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.
There is only one question when it comes to abortion, what is it? If it is a human being then it requires a very high level of justification to take it's life. I have simply seen no argument that comes close to proper justification for the taking the life of a innocent human being. The only arguments I have seen are those that try to take away the embryo's humanity and make it less than human.
Roe vs Wade was a very poor decision by the Supreme Court because it introduce a major contradiction in the law. The unjustified taking of a human life is considered murder under current law and we have different degrees to further define it.
Consider the fact that if you kill a woman with child; you will be charged for two counts of homicide. But if a doctor kills only one of those persons; no charge.
The Supreme Court by their ruling overturned the law they were supposed to uphold. The right thing to do would be to overturn this erroneous ruling and restore our rule of law.
Brilliant. That's it. Abortion is WRONG, and I don't know why some people can't get it through their thick skulls. Hmmm if you were a baby and were going to be born and you were aborted, you probably would care.
"if you were a baby, were going to be born and were aborted, you probably would care" this statement is all about "if". In reality, the fetus has no mental capacity to care about anything. Before it could survive outside of the mother's womb, it should be entirely the mother's choice, not society's. I believe this is about 20 weeks into the pregnancy.
That's what YOU believe, but others say it's fine to abort 30, 40, 50 weeks into pregnancy. Where do you stop? In Greece, it used to be okay to murder children three days AFTER birth! Where's the line? Society has not created one and they are slipping further into a murderous society.
Also, the question is IF the baby did have mental capacity, would it care for its survival. Yes, they would. We can't ignore their inherent opinions just because they can't formulate them.
But really, this isn't about the feelings or non feelings of a fetus. If it hadn't been killed before it lived, what could it have lied to be, to do? Maybe it would've been bad, or good. But then killing it just because I can't feel yet...
I think every person on earth has enjoyed some part of their life, but now we're saying that only those who are wanted by their mother can live. When did humans start to get to pick favorites? It's disgusting! All this whining about suicide when we're committing murder under the weak protest of them not being people!
Before abortion, people still had the problem of not wanting their babies. But without anything to do about it, they dealt with it. What if it was your ancestor who'd been killed before being born? It could have been. Humans are getting so arrogant and blind. At this rate we could end up doing as much as killing living people just because of defects or whatnot. Am I the only one who's read The Giver?
I believe it shouldn't be the mother's choice to kill the baby, It was the mother's choice when she chose to open her legs and conceive the child in the first place.
I...if a cluster of unfeeling cells COULD feel, maybe you would have a point. A baby at that stage is literally just an amalgamation of cells and chemicals, so really they wouldn't care if they got aborted.
lol, yes I probably would care if I could care. I think your missing the point. Nobody wants to abort a baby for the sake of doing it. These are personal choices which are not easy. its a personal choice, thats the beauty of freedom, I can make my OWN decisions about my OWN body.
Exactly! And that gives YOU the right to kill someone whose it your mistake is alive. So you can kill someone for your stupidity. Not only that. Caus its your body! "Im sorry baby, but its my body, so im gonna kill your for my mistake, stupidity, and save me the pain. So what? Not like its life actually matters.
Exactly RogueCaptain. Exactly. Pro abortionists fail to take responsibility for their actions. Not only is a woman responsible if she gets herself pregnant, the man who is with her in a relationship is also responsible.
And yet you are on the side that says "It should not be banned". You're a hypocrite of your own disgusting words. Have fun in Black Gate Penitentiary. I heard they don't give paroles to baby serial killers.
"I have simply seen no argument that comes close to proper justification for the taking the life of a innocent human being."
So a thirteen year old girl gets raped, and you're saying that the govenrment have the right to force that girl to keep her unwanted baby? I would imagine the girl would never really bond with her baby, and the child would have to grow up knowing of its conception and live with the knowledge that it was not wanted. Surely that is justification enough? That is not a life anyone would want, and surely aborting that baby in its early stages of development would be the better thing to do.
Also, think of the number of children that would end up in care if abortion was banned. There are enough of them already, the banning of abortion would most definately increase this number, and the more children in care, the lower the quality would become. Where would they get the money to look after so many children? Our taxes? It would get rediculous, and there would be a lot of children out there wishing they had never been born.
I do realise that there are problems with abortion, for example, the amount of people who have unsafe sex because they know they can either take the morning after pill or have an abortion is rediculous. But, I'd like to know that if the contraception i was using didn't work and I fell pregnant through no fault of my own, I would be very happy that I have the option to have an abortion.
Also, when do you begin to class a fetus as a human? I personally would not think of it as a human untill about 12 weeks. It doesnt even enter the fetal stage untill the 11th week, surely abortion before this stage is not inhumane?
If there was a contraception out there that was 100% effective, then this would be a more valid arguement. I'm young, and have dreams and aspirations that I could never fulfill if I became pregnant. If contraception can't garrentee that i won't get pregnant, I definately want the choice to have an abortion if i needed one.
You're view seems to be very black and white, and you seem to dismiss the huge grey area that exists. Abortion exists for a reason and should not be banned
What you are arguing for is the view known in German as; Lebensunwertes Leben or The Life Unworthy of Life. This was the philosophy that drove the Holocaust of Nazi Germany and the one currently underway here in America. To learn more about this follow this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life
Why do I say this? Because you take a class of humans and then give reasons ( very poor ones) of why they should not be allowed to live.
In Nazi Germany they said; This human should not live because of X. And you say that this human should not live because of X. There is a direct correlation here and I hope you see it. When you get a chance also pick up the book From Darwin to Hitler by Dr. Richard Weikart
Now to your question of when do you begin to class a fetus as a human?
At the moment of conception. Because at that point you now have a complete and distinct human DNA in the cell. There is no way around this; humans produce humans and dogs produce dogs.
About a contraception that is 100% effective every time. It's known as abstinence. Practice it faithfully and you will never get pregnant or an STD. Fail to practice it and pay the price with your life and possibly that of your child's.
And if you do have an unwanted pregnancy, Please consider adoption. Did you know that 1 out of every 6 couples are infertile. Do the math, that's a lot of couples who want to have children and can't. And I'm one of them. It cost me 14,000 dollars to have my daughter and it tears me up inside to know that some parents just discard their children like trash. There are thousands of us out here who are screaming; please don't kill it, we'll take it. You'd also be surprised to know the high number of Americans who adopt from over seas; and why do they? There aren't enough children to be adopted here because of abortion.
You noted well that I see this issue as black and white. It's called moral clarity. When looking at evil I call it as it is; evil.
Final thought: Were you ever a fetus? Because if you were, Then you have to acknowledge that if your mother would have had an abortion it would have ended your life, not something else, but your life. Think about that and look at it real hard because that's what abortion does; it ends the life of a human being in the early stages of development.
And if you were born after 1972, I challenge you to consider yourself a Survivor of the Abortion Holocaust. 1/3 of your generation has been killed by abortion in America!
It's not "life unworthy of life", it's actually "POTENTIAL life!"
Until the fetus can actually survive outside of the womb, it's a living organ like any other organ inside the woman's body. Once it reaches the stage of about 20 weeks when it should stand a slight chance of survival and maturing into a person, then it should be made illegal. But before that time, it only has the POTENTIAL, nothing more. A potential is just that.
it's a living organ like any other organ inside the woman's body.
Then why does it have it's own unique DNA? And what's the point of the fetal sack? Why all the complex systems to isolate the fetus from the mothers body? No serious doctor holds this position; the data doesn't remotely support it.
Once it reaches the stage
I did have it right when I said your view decides when a life is worthy of life and when a life is unworthy of life. You just said it right there. And here is a list of all the words you use in making this distinction; Until, Once, then, before.
And about this notion of "potential life!" by all the standard definitions of life, it's alive and has been throughout, potentiality is a farce.
And finally were do you get this arbitrary standard of survival and person hood? You see I don't discriminate; If it's human, and it is, then it deserves our full protection. The most dangerous place in America shouldn't be the womb.
Having its own DNA and all the systems that isolate it from the mother's body does not change the fact that it's completely a part of the mother. It will not amount to anything if it's detached from her.
.
I did have it right when I said your view decides when a life is worthy of life and when a life is unworthy of life.
You can think what you like, but at 20 weeks' gestation a fetus is still a person. The fact that society may be able to save it without its mother does not automatically make it a person. It's still so very far from actually entering personhood.
.
And about this notion of "potential life!" by all the standard definitions of life, it's alive and has been throughout, potentiality is a farce
I don't know where you get your definition, but until it has a fully functional, self-sustaining biological system and is not attached to another life via the umbilical cord, I'm going to regard it as potential.
.
And finally were do you get this arbitrary standard of survival and person hood
It's not arbitrary, it's fact. Me and a lot of other people hold this view. We make the laws to help us with our lives. At the moment, we don't actually need to ban abortion cos doing that doesn't actually help, and your argument that abortion equals murder is complete crap.
It will not amount to anything if it's detached from her.
That's called discrimination based on level of dependency. It would seem to be the more compassionate thing to protect humans who are more dependent on others for their existence. You protect the weak, not exploit or kill them.
It's still so very far from actually entering personhood.
I'm talking about human life, not personhood. Equivocating on terms is an attempt to ignore the obvious; were talking about human life.
I don't know where you get your definition
Oh I don't know, I just went to dictionary.com and got this definition and it doesn't discriminate on the basis of level of dependency like you do. What you call "potential" it calls life. In fact it makes no such distinction. Something is either alive or not. Also, I couldn't find a definition for potential life, only an article referring to it as a "a clever rhetorical trick" And since the parents of this life are human It's safe to say it's human. That ought to be obvious to any casual observer. Here is the standard definition of life;
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
we don't actually need to ban abortion cos doing that doesn't actually help
Banning abortion wouldn't stop the killing of over 1500 humans a day? I hope your kidding because of course it would. That's why we ban things, to stop them. And yes, that would most certainly help all those innocent humans.
your argument that abortion equals murder is complete crap.
Well, let's see. Something that was, by the standard definition of life, alive is now not alive, by the standard definition of life. So if something was alive we refer to it as dead. And that death came by willful intent, not an accident. In a court of law that's referred to as premeditated homicide. But since you can discriminate on the basis of level of dependency or level of development I guess that makes it OK, right ? I don't think so. Call it what you will but a duck by any other name is still a duck.
That's called discrimination based on level of dependency
No, it's called discrimination based on level of development. Before it reaches a certain stage in development, it'd still only be a potential and it shouldn't have any rights whatsoever.
.
Equivocating on terms is an attempt to ignore the obvious
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm trying to clarify things for, apparently, a stubborn fool. A human potential life before a certain stage in its development shouldn't be afforded any rights whatsoever.
.
What you call "potential" it calls life. In fact it makes no such distinction. Something is either alive or not.
You're still dishing out BS and completely ignoring my points. Look up "potential" separately, then marry the 2 definitions together and then you should read this: I agree that it's life, I'm only making a distinction that it's potential. This is the case because even though it may have all the internal systems of a human life, they're in no condition to function until a certain stage is reached in its development. That's why it's a potential life. If you're incapable of putting the meanings of 2 separate words together, we should stop any further discussions.
.
Banning abortion wouldn't stop the killing of over 1500 humans a day?
Don't quotemine my arguments for your benefit. I said we make laws to help us with our lives. Tell me how banning abortion helps with our lives. Don't deviate. You think the planet is overpopulated now? You think the Earth's resources are being stretched now? Just mandate the saving of every single pregnancies and you'll see how our lives will be affected then...
.
Call it what you will but a duck by any other name is still a duck.
Yes a duck is a duck, unless it's only a potential duck! ;)
Abstinence or any other form of contraception is preventing potential life. You're fighting your natural urge to enable conception of a life. But abstinence isn't illegal.
People often try to personalize their pro-life argument by saying "imagine if YOUR mother had aborted YOU! YOU wouldn't be here!" Well, to that I say I wouldn't have cared, I wouldn't have had the capacity to care! But people believe in reincarnation might say that I'd be somebody else! Another person! Probably still to the same mother! Who knows.... But if at the time, she really didn't want to have me, then I say it's her choice.
Correct SMCdeBater. Pro Abortionists only care about their own lives without realizing that if their parents had not brought them into this life, they wouldn't even be able to have a voice to be pro abortionist in the first place.
Putting up your unwanted child for adoption as a choice but should not be made compulsory. I actually think it's better for Americans to adopt those unfortunate children from the third world. It will give them a better chance at life in a better society.
Oh joy, the don't have sex argument ad absurdem. Sex is healthy in a commited relationship if it is consenting and women have the right to use contraception to avoid pregnancy.
So if a 13 year old is raped, you think she should be forced to have this child and face the emotional toll it will have on her, I don't think you realize that teenagers are mean they will point and stare and make the girl feelterribleabout something she has no control over,the 13 year old did not ask to be raped or to get pregnant she did not want it to happen to her let alone the fact that a 13 year old does not have the body to carry a child full term without severe stress inflicted upon her. As a man I really think you have no right to judge wethar a woman should be allowedto have an abortion or not. Also what about severly disabeled children,fetuses that will be born with nolimbs or terrible deformities and pain that will leadtoa terrible and short life you think these children should be born to live a painful life?
Your arguments are weak, strawman, subjective and toxic. You were once a fetus and if your life did not matter, you wouldn't be here dehumanizing other developing human beings. This is how self destructive you are. You come into this world thanks to your mother & father. But what then? You take advantage and prevent the lives of new babies to be born? What makes you better than new born babies?
The baby did not ask that man to rape you the baby is innocent and has nothing to do with the bastard that did that to the person..I have a friend who was raped and kept her baby and loves that baby to death. How heartless can you be to hold what their biological father did against them? How would you feel if your mother had you young the guy left her and she blamed her miserable life on you. Another thing it doesn't matter if it's one day old it's still life because if you were ten weeks pregnant and had a miscarriage you wouldn't say o well it wasn't even a baby yet you would still cry because your baby died
If anything, the son or daughter who finds out about this horrifying truth about how his or her mother was raped would stand up to his or her father and tell him that he can't be forgiven for what he has done. The son or daughter would be angry enough to say, "Did you think about her and how she would feel?" etc etc. It obviously doesn't fall onto the child; son or daughter wise. If it was the man's fault or sometimes, the woman's fault for raping the man; yes women can be rapists too; though it's rare. But none of this justifies an abortion. NONE!
If a woman was raped by a random man on the street and got pregnant, she should have the right to terminate the fetus as not only is it from someone she probably never wants to see again, but that she shouldn't have to automatically give up her current status to have a baby. What if the woman was a girl in University with a part-time job, should she have to give up her schooling and her job for someone's baby that she didn't even ask for? No, she shouldn't.
Another thing it doesn't matter if it's one day old it's still life because if you were ten weeks pregnant and had a miscarriage you wouldn't say o well it wasn't even a baby yet you would still cry because your baby died
So, because you think that your simple-minded and arrogant choices matter more than a woman's own choices, you think that the woman has no right to do what she wants with the baby? If the baby could have seriously harmed you, it wouldn't matter. If you could have died in child-birth, it wouldn't matter. If you were raped by a stranger and got pregnant, it wouldn't matter. The baby should not have the right over the woman who's developing it. It comes down to the mother or the father's choice in the end, not yours. You have no right to tell people what they should or should not do just because of your opinion.
its murder so its just wrong that's why all women regret it later on in life and the doctor may say that giving birth to this child would be life threatening but doctors aren't always right they can only know so much. If I was in college and working a part time job and i got pregnant that is my fault and I have to deal with my consequences..I have no right to punish that baby
Thats whats wrong with people they don't take responsibility for their actions.
Not all women regret having an abortion, I'm not sure where you came up with this statistic.
doctor may say that giving birth to this child would be life threatening but doctors aren't always right
So, the doctors are wrong by saying the baby could be life-threatening? There are many cases where this happens, and mothers die in child-birth on occasion, so you can't say the doctors are wrong by addressing the facts.
If I was in college and working a part time job and i got pregnant that is my fault and I have to deal with my consequences
That would be your choice now, wouldn't it? It wouldn't be someone else's choice, it would be yours.
I have no right to punish that baby
Within the first stages of pregnancy, it is not even a baby yet, it is merely what will become a baby, and not actually a baby yet. There would be no "punishing", if you can't have the baby, can't afford the baby, don't want the baby, experience unneeded stress or other consequences from the baby, or could die from having the baby, then there wouldn't be any punishing towards the fetus. It doesn't even know it's alive yet at early stages.
I said doctors aren't always right because miracles have happened before where a doctor says one thing and something else happens I didn't say their wrong all the time or this has never happened before and I'm sure there have been occasions where the doctor didn't know that the baby would be life threatening. Even if the baby would be life threatening its selfish to kill life to save your own life and thats stupid to think that just because it doesnt have arms yet or a brain it isnt a baby because if your mother had had an abortion with you you would not be here right now so all those babies that have been killed were supposed to be sitting in all those empty desks in your classroom when you were in school. Also, haven't you noticed that mothers would do anything to save the life of their child which includes taking their own life and to me their is nothing wrong with dying to save another life that's called being selfless. Also, back to the whole college thing that should be everyone's choice and people who think otherwise are selfish because that was your stupid mistake not anybody else's
What about their financial status?? What if their family will disown them if they keep the baby, but they're too attached to put them up for adoption? What if they have physical injuries from the delivery? The baby isn't the only problem here.
