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.
If abortion is murder, then so is pulling the plug on someone who is only being kept alive through direct medical intervention.
Of course, abortion is not murder, because murder is specifically defined as the unlawful killing of one human being by another; abortion being legal, killing it is, murder it isn't.
Pulling the plug is murder. It may not be cold-hearted but your still killing another human being that is alive. Not all things that are legal are right
You're right that not all things that are legal are right, but murder is a legal term. Neither pulling the plug nor abortion fall under it. Remember, murder is defined as unlawful killing. By (incorrectly!) using that term you disparage those who have had or even just support abortion, as well as those who have had to pull the plug on someone or have even had hypothetical thoughts to that effect. You may have no problem with this personally, but it hurts your cause to use terms like that, just as much as it hurts the cause of animal rights when they accuse meat eaters and those who use products made of leather or fur of murder. It's factually incorrect, and it's not going to sway anybody on the fence- in fact, it's more likely to push them to the other side.
Unlawful does not just apply to laws but it also applies to the rules that society has set. Which in this case as a part of society I deem abortion as murder. As society we can change laws by the rules we have set which is what I plan to do.
There is not a straight answer when it comes to this which is why it makes it hard. What I do know is in both situations you have a human that should be given the chance to live.
I think this whole thread of analysis is splitting hairs, but I feel obliged to point out that if your standard is social acceptability the standard for assessing that is generally popular majority... not any individuals voice. If you want to claim that abortion is murder on that basis then you must show that society at large actually does consider it as such.
"The survey [...] is the latest in a series of such surveys commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic fraternal organization, and conducted by Marist Institute for Public Opinion."
Furthermore, the question on abortion was part of a larger survey. The surrounding material could have affected responses. Information on how the survey was distributed is also unavailable. The demographics of the respondents is also inadequate (all we know are the age brackets... nothing on race, income, geographic location, etc.). There are so many reasons this research might not actually support the claim it is being used to support.
Also, I did manage to track down some more info on it after a fair amount of digging.
What has been published of the original research also neglects to include this information and the Marist Institute does not even include the data on abortion in their report online. However, based upon what is available there are clear problems with the presentation of questions biasing responses (i.e. giving a choice between "Government should regulate business and the economy more" and "More government regulation will hurt business and the economy" is not asking two sides of the same issue... the appropriate phrasing would be something like "government should regulate more" and "government should regulate less"; that is question phrasing basics).
Good argument. I would not because the mom and the child both did not have an intention of killing the baby (itself). It's just something that happened where their bodies didn't cooperate with each other.
Ya know... I'm not religious, but abortion just seems wrong to me. The only time I find it acceptable is when the patient is pregnant as a result of being raped.
I know what you mean. I don't think a very large percentage of the pro-choice crowd advocates using abortion as a more hardcore form of Plan B.
But I can definitely support abortion in the case of a pregnancy from rape. The trauma that rape victims have to deal with is bad enough without being tied to a constant living breathing reminder of the ordeal for the better part of 2 decades (or longer). And from a biological standpoint, do we really want the genetic material of a rapist to 'succeed?' Which isn't to say that tendency to rape is or isn't genetic, mind you...
I don't think there is a need for abortion in the case of rape. Surely if seek medical attention the day after you are raped, less drastic measures can be taken.
The only instance I believe abortion is OK is mabey possible trauma to the mother only in a rape case. Why should a fetus be killed because I guy was horny and couldn't control himself. If the girl will be possibly injured I can understand but otherwise....
I'll use an analogy to make my point. I don't know the exact wordage but I know the basic concept. In law enforcement they have different values of innocence, more innocence, the more its important for those people to not get hurt.
1. (most innocent)-outside people around the event, not involved with it
2. people who the event is wronging, don't know how to better word that in general terms, and are involved in the event
3. those that are committing the crime.
