and friends. If they die, then people will be depressed for quite possibly a long period of time. It isn't fair for an innocent person's life to be ended. But if the "innocent person" isn't even born yet, and hasn't experienced anything, why is it wrong to stop it from existing? We could make another person at any time we choose to replace it, because it has no emotional impact on anyone, including itself.
Please reply, don't be scared. I will dispute with you as a friend.
Your argument could easily be reused to support the killing of comatose patients or even the severely mentally handicapped.
Your point about unborn babies not being alive is just bizarre. What do you think they are then, dead? There's no middle ground here, they're either alive or they're not. Maybe you'd like to go down the road that they're not yet sentient as many in your camp like to suggest. In that case, what magical transformation occurs within the birth canal that bestows sentience?
Memories. They begin to create memories. Then they begin to have memories. And those memories create love and attachment.
That's why my argument can't be used to support the killing of comatose patients or even the severely mentally handicapped. People care about them, even if they can't experience life for themselves. Even if there is only an infinitesimally small chance of them being cured, their friends will still have hope.
Unborn babies are living things. So are plants. So are whales.
People are like whales; they grieve the death of their family members.
Unborn babies are like plants. They have no experiences, no memories, and they haven't really lived at all.
This is what you said: "Unborn babies on the other hand, have never even been alive." Now you're saying that they are living things, but somehow lessened in value - like a plant or a whale. But that's silly, because plants and whales aren't human - so it's an apples to oranges comparison that you're making.
Memories? That's your definition of a life that has value? And, evidently, not even the memories of the lives in question, but rather the memories of outside lives - external to the theoretical life we're talking about. Your distinction here is 100% arbitrary. You've decided to label a life, that someone else has memories of, as being valuable. But by what authority do you do this?
"People are like whales"
"Unborn babies are like plants"
Haha... this is hilarious! :) So you are one of those who believe in a magical transformation within the birth canal! I mean this in all honesty: what occurs at birth, that takes that human "plant" and transforms it into a human "whale"? Is it simply the accumulation of experiences and memories? How many experiences and memories does new born baby really have though? So then perhaps you'd be in favor - as some are unfortunately - of post birth abortions (say up to 6 months old)?
Because I believe morality comes from God and murder is wrong (not killing, but murder). Killing can be justified, in self-defense or in times of war, but abortion is the intentional murder of a defenseless child, for the sole purpose of convenience (over 90% of the time according to the Guttmacher Institute). In the very rare case that the mother's life is in jeopardy, then that wouldn't be murder - that would be justified. But that occurs less than 1% of the time and was always legal (long before Roe vs. Wade).
Killing an animal is not murder since God didn't command us not to murder animals. In other words, my morality comes from God. It's the only source of objective morality. Anything less is subjective and cannot be defended.
Yes, ultimately you could say the buck stops with God, so He would be responsible (i.e. His will etc.).
Have at it, but start by defining "non-realist morality" for me, because as I told you earlier, I see only the objective morality of God - I see all others as subjective and relative.
I suppose we should first start by defining "morality", be it objective or subjective.
I'd say the definition that comes up from google is sufficient: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
But that's the thing: "Objective" is not in any definition of morality. You can believe that morality is objective, that is fine, but to try to push that into the definition defeats the entire purpose of this conversation.
It's either objective or subjective, there's not a third option. If you don't have objective right and wrong, then it can only be someone's subjective opinion - in which case whose? Yours?
There are different levels of subjectivity when it comes to morality.
In my opinion, morality is the concept of right and wrong based on the perception of a given individual, based on how one is raised (including things like education, parental opinions, religion, where they are raised etc) as well as life experiences. These together combine to form an ethic for each individual.
I believe that these ethics can and should be compared and argued against each other to determine their validity and to find out which should be implemented on a societal level.
Abortion is fine if the parents decide to terminate the pregnancy within the law and the procedure is carried out by medical professionals. No other criteria is necessary. The big nosed low lives who can't help but meddle in the private and personal affairs of others should find something else to occupy their sad lives.
The act of abortion depends on the scenario. For example if someone has sex in which both genders agree on it and somehow it wasn't protected then abortion shouldn't be a choice because it was your mistake. On the other hand if this was a situation where the victim was raped or etc. and did not agree to the sexual act then abortion should completely be up to the victim. It's only justice if you ask me.