First of all bitch, where are you getting your information from theirs not even any statistics just theories that you pulled out of your unwashed ass. My brother's girlfriend was concepted from rape and she is the happiest girl alive she was adopted and she doesn't give a crap about how she was unwanted because guess what bitch she was wanted by her adoptive parents.
Next thing the number of children in care what do you mean adoption because they are cared for a lot and actually a lot of kids are placed into foster care nowadays so a family can pay for them guess what no taxes for you ya cheapskate. And you wanna play the tax card how about the fact that money from my pay check is going to pay for some broads healthcare for her abortion yow, that's a lot of dough out of mine and yours taxes.
And yes I'm so glad that you get that so many people are having unsafe sex but that doesn't have anything to do with the problems of abortion what about the fact that a
woman can experience
Heavy or persistent bleeding
Infection or sepsis
Damage to the cervix
Scarring of the uterine lining
Perforation of the uterus
Damage to other organs
Death
and not to mention the psychological pain the woman has after the abortion having just killed her baby.
also I have an idea on another option you can have the baby and give it up for adoption so many families that physically can't have babies would love to take care of your child. And another option is not to have sex even with a condom and the morning after pill and actually only 2% of people use that stuff and still end up with a pregnancy so the rest of the young girls had unprotected sex and got pregnant and aborted the baby.
And actually the baby starts to have a heart beat at 6 weeks which means it is more than just a fetus lady, it's alive. One question when they anounced one-cell organisms on Mars what did you do? You probably cheered that's cool life on mars, but when you get pregnant you don't scream yay life in my stomach.
Next that's good that you're young and have dreams, I do to but actually most colleges and businesses have things available for mothers, it is illegal for any place to fie you or base their decision off you because of your pregnancy so most likely if you don't get a a job it's not because of your baby bump hunny it's because you're probably the worst applicant that person has seen.
Next, there is a 100% effective contraception it's abortion but the ethics of it are not right murdering an innocent life. What's next taking the babies life when it's 9 months or maybe at 8 years old it's a parents choice to kill their child if their under 18 then next thin you know it's a persons choice if they wanna kill.
An lastly my view is not black and white I'm very indifferent on this I know it's a woman's choice, and I have not found an argument about what to do if the baby is going to kill the mother on the way out all I can say is that rarely happens nowadays with our medical technology and there's always c-section.
And yes abortion does exist for a reason to give women a way out of ending a struggle they selfishly don't want to face. Now I do know there is nothing we can do to illegalize abortion but I will continue to give the following information and warn people against it.
Now I won't blow up planned parenthood because I agree with planned parenthood, and I wont do anything extreme but if any girl ever came to me I would tell them everything I just said in a nicer way and tell them that it's their choice cause it is their choice. But you will always be murdering something when get a abortion and I hope you can live with that.
Wow such language from such a hypocrite. I will now lecture you just how wrong you are heterophobic snowflake.
Why 2SLGBTQIAMAREPedophiles is harmful to society?
It all starts out from the 60s or so when cults arose, claiming to be for free love, equality, and peace. But was it really? No. 5 years prior to these dramatic changes in society, we have a psychologist from New Zealand who claimed gender can be changed and therefore changed the definition. He said it can be "bendable". He then experimented on his little brother along with several other boys & girls. His little brother did not want to go through with the procedure but he had no say. His parents blindly agreed to the procedure without thinking what he was gonna experience. He got mutilated and John Money called him a woman. His little brother refused to admit he was a woman because he knew he was still a man. Today, we have gender deniers who claim "gender is a social construct" and claim gender can be changed. Biology says otherwise.
Evidence of the two lesbians from Brazil who murdered a young boy:
Lesbians who murdered a man to steal his inheritance. Seems more and more of God's commandments are being broken here and yes, the law is being broken too as people are being murdered:
Evidence of 4 gay men who are serial killers. Homophobia doesn't exist because we are not scared of gay people. We know who they are. We know what they've done. We know what they still do and still are; scum.
Activists today claim that they have been oppressed throughout the ages. But this is just not true because historically, there have been statistics of homosexual convicts. There you have it, the "G" of LGBTQIAMAPEDOPHILE. Yes, they are attempting to make normal people say they are pedophiles. However, it is lgbt who are the pedophiles since they want minorly attracted people aka an alias for pedophiles to be included. What does this mean? They want to be inclusive towards kiddie rapists and to call it a "valid sexual orientation".
He was originally sentenced to death in 1971, his sentence was commuted to life with the possibility of parole after the California Supreme Court invalidated the state's death penalty statute in 1972. He served his life sentence at the California State Prison, Corcoran, and died at age 83 in late 2017. There's your "B" in LGBT. Don't forget BLM too! They are included in this too! Burning, Looting & Murder! Oh yes, very "inclusive". Not to mention racist and hypocritical from all sides. They claim to be against white supremacy and yet they ARE WHITE SUPREMACISTS.
What's this? A bisexual serial killer? Well well well.
In the year 1955, there was a man named John Money. He was a psychologist of New Zealand. He decided to change the definition of gender, believing it can be rearranged physically. He was wrong but he experimented on his little brother and several other boys & girls. His little brother refused to believe he had turned into a girl and killed himself eventually because he had lost his manhood. Ask yourself, did he really want to be castrated just because he had some manhood issue down there? Apparently, his parents allowed it. They were either in fear or they were naive enough to believe John Money was right. Obviously, they had no idea. Years later, John was arrested for pedophilia. Amidst the 60s, you know which president was murdered. President John F. Kennedy. Amidst this time, there was also a growing group called the Manson Family. They were led by a so called musician named Charles Manson. He was a convict for a time, had to do time in jail for shoplifting. Within 1969 though, that's when it happened. After convincing so many teen girls and guys to have sex with him, do drugs etc etc, he decided to order them to commit murder upon the LaBianca and Tate families. Both were families of actors and actresses from Hollywood. Manson believed there was a conspiracy of a race war but he began it. He blamed the murders on black Americans. He was shown to be bisexual in the tv show "Aquarius" where he had raped a man who was a father to a daughter who he had seduced into joining his "cause". So are bisexuals susceptible to murder too? Absolutely. The other links prove gays and lesbians are also susceptible to murder. Within the Manson Family, there were bisexuals, gays and lesbians included. John Money only added in the "T" for "trans" people who still are not the opposite gender of who he or she claims he or she was born as. Ellen Page is still a woman. Bruce Jenner is still a man. It's interesting right? Since John Money lived way before the Manson Murders occurred and way before Manson became some crook and drug addicting sex cult leader.
Today, we have toxic snowflakes forcing this ideology onto innocent children in schools, kids' shows etc. They should be banned immediately because boys will be boys. Girls will be girls. Don't like it? You are truthphobic. Anyone who debates back will be silenced immediately by the truth and only the truth.
There you have the "T" in LGBT
Q for Qanon: Qanon is known as a cult. Lgbt seem to be denying they are a cult. Evidence suggests otherwise. Their indenial only adds more suspicion to the populace who knows them for who they are. It's only a matter of time before they admit it.
"Murder most Queer", a novel about a homocidal homosexual. Tsk tsk tsk. Shame on you lgbt. Shame shame shame.
I for Intersex: They claim that this is a new gender discovery and thus "gender theory" is born. But nope. Gender theory is destroyed by logical factual debaters including me, Ben Shapiro, etc.
2 is unexplained but still sus. Perhaps it stands for #metoo?
A for Asexual or Animal, yet normal humans; men, women, boys, and girls are not animals. We are not, in fact, asexual beings.
I can pretty much point out that "Lgbtaiapedos" are now accepting MAPs aka pedophiles. Yes they deny it so they can hide the truth from the public eye because pedophilia is illegal and immoral. They have already been exposed and will continue to be exposed for their immoral actions to the point where cops will arrest them on charges of child abuse. They claim that "asexual" is a human sexuality. Take biology 101 and you will find that asexuality doesn't exist amongst humans. Asexuality means being able to reproduce without a partner of the opposite gender/sex. Is gender/sex binary? Absolutely. Science dictates it. "Non binary, genderfluid etc" does not exist.
Asexuality is only within certain animals who can reproduce without having a partner since the female animal, such as a lizard, doesn't need to get it's egg fertilized by sperm from a male lizard. Or a bird for instance can hatch baby birds with unfertilized eggs. In humans, females aka biological women CANNOT have a baby unless her egg within her ovaries is fertilized by a male with his sperm. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE EXCLUSIVELY BEING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Intersex isn't a new gender either. Intersex aka the condition of being born without a penis for men or being born with both a penis and a vagina is called a birth defect. Eunuchs are males without a penis. Hermaphroditism is a condition where women apparently have a dick attached to her vagina. It is a genetic disorder connected towards chromosomal disorder as well. Normally, you have XY being the male chromosomes and XX being the female chromosomes. You cannot mess with biological features and if you do, you get distorted, messed up humans who look like trolls. Lgbt thinks they can sway people in a way to fulfill their sick fantasies. It isn't logical to self mutilate yourself nor mutilate the kids out there being indoctrinated into this stuff. "Love is love" is a lie because lgbt isn't about love, it's about lust, pride, vanity and hubris. It's about being blinded to the wrong, "calling it good".
And now for M. Yes. They deny they include pedophiles right?
Evidence suggests they have a hidden pedo flag and M stands for MAP aka a Minorly Attracted person. Yes. They want to include people who are attracted to little boys or little girls. They are indeed pedophiles. Lgbt is guilty of everything sexually immoral.
Yes I do know what it means and it's harmful to kids. MAP stands for minorly attracted person. "Lgbt" is toxic and subjective just as I had always perceived. They want to include pedophiles. Lgbt content needs to be eradicated from schools, movies, shows etc. It is inappropriate and they have always been immoral in all of their actions. They are hypocrites, snowflakes and subjective toxic retards with a mind to change gender, family structure and everything we've built from the ground up. Who are they to dictate what we can and cannot say? Biology goes against gender theory, gender cannot be changed. There is no gender spectrum. Marriage and true love is only between a man and a woman. Men are men. Women are women. Boys are boys. Girls are girls. Those are aboslute objective facts. John Money tried to change gender in 1955. He experimented on kids illegally, forced his little brother to be mutilated. HIs little brother refused to admit he's a woman and committed suicide because he lost his penis. John was arrested on charges of child abuse and pedophilia.
No matter how much you pursue a career to push your ideologies onto us while denying that you support the normalization of pedophilia, I will bash you in with full truths right now with zero mercy. You are not a transwoman nor a transman. There is no such thing. Gender cannot be changed. Biology already states it. With you retards indoctrinating trans ideology onto kids in schools, it already shows you are pedohiles and you are not good at hiding it. You are a hypocrite for pointing out that anti lgbt are the bad guys when we anti lgbt supporters are for morality and not sexual immorality.
If you continue to argue otherwise, I will debate you and destoy you with more facts. I do not care how many times you insult me. "Transphobia" doesn't exist because we are not irrationally in fear of you pedophiles. In fact, it is YOU lgbt pedophiles who are irrationally in fear of us Christians, the truth and heterosexuals. Catholics are not Christians and they are as corrupt as you are. You support BLM who murder and burn, btw they do not protect black people, you do realize that right? No? Hypocritical ignorant and snowflake. My words are absolute and God would have you all eradicated.
What's next? S for Serial Killers? M doesn't just stand for MAPs does it? Could it stand for murder? The same people who support lgbtpedos, also support abortion. I bet A is for abortionist.
2 Sociopathic Lesbians Got Bisexually Transformed Into A Minorly Attracted Person.
You are incorrect in stating, "if you kill a woman with child; you will be charged for two counts of homicide." You would only be charged with two counts of homicide if the prosecution can prove the baby could have survived outside of the womb. If a doctor were to provide an abortion after 24 weeks, he or she would also be charged with homicide (unless the baby would not have been viable or was a threat to the health of the mother).
You are a self destructive snowflake and your arguments are invalidated, chanceypants. Cry me a river and get over it. Baby lives matter. You were once a baby too, a fetus in your mother's womb. Did your mother not cherish your life? Maybe not, that's why you are so hateful towards newborns.
In the United States, The 'Unborn Victims of Violence Act' makes it a crime of murder to kill a child in the womb at any stage of their development while in the womb.
The law (for now) makes an exception to keep abortions legal but the legal premise has been established.
A child in the womb is a child (person) and their killer can be charged with murder for their killing.
A fetus is a stage of development. The genes are what determines what kind of fetus it is. So when a human being has an abortion she takes the life of a human fetus, not the fetus of a dog or cat, a human fetus. About the condom. Using a condom is what you do before fertilization to try and prevent fertilization. An abortion is what you do after fertilization has occurred to stop further growth of the product of fertilization. And when done on humans it ends the life of a human in the early stages of development. Them are the facts; abortions on humans ends the life of a human, using condoms prevents the fertilization of the human sperm and egg.
If wearing a condom only prevents the fertilization of an egg, doesn't it also stop the fetus from being made? There isn't much difference in ending it and not letting it start.
Technically speaking, fetuses are developing human beings. Science proves it 100%. Reject this truth and you are certified as a snowflake and mentally insane patient. Your arguments are already invalidated.
No, you are simply mistaken. A fetus is a stage of development in the life span of an animal. We happen to be talking about the life of a human and nothing else.
It is true. Fetuses, proven by science, are living. They are developing human beings and it takes 9 months ofc for that to be completed. Everybody was once a fetus in his or her mother's womb. To dehumanize another developing human being says alot about the individual who claims to be pro "choice" aka pro abortionist aka pro murder to be hypocritical, stupid and ignorant. Biology is beautiful. All abortionists deserve to die since they don't care about human life. Why didn't their mothers abort them right? It's simple, because their mothers cared about them only for them to grow up to ignore other new developing humans.
You assume that an unconscious collection of cells is a human being. If I scratch my arm, that should be considered murder under your logic. After all, I am killing human cells.
We cannot treat something as something else just because it has the potential to become that something else. We cannot treat a baby as a kindergartner, a kindergartner as a teenager, a teenager as an adult, or me as the President of the United States.
No, but you would treat a baby as a human, you'd treat a kindergartner as a human, a teenager as a human, and you as a human.
The only difference between a fetus and a baby is that a fetus is going through earlier stages of life/development. The difference between a baby and a kindergartner is that they're at different stages of life/development. The difference between a teenager and an adult is that they're at different stages of life/development.
Maybe you shouldn't treat a fetus as though it's a baby - but you should treat it as a human.
Yeah fetuses are developing human beings so yes, they are technically not there yet 100%, however, are on the way to being born. That's why it's wrong to allow abortion to go through. All of us were once fetuses. To dehumanize a mere fetus will be dehumanizing what that individual was once too. Pro choicers are destroying themselves by claiming fetuses don't matter but if people had said the same about them, they wouldn't be here. But they are, because their parents cared enough to cherish their lives.
The question is not who did or didn't do this or that. The question is should abortion be banned. I say it already is. We already have laws against murder; it's just that Roe vs Wade made a loop hole in the law and that ought to scare the hell out of any sane individual. Because with that ruling a whole class of people just became non persons and no longer protected under the Constitution.
Abortion is the unjustified taking of a human life in the early stages of development and that is wrong. And if it is within in your power to stop it and you don't; you are just as guilty, regardless of your political affiliation.
The view of "Abortion is the unjustified taking of a human life in the early stages of development and that is wrong" is expected of a pro-lifer looking to force his/her belief on others.
Abortion is actually not unjustified. People have very good reasons to do it. It's not a fun activity, so to arrive at the decision people would have had to consider lots of options.
Abortion is also not the taking of a human life. It's the prevention of a human life, same as having sex with a condom, using the pills, abstinence, etc...
Finally, believe what you want, but don't force it on others. I respect pro-lifers' views, they should respect my views. What I do with my body doesn't affect the quality of their lives. Don't affect the quality of mine!
Even if the senate could overturn Roe vs Wade, 55-51 in the Senate is really not much of a majority. Hell, if you look at the current Senate they have 60 members and they can't even get anything done.
The Democrats could have easily filibustered any attempt that would have been as controversial as removing abortion laws.
I agree, go back and look at the record of Congress under Bush; it's record is shameful. If Bush couldn't get appointees even voted on; How could he possible address such a controversial subject as abortion?
So what exactly did Bush want that he didn't get? I see nothing here... including that bs war in Iraq, the unconstitutional "Patriot" Act, and that 900 billion dollar tax cut that didn't do jack to help the economy.
That's not really the point though.
This is about abortion,
go ahead, try and make it illegal.
The world has been through this a dozen times, and for hundreds of years.
Illegal Abortions prevent 0 abortions from happening, and kills woman that have to go to basements and the homes of people who may or may not be doctors to get the procedure, and who often die as a result.
I would rather lose a handful of women occasionally through botched abortions than sacrifice on average 1500 children daily to save those women.
If perfection is your standard for law then you are correct, however laws were meant to restrain. And prior to Roe vs Wade the law against abortion did that quite well, perfection? No. Made it rare? most certainly. And what happened after Roe vs Wade? abortions went through the roof. Laws are meant to keep us from killing ourselves off but Roe vs Wade does the opposite. it sanctions it.