In my eyes, here's the levels of innocence in this case:
1. The child
2. The mother
3. The father (duh)
The child is a result of an act by the mother and father. Forced or consenting and as cruel as it sound (sorry all women who have been in this situation), the mother was part of the event. The child is outside of the event.
Ending the potential child's life is like law enforcement allowing a outsider not involved in the event to be killed. More accurately in my eyes, it's like killing a child because the kidnapper holding the mother said so, it makes no sense.
But that's my rant(maybe their was logic, idk) for today.
I can see where you're coming from... but I still think that in the case of a rape... the mother should have the choice of whether she wants to have an abortion or not.
Imagine that one night she goes out, gets kidnapped, tortured and then raped. That would haunt her for the rest of her life, but if she were pregnant with that man's child... she'd have a constant living reminder of her kidnapper. The child may grow up with a mom who can't look at him/her and a rapist for a father. Now, the mother could obviously put the child up for adoption... but she would still have to be pregnant with the child for nine months... a pregnancy that she never wanted, from a man that did horrible things to her. She shouldn't have to go through nine months of pregnancy after having been raped and abused.
I realize the child had nothing to do with it, but the child wouldn't exist if it never happened. The child isn't outside the event. The child is the result of the event.
Well... I suppose based on my given reasoning that would be a compelling case for abortion. Personally, I never think abortion should be an option, but I suppose I see the rationale in that scenario. Although I feel like the percentage of abortions that occur due to that exact sequence of events is extremely small.
I alone have the right to decide what I do to my body. If I want to poison myself, that's my own business. I also have the right to not have my life taken away from me.
These beliefs are at odds with abortion. The best resolution I've come up with so far is to fall back on this thought: the right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins. This seems very reasonable to me. So in my mind this means that a women's right to control her own body ends when it impacts the life of her unborn child. I am not at ease with this conclusion at all - even before someone throws the case of rape in my face. However, it's the best I can come up with.
Then there's the problem of agreeing upon when life begins. The development of a fetus is far from my field of expertise. However, I have not heard an argument that convinces me it begins at conception. So based on this I could have responded as pro-choice.
You'll probably get one yet. I'm pro-choice myself so it won't come from me, but they're lurking out there and one of them is bound to bait your responses :)
May I ask for elaboration as to why one should have right over someone else's life? Not trying to start anything here, but I am just curious as to why you believe what you do.
Mainly because I think that the child isn't even properly alive in the womb until the brain starts to work, since its the main part of the body to keep us alive. People should have the choice of starting the life before its life cycle properly begins. I'm not sure if that answered your question, I'm not very good at explaining.
Don't worry yourself, Vermink, I love your response. I was just curious as to what motivates you to believe what you believe. You answered my question. :)
the idea: life shouldn't be our metric - we kill animals, plants, bacteria et cetera all the time for our convenience or for food, so its a bit arbitrary to say that human life is any different.
You can however say that it would be cruel to nip a human consciousness in the bud, so many prefer pro-life after the nervous system has sufficiently developed that we can't be sure they aren't conscious anymore.
Yes I agree, no one actually knows where life begins right now and is a very debated subject through religions and just non-religious people. This is just where I think it begins where as some religions will think that life starts at the moment of conception.
so its a bit arbitrary to say that human life is any different.
I agree with most of your argument except for this portion of it. I can say human life is very different. Simply through the power we exert on other species and the dominance we have shown through out our natural selection makes us different. Our mentality is vastly different. Our race is considered to be supreme and thus some may say we have power over over species, but simply dominating life that hasn't gotten the fair chance of life can be seen as cruel or unnatural to some people.
Actually it isn't a baby's brain will properly work from week 10 as that is when the brain starts to fully develop, so most abortions will happen before this.