Consider Europe, within a hundred years, if not sooner, Europeans will cease to exist as a unique people group. Why? Zero Population growth. They're not reproducing and when they do, they kill it. Europe will be a Muslim nation within our lifetime, Why? They're having families.
So please tell me why we should follow the Europeans into extinction?
1. duh, the point is these woman are going to have an abortion whether it's banned or not. So either the cluster of cells is removed and the woman lives. Or the cluster of cells is removed and the woman dies. Either way, abortion being banned has never in human history stopped people from getting abortions.
2. No, it didn't make it rare, that's the point. Banning abortion doesn't stop it, it just hides it and demonizes woman, who many times are only children at the time, and who many times were raped. And you wonder why no one likes talking hardcore Christians about this kind of thing.
3. wtf? have you been reading the white supremacist newsletter again? Europe's population is doing just fine. And there's nothing wrong in and of itself if they do end up having more muslims than whatever they have now. Who cares? Why's it your business what someone else does?
And who the fuck is "we" you arrogant ass. The US does not have a "we"
we're supposed to be founded on the idea of diversity and freedom. I find this entire post incredibly offensive, and you get a rare downvote from me.
I say ONLY 1% OF ALL ABORTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES ARE BECAUSE THE PREGNANCY IS THE RESULT OF RAPE OR INCEST!!!!! I have posted this many times.
What would you say if a court ruling said that a child is not a human being until the age of 15? The murder rate of children would INCREASE. The abortion numbers INCREASED AFTER Roe v. Wade. The numbers would DECREASE SIGNIFICANTLY if abortion was illegal.
Your point on whether a child of 15 years is a human being or not is ridiculous.
We're talking about a fetus that can't survive outside the womb, we're talking about a potential life, not an actual life. A 15 year-old is a person so your "what if" is simply laughable.
I have five younger siblings. The two youngest I remember their life clearly.
I want you to look at a one day old baby, look at her fingers, toes, face, legs, watch her breathe, and watch her interact with people and tell she was not a human being in the womb.
I want you to watch a 2 year old play with her baby sister and tell me that the baby was not a human being in the womb.
I want you to look at a one day old baby, look at her fingers, toes, face, legs, watch her breathe, and watch her interact with people and tell she was not a human being in the womb.
If you can do either of these, I will be astounded about how emotionless you are. And I will pray that some day abortion is illegal.
I happy for you that you have all these great images and memories of young children playing together, etc... very touching, i hope you treasure them for ever. But you're not talking about fetuses are you? We're talking about fetuses, especially the ones before the age of 20 weeks in its development. Get back on track please!
I've seen these videos. If it's not self-aware it's not a human yet, no matter what it looks like.
You're talking about you're feelings and what you believe because you're a typical self-righteous self-involved christian completely incapable of understanding that what you think and feel is not what everyone else thinks and feels.
The laws put in place on abortion take into account what science finds to be true
not how you feel helliom or what you think some invisible daddy in the sky wants you to feel.
Abortion is illegal after the third trimester except in extreme circumstances. Before then it's not a human yet, it's the specific woman's body and not yours, and it's none of your business.
That's how it is and that's how it should be,
no matter how many of you right wing nuts highjack this site and serial downvote us sane and logical participants on the site.
"...If it's not self-aware it's not a human yet, no matter what it looks like"
Then why are we so worried about the trees? Are they are "self aware"?
Actually, human children are not self aware for some time AFTER birth. Does that mean we can dump them if we change our minds?
"...Abortion is illegal after the third trimester except in extreme circumstances"
Not exactly true. There are states, and forgive me for not remembering right off the top of my head which ones, that allow abortion "up to the moment of birth"
I will see if I can find that one.
"...no matter how many of you right wing nuts high jack this site and serial down vote us sane and logical participants on the site."
Now thats disappointing. I really thought after reading some of you responses that you were more open and intelligent than this. Isn't it cool to be tolerant anymore?
1. Who's worried about trees? It just doesn't make sense to cut all of them down without planting new ones, since then all humans would die, born or not.
2. Um, kids are self-aware, they just don't develop empathy until sometime after birth. But a new born has feelings, knows when it's hungry, etc. Therefore it's wrong to throw them in dumpsters.
3. True, and it's state to state. But even the states that do allow it up to birth, again it is only in extreme circumstances. If I'm a woman in any state and I'm due in a week, and my life is not in danger, and I'm not a child myself and I wasn't raped by my dad or something, then abortion is not an option. And I'm fine with that actually, I think it's the right law.
4. About 2 or 3 months ago I'd say 5 right wing nuts showed up here and downvoted nearly every argument I've ever made in my over a year on this site. It's why I don't show up as often.
If someone wants to disagree fine, but use facts and logic. I'm tired of having the Bible quoted at me, responses rife with logical fallacies, responses that didn't bother to read what I wrote, and those who need to announce their faith before making an argument when their faith has 0 to do with the argument.
I never downvote or insult anyone just because I disagree, I do so when they act like a moron, whether I agree with them or not.
1. The argument I was trying to make is that the Left seems to be more concerned about saving trees than they are HUMAN BEINGS. Thats another "debate" I guess.
2. OK not an argument here but I would appreciate some clarification...is it empathy or self awareness we are waiting for before we call them human? The reason I am asking is because it was my experience with my son that he almost immediately could sense his mothers emotional state and reacted in kind. He recognized both my wife's and my voice and music that he heard while in the womb.
3. I somewhat agree on this one in that if the birth risks the life of both the mother and the baby then there is no choice. I will admit I would anguish over a decision like that for the rest of my life.
As far as rape goes...while it is certainly not the fault of the mother that it happened to her it is also not the fault of the child.
4. I understand that but remember "when your enemy makes you angry ...they win" Someone really smart and famous said that but for the life of me I cant recall who.
Try not to forget that "facts" and "logic" vary according to each individuals viewpoint and at times, can be subjective both on the right and the left. They are as tired of you quoting science that they dont believe in as your are of them using a book that you dont believe in. Both groups have absolute belief in their sources.
If they are "right wing nuts" let them be....wont that just about make your argument for you? Dad always said that we catch more flies with honey than we do vinegar!
1. The left is generally anti-war, pro healthcare, pro helping starving people in Africa, etc, all of which saves lives. Since I don't consider a fetus a life, from my standpoint the right is more concerned with vague moral standards only shared by the right than saving lives, but whatever.
2. I'm talking about self-awareness, as in feelings. A fetus before the third trimester has 0 capacity to feel. They're not sad about being aborted, it doesn't hurt them, they don't have these human emotions yet. This is what I'm talking about. That an already born child likes its mom in no way invalidates this point.
3. And here is the disconnect, you are absolutely correct. But the leap so many on the right are not willing to make is that abortion is always something to anguish over. Sure, there are bitches (and I don't use that term lightly) who simply don't care. But the vast vast vast majority of abortions are performed by women who feel they simply have no choice. It is not a party. But it's their choice, something they have to live with. Not the right wing, not you personally, just her, no one else's business. The only thing making abortions illegal would change is the number of mothers who die with the child. That's all it changes no matter how pretty this anti-abortion idea that "if we just shove what we really really really feel down everyone's throat everyone will live happily ever after, amen" - that's not how it works. Woman have been having abortions one way or another, legal or illegal, since the beginning of time.
As for your point about rape. It's not the fault of the "child" only because the "child" doesn't exist. It's a cluster of cells and if she wants to abort it it's her choice, again, not yours.
4. facts and logic never vary. People are wrong about facts and logic, but in and of themselves, they are constant. It is a fact the earth is round for example. Some have the "opinion" it is not, but this is not an opinion, this is simply wrong. There is a fact at the bottom of when a fetus becomes self-aware, people who study biology for a decade before becoming a doctor believe this to be around the 3rd trimester. Whatever the answer really is, I trust the dude who studied it for a decade over people who think they speak in tongues and give their live savings to Jerry Falwell. Is the exact moment as definite as the shape of the earth? No, probably not. But it's not that big a mystery, and while a valid opinion may vary by a month or so of when this elusive self-awareness begins, it most certainly is not upon conception, or even 2 or 3 months later. It's akin at that point to saying the earth has to be flat because when I stand on my roof I can't see it curve.
Here's the difference between an argument with two different opinions, and the abortion debate.
Indulge me, I enjoy coming up with analogies.
2 people are walking through a forest. 1 wants to go left, the other right. The one who wants to go right says they both have to go right. The one who wants to go left says his friend can go right if he likes, but for himself, he thinks he should be able to choose.
That's the gist of it. It's not a matter of two sides fighting about what everyone should do. It's about one side trying to force everyone to do something they may or may not want to and the other saying since we really don't know where either leads, people should have the choice.
This is ridiculous. Yes I've seen all of this stuff. I even had a girlfriend who had an abortion. You're being ridiculous, just because you feel something doesn't make it true.
None of these things change what a desperate woman is willing to do to get that fetus out of her stomach.
And to me having one unaware parasite not get a chance at life is better than an unaware parasite and an aware human being both ending up in some form of dumpster.
I assumed another ultrasound video, and I've seen like 50 of them. But this is even worse, no one wants to see your sisters, and that video has 0 to do with abortion since they are already born.
He tried to fight abortion, the double homicide law was put in place when he was in office.
The problem with the Roe vs Wade ruling is that in order for it to be overturned the Supreme Court must take action because of checks and balances. So people can protest to Congress and the President all they want, but unless the courts take action it won't matter.
You are correct about the double homicide law; however the contradiction is inherent in the ruling itself. The double homicide law was only raised to illustrate this. In fact I would argue that the law (double homicide) came to be because of the contradiction.
You might be correct about overturning the ruling. It might take another case challenging this ruling and it's constitutionality.
You are correct about the double homicide law; however the contradiction is inherent in the ruling itself. The double homicide law was only raised to illustrate this. In fact I would argue that the law (double homicide) came to be because of the contradiction.
You might be correct about overturning the ruling. It might take another case challenging this ruling and it's constitutionality.
There is only one question when it comes to abortion, what is it?
There are more questions than that.. sorry
If it is a human being then it requires a very high level of justification to take it's life.
So you admit that there are some cases where it is justifiable. The next question then is who gets to decide? Should it be society at large via established government institutions or should it be a private matter left to the sovereignty of the family unit and those health care professionals they consult?
Let me clarify my position, since I misstated it. The first question that needs to be asked is " what kind of life is it?" If it is a human life then no reason for abortion is adequate. Therefore no further questions are needed.
I find it rather disturbing that we want to have sex without commitments so badly that we are willing to kill the result of that sexual union.
But isn't that just like human nature, everything is just fine until something conflicts with what we want and stands between us and what we desire. Then laws get broke, peace treaties ignored, property taken and people killed. But the most heinous crime is when we make laws to exonerate ourselves. When we call evil, good. We may be guiltless before the law but that doesn't mean we are not without real quilt. But praise be to God that He has provided a solution to the two greatest problems man faces, guilt and death. With God there is forgiveness, but not without great cost.
The first question that needs to be asked is " what kind of life is it?" If it is a human life then no reason for abortion is adequate. Therefore no further questions are needed.
That is an example of what is called jumping to conclusions. You have not established that it abortion is never justified. Even if it is agreed (which I do agree with you) that it is a human life.
Ok let me clarify,But let me say I'm not sure why you are pushing this point, but my guess is that it has something to do with authority and you want to make a point about that.
So let me modify what I said; the reasons commonly given for abortions are in adequate.
In the case that the mothers life is endangered, it should be the case that the attending physician should make every attempt and exhaust every means possible to save the life of mother and child, Abortion should never be considered as an easy out, quick fix or money saving option, But if it comes down to it, I think every mother would lay down their lives for their children, it's the most humane thing to do and the most loving; to lay down your life on behalf of someone else.
So even in this case I would still maintain that it should not be an option and I think it would be hard to give an adequate reason why the child's life should be taken and not the mothers. I think this maintains the sanctity of the child's life throughout and at this point the moral dilemma moves from the child into other areas. And the Husband and Wife should make the call, if circumstances necessitate it.
Ok, the problem with jstantall is his belief system is clouding all of his arguments.
First of all, the fetus is only a potential life and is no comparison to the actual life that is the mother.
Secondly, we don't even need an excuse to get rid of a fetus if we don't want it. It's not as if the world's population is dwindling, we actually don't need any more unwanted babies coming into this world! We've got enough of the babies that are actually wanted and we also have enough of those who aren't wanted and have become a burden on society because of their natural tendencies to commit crimes, so if you want to save actual lives and not potential lives, then make wars illegal, make climbing Mt. Everest illegal, make motor racing illegal.
DO NOT SELF PROCLAIM YOURSELF TO KNOW WHAT IS OF GOD. BE NOT DECEIVED. EVIL COMPANY BREAKS GOOD HABITS! HOW DARE YOU THINK GOD WANTS THIS FOR US. HE SO DECLARED, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL". DO YOU NOT KNOW THE WICKED SHALT NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD? FOR IDOLATERS, SEXUALLY IMMORAL, SELF LOVERS, MURDERS, LOVERS OF MONEY AND SUCH WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD!
I'd like to take the time to address several tings that have been raised in this debate and clarify my argument against abortion.
First, the affect this debate has on women who have had abortions. This reality has weighed heavily on my conscience. But I think a greater issue is at stake here and therefore the cost is worth it. The greater good that is being served here is the hope that abortion on demand might someday be ended and that the emotional trauma it causes to women will be ended also.
The holocaust of abortion will not be ended until people see and know the reality of what it is. It has been stunning to see through the course of this debate the lengths people will go to so as to sugar coat this issue and make it appear not so bad; and actually justifiable. So my effort is to make that know as best I can. But the truth is that when women, who have had abortions, come to a correct understanding of what has happened there is real pain and real quilt; and that certainly is not to be dismissed. So for those who have had abortions I say there is a way out of the pain and quilt; true forgiveness is possible. There is only one way out and that is through the great exchange; God in Christ takes your life and He gives you His. When He died, you died and the charges against you are paid in full, the debt is canceled. Then the life of perfection He lived becomes yours; it is laid to your account. So you go from an infinity negative debt to an infinity positive righteousness. And through His resurrection you are raised to newness of life.
This is only possible through repentance and faith. Confess your sins and trust God to do for you what he said He would in Christ. This faith is not a leap in the dark, like crossing your fingers. It is an active trust, like standing on solid ground; a confident expectation in the faithfulness of God.
With that said I would like to clarify my argument against abortion further and answer the question should abortion be banned. But let me preface my argument with a disclaimer. I realize there is a difference between proof and persuasion. There is no argument that I can put forth that can't be disputed. There are actually people who will argue for the reality of square circles. So I put this argument forth for those who are truly open-minded; in hopes you will be persuaded.
The taking of the life of an innocent human being without proper justification is murder and murder is illegal.
Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. therefore it is murder and should be illegal
I should further say to disprove this argument you have to falsify it's key premise and that is: abortion takes the life of an innocent human being That' why this whole debate hinges on one key question: What is it? And genetically it is human. It has it's own unique and complete chromosome which makes it distinct from it's parents and wholly different from the egg and sperm used to create it.
Since this syllogism is sound and it's premises are verifiable you will have to resort to irrationality and unscientific assertions to disprove it.
I assume (unless you refute it explicitly) you agree that there are somecases where abortion is merited or "medically necessary"
Who is the proper authority for determining medical necessity?
expected answer from you (according to the way I think you think):Government
Answer I would give: The doctor and those consulted by the pregnant woman.
Abortion is not banned. The murder of the unborn is illegal and punishable as murder. Abortion is not murder if you admit that it is ever done by medical necessity and without malicious intent.
since this argument is flawless, all who disagree are just plain old sloppy thinkers ~sarcastic snicker
OK agreed you have to establish intent. However, all abortions are premeditated, what say you?
Your assumption of my answer would be false, see my other response for the answer.
However to your point,you plain old sloppy thinker you, My qualification was: without proper justification and in this case it could be argued as proper justification.
However, the point of my syllogism was to highlight the importance of the question: what kind of life is it your objection highlights the point more becuse there would be no moral dilemma if it was a chicken.
Until at least week 20 of its development, the fetus has not been proven to be able to survive outside of the mother's womb. Since society can't keep it alive, it's the mother's choice. Plain and simple.
My point: Until the fetus can survive outside of the mother's womb, it's like any other living organ inside of her and is only a POTENTIAL life, not ACTUAL life. Potential life is any stage from an independent sperm/egg to week 20 of fetal development.
Exactly, jstantall. Jesus Christ, the Son of God was sent by our God, Heavenly Father to save us from sin. God gave us our sacred bodies. He gave us free will to choose. Ever since the fall of Adam & Eve, darkness has taken over humanity. Some would rather turn to the pleasures of the world rather than rejoice to what God has given us. Some simply want to see the world burn and do not want to be saved. Some want to murder for life because they find pleasure in it. Near the end, all knees shall bend to the coming of our Savior!! Baby lives indeed matter. You can use that one verse where Jesus says children are precious and are to be cherished because they are the most vulnerable. Pro abortionists arguing against pro lifers like us prove Jesus was right all along. God speed, friend. God speed.