Let me put it this way: by definition, you cannot experience non-existence. However, if you do exist, you can experience the suffering of trying to cope with that fact :P
Non-existence is a neutral state, not good or bad. Suffering is... Well actually there's another debate going on right now about whether it's definitively bad or not
Yes in some cases it can, from the way you've worded your argument it sounds like you're completely ok with a child being born into poverty, forgive me if I'm wrong, but a life where nearly everyday they'll be hungry, thirsty and possibly eventually catch some horrible fatal illness is not a life I would want to bring a child into.
It's really hard for me to decide, because part of me thinks that sex is almost an agreement to the risks (unless it's rape), but in the end, I believe it's the mother's choice.
Pro-choice only up until the fetus has developed enough to feel pain and/or emotion. After that point I am pro-life unless the mother's life is at risk.
It comes down to the question, why is it wrong to terminate the life of something? I believe it's wrong to terminate someones life because you cause them and their loved ones pain and emotional distress. A fetus whose brain hasn't developed enough can't feel either of those things. There's a little more detail to it, but that's the core of the logic.
OK, makes sense, I don't agree with it, but it makes sense. I'll copy and paste an argument I used that will clarify my views that we can argue about if you wish.
So you value the mother's life over the child's?
I'll use an analogy to make my point. I don't know the exact wordage but I know the basic concept. In law enforcement they have different values of innocence, more innocence, the more its important for those people to not get hurt.
1. (most innocent)-outside people around the event, not involved with it
2. people who the event is wronging, don't know how to better word that in general terms, and are involved in the event
3. those that are committing the crime.
In my eyes, here's the levels of innocence in this case:
1. The child
2. The mother
3. The father (duh)
The child is a result of an act by the mother and father. Forced or consenting and as cruel as it sound (sorry all women who have been in this situation), the mother was part of the event. The child is outside of the event.
Ending the potential child's life is like law enforcement allowing a outsider not involved in the event to be killed. More accurately in my eyes, it's like killing a child because the kidnapper holding the mother said so, it makes no sense.
But that's my rant(maybe their was logic, idk) for today.
I agree with your logic as far as innocence is concerned. The only thing I think your argument fails to address is why terminating a life is wrong, and I think that's the core question of the abortion debate. As I stated previously, I think terminating a life is wrong because it causes pain and/or emotional distress to the victim and their loved ones, and since an undeveloped fetus is incapable of feeling pain or emotional distress or even forming a thought, I don't see anything wrong with terminating it's life. Why do you think terminating a life is wrong?
Well I mean, they're technically alive by the definition of life since the time that their mother was born, at least as an egg... They proccessed energy and performed all the basic things that most other cells do except replication, but they do have that capability. Birth is just a somewhat arbitrary milestone along the way, and perhaps not the best metric.
And besides we humans kill living things all the time, so why is it different with an infant? - because they are conscious/sentient/self-aware. Consciousness is more morally relevant to the matter than alive or dead.
Liver enzymes are not alive, they are proteins, not cells like gametes. They cannot self-replicate unless they de-nature into a prion, which they do not do when functioning properly. They are produced by ribosomes.
As mentioned, life is not the optimal metric to use, consciousness is
So is a chimera two or more people in one body if life begins at conception? If life/pregnancy begins at conception is the petri dish pregnant in the case of in vitro fertilization? If conception is so important, why did Jesus say to be born again, and not conceived again? If the soul is present at conception, does that mean that the soul divides in two at twinning?
I guess you are a Jew then and are OK with it for religious reasons? The Jews (personally I'm a Christian) believe that life begins at birth, obviously, this is when the soul is supposed to enter the body. However, the Jews also believe that the fetus, or child in the womb, is "under construction" by God. Why would you want to intervene with what God is making?
Do you believe that there are exceptions? Adultery was an exception in the Bible.
Numbers 5:19-24
"Then the priest will make her swear a solemn pledge, saying to the woman, “If no man has slept with you and if you haven’t had an affair, becoming defiled while married to your husband, then be immune from the water of bitterness that brings these curses. 20 But if you have had an affair while married to your husband, if you have defiled yourself, and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you”— 21 then the priest must make the woman utter the curse and say to the woman, “May the Lord make you a curse and a harmful pledge among your people, when the Lord induces a miscarriage and your womb discharges. 22 And may the water that brings these curses enter your stomach and make your womb discharge and make you miscarry.”
And the woman will say, “I agree, I agree.”
23 The priest will write these curses in the scroll and wipe them off into the water of bitterness. 24 Then he will make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse."
This passage is not speaking about pregnancy at all. The above version is the NIV. Every other version that I've seen mentions thigh rather than a miscarriage. This is merely a translation issue because the version was written purely to appeal to evangelicals, and although accuracy was a goal, it was not top priority and their are numerous translation mishaps.
It was affecting her leg and stomach, it said nothing about her baby. I mean it could. However one of the main contexts of the passage is God is in control of the judgement. If he doesn't want the baby to be injured, then it wouldn't.
I am spiritual, not religious. God is my religion, and I actually pay attention to the Bible unlike many Jews, and Christians, and if the fetus is not a person, abortion is okay.
Gen.2:7- this is the first human being, humans are now conceived, not made from dust
John 3:3- really? This is a metaphor for salvation
Ezekiel 37:5- alike to Gen 2:7. God formed an inanimate object and made it living. Conception is a living organism making more living organism, different concept. Pslams 139 is how organism to organism creations are made, with the breath of life already being in them, being passed on SINCE CONCEPTION.
Jesus considered spiritual birth to be the beginning of spiritual life, so it is reasonable to believe that He considered physical birth to be the beginning of physical life in John 3:3. In Genesis 2:7, Adam's life began when he breathed through his nose, so our life begins when we breath through our nose which cannot happen before birth.
In Genesis 2:7, Adam's life began when he breathed through his nose, so our life begins when we breath through our nose which cannot happen before birth.
God breathed into Adam's nostrils, Adam didn't breath first, which is different than birth today.
This does not to dispute the fact that God holds every life (born or unborn) as precious since he has counted our days before we were born, as is said in Psalms 139.
I 100% disagree. Here is why: Jesus considered spiritual birth to be the beginning of spiritual life, so it is reasonable to believe that He considered physical birth to be the beginning of physical life in John 3:3. In Genesis 2:7, Adam's life began when he breathed through his nose, so our life begins when we breath through our nose which cannot happen before birth. Also, even if the fetus did have rights, the woman's right would come first, especially if the pregnancy produced a risk of trauma to the woman. Women should not have to work as incubators for the state.
Exodus 21:22- If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.
Exodus 21:22 is the first fetal homicide law and concerns the child harmed during a separate assault. Pro-abortion theologians wrongly interpret this passage to refer to miscarriage, and only if the woman also dies is the penalty then life for life. But the passage distinguishes between the baby who survives the assault and the baby who dies. The meaning turns on whether the woman has a miscarriage or gives birth prematurely. And the Hebrew verb used is NOT that for miscarriage. Therefore the passage imposes only a fine on the criminal who accidentally causes a premature birth, but the punishment is life for life if the baby then dies. This shows that However, if the harm to the unborn in Exodus 21:22 spoke only of miscarriage, the teaching would then support legalized abortion by valuing the life of a fetus only with a fine, and only if the mother later died, would her death require taking the criminal's life. But note the word used to describe the consequence of the crime described in Exodus 21:22, "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely," the Hebrew word for miscarriage, shaw-kole, is NOT used. If the baby came out dead, a monetary fine would indicate a less than human value for the life of the fetus. However, because Exodus 21:22 says premature birth, and not miscarriage, the passage does not support a right to kill an unborn child, as contended by many who mistranslate this text. Rather, the text values the unborn child's life equal to that of any other person.God equated the life of the unborn with that of the born, and abortion with murder.
I wasn't slut shaming, I said two things. You missed the part about me saying a guy got horny, only the guy, aka rape. However, the rights of the mother are being put over the price of the child if abortion is allowed.