During the Holocaust, approximately 11 million people were killed between 1933 till 1945. These people include Jews, homosexuals, Slavics (Russians, Poles, and others), Gypsies, mentally and physically disabled, Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christians found helping the targeted people. That was fifty years ago and today Hitler and the Nazis are known as criminals and mass murderers. But why are the doctors who perform abortions not called criminals or mass murderers? From 1973 to 2005, over 46 million abortions have been performed. This is much higher death rate than from the Holocaust. For abortion the approximate death rate is 1.4 million babies each year. The approximate death rate for the Holocaust, however, is about 917 thousand people a year. The Nazis targeted the people they did because they believed they were inferior to themselves. Women who have abortions kill their babies because they believe that they are superior to these children. To this day, Germans have collective shame because of what the Nazis did, even though they did nothing to help. In fifty years will Americans have collective shame because so many abortions were performed? Will Americans be known as mass murderers and criminals?
The subject of abortion and the Holocaust are very closely related subjects. The Jews were killed because they were unwanted and inconvenient. A child is aborted because they are unwanted and inconvenient. I want you to tell me the Holocaust was wrong and then tell me abortion is okay. You just can't do that. One can't be wrong and the other right. That is like saying rape is wrong but incest is okay.
Abortion before the fetus can actually survive outside of the mother's womb is not the same as killing Jews or mentally or physically sick people. The fetus before it can survive outside the womb is only a POTENTIAL life, which fall into the same category as an independent egg or sperm and anything else in between.
Having an abortion is just as "unethical" as swatting a fly, if not less. The fetus cannot survive on it's own, it is not a human yet. The fly can survive on it's own. Thus, I find it more "unethical" to kill a fly than have an abortion.
Religion can't be your argument, since it hinges on what people believe and some believe in choice.
When you say "women", you generalize and include all females, but some women, again, prefer a choice.
I've said it plenty of times and I'll say it again, a fetus before it can survive outside of the mother's womb is a POTENTIAL life, which is the same as an independent egg or sperm and anything else in between.
"Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. therefore it is murder and should be illegal."
And what exactly is your idea of proper justification? I meen because that varies with people, and one persons idea of it is more than likely diff from your own. And incase you havnt noticed yet many people do not believe in your faith or your God, and many people dont believe in any God at all. Your personal beliefs are your personal beliefs and though many people dont agree with them, your still entitled to have them.
Quoting god is not how you're going to win arguments. I actually respect what you believe, but I ask that you also respect what I believe. I believe that women should have the choice.
Quoting God is absolute and relevant to every conversation that includes right and wrong in it. Your argument is invalidated. If it were so that quoting our loving Heavenly Father, Creator and God is so irrelevant and how I am "not going to win arguments" then I can say the same about you, quoting yourself not being able to win arguments because the Truth ISwe were created by God in His image. That's how you are invalidated and you have lost this argument. I have won. Cry me a river, NVYN, you will be destroyed by the truth & only the truth! You are a fool to reject God and His absolute moral laws that have been set in stone ever since the beginning of time itself!
Many of the aborted fetus may have also grown up to be rapists, serial murders, terrorists, armed robbers... but since they were only potentials and not actual... then there's nothing more to add.
Your sorry excuse is to prejudice and assume that every newborn is going to become a rapist, serial killer, terrorist and armed robber? Oh ye with little faith. It is clear that you, yourself, could be a threat to the innocent people who never even grew up to be good through God and Christ. Morality is obviously neglected from yourself. Consider your argument non sensible because you clearly just want to find an excuse to justify the deaths of innocent babies.
100% i think its wrong! I am not religious, but who has the right to take a life? Isn't that the very reason Murderer's are punished?
If a person really can't have a child because they aren't ready, or any other reason, then surly it is fairer to still give that life a chance and put the baby up for adoption to a family who is desperate for a baby and can't have one for themselves?
If you take a life you should be punished. But before the fetus can survive outside of the mother's womb, it's not yet a life, it's only a POTENTIAL life, like an egg or sperm, that's all.
At what point do you consider it a life then? At 22 weeks when it has just under a 10% chance? 24 weeks with 40-70%? Is it only living when it reaches 21 weeks and 5 days (the earliest a baby's survived)? There must be a specific time/day during the pregnancy when you can say the fetus/baby is alive. Otherwise there's no safe time to point at - so you couldn't have an abortion.
It's a life at the point of conception.. All this rigamarole about WHEN a fetus becomes ALIVE is subterfuge for simply wanting to rid oneself of an inopportune event, and NOT feel guilty about it..
And here we have, snowflake ex con who has lost all arguments without providing any supporting evidence. Your arguments are invalidated 100%. The fetus is living whether you like it or not. What you say, ex-con, doesn't change biological facts that a fetus is a living human being in development.
Batman ALWAYS WINS AND SO DOES GOD ALMIGHTY!
Knocks out ex-con and puts him in Black Gate Penitentiary for the homicide of several infant babies and their mothers
“For You created my inmost being;You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in a secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be.” Psalm 139:13-16. God created you, He created me, and He has created everybody. Life is a gift. Nobody has a right to take away that gift. Life starts at conception. Mother Teresa said "What is taking place in America is a war against the child … And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another." This war against the child is abortion. If I tell a pregnant woman she can kill her baby, why can't I tell a man that it is alright to murder a three year-old. What is the difference between killing a baby nine weeks after conception and murdering a child nine weeks after birth?
During the Holocaust, approximately 11 million people were killed between 1933 till 1945. These people include Jews, homosexuals, Slavics (Russians, Poles, and others), Gypsies, mentally and physically disabled, Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christians found helping the targeted people. That was fifty years ago and today Hitler and the Nazis are known as criminals and mass murderers. But why are the doctors who perform abortions not called criminals or mass murderers? From 1973 to 2005, over 46 million abortions have been performed. This is much higher death rate than from the Holocaust. For abortion the approximate death rate is 1.4 million babies each year. The approximate death rate for the Holocaust, however, is about 917 thousand people a year. The Nazis targeted the people they did because they believed they were inferior to themselves. Women who have abortions kill their babies because they believe that they are superior to these children. To this day, Germans have collective shame because of what the Nazis did, even though they did nothing to help. In fifty years will Americans have collective shame because so many abortions were performed? Will Americans be known as mass murderers and criminals?
Dr. Richard Land, president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission,said "We lose more babies through abortion every year than the total fatalities in all of the wars in which we have ever participated, commencing with the French and Indian War and including the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, and Gulf War II.” In 2005 1.2 million abortions were performed. Even though this number is the lowest since 1974, this is still too many abortions. Every twenty seconds a child is aborted. Fifty-six percent of women who have abortions are in their twenties and sixty-one percent of women who have abortions have one or more children. According to Guttmacher Institute, the reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
Many pro-choice posters say “My Body. My Right.” Woman don't take into consideration that their decision to have an abortion affects not only their body, but the unborn babies. Jeremiah 1:5 says "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” The Lord knew you, even before conception!
Women who have abortions are only thinking about themselves. What have they forgotten? Have not considered that this baby is a living person? Three weeks after conception a baby has a heartbeat and at four and a half months she can experience pain. By nine weeks, he has begun to develop blood vessels, eyes, lungs, ears, arms, legs, mouth, nose, the color of his eyes, fingers, toes, brain, joints, teeth, spinal cord, nervous system, and facial muscles. He can also hiccup frown, squint, turn his head, touch his face, breath (without air), stretch, and yawn. He is well proportioned, about the size of a thumb, and every organ is present. Exodus 21: 22-25 says “If men who are fighting 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. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
But instead of condemning women who have made this choice, we should come to them with compassion, offering them help. After a woman has an abortion, her initial response in most cases is a feeling of relief. Then, with repression and denial, she avoids the problem, usually for years —5 years is common, 10 or 20 not unusual. Guilt, regret, remorse, shame, lowered self-esteem, dreams and nightmares, flash-backs, anniversary reactions, hostility toward men, crying, despair, and even suicide attempts are symptoms of Post-Abortion Syndrome. Many women turn to drugs and alcohol as a way of masking the pain. Anniversary reactions are an increase in symptoms around the time of the anniversary of the abortion, the due date of the aborted child, or both. We should also inform women who are considering abortion about the procedure and effects of abortion and other options such as adoption. Crisis Pregnancy Centers can be found in most metropolitan areas. Many Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Illinois metropolitan areas offer pregnancy tests, ultrasound services, adoption plans, parenting education, clothing rooms, and post-abortion help. According to Hope Pregnancy Ministries ninety percent of abortion-minded women choose life after seeing their ultrasound.
Luke 1:42-44 says “In a loud voice Elizabeth exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” When Mary enters Elizabeth's house, John, an unborn baby, leaps for joy because he is in the presence of the Christ, another unborn baby. Dr. James I. Lamb, executive director of Lutherans For Life, said “Both Mary and Elizabeth experienced an ‘unplanned’ pregnancy. Both their babies were still in their wombs. Both trusted God in seemingly impossible situations." That the Christ would become a baby shows just how sacred life is.
Quoting chunks from the bible isn't going to win you any debates. Wars have been waged on bible material for too long! It's time people stop bashing bibles!
Now the difference between a fetus and a person has been over-explained here but you pro-lifers hold on to your belief that it's the two are the same. It's fine if you believe that, but don't go around forcing that belief on others. I'm sure the bible has a passage somewhere about how you should respect your neighbours.
Women suffer as a result of abortions? Don't generalize because I personally know women who don't.
I am using my faith as a source of my belief on abortion. Give me a verse in the Bible that says abortion is okay. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that. And please capitalize the 'b' in 'Bible'.
Does the Bible say that it's ok to wage war against people of another religion? You people are the reason why there are wars. You just can't help forcing your belief on others and then quotemine the Bible to justify your actions. It's called Bible bashing. And noone likes it.
Okay. Fair enough. Just prove to me the Bible is factually accurate (to the word please). Don't cite a biased source, and especially not the Bible. It also says to stone people but that "thou shalt not kill." And unless you've never had any pork, beef, and ripped out the New Testament which disputes much of the Old, then you can't cite a source that you do not follow entirely and contradicts itself.
Don't get me wrong, I love God and Jesus, the whole nine yards. I don't think its factual, and I don't think its appropriate to cite when we are talking cold hard facts.
Okay. Fair enough. Just prove to me the Bible is factually accurate (to the word please). Don't cite a biased source, and especially not the Bible. It also says to stone people but that "thou shalt not kill." And unless you've never had any pork, beef, and ripped out the New Testament which disputes much of the Old, then you can't cite a source that you do not follow entirely and contradicts itself.
Don't get me wrong, I love God and Jesus, the whole nine yards. I don't think its factual, and I don't think its appropriate to cite when we are talking cold hard facts.
We already have. It's all around us. Right vs Wrong. Good vs Evil. Revelations is all coming true plus archeology proves biblical locations to be true proving the stories to be true events in history.
Exactly helloism. Exactly. I am in full agreement with you here. Archeology and science overall has proven that there are biblical locations where the stories have occurred. Atheists and non believers are ignorant on this. Near death experiences is another one. People have claimed they think there is no God nor Jesus yet when they experience NDR, their perspective changes and his/her faith grows back again.
I don't need to read any of these links because I personally know women who have had abortions. They don't like it (nobody likes surgery either), but it's a decision they have made after weighing all options. People don't arrive at the decision lightly. But they sure are happy it's an option. Don't push your belief on others.
Yes, because the law doesn't tell men where to stick their tally-whackers. There are laws against rape and incest, but until the law is omnipresent we need to allow people to have an option out. You don't go to a victim of theft and say "God wanted you to part with that stuff."
1. You Fail to realize you were once a fetus too and your mother and father cared about your life.
2. God created us
3. Fetuses are developing human beings, supported by science
4. Your hypocrisy is showing and it's pathetic.
5. Science goes against your strawman toxic subjective opinions. Therefore your hypocrisy has caused you to trip over your self destructive trash.
6. Abortionists have to pay to murder a baby. Who's making the profit? Not the baby defenders but the baby killers. You are guilty for the murder of a billion babies. Your life sentence is in Death Row Prison. Cope about it snowflake. The difference between looking after a child and murdering a child is, at least it is positive to look after the child and there is some joy to be found in that. While murdering a developing child will never ever EVER REST ON YOUR HUMANE CONSCIENCE. Deny it all you want but you will be certified as a holocaust denier.
Cry me a river because you are invalidated 100%.
I AM BATMAN!
Batman ALWAYS WINS. MY WORDS ARE ABSOLUTE AND ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE ONCE AGAIN INVALIDATED.
1. This is a fallacy. Your first "argument" is invalidated and senseless
2. You are indeed biased and a hypocrite. This site supports freedom of speech. Otherwise, it would be indeed be biased from the invalidated "political correctness" side.
3. Bioshock has nothing to do with this. What matters is baby lives do.
4. Science has proven pro abortionists are not helpful nor productive.
5. Got nothing to say? You've lost.
6. Abortions cost money, so who is the one profiting from this by murdering babies? Not me and certainly not pro lifers! It's you, murderer.
Cry me a river because you are invalidated 100%.
I AM BATMAN!
Batman ALWAYS WINS. MY WORDS ARE ABSOLUTE AND ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE ONCE AGAIN INVALIDATED.
Abortion should definetly be banned! Their is a lot of things to prevent pregnancies such as condoms, birth control and getting your tubes tied! If you know you are not old enough or financially stable to take care of a child then don't have sex, just use protection. Don't just look for the easy way out because of your mistake! i don't get how if you kill somebody then you get charged for murder, and spend the rest of your life in prison....when on the other hand having an abortion is murdering a baby. To me that doesnt make any sense...and some people say but what if the person got raped and ended up pregnant.....well you can give it up for adoption, i feel that women who have abortions are selfish and are only thinking about themselves. They really don't care about what the baby goes through and that is completely wrong!
The "baby" is not yet a baby. It's only a POTENTIAL life and not an ACTUAL life. So you're not killing a baby. If it can't survive outside of the womb yet, then it's not actually anyone else's choice but the mother's. Noone else can keep it alive, then they should butt out and leave it up to the mothers. If she wants to put it up for adoption, great!, If not, it's her choice since she is the one that has to keep it alive inside her.
So do I, helloim. Even my girlfriend stands with me in defending against pro abortion "rights". She told me that there is a hidden agenda behind pro choicers; It's all about killing the growing baby in the mother's womb. It was never about having a set of options.
Unborn babies are living things and when you kill them, it is the same thing as killing an adult or a child. God is the creator of life and when you kill unborn babies you are destroying his creations. In the beginning God created Adam by breathing the breath of life into his nostrils. “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.” Psalm 139:13.
Abortion is when you kill an unborn baby, and the people who do this are selfish because they don't want to spend money on the baby, confused because they don't want to be pregnant, and evil because they kill children, they also don't trust god and what he provides. If somebody did this they would be breaking the fifth commandment: You shall not murder. He or she is also breaking the first commandment : You shall have no other gods. You should help everyone stay healthy and alive.
I have four sisters and I am glad none of us have been aborted.
"it is the same as killing an adult or a child"... No, it is not. It is only a POTENTIAL life and not ACTUAL life. Before week 20, the fetus cannot survive outside of the mother's womb. It must be attached to her and be supplied with her blood. If society can't keep it alive, then society should not make laws forcing mothers to keep their unwanted pregnancies. It is physically attached to her and is a part of her and must be her choice.
Exactly and NVYN is a hypocrite for saying otherwise. He can't formulate nor find evidence to support his subjective claims. All pro abortionists can't find any supporting evidence for their claims. It's all just a sorry excuse to kill a developing human in mothers' wombs individually. Abortion will be banned and babies will be protected. That doesn't mean mothers won't be protected. Mothers & babies BOTH matter and they WILL BOTH LIVE. NVYN can't understand the point we pro lifers are making. We are saying if women don't want to have children, then DON'T HAVE SEX. WE ARE TALKING TO MEN TOO SINCE IT TAKES ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN TO HAVE CHILDREN. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING MARRIAGE SET UP. IF A MAN AND A WOMAN WANT CHILDREN, THEY WILL GET MARRIED OFTEN TIMES. IF THEY DONT WANT CHILDREN BUT WANT TO GET MARRIED REGARDLESS, IT'S FINE BECAUSE THEY LOVE EACH OTHER REGARDLESS. BUT THE ORIGINAL INTENTION OF MARRIAGE BEING INSTITUTED BY GOD HIMSELF IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING CHILDREN! IT IS A BIG RESPONSIBILITY. WE PRO LIFERS ARE JUST SAYING, "DO NOT HAVE SEX IF YOU DON'T WANT THAT RESPONSIBILITY, OTHERWISE YOU ARE STUCK WITH THE CHILDREN THAT ARE ABOUT TO BE BORN!". THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF GOD SAYING, "THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY". IF THERE IS OUT OF CONTROL SEX, THERE WILL NOT ONLY BE PREGNANCY ISSUES, THERE WILL BE AIDS, HIV, HEPATITIS, STDS AND STIS!!! SO DON'T CROSS THAT BRIDGE UNLESS YOU DESIRE CHILDREN FOR REAL! AGAIN, WE PRO LIFERS NEVER SAID "STOP ALL HETEROSEXUAL SEX", WE ARE SAYING "CONTROL YOURSELVES SO YOU WON'T WIND UP WITH A CHILD THAT YOU NEVER INTENTIONALLY WANTED, OTHERWISE YOU WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT CHILD BY NOT KILLING HIM OR HER!! OR ELSE YOU WILL BE A MURDERER!
People shouldn't be having sex? Doesn't that mean they'll be preventing babies from being born = preventing conception in the first place? What if that baby wanted to be conceived but its parents decided to use a condom and prevented it from being? How far back to the future do you want to take this "life" argument?
Here's where I draw the line: Before the fetus can digest milk via its digestive tract, it is entirely the mother's decision whether it should be aborted or not. It is PHYSICALLY a part of her and is not yet capable of survival without direct connection to her (via the umbilical cord) and so it is her decision and should not be made illegal.
yes abortion should definetly be banned because if you look at it from court/police type of view then you could definetly call it murder if you abort something beause the actual definition of murder is killing somebody with intent.
Ok, before you go around saying having an abortion = killing "somebody" consider this:
does a pregnant woman need a passport for her belly when she travels? Does the fetus inside of her know anything? Can it make any decisions? What kind of a "person" is it? IT'S NOT A PERSON!
Before it can survive outside of its mother's womb, it is not society's choice but the mother's choice. Don't take that choice away from the mother.
Hi, I am a eighteen year old senior who was born two and a half months premature, a time when abortion's have been done. My mother and I were both in extream danger of dieing, my parents could have said, take it out and get my wife/myself out of danger then I would not be here today and plenty of children will never have a voice.
If a mother or a couple does not want a child there is always the option of putting the child up for adoption, at least it will have a chance at life and a loveing family.
Thank you for your testimony. I'm so glad you spoke up and would strongly encourage you to do it more often. Apart from rape your case is the most often used justification for abortion. And as your existence proves it is not proper justification. I know of a woman ( I can't remember her name) but her mother was rapped. I know of her because she is doing public speaking on this issue of abortion.
You are a testimony to the fact the abortion snuffs out a human life because it would have taken yours. Thank you again.
Sorry for not saying anything until now, but that means a lot to me. It is about how we see a child before it is born and it seems that so many people do not think of who will be.
August, that's what I've been saying too. Many pro abortionists claim it's "my body my choice" but they don't consider the life of the child, the choice that he or she has to live you know? And ofc the voices of many unborn children being neglected. I've even been saying, "We were all once fetuses in our mothers' wombs individually. If our mother and father individually didn't care about us, we wouldn't be here."
I ask abortionists many times, how can they dehumanize the lives of newly developing human beings aka fetuses when they, themselves were once fetuses too. People could have said the same about them being non human right? And yet their parents cared enough to bring them into this life and probably had to break a sweat to defend their life. It's incredibly shameful for what these abortionists are doing. Only caring about their own lives. Some women are beginning to wake up to the truth about just how precious children are. Even Jesus Christ had said it in the Bible; Children are the most cherished and most precious plus the most vulnerable. Today, we are in a cultural war in defending God, family and moral values through logical common sense. Human life matters. Climate change is false. Abortion is wrong. Lgbt is wrong as well.
To add to your statement about how mothers can give up their children for adoption, if they truly didn't want the responsibility, then why have sex right? The responsibility falls unto both the man and the woman who procreated the child together. This is why premarital sex is wrong and needs to be controlled. If people are out of control, then abortionists are the result of irresponsibility due to uncontrolled sex between men and women. Besides AIDs/HIV and Hepatitis. You can also tell abortionists, if they didn't want any kids, than they never should have had sex in the first place! God gave us the tools of procreation and it is to be used wisely not foolishly. So many teen girls are seen these days walking into abortion clinics and than after they walk into pro life clinics because they regret what they had done. The whole purpose of marriage is to have a family and that's why it's between a man and a woman only. The Bible is full of eternal truths and may God bless you because you are on the side of the righteous. Only through Jesus Christ, can we truly be good and in defending the lives of infants, I will say, Jesus wouldn't mind. Pray on it. Even me and my girlfriend know, abortion is wrong.
Wrong. Children deserve life. Criminals deserve life in prison. You are such a criminal. God will prevail and evil like you will never win. Cry me a river or I will knock some sense into you. Are you proud in murdering babies? ARE YOU?! Somebody's mom obviously didn't teach you right from wrong.
Grabs NVYN by his collar and punches him unconscious, leaving him for the cops to arrest in the dark of night within the alleyway of Gotham City
Batman searches the premises for the missing kidnapped children. He finds them hiding in the corner. Two boys and two girls. One of the boys muttered in fear, one of the girls cried and told him about how this bad man named NVYN wanted to take them to the "circus" but was really attempting to abort all four of them because no orphanage would have them. The Batman tells them, it's gonna be okay. He takes them into his Batmobile and drives them safely to one of the many orphanages owned by one of the best men in Gotham, multinational billionaire Bruce Wayne.
You're grossly naive and -- frankly -- unbalanced.
Firstly, you're purposefully using the wrong terminology in order to load your argument. A fetus and a child are two completely different stages of biological development, easily confirmed by consulting any medical dictionary.
Secondly, saying that children deserve "life", purposefully sidesteps addressing the quality of life they may have. Do children deserve "life" if their life is spent in the care of parents addicted to hard drugs who are going to neglect and/or abuse them? A hard and fast rule banning abortions, without any doubt, is going to lead to many unhappy children who are then going to grow into bitter, angry adults.
Finally, with almost 8 billion people already on the planet, and resources being stretched paper thin, where is the room for all the millions more children you want to introduce into the world? Is your insane plan to just keep spawning more and more children until the economy finally collapses under the weight of trying to feed and clothe them all? Who is going to give these children jobs when they reach adulthood?
I genuinely struggle to understand how any human being can have such a naive and unreasonable set of beliefs.
Oh you again, the snowflake who fails to provide evidence just like all the others.
First and foremost, you are naive, toxic, retarded, subjective, unbalanced, merciless and evil. You are also a hypocrite. Your arguments are invalidated 100%. How are you naive? You believe it is easy to terminate a life. I do not and never have thought it was easy for anything. Heck life isn't easy and I have endured through many challenges. Therefore, you don't even know the first thing about me and that's how your assumptions about me are 100% invalidated and wrong. It makes you a dumbass. Be my guest if you wish to go further in digging your own grave. I will continue to destroy pro abortionists with the truth and only the truth. Those with common sense will understand and agree with me 100%. Fetuses live. Science supports it. I will elaborate further as I write this essay to terminate your load of bull. How are you toxic, retarded, subjective, unbalanced, merciless and evil? You do not care about the lives of children. You only care about the profit that comes from killing a baby. Oh yes, profits are made off of abortion did you know that? Your views are toxic, retarded and subjective because you wholeheartedly believe that women can ONLY CHOOSE ONE OPTION, when the truth is, PRO CHOICE INCLUDES MORE THAN ONE OPTION. You have failed to realize this, therefore you are retarded and very very toxic plus unbalanced. What does unbalanced mean? Can you define it, snowflake? No? Clearly not because you solely believe the baby's life doesn't matter eh? Instead you ONLY THINK OF THE WOMEN'S LIVES. WHERE PRO LIFERS CARE ABOUT BOTH THE WOMEN AND THE BABIES! THERE ARE RISKS TO ABORTION AND I'VE DONE MY RESEARCH ON IT. THEREFORE YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION IS DESTROYED BY MY BALANCED LOGICAL PERPSECTIVE THAT IS NOT ONLY MY VIEW, IT IS THE TRUTH. I AM ABSOLUTELY BALANCED. Unbalanced means a biased approach. All pro abortionists are very biased into believing it's all about the woman's choice neglecting the life of a developing child aka a fetus. That sounds very unbalanced and you've come off as a hypocrite in claiming that I am unbalanced for knowing more truths than you. I embrace the truths of God while you spew hatred and act selfish. Is it unbalanced to care for children and mothers? Absolutely not! It is also merciless and evil of you to not think of the innocence of children and how their lives matter just as much as yours. But you, would mercilessly dehumanize fetuses in mothers' wombs individually. Is it you in the place of all those women? No. That's why you are also irrational and illogical.
Secondly, I am using absolutely righteous terminology to debunk your sorry excuses to murdering babies. I will lecture you accordingly; Science doesn't support the unjustified belief that fetuses are non living. Biology shows that fetuses develop over 9 months. I've taken Biology 101 and I understand the basics to the core. Where does life begin? It begins when the sperm and the egg combine together. Fetuses are made up of chromosomes. We all are in fact and we all were there once.
Thirdly, you want to talk about right and wrong? Be my guest because you do not have the high ground. There is morality and human life matters and of course, people like you do not care about human life, hence you have good vs evil. If human life doesn't matter to you, than neither do you because your mother and father brought you into this world and this, this attitude from you, spewing about killing babies is what you've developed just because the feminazis, propaganda etc have all gotten you NAIVE enough to believe it!! Who is the naive one? Not me. I am the logical one with common sense and therefore, your argument has been destroyed like a nuke destroys a country.
Fourthly, you are solely unjustified in your claims that I am wrong. You can hardly form arguments and claim "Why is it morally justified to kill a developing fetus". I recommend you ask women who are not politically biased nor peer pressured into supporting pro abortion. It is NOT your right to kill your baby. If the woman doesn't want the child, fine, give him or her up for adoption. But the life of this child is still the woman's responsibility. Things happen.
Fifth, you probably think you're a hero in self proclaiming yourself a pro abortionist and standing up for women's rights eh? Well, not all women agree with you because not all women are blinded by hateful intent to kill their own flesh & blood.
"Every villain thinks he/she is a hero of his or her own story." - paraphrasing Bruce Wayne in court speaking about how the Joker always thought himself as a "moral relativist" aka a hero in his own way and plus the fact that he tricked Superman into killing his pregnant wife. Why did Superman kill the Joker? Because Superman killed Lois Lane unintentionally. EVEN SUPERMAN CARED ABOUT LOIS AND HIS CHILD! AND KILLING THE JOKER? OH YES, BRUCE AND I BOTH UNDERSTAND WHY HE DID IT.
My sixth point is another strong one. You pro abortionists claim it's all about women's rights. Now, let's take a look at biology since you've clearly failed it in school most likely, correctly judging from the amount of nonsense you blindly scream about with utter ignorance. Answer this: What about the men? Ah yes. Haven't you forgotten that it takes a man's sperm to fertilize the woman's egg in order to create a fetus that develops into a child? If the fetus wasn't alive, how does it develop? Exactly! Still borns are rare but yes it's terrible! It is often due to miscarriages and yes miscarriages is a risk. But abortion also has risks. Is the man no longer involved in the relationship? Well, often times, those types of men are teenager jock boys from high school who knock up their girlfriends and then cheat, and the whole process repeats itself. Regardless to say, men who are involved in this kind of play are just as responsible as the women are. Teen Sex & Drugs are bad; the Consequences are dire. Therefore, these decisions are never easy but some pro abortionists claimed "It was the easier path." But was it? Pro abortionists often do no think critically because their minds are bent on one thought and one thought only; Life of a fetus doesn't matter. It is a strawman's game towards destruction. Anyways, a man and a woman are responsible for the life of the child they have created. Whether it was unintentional, rape, incest etc, it is a responsibility. The fate of the child is in the hands of the heterosexual couples and if they decide wrong, it will haunt them forever. The child isn't to blame for the sins of his or her parents. Getting towards the end of this point, men's voices matter in this decision as much as the women's. Men should not be silenced. If the man runs away from his responsibility, so can the woman! It is what it is! Abortion is the result of cowardice from great responsibility! You see, God and Jesus was right. A man isn't without the woman and the woman isn't without the man. I know what's wrong here. The women feel neglected by the men. Since the men usually leave the women to look after the children...usually of wedlock if we are talking along the lines of teen sex, drugs and naughtiness....than yeah, the women will get the same idea....But is it right? No! The responsibility solely falls on both men and women if they are involved in a heterosexual relationship; marriage or no marriage wise. Obviously pre marital sex is not right but it happens. Take responsibility! That is why there are anti abortion laws! Take responsibility for the choices you have already made if you are facing with pregnancy issues! DO NOT KILL CHILDREN! IT IS PURE EVIL! The truth near the end here is this: God created Adam & Eve. He created Eve so that Adam will not be alone. Together, Adam & Eve, through marriage under God's eyes had children, after their Fall. Therefore, as it is those ancient days of the Bible, it still is today. A man and a woman are united in marriage for the sole purpose of creating children. It's not mandatory because there are heterosexual couples who don't want children or have not been successful and trust me, they are not very happy about it. Some couples would dream of having children and yet cannot, therefore, they look towards adopting and that's why abortion isn't the solution. Marriage between a man and a woman has always been the solution to preventing uncontrolled sex. Not all teen boys and teen girls understand or misunderstand this. Some do understand and follow that in order to be successful in a relationship with any member of the opposite sex. Some don't and end up with responsibilities they never asked for but they made those choices and once those choices are made, there is no going back. When Bruce Wayne was told by Ras Al Ghul to kill a man for "committing a crime" by taking food, did Bruce not make the choice to spare his life instead of taking his life? What right did the League of Shadows have of being judge, jury and executioners over Gotham's people right? I stand with Bruce because he is 100% right. Standing with Ras Al'Ghul is madness and abortion? That's also madness! Murder madness to be clear! Let me just remind you of one thing I've read in one of the many provincial Courthouses of Canada:
"Freedom is the right to be wrong, Freedom is not the right to do wrong."
Abortion is wrong. Abortionists are wrong by supporting it blindly, calling it easy! You are most of all, ignorant and offended just because I have called you out on your hubris, pride and hypocrisy! Therefore you all are doing wrong and you DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM NOR RIGHT TO DO SO BECAUSE IT IS EVIL! SOME ABORTIONISTS HAVE HUMBLED THEMSELVES ENOUGH BEFORE GOD TO ADMIT THEY HAVE COMMITTED MURDER AND AGAIN, THEIR FREEDOM OF BEING WRONG IS SHOWING. THOSE EX ABORTIONISTS HAVE REPENTED! YOU AND OTHERS MUST DO THE SAME OR SIN PROUDLY TO YOUR VERY PERIL!! CEASE THE NONSENSE OF MURDEIRNG INFANTS OR YOU SHALT BE STRUCK DOWN BY THE ANGELS IN HEAVEN!! End of discussion.
Finally, I will just have to say, I pity you for the life you have had. You probably were always acting like a victim in every situation. I honestly believe that DeSantis did what was necessary and what was right to ban abortion and to put women who push for the unjust murder of developing newborn humans into jail. Abortion is indeed a form of homicide; infanticide. Who sounds like the Nazis pushing for genocide? The third wave of unjust, toxic, sexist, hypocritical, subjective feminazis.
Cry me a river and get over it. You do not have the high ground. Continue this uphill battle and you will be destroyed by more facts and truth. Your subjective toxicity is no match and you will be silenced. You have been warned. The BATMAN ALWAYS WINS AND SO DOES GOD ALMIGHTY!
Using insults doesn't affect me one bit. This still doesn't change the fact that baby lives matter. Your hypocrisy is exposed, karenrobbins. Your arguments are toxic strawman subjective opinions with zero relevance to this debate. Responsibility falls unto both the man and the woman because it takes two to make a child. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, facing many responsibilities, then she would need to stop having sex. Men would need to take responsibility in respecting no as an answer. But in this world, men and women often do stupid things, sexual stuff included. Children are not to be blamed. They are innocent and they do deserve life. You are ignorant, arrogant, prideful, self victimizing yourself and self entitled to speaking for all the women. Women can speak for themselves. Therefore your arguments are invalidated. Most young women have come to the conclusion of the horrors of abortion itself. Yes, it's terrifying and yes it's wrong. That's an absolute objective truth. Your insults bounce back to yourself. You have lost this argument. Cry me a river and get over it snowflake. This bash continues until you shut your little trap.
Here below is a list of former abortionists who have given out their full testimonies about their regrets about doing that; whether they were a doctor or the patient. Human life matters. That is the absolute objective truth and your opinions on killing babies is simply criminal. We, the people, will not comply with such immorality. All of you pro abortionists have one thing in common: You simply want to kill babies and you don't care that you also contradict yourselves in all of it. Calling fetuses non living but some parasite only dehumanizes yourselves too, because yes, you were once a "clump of cells" as well. Guess what? Biology says otherwise. Fetuses are not parasites. It takes a man's sperm to fertilize the woman's egg. Then within days, weeks and 9 months, that fetus grows and develops into a human being; son or daughter wise. You fail to understand your own biological self and yet, you have the audacity to lecture me who is a highly intellectual human being, full of common sense and has a moral code. You call yourself a hero in killing babies? Because this is no heroic act. This is villainy at it's core.
So much for "evil is good and good is evil". Jesus was right. Children are to be cherished and are the most vulnerable. Pro lifers have won because former abortionists are now regretting their actions; doctor or patient wise. Looking after children is more worth it than killing them in development. Just be grateful that your parents didn't think to abort you. Otherwise, you wouldn't even have a voice in this and I just have to say, you are a shame to humanity itself! Your pride comes with a fall and trust me, this is just the beginning of the end for you in debates.
All former abortionists and experts who are now pro lifers. They explain the horrifying experience:
Bruce Wayne's testimony in court: (Yes he defended the life of Lois, her child, Joker and human life overall. Superman was no exception. He could've resisted the Joker's tricks but instead went off and killed Lois and the child! There is NO EXCUSE TO KILL A HUMAN BEING. ESPECIALLY A DEVELOPING CHILD'S!)
Bruce Wayne aka Batman was sort of forced by Talia Al'Ghul to have sex and yes they had a child named Damian Wayne. Did Bruce ever want Damian gone? Nope! Why? Because Damian is Bruce Wayne's own flesh & blood. Talia knew this and even tried to kill Damian when he sided with his father, Bruce instead of her. Why? Because she acted a whole lot like an angry abortionist just because Damian was taught that Justice mattered more than vengeance. I wonder, are the abortionists using pride, wrath, self victimization, self entitlement and such to justify their revenge, claiming it is justice when it's not? The evidence says yes. Abortionists want revenge on the child and blame it on the child, saying developing human beings aka fetuses don't matter.
These are accurate assessments Dr. Batman. Nobody should ever place a child in danger. It goes against the law and the snowflakes will never be reasonable. That's why they will continue to lose and have to be placed in psychiatric hospitals.
omg its so fuking stupid cuz u no what thats your child your killing your own flesh and blood okay yall guys out there say you get a girl knocked up then she wants an abortion so you would let them kill your child and girls your gonna regret it cuz later on your gonna have kids and think damn i cant believe i killed one of my own babies if you end up getting raped theres adoption deal with it cuz we are all delt bad hands at one time or another it depends on how you handle it are you gonna make it worse with evil or better with love
Yeah it's true. Alot of young teen girls have done exactly that! They foolishly get knocked up by a guy. The guy leaves and then she finds out she's pregnant and then what? Responsibility and also regrets! This is why marriage is an important decision. You don't just simply jump into sex and think it's okay! Lgbt is also wrong because of the STDs and STIs and also the toxic hypocritical content they call "right". Alot of teen girls are realizing it is wrong to kill a developing fetus in mothers' wombs. We are agreed on the subject that yes, it's stupid because abortionists exist. They are the reason why pro lifers are around!!
If you can not care for the baby, what is wrong with getting it adopted? Also, how do you know you are not murdering a would be famous sportsman or inventor. However I would give an exception if the mother may die during birth (in which case the baby would probably die anyway) or if the baby will die during the first few days of its' life (saving unnecessary suffering.)
If you can not care for the baby, what is wrong with getting it adopted?
Pregnancy takes a MASSIVE toll on the woman in question, so expecting them to do all of that because of a baseless hypothetical ("how do you know you are not murdering a would be famous sportsman or inventor") is pretty ridiculous.
Abortion should be banned in every country... Abortion means your going to kill not just a simple baby but a very precious gift from our almighty God... Even though you've been raped and cause of your pregnancy you still don't have the right to kill or abort the baby... They are still innocent you don't have to involved them so that you can take revenge or you can make your self clean you can still take revenge on the person who did it to you while you're not aborting the baby... You've been raped and get you pregnant, if your going to abort the innocent baby you are more than to your rapist... You don't have to kill or abort anyone... Even though it's the fruit in a sinful way you need to take good care of it because nothing happens in our life that there's no reason... Even if your being raped or you just don't want the baby the Almighty God give it to you, because you deserve it, because it has a purpose , or he has a plan to you... You don't need to be more advance in your self... Always think about future and don't even think that maybe that baby may ruin you whole life in future... All you need to do is live in your present life while your planning on your new future with your baby unwanted or fruit in a sinful way
I say they should, but it depends. If the woman got raped or a mother could die, I could see some instances where they should not be banned. But basically everything else to me should be banned. So, due to majority, I will say it should be banned :). The term abstinence has apparently become extinct these days...
Why should the woman carry out the child for a crime in which she was a victim and for a child she did not want to have? It could go both ways. Leave it up to the woman to decide.
Yes that's correct, the women is the victim but what did the baby ever do? Ok here I'll give you an example: let's say you pissed me off so much that I'm going to kill my best friend. Do I get the right to? No. Just because you pissed me off doesn't mean I have the right to do wrong on someone else and that's when the rape thing comes in. Just because the women got raped, or just because the man pissed of the women, does that mean that the women gets to punish the baby for something someone else did? No. 2 wrongs don't make a right. When you call yourself pro life, (which I'm not doubting you are) you can't make any exceptions like this. Being pro life means trying to save any life no matter what the situation. Even if that means rape.
If we allowed an abortion under those circumstances it would send a terrible message, that when someone reminds you of something extremely painful you can eliminate them. But you can't kill another human being just because their existence makes your life physically or emotionally burdensome.
If I had a law on my desk that restricted abortion except in the cases of rape or incest I would sign it, even though I don't think rape and incest ought to be exceptions. I'd just rather save 98% of the children whose lives are taken through abortion rather than none.
You are assuming from a Christian article that everyone in the world must believe in Christianity, which can't happen because God gave man free will. Of course it is not morally right if you are a Christian, but not everyone is a Christian and you have to respect their rights as well. Did not Jesus command, 'love your neighbor as yourself'? Your neighbor could be a Christian, atheist, wiccan, whatever, could they not? It is not up to you to judge someone, leave that to God. No matter what you do or say, people will continue to have abortions in the world. It is an unfortunate fact of life, similar to war, similar to racism, similar to obesity. You see them committing a sin and loudly call them out, but you are being hypocritical because you also sin. You are saying that you are perfect and never sin, which, unless you are Jesus coming back down again, is impossible. I am a Christian as well, but I realize that it is wrong to judge and criticize someone for sinning when I do the same thing as well, albeit a different type. Like I said earlier, leave the judging to God.
So let me see if I understand you. Killing children isn't actually wrong. It is only if you believe it is. So what Hitler did was good because he thought it was. And it would be good, by your logic, to kill you so long as I believed it was right. Since when does right and wrong depend on what one believes? This is certainly not the view of right and wrong that Jesus of Nazareth held. To be a follower of Him means to hold the same worldview has he does.
About loving: To love someone means to seek the very best for them and protect them from what harms them, You can't say you love someone and then stand by when they are being harmed when it is within your power to do something. Humans in the early stages of life just happen to be your neighbor. Go back and read the passage on the Good Samaritan. Your position is the one the Pharisee took and the one Jesus condemned.
about judging: The passage of scripture were Jesus deals with judging doesn't condemn judging nor forbid it. It does condemn judging hypocritically however. It then goes on to say " first remove the log from your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brothers"
If judging is wrong for you? why did you judge what I wrote? are you saying that you are perfect and never sin? I guess you don't leave the judging to God do you.
No, you are way out in left field. Stop the red herrings and keep it to the topic. What does Hitler have to do with abortions? As I said earlier, one of two commandments to adhere to as a Christian (that Jesus said himself in the gospels) is to love your neighbor as yourself. Let me ask you, what did Jesus believe about abortions, since you feel that my interpretation is not right? What is the view of right and wrong according to Jesus of Nazareth?
You stand by and watch people kill each other during war. What kind of love is this? Yes, you can do something concerning abortions. Judging them as a murderer however does not encompass this. That is the main point of my argument. I am saying you cannot judge someone to be murderer and that they are automatically going to hell because they have an abortion.
What do you mean by 'judging what I wrote'? Judging to me is calling a male gay because he wears pink, calling a person retarded because they fail a grade in school, and calling a person hell-bound who has an abortion. Apparently you did not read the last part of my statement concerning sin. Also, I need to know what your definition of judging is, since you disagree with mine.
Lets see Hitler killed people. abortions kill people. Wow your right, no correlation at all, a true red herring.
Want to know what Jesus taught about abortion, right and wrong and judging people? Go get your Bible and knock off the dust because it would be wise to ask Him not me.
Final thought; We are all lawbreakers and apart from the grace of God, all of us are going to prison for a long time for comic treason. And since the one we offended is infinite in worth, the debt we owe is infinite also. So consider what infinity minus 10 thousand is, infinity. That's how long it will take to pay the debt.
But that's not the question at hand is it; it's about abortion. And for that there is only one question; what's being killed? If it's not human, no justification is necessary. No one needs justification to remove a tumor do they? But if it's a human being killed in an abortion then no justification is adequate.
So if you think abortions shouldn't be banned, please tell me exactly what is being killed in an abortion,
Hitler was a murderer for having abortions? Like I said, keep it to the topic.
Hmm, lets see...You dispute me, I ask for evidence as to why you dispute me, you come up with "go check the Bible." I'm still waiting for the evidence. I ask two simple questions. What did Jesus say about abortions? What is right and wrong according to Jesus? I mean, if you want to cop out and not answer them, you shouldn't keep the debate going, since you were the one who disputed me.
We are all lawbreakers. So how should one type of sin get emphasized over the other? God looks at every sin the same way, except for blasphemy against HS. A person who commits a murder commits the same sin in the eyes of God as someone who lies. Why are you trying to deny it? You have no right to tell someone that their sin is worse than yours, because you are not God, and God does not judge sins that way except for one, blasphemy against HS. "Go get your Bible" if you think I am wrong.
I can't keep arguing with you if you continue to take the debate off topic. We are talking specifically about whether you should judge someone as a murderer and hell-bound if they have an abortion. I have said this throughout my past statements, yet you want to keep diverting the topic to something you feel comfortable with. I put my first statement under the 'abortions should be banned' view for a reason. The question is not about what is being killed in an abortion. Obviously it is a human being imo. Again, stop cop-ing out and keep it to the topic. Should you judge someone as a murderer and hell-bound if they have an abortion?
The funny thing is you say that I say a whole lot of things that I can't find in the things I write. Maybe you could help me out and tell me were I said such things like: "Hitler was a murderer for having abortions"
"You have no right to tell someone that their sin is worse than yours". I said that?
"Should you judge someone as a murderer and hell-bound if they have an abortion?" Were did i do that? I thought the question was; Should abortion be banned.
And help me with this one: "We are talking specifically about whether you should judge someone as a murderer and hell-bound if they have an abortion."
Who is judging someone as a murderer and hell-bound if they have an abortion?
Please show me were I said that.
Just for the record; my view is that everyone of us, apart from the grace of Jesus Christ, is hell bound for the high crime of cosmic treason, aka idolatry. Romans 1:18-25
Romans 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
If I remember correctly you responded to a post I made quoting Greg Koukl who i thought made a very good point regarding the question of this debate and you responded with, you can't use that, it's Christian. How very judgmental of you.
Anyway, since your not to familiar with what scripture teaches. I'll help you out. And note the part were Jesus says you shall not murder. About right and wrong; notice that Jesus quoted the Ten Commandments here. That's an objective standard, not a subjective one as you suggest. And he says in the last passage that all men will be judged by this law. That means it applies to all men, at all times and in all places. that is the polar opposite of what you say.
So one of you has got to be wrong.
Matthew 19:17-19
17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”
Matthew 5:20
For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
infer (v)- to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence
-----
I have stated in my previous arguments that you should not judge someone as a murderer and hell-bound if they have an abortion, and you disputed my argument. Therefore, I can infer that you are against what I have said.
----
I can see now that we have been arguing two different questions. The question is not about whether abortions should be banned or not. I already answered that they should, with there being exceptions for special circumstances. One of those special circumstances I mentioned was rape, and you disputed me on that circumstance. That does not mean that I am against abortions being banned; I would like for that to happen. I think you got mixed up when I said that and inferred wrongly.
-----
Practically all Christians are against abortions, because it goes against what the Bible says. I am against them too, however I do not believe it is right to judge someone in a negative manner if they do have an abortion. The same goes for gays as well concerning harassment. You shouldn't judge someone, period. When you judge someone, it eventually leads to hate, and God will not forgive you if you do not forgive you neighbor for what they have done. People make bad decisions every day. Their (people having abortions) sin should not be ridiculed upon or emphasized as one of the worst sins, because we also commit sin, and God looks at every sin the same way, except for the one I mentioned in my previous statement. You should tell them that what they are doing is sinful and pray for them, but I don't believe you should harass them and look down upon them for what they have done.
-----
I am inferring that you are a Christian, although I may be wrong. Could you specify what religion you follow? I am a nondenominational evangelical.
-----
I get what you are saying with Romans 1:18-25, but what you fail to realize is that although a person has an abortion, that does not mean that they cannot be forgiven of it and become Christians later on. The only sin in which you cannot be forgiven is blasphemy against the HS (Mark 3:29). You should not degrade them for what they have done, but encourage them to turn to God so that He can forgive them of their past wrongdoings.
-----
How very judgmental of you.
You took it out of context. Read the entire paragraph and you will see my response. I also put in in bold in response to your other statement.
-----
Anyway, since your not to familiar with what scripture teaches.
Wow, and you are calling me judgmental...
-----
note the part were Jesus says you shall not murder. About right and wrong; notice that Jesus quoted the Ten Commandments here.
Jesus condensed them into two commandments for Christians to follow. See Matthew 22:36-40. They revolve around love, not murder.
-----
Hmmm...so let me see here. According to the verses you mentioned, you believe that you must follow the Ten Commandments in order to have eternal life? I want to make sure I understand your point of view, because I disagree with it if it is so.
Romans 10:9,10
"If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."
Ephesians 2:8,9:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from youselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do"
I can't go on until I know which religion you follow, but it is clear from these two verses that if you are a Christian, you are saved by faith in God, not by obeying the Ten Commandments. Paul touches on this in his letters. I don't have the time right now to look them all up, but I will list them later on if you would like me to.
You are correct in your assessment of me. Doctrinally I consider myself a Reformed Baptist, but primarily a follower of the historical Jesus of Nazareth. I also think we agree for the most part, however I took exception with several things you said because I found them to be inconsistent with a Christian World-view. Primarily your statement that Christian morality applies solely to Christians. That is known as moral relativism (for a full discussion of this please see the book by Francis J. Beckwith and Greg Koukl titled: Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air ) The scripture I quoted was to make the point that morality, according to Jesus, was objective. I was very explicit about that; to infer anything beyond that is to read into what I said something that is not there.
I also took and take exception to your insistence that we are commanded not to judge. The only thing I can find is a command not to judge hypocritically and then a command to judge once we have dealt with our own sin. I do agree with your sentiment of judgmentalism and the holier than thou attitude I think your are trying to address. If we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone then we have nothing in which to boast. Even the faith I have is a gift from God Ephesians 2:8 I am by nature a murderer and hell bound sinner and deserving of the wrath of God, but I have received mercy and I 'm now commanded to go and show mercy as I have been shown mercy.
But I ask how are we to fulfill the great commission if we first don't judge that people are murderers( see the sermon on the mount) and hell-bound? If there is no peril, there is no need of a savior and no need to warn people. And that means that Jesus died in vain. But Jesus made a judgment, people are murderers and hell-bound and it matters not how they got there, only that they need to be saved. And He asked me to go for Him and seek and save that which is lost. If I'm His follower than I'll do what he commands me.
“If you love Me, keep My commandments" John 14:15
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. Matthew 28:19-20
No, as a Christian, I believe the morality that God gave and still gives applies to everyone of every race, regardless of religion. There is no such thing as another religion, for they are committing idolatry. Either you interpreted my statement wrongly or I misspoke. I don't believe morals are relative to peoples of a certain religion or a certain culture. If I did, I wouldn't be a Christian because I would be contradicting myself and my beliefs.
I think it is important that we go over the verses in question and see the meaning behind it.
Matthew 7:1-5
"Stop judging others and you will not be judged. For others will treat you as you treat them. Whatever measure you use in judging others, it will be used to measure how you are judged. And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying, 'let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,' when you can't see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log from your own eye; then perhaps you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye."
My interpretation of these verses are that Jesus is warning you from judging someone else for their sin when you sin even worse, in other words being hypocritical. Now, as a Christian, it is your duty in Matthew 18:15-17 to kindly confront the person about what they have done, with the goal being to bring repentance in that person (James 5:20). You could also look at 2 Timothy 4:2, where it says that you should kindly correct, rebuke, and encourage with good teaching. You see what I am saying? You are not to judge someone, but to rather point out the truth to them so that James 5:20 can occur. To kindly come up to someone and tell them that what they are doing is wrong for the purpose of bringing them closer to Christ is not the same as pronouncing judgment upon someone. We are to judge the sin as murder, and always with the goal of helping the person see that Jesus is a solution for the consequences of sin. Now, if I go up to someone who commits an abortion and yell at them that they are going to hell for being a murderer, what does that solve? It doesn't solve anything. This is the kind of hypocritical judgment Jesus was talking about in Matthew 7.
On the other hand, if you kindly go up to the person, show them where they made the mistake, tell them that they can be forgiven of it with the blood of Jesus Christ, and send them on their way, you plant the seed in them in which they can hopefully come to Jesus. Of course, it is up to them to decide, but by showing them the solution to the problem, you have a much greater chance of that person coming to grips with what they have done, and then turning to Jesus and becoming saved.
Help me with something if you can. As I read back through this debate something odd jumped out at me. You dismiss and ignore every point I raise and then expect me to answer every point you raise; why is that? waiting for a response.
There is a difference between refuting and ignoring. I addressed every point you made and didn't keep bringing up topics that were irrelevant to the debate, such as Hitler.
Abortion for Rape Victims?
By Gregory Koukl
You are assuming from a Christian article that everyone in the world must believe in Christianity, which can't happen because God gave man free will.
So what Hitler did was good because he thought it was.
What does Hitler have to do with abortions?
To be a follower of Him means to hold the same worldview has he does.
As I said earlier, one of two commandments to adhere to as a Christian (that Jesus said himself in the gospels) is to love your neighbor as yourself.
We are all lawbreakers and apart from the grace of God
Hitler killed many living lives. Abortions kill potential lives, fetuses, things that we can create an abundance of. People who have abortions have gone on to have many children. Does the world need more population or something? Are we in crisis mode because the world population is shrinking?
Exactly. The child is not to blame for the rape that occurred to the woman. I watched an episode of Endeavour and I saw a woman who had a child, her boyfriend was murdered in cold blood. The child was about to be taken by the woman's mother and father. This woman is their daughter but the parents refused to allow her to look after her child. The cop involved defended the custody of the child belonging to the daughter herself and warned that he would arrest the parents for stealing the child away. From that episode alone, I saw, a mother's child is her's and her's alone unless she abuses the child ofc, than the child will need to go into protective custody or to the father if he didn't leave. Child abuse is real these days. Other than that, if the woman decides to marry the man she loves and has children together, the responsibility falls on both of them.
The debate is about abortions, which is about the act of stopping an unwanted pregnancy from developing into a life. Pro-lifers are arguing that abortions are killing lives which is what war is!!!!
So what pro-lifers wanna do is put a ban on wars instead of abortions, since wars are killing actual lives and ruining many others, whereas abortions are just potential lives and not actual lives...
Put a ban on wars and you'll free up so much money spent on defense every year! Why do you worry about abortions so much when the world population is not exactly dwindling...
Prev, show me how this has to deal directly with abortions being banned and I will answer it. I think you meant Afghanistan now anyways, we are pulling out of Iraq.
the double standard used by many anti-abortionist/pro-lifers makes me kinda blah about the so-called abortion debate [just give 'em education and contraception and watch the number of abortions drop]
they wail-n-moan about innocents murdered in the womb (something the government has nothing to do with in comparison to war) but turn a blind eye every time a bullet or bomb. that they paid for, kills murders an innocent Iraqi or Afghan child
why even bother discussing the thousands of Vietnamese killed in "free fire zones" and during "carpet bombing" raids
a young woman decides to "kill" her baby and the "lifers" don sack clothes and ashes.
your government kills and the "lifers" rally behind the flag and cry patriotism
thank goodness this rank hypocrisy is being well documented and will not be erased from history
Pro-lifers are hypocrites because they oppose the killing of babies from abortions while approving of the killing of babies during war.
I understand your viewpoint, but I disagree with it. I don't approve of war at all, and I am pro-life for the most part. There are other people just like me as well, but you said many, so you are pretty much correct in your reasoning.
Going off topic invalidates your arguments 100%. Seriously. Stay on topic or get off this site. Grow up and cry me a river, prevaricate. We are discussing the lives of babies not a war.
Well, once it is a child, it already is illegal to kill it.
Before the first tri-mester it's a cluster of cells with no more self-awareness than a kitchen table.
So that wouldn't be "killing a child" at all.
And don't start with the potential bs. Because by that logic you would also have to outlaw masterbation, and save every ejaculation in a cup separating out the thousands of sperms representing "potential" life and finding female eggs to inject them in.
... 'course judging by your past arguement, I guess you'll try anyway.
Yes, you are absolutely right, it is illegal to kill a child, but just because it a simple "cluster of cells" in the early stages of pregnancy, does that give us any further right to destroy it? Not convinced? Perhaps this example will help my point:
You are walking through a farm one day, and you stumble upon a chicken egg that has been freshly laid. You step on it, and guess what? You have commited murder!
I instantly know the reply to that statement, after all, it's just an egg, so therefore there isn't any developed life growing inside... yet! It doesn't matter how far the stages of development have gone, because there is ultimately going to be a child, and forcing an early abortion is the prevention of life, and in my eyes, is nothing short of an abortion at say the six month stage of a human pregnancy.
By the way, if I may add this, then I would say that your view on the "potential bs," and how we should "outlaw masterbation," is either incredibly misguided, or incredibly stupid. Need I remind you that there are several billion sperm cells in each male. So, how many sperm cells are produced during the process of masterbation? I certainly wouldn't think billions, millions, or even several thousands!
I don't know where you and that J whatever guy came from, but your critical thinking skills are absolutely awful on this topic.
My point about the thousands of potential lives every time a guy cums are accurate.
There are thousands of sperm, each "potentially" able to make a life if it finds an egg. This is every time a guy cums. Look it up. There stored in you, if you don't jack it or screw they're dissolved in the body or come out in your sleep. But it's a sperm holocaust literally everyday within our bodies.
And I used that example to show J whatever exactly how silly the "potential" life argument is.
Potential life is not a legitimate excuse against abortion. Because, exactly... like... I... said... we destroy thousands of potential lives every single time we masturbate, or don't masturbate, or even when we do have sex.
Now, reread this twice if you feel a need to reply, and consult a dictionary if you have to, I'm tired of having to over-explain the simplest things.
You're now officially making ludicrous points. Congrats.
Gargantuous isn't even close to the word which is used to describe the difference between a sperm cell and an unborn fetus: A sperm cell has not yet entered the fertilisation process; a fetus has.
You said it yourself: There are thousands of sperm. There are also many eggs in a female. If you masterbate, it isn't the end of the sperm world! There are still going to be thousands upon thousands more and ready to be concieved! So please do not BS this debate and say that sperm = fetus, because it is completely wrong.
Lose a sperm cell, no big deal; lose a fetus, there is something to be concerned with.
No need to over-explain, your whole argument was wrong anyway.
Hey, sperm does not equal fetus. What iamdavidh is trying to say is that sperm equals same category as fetus! SAME CATEGORY!!!!! POTENTIAL LIFE! get it? I'll say it again: IT'S NOT A PERSON LIKE YOU AND I WHO CAN ASK "WHY" OR "HOW". The fetus is a "thing". It's parasitic in relationship with its host. It can feel pain? My arm can feel pain! My arm has all the human DNA to make another human being, so do sperms and eggs. The fetus can certainly become a person but before it does, it's NOT. NOT A PERSON! P.O.T.E.N.T.I.A.L. ONLY!
Well I'm sorry (not literally) that you feel so categorical towards the development of human life. Some of us, who actually believe in a reproduction with effort, look at a fetus AS HUMAN LIFE. While it may be a scrambled cluster of cells, it is already developing beyond the category of "potential," regardless of self-awareness. Any scientist will tell you what reproduction means the world to the human race.
Maybe it's a parasite to you, but it's something completely different in the end isn't it?
Look, I don't care about all this BS with "what is a child and what isn't," it isn't even the point of my argument.
My point is that a child cannot voice an opinion, and that sometimes, to prevent the worst, someone has to voice it for them. If we were all like you, saying that it should be completely up to the mother, then there'll be no need to second guess how the population will be affected.
For all you know, you could be aborting the next 'potential' President, or the next 'potential' anything! No-one can say how that'll change things, after all, the only means of comparison has just been scraped out of a woman's womb.
So Mr. Potential, have a nice day, and have a hard, long think about the 'potential life' that isn't even given the chance to survive!
The reason I'm breaking it all down for all you pro-life people is that YOU ALL feel the need to project YOUR GUILT on others who has the view that they're not killing a person! It's your guilt, not others'. Feel it yourself! Go to confession if you're Catholic. Do whatever you need to do.
You all keep telling us that it's murder! I can safely say that about 9/10 arguments found on here are based upon that ONE SINGLE point, which may I add is completely incorrect! It's how we see it. If you don't like that, then we pity you. Just don't force your view on us and then try to push for a law that govern our lives too!
Reproduction means the world to the human race? What about unchecked reproduction like in China and India where the one child policy has created more problems and actual murders then is necessary?
We all agree that at the end of the 9 months it's an actual human life. I actually made the point that at week 20 it has a slight chance of survival and should be saved, as society can now intervene.
I see an abortion as an unnecessary decision, one which could have been prevented but instead has been inconsiderately acted upon.
Instead of hitting the problem on the head, we are circling the issue. By this I refer to the fact that an unwanted pregnancy is the source of the problem, yet we do nothing to stop this issue; instead, we are nailing the leaf and not the stem by aborting the unwanted child. So, while unwanted pregnancies climb, so do the rate of abortion.
Were we to actually decide that we should perhaps try to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies, we would finally be making a difference. We just need to make certain that education finds a way to influence the minds of all teens and couples, so that an unwanted pregnancy becomes a thing of the past, as will abortion. Then we simply push abortion to the side, as we will have finally killed a major weed in the garden of life.
In another argument, you stated that we should instead outlaw unprotected sex, which is the biggest amount of BS that I have heard in this debate! Think about it: suddenly we are no longer able to freely create as we please, pro-creation becomes a thing of the past, and the rate of childbirth drops in the high thousands. And as for 'fining' unprotected sex or using 'jail-time' as a punishment; that is just plain stupid. The Government can have a say in education, but they cannot examine each and every couple for a condom each and every time that they have sex. It would be a full time job with prostitutes.
So, hopefully I've cleared up a few things, and hopefully you finally understand where I am coming from.
Ok, if you really want to "hit the problem on the head" or "nail the stem" then what you want to do is deal with unprotected sex! That's where the source of the problem is, a pregnancy is the result of THAT! You don't see that?
You go on and on and on about education, which I'm not opposing at all. I'm all for education. What you've failed to do is come up with any feasible educational solution at all, then you even reject my best suggestion to deal with the problem at hand, and you reject it with your BS logic that makes no sense.
Your only answer to this thing is making abortion illegal, that's a great solution pal! Way to deal with everything! Let's just make everything illegal, even if only a portion of the community FEELS it should be!... You people make me sick!
You know what, these are my last few arguments, because now you are just personally attacking me, whether it is intentional or not.
One thing you have derived from my arguments is that education is vital to the solution, and yet, you haven't pieced it all together. Since I have to do everything around here, here's my core arguments:
Abortion is a problem, not a solution. The whole situation leads to back to a crisis that has been occurring for many years now. The problem: unwanted pregnancies, most of which are occurring between young couples such as teenagers, who feel that it is 'ok' to experiment every now and then. They lack safety, they lack education; see where I am getting at? Sure, we can pull everyone into a booooooooring seminar about how 'important' the body is and how we should always 'be safe,' but that just isn't working.
Now, if we finally came up with a working educational system, then, perhaps, we could make some progress. This can done in a few simple ways: one of which is using personal examples. I remember watching an episode of Maury Povich, which showed several teen girls (all who were around 14 years of age) who thought that it was ok for them to become pregnant, and, in fact, were insisting that they were planning on immediate impregnation. Maury brought out a guest speaker, an ex-prostitute who spoke to those girls in ways that shocked me. She told them what would happen, and didn't spare a single detail. Guess what? By the end of it all, those girls had broken their sexual habits and moved on to live better lives.
Now, this is over-dramatic in most cases, but the fact is that the system works, and it has been proved. Here, we have literally "hit the problem on the head," and have actually made a valuable difference. Rather than have an attitude of "oh, if it happens, we'll just flush it out," we can actually stop the whole process together. Then, after the situation has come to a resting stop, we sweep away the excess of what was abortion and move on in our lives. You see, though I argue for abortions to be made illegal, I don't use terms as rushed and as provocative like that. What I suggest will prove that abortions are unnecessary, and can be removed from the system. If banning is the word for it, then why not? After all, it's not like anyone is going to be using it!
Now, you made a strong point that I found hard to deal with, that it is a mothers right to make a decision as to whether or not to keep the child as a part of her. I did my research, and found that it some cases it can be a life or death situation. I felt like actually agreeing with you for a while there, and in some ways I do, but then I came to realize that this is only a problem because we make it a problem. You're right, before the 20 week stage it is incapable of survival, and sure, even beyond that point it is still iffy. What we can derive from that is that a baby is never a sure thing, which is fair and true. That however, is not an excuse. I mean, sure, we can guess that it may not survive, we can guess that it may be a problem for both the mother and child, but above all, we can guess that it won't, for either case. You see, the problem there is that sometimes men don't get themselves 'checked,' and act upon male instinct. Or, perhaps some women will just desire a baby, as I have already covered. What stands out from all this is that people don't know the facts of sex, and how potential it is for a number of reasons, whether it results in a child or an exchange of STD's.
So, there you have it! Again, the problem is a lack of education. Again, this can be dealt with. Hey, while I'm here, let's look at another form of education, just for your benefit!
What has already been shown is that the majority of unwanted pregnancies come from younger aged individuals or couples, which, sadly, does not reflect well on how the future will go. See, that's the thing, we can educate the older people in society, but that doesn't save the next generation doesn't it? One solution that has been presented over a thousand times is abstinence, which has its ups and downs. On one side it can stop a lot of potential unwanted pregnancies, and on the other hand, it can appear as another "uncool rule" and be totally disregarded. What we need to teach adolescents is that abstinence is the "better" way to do things, as hard as it may be. As dangerous as it may be, the Government should probably consider passing a law on abstinence (and let us get one thing straight, this is NOT the same thing as banning unprotected sex), so that we can perhaps make things easier in the long run. Look, you're probably going to chew this one to pieces, but just remember, even I'm not 100% on this one. Like I said, it is just "another idea."
Now, before you literally "make yourself sick," understand that an abortion can sometimes "appear" as the more appropriate thing. 1% of abortions come from rape, which is actually an issue no matter where you are in the world (maybe not in Antarctica, I think the penguins know better...). So, rape is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Again, abortions are just circling the issue. Sure, we can "clean up the mistakes" all we want; that doesn't stop these problems from occurring in the first place! What I think you really need to understand is that abortions aren't actually that necessary; it has it's benefits, but we can do much better! Again, we need to "hit the problem on the head", if we are going to actually make any progress! Therefore, it is perfectly clear that the problem of rape needs to be dealt with, and seriously. If that takes similar tactics to those as used towards the young teens that I referred to previously, then why not? After all, the tactic has been proven to work? Naturally, that doesn't kill the more serious issue of rape, therefore, the Government then needs to decide how they can cure the problem before it can potentially get any worse. Like all things, it will take time, we all just need to be a little patient.
Perhaps, if I needed to show you how serious some of those girls actually were, then I'll provide a Youtube link to one of the girls from that episode from Maury Povich. Understand that I am in no way stereotyping all girls like this, it is just one problem that we are facing in some cases (however small they are).
I'm going to ask you a simple question: Are you a woman? Now, I will ask you a more serious question: Are you a mother? If you reply with two positive answers, then I would understand how "personal" the issue is. I am male, and I am only 15, but I know more about this issue than most people would. I have actually seen an abortion, and whether I wanted it to or not, it affected me. I then went and did my research, and I actually used this topic in several speeches that I have done in my past years at high school. I know for a fact that an abortion isn't funny, that it is a serious decision, and one that I think could always have been avoided. I'm not some kind of "pro-creationist," or someone who "forces their beliefs on others," I find myself as an educative person, because I have educated myself on this issue. I want to help people my own age, then both below and above, to show that "one man makes a difference," especially to an issue as serious as this. If my act of spreading an educative message to others is making you sick, then I, honestly, could not stand to look at myself in the mirror if I were you. You admit that you believe in education, yet you do nothing to prove it. I could easily put my fingers in my ears and yell "LALALALALA" as well, but I for one actually take what you are saying quite seriously. If you actually believe in education, why do continue to support the issue?
This issue is complex, even if you won't admit it or cannot see it. One man can make a difference but it takes an entire nation to see that an abortion circles the problem that it was meant to fix.
Take a look at abortion, does killing what you we define as "a mistake" actually solve anything? Well, not to me it doesn't.
Ok, I see the problem now (and it's not the fact that you're 15 because I don't care about your age or gender), it is: you are unable to form any comprehensible form of logics in any of your arguments. Initially I thought I was debating with someone of fair intelligence with the ability to make clear logical arguments, but that opinion has simply dissipated. It scares me that people like you could be in parliament affecting lots of lives. Here's why:
You say "abortion is a problem, not a solution" - ummm this is YOUR VIEW. My view is that it's NOT a problem but a RESULT of unwanted pregnancies (which is the real problem (and you admit this in the next couple of sentences. Your point is now out the window, so let's see you actually rebut that directly with something else. Alas you probably will, but not with logic.
An episode of Maury Povich? Is that a fictional TV show? You're using that as a basis for your educational system? FYI, the guest speaker tactic has been done to death everywhere. But its impact is still minimal, it's not reaching enough people. Again, my suggestion of putting a hefty fine on unwanted pregnancies would have more impact.
Ok I'm not going to chew your "making a law on abstinence" to pieces, it's essentially dealing with the problem of unwanted pregnancies. We may have some common ground here. I've actually moved past the "banning unprotected sex" arguments to now suggest "making unwanted pregnancies expensive and coupling it with something rehabilitative like a compulsory education on the whole thing."