Is it completely about a guy being horny? No. I do not believe in women "bring it on themselves" by "dressing indecently". However you are mislead if you believe a man's sex drive has absolutely no part in rape. I'll rephrase it then. It's either a couple getting horny (usually teenagers), a couple not realizing the effects of birth on the mother, a power control freak, a guy who thinks with his dick, or a power hungry guy who thinks with his dick. In all cases, the rights of the mother is put over an innocent potential life, in which the women is consciously deciding to end. I realize in all cases their are factors that make a women want an abortion and some are very legitamite, however that does not mean she has to is end a life. The women is caught between a rock and a hard place. Both choices are hard. But that doesn't mean ending a life is the right one.
I am not pro-life or pro-choice, really, but rather support legalized abortion. Substantial research indicates that even when abortions are illegal women will still seek them out. You do not drastically reduce the number of abortions, but you do considerably increase the likelihood of harm or death to the mother. It is far more efficient and less ethically complicated to address the causes of unwanted pregnancy: poverty, poor sex education, rape, and so forth. Of course, that would actually take a concerted effort and no one really wants to look the issue in the eye for what it really is: a symptom of larger social issues.
During the time abortion is legal, the embryo can not be considered an actual of its own, therefore there's no reason not to grant the woman full right to a choice - it is inside her, and feeds from her body. It's her choice.
I am pro-choice. I believe that (up to a certain point in development of the foetus) the woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. Obviously there are exceptions, for example if the woman had unsafe sex knowing full well that there was a high chance of her getting pregnant but not doing anything about it. In this case, it is entirely her fault and she should have been more responsible. But for women who got pregnant by accident e.g. the condom broke or she was raped etc. then i strongly believe that she has the right, as it is her body after all, to end the pregnancy. If she does not feel ready for a baby and feels she wouldn't be able to look after it or if it would have a negative impact on her own life (for example, she was still at school and it would affect her school work) then she has every right to have an abortion.
And for the people who say even if she was raped, she should still have the baby and give it up for adoption: are you stupid or something? I think you are missing the fact that a baby doesn't just pop out. The woman has to bear this baby for 9 months and then shove it out of her small vagina which is agonizing pain and she may well be in hospital for a while. Think how this could affect a 16 year old girl. What about it she was still at school? Surely she would get bullied or picked on. What if she had a really active job that required moving around a lot. That would be hard if she was heavily pregnant and having time off her job would affect the amount of money she earned which she would need for a good quality of life.
I believe that if abortion were to be banned, then for the man who got the woman pregnant, it should be illegal for him to leave her during or just after the pregnancy. Because if a woman can't back out of a pregnancy, a man should not be able to either.
And for all you pro-lifers saying 'I'm thinking about the life of the child.' Yeah, well so am I. I'm thinking about the life if the child who got raped and is heavily pregnant and has been disowned by her parents and is also suffering abuse from her peers. That girl is alive, she is a human being and I'm sorry if this offends but I believe that her life is more important than the life of something that hasn't even been born yet or developed yet. Her life is more important that the life of something that is not even alive yet.
Also, the argument, 'Think about what that child that was aborted could of achieved. It could be the person who finds a cure for cancer.' Well yeah sure it could be but that't not likely if it was born to someone who is struggling with money difficulties etc. and does't even have the money to get their child a decent education but that wasn't allowed to abort the child. There is also the possibility that it turns into narrow minded pro-lifer who doesn't think about the rights that a woman should have to her own body.
Overall, i think the solution is not to ban abortion but you don't agree with it, then don't get one. Simple as that. Let others live their life how they choose.
I agree. If abortion is illegal, than what happens to the young teenage girls who are raped? Many would die during childbirth. Furthermore, if a couple divorced after the wife was pregnant, she may not want to have the child anymore.
Does a woman have the right to an abortion under the U.S. Constitution? If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose.
If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America.