The problem of rape has already been dealt with. It's called ILLEGAL and includes a jail term. No need to discuss that here.
Banning abortion wouldn't be necessary if you're actually dealing with the problem, which is unwanted pregnancies. So you say that you're not one who push their belief on others and that you're "educative". Then you should stop calling for a ban on abortion. You say you do a lot of research and self-educating on the topic, how come you think banning something will make it go away?
If you continue to argue with a belligerent disregard for logic, I will have no choice but think you an unworthy debater and disengage.
You demand logic? Try demanding some sense out of yourself!
Did you actually read the whole thing? My whole argument? Or did you just skip a few lines along the way through???
My point overall was that this debate is biased and complex, and that no sound amount of "logic" is going to convince anyone.
This topic demands what a person "thinks" and "feels," not how he pulls out a statistic or two and calls a problem an "effect." The correct answer is that an abortion is both, and yet you fail to see how I have clearly solved the problem for both sides.
Rape is illegal, and yet it still happens. Think about that.
If you actually "pieced" my arguments together, you would actually notice that I am actually not calling for an immediate ban on abortions. With the right plan, an abortion will no longer be necessary, and will be naught but bad memories.
I give you educational examples and you deny them without giving them a second thought. Wow, that shows a lot of character. Clearly you are the most biased debater on this site.
"If you continue to argue with a belligerent disregard for logic, I will have no choice but to think you an unworthy debater and disengage."
Wow, you've shattered me, that makes me reconsider everything, knowing that in your vision I am some f#cking pro-creationist who only gives a damn about his own f#cking opinion! You know what? I'm done with this BS, I shouldn't have bothered replying to you. You clearly show little respect towards me based on my beliefs. Do I make you sick? Good, I hope it lasts for a long time.
You know something, if it wasn't for your 4th paragraph, I would have thought that you could never learn.
Regardless, you clearly are too biased to see my point, and that is why I am done trying to convince you. I'll do my usual and just present more speeches and win more awards, after all, people in the real world actually think my ideas are worthwhile.
You do speeches? Who actually corrects your grammar for you? I can't believe I have the patience to wade through the grammatically incorrect sentences and illogical structures of your arguments. Half the time I'm not even sure you're on point, I mean I don't even know what you're arguing for any more. Are you against a ban on abortion or not? It's a clear topic. You may have all the hearts to be a great debater, but that's all you've got at the moment.
If you believe that this topic demands the "thoughts" and "feelings" of people, not on statistics and logics, how then will you convince legislators to make laws for your cause? They only work on facts, logics, numbers.
"Rape is illegal, and yet it still happens" is this an argument Against or For a ban on abortion?
I DID consider your educational example, and I also gave it a thought, but don't ask me to give it a second thought. I already told you it's not an original idea to go around doing talks. It's been done since people know how to talk. It's been done to death!
If you're got a "right plan" to make abortions "no longer be necessary", then let's hear it, but you'll need to be more imaginative then doing talks.
Good luck with that. I hope you win many awards :) But if you're fighting for a ban on abortion, don't expect us to be your friend, least of all, me.
A man has several billions of sperm, each potentially capable of creating human life. A man does not create several billions of children in his lifetime, and he does not lose all sperm during sleep, within the body or when he masturbates.
Think about that, then don't reply, you will get the same answer should you decide to.
You haven't made any new points with this at all!!! If there's any points in here at all it's "because it's numerous, it's not as important"!!! That's just bs. BS to the MAX.
Men could potentially create numerous babies at a time. Women can only have one egg fertilizing at a time, with an approximate 9 month waiting period until childbirth.
Think about those figures: Numerous conceptions - 9 Month waiting period with only one egg at a time.
It isn't a case of 'that isn't as important,' as you assumed, it is a case of 'this can happen much faster than that can!'
Do you see your own point? Don't post on here any more. It's polluting the debate. You've haven't posted anything of original value here and you haven't even made a very good job of re-writing other's arguments either.
I have in fact reported you. I don't know how it works, but ideally they should ban you from this debate at the very least, if not the entire site. Whether it'll happen is up to how good admin for this site is...
Hey, I just noticed, that applies a hell of a lot to your arguments doesn't it?
Seeing as you think I post BS, I reported you as well, as in each of my posts is actually something regarding the topic, yet right here you haven't mentioned anything.
Jeesh, why are all you pro-lifers on this debate so incredibly dense?
You completely missed the point of my billions of sperm argument.
I was shooting down a specific argument in the pro-holier-than-now-I-refuse-to-mind-my- own-business arsenal.
And that is the dramatically flawed potential life argument.
The only argument pro-life has is that the cluster of cells is alive.
Okay fine, I'm through arguing that. You guys think you know more than science so obviously I'm not going to convince you otherwise.
What I can argue though is that if the tragedy here is the potential life lost. Then it is logically irrefutable that lost sperm is just as tragic.
Therefore, masturbation should be illegal, sex with your wife if she is barren should be illegal, sex if you're shooting blanks should be illegal, wet dreams should be illegal, etc.
Regardless of the numbers involved, a potential life is still a potential life.
So logically, if abortion is banned, so should (by pro-lifer logic even) all those things listed.
There's no way for you to escape that. Not that your arguments have ever been bound by logic thus far.
I would go as far as saying that before the fetus can digest milk (which means it can be sustained without direct connection to the mother via the umbilical cord), it is a dependent part of the mother like any other organ and she should have the choice to remove it. After that, society could have a say (because society can theoretically keep it alive with milk).
I've read it. I've read it a million times on this lame debate alone. You're not saying anything new, there's no great revelation anywhere in your arguement.
None of what you say in any way points toward any kind of self-awareness. Science says it's not a baby, and nothing you said will stop a single abortion from happening.
So stop, find another cause. Abortions have been going on since the beginning of time and all this foaming-at-the-mouth zealous ignorance has never stopped a single one. Every time in history you zealous foaming-at-the-mouth looney tunes have gotten your way and made abortion illegal it has lead to nothing but a bunch of dead little girls from botched abortions, and still not a single abortion is ever stopped.
If you don't want an abortion, you don't have to get one. But if some poor young girl thinks that's her best option, then that's her choice.
If god or whoever doesn't like it, then he can come down here and tell her himself.
My penis has all the DNA in it to make a life. It is a very complex organ. It can feel pain and often has a mind of its own. It reacts to sounds and temperatures as well as the sight of something it likes. It will be heartbreaking for me to lose it, so it's a difficult choice for me. But if I want to get rid of it, it should be my choice and not anybody else's choice!
Nobody cares about what you say about your private parts. The point is, science is against the claim that fetuses are non living. Fetuses are living. Take Biology 101 or get off this site. You do not belong here. You belong in prison for the murder of many innocent human lives in development. Oh and uh...one more thing....
Round kicks you in the groin and punches you in the face three times, knocking you out.
I find the fact that there are instances where women think that it is right to abort the birth of a child is incredibly outrageous! To think that people would rather cut of life in its entirety than to take wiser options, such as setting their child up for an adoption, or even personally entrusting the baby to someone close to them. If I could 'personally' define the word 'abortion,' then it would be as follows:
'ABORTION: The term refers to the irrational decision to KILL the child before it has been birthed from the womb'
I am not going to sugar-coat abortions, because it's true, they are nothing short of murder! 'The children are killed before they can even process the thought' is one term that I have seen a few times in this debate (of course they have been worded differently, but again, I am not here to sugar-coat this sort of thing), and I can say that the mother/father has STOLEN the right and privilege of thought from these children by killing them. They have also denied them of love, care, protection and most of all, they have denied them of a life.
As I have stated previously, I cannot even begin to understand why so many pregnant women do not consider putting the child up for an adoption rather than simply cutting the child off completely! Surely the majority of you all would agree with me that a child has its rights even if it cannot understand them! But the second that an abortion begins, you have stripped that child of it's rights, and there is no way that you can ever make amends.
And no, I am not trying to send anyone on a guilt-trip, but I would be glad to know that some of you have come to realize what exactly an abortion does, and not just to think of the process as "stabbing someone in the vagina."
Putting more children up for adoption when there are already hundreds of thousands of children waiting to be adopted is ridiculous if you really think about it. Most of these children are put into foster care where they spend part of their lives with 6 or 7 other kids being miserable because they are being moved around 15 or 16 times in a year. We have all heard about how traumatizing foster care can be for a lot of children who end up having a lot of mental issues and distress when they are older. Yeah you may be keeping a child a live but when you think about what they have to go through as children in the system is it really worth it? And not to mention if they do get adopted young and find out when they are older it is going to be extremely hard for them. When people get abortions the baby cant process it or know!! What is the baby going to miss or know if they are never born nothing. Its not like they are going to be born to another family and say oh yeah i had a mother once but she got rid of me before i was born.
Before it's able to survive outside of the woman's womb, it's only a potential life, not an actual life. Society cannot keep it alive so society should not interfere.
As a potential, it is in the same class as a single egg or sperm. Of course, once birthed the child still has no guarantee of life due to SIDS, diseases, etc... but at least it has a better chance of survival. So, before the period of 20 weeks, it has no chance of survival outside of the womb, so the woman should have the choice of keeping it or not.
Well, if you read my argument towards iamdavidh's argument on potential life in regard to sperm cells, you will understand that there are major differences to what is potential and what is actually fertilizing as we type.
The fact that women consider an abortion as the first choice (or for that matter any choice) is too weak for some people, this includes me.
What individuals fail to see, and admit, is that there is always another option, whether it be putting the child up for adoption or to leave the child in the care of a friend or family member, so that the child has a life and it is still able to give a couple what they actually want.
People are so financial these days that they forget about human rights, something that a child deserves. We can all look at what science determines is a child and what isn't, but it is but some of us, who actually believe and support human life, will look as a fetus as a child, regardless of its understanding and capabilities.
If someone isn't fit or capable of having a child, have safe sex, or if it is too late, give the child to someone who is. Everybody wins.
Until the fetus can actually survive outside the womb, it's a potential. Fertilization doesn't all of a sudden make an egg or a sperm instantaneous life. A lot of things must be perfect for the embryo to make it all the way to the end. If people drink too much alcohol it might kill the embryo, there's a host of other things that can affect its survival, shall we outlaw them all?
I fully support giving people choice when it comes to other options. What I don't support is making it compulsory. Plain and simple.
As I have already mentioned, several times, other choices are avaliable, and yet, many couples/individuals choose to ignore these choices. What I suggest is that protective sex must come into play, this way, we can completely forget about the possibility of an abortion.
The only exception that I could possibly see to this is with the case of rape, and this is only covers 1% of all abortions.
If abortions are outlawed, the world may finally smarten up when it comes to sex and childbirth, and then, just maybe, we can start worrying more about the future of the child rather than the beginning.
This argument has already been covered, so I don't know why you're repeating it. But since you have, i will reply again:
Protective sex is the act of preventing life from happening in the first place. You're preventing fertilization from happening, some view this as on the same level as abortion so since abstinence or condoms are not outlawed, neither should abortion.
I get you're trying to make people realize the consequences of having unprotected sex, so what you should argue for is that UNPROTECTED SEX SHOULD BE BANNED, not abortion should be banned! Abortion is dealing with the aftermath, so let it be dealt with! If you want to PREVENT, then outlaw UNPROTECTED SEX. Make it illegal! Just like riding a bike without a helmet! It's illegal to ride bikes without helmets (at least in some countries).
"We should not outlaw abortion, we should outlaw unprotected sex. This is because we want to prevent children from coming into this Earth, or kill them off should accidents happen."
This system is complete and utter BS, and would do more harm than good.
If we wanted to prevent children from being born, we should educate, and provide more condoms and help encourage abstinence among teenagers and couples. This way, we can eventually move past outlawing unprotected sex and stop abortions for good.
What you suggest does nothing to promote any form of childbirth. It doesn't give a single solution that doesn't cause more problems.
You don't think making unprotected sex illegal is a workable option?
Just compare it with many other things that are illegal: riding a bike without helmet, not wearing a seatbelt in a car. Most of the time, the cops don't know if you're wearing your seatbelt or not! But they certainly would know if you crashed your car!!! So if unprotected sex is made illegal (outside of a committed relationship) people can risk it if they want, but if the girl is pregnant and you seek abortion, then the authorities would know about it!!! Then you'd be fined lots of money, or the fine should be built into the cost of an abortion!!! That should be a deterent, wouldn't you say? Eventually people will learn that it's not good to have unprotected sex, they won't have to be told any more. Like wearing a seatbelt in a car, it's become second nature to people now.
"Promoting childbirth"? I'm sorry but this sounds like you're trying to increase the world's population? That's just dictatorship, pure and simple. You want more people, so you force people to give birth? Go live in a country run by a dictatorship, that's should suit you perfectly.
"You don't think making unprotected sex illegal is a workable option?"
That's exactly what I think!
Riding a bike without a helmet is not a good comparison when comparing it to sex. Sure, it shows that the consequences could be fatal, but with the case of pregnancy, one life is certainly at risk, and that could easily become two.
"...this sounds like you're trying to increase the world's population?"
Again, you are making assumptions, and they are wrong.
I am all for childbirth, it keeps the system moving. I am against overpopulation. I suggest that rather than kill of a mistake, we educate to prevent the mistake from occurring. Overpopulation is way off the point; my point is that childbirth keeps the population where it should be!
"...but if the girl is pregnant and you seek abortion, then the authorities would know about it!!!"
Then it is too late.
You have just admitted something that I have stated in a previous argument: "unprotected sex will become the next underground drug." And guess what else? Then you see STD's creep back into the problem, in fact, potentially much worse than it was before! And sure, perhaps some people will learn, but not all.
You need to admit that banning unprotected sex is a failing system with too many flaws to test. We need to educate productively if we are going to get anywhere with this problem!
Ok, if outlawing unprotected sex makes it go underground like the drug scene, you don't think the same will happen to abortion if you outlaw that? So many people have brought up the point that outlawing abortion doesn't make it go away, it simply makes the practice unsafe and much riskier.
You're contradicting your own points, so just leave it and relax your views a little bit.
You also agree that we should educate to prevent mistakes from occuring. That's already happening so we're not arguing about that.
You say it's too late to find out about an illegal activity after the consequences? How else can you find out about an illegal activity? Something must happen to bring it to the authorities' attention, duh! How does anyone know if you're wearing your seatbelt when you drive? They don't!!!! But if you have an accident, it becomes apparent, then the law applies! Is it too late? May be it's too late for the driver, but does it serve to educate? YES!!!
Oh! You were being sarcastic! Hahahahaha! You actually didn't mean for people to pull out fetuses and wave it in front of people's faces while yelling "Check this out!!!"??? Wow, I actually thought you meant that seriously... Boy, was I wrong!
There is no such thing as safe sex, and its not financial.
Safe sex: there is no 100% effective prophylactic, and no 100% effective morning after pill (which according to your definition is abortion anyways). More importantly, adoption is not feasible because our nation screws orphans over. How? Simple. They have about a 6 year window (2-8) to be cute enough for adoption, afterwards they live life in an orphanage. Your argument about being frugal only hurts your adoption idea: its true that we have become frugal, but a child born without any inheritance or parentage has no money to start with. The biggest factor is that they are unlikely to get into college, as grades are dependent on a parent's involvement (if you blame teachers, you're already lost).
Financial: How? Unless a child is given up within a week of conception, it costs hundreds of thousands a year to raise an infant. Now of course the logical counterargument is that the parents will become attached to their child and raise it. Well A) If they are considering abortions, they may not have the money, and B) they may be bad parents.
Oh, there's another option, its just a lot more merciful to put it down before it begins begging on the streets or whoring itself out to pay for meager groceries. And to argue that this is a humans rights issue is just cruel. Human rights issues are genocide and massacres; these fetuses are not self aware enough to know what death is. Even if you believe in the immortal soul, then you can't argue a baby (who is pure) is unable to go to heaven.
If it is true that, because the child can't survive outside of the womb, it isn't a life, then you would have to assume that someone on a life support machine, or dialysis machine, is also only a potential life - as they could not live without the machine.
Exactly Helloim. Exactly. They don't take responsibility even after they clearly made the reckless decision to get pregnant by having sex. Then they claim the excuse to kill the child. It's utterly stupid. Claire Underwood had gotten pregnant three times and she was a reckless teen girl. She got three abortions. Her reasoning is absolutely ridiculous and she is one of many cowards who run from the responsibility of looking after a child. Why didn't she just say no and walk away? Because she knew it was wrong and yet she jumped into it. This episode from House of Cards is Season 2 Episode 17. It proves your point about 95% of cases, it is women's fault; particularly young women and teens.
I find this insulting. I think pro-choice people are pro-choice because they are afraid that if women lose the freedom to choose if they have an abortion, we will start to lose other freedoms.
No NVYN, you are the one being offended and throwing insults instead of embracing the truth. Are you that much of a coward to throw back more insults in a reasonable debate? You clearly don't have the brain to be civil don't you? This is what makes you weak, NVYN. So far, Helloim has had the courage to stand up to your hypocrisy as long as this has been going on. That's why I will call you out as well now, NVYN. You are outnumbered, outmatched and intelligence wise, you are as smart as a fly, who can get squashed the moment you lower your guard.
NVYN is weak in his arguments. Use facts and truth to shoot his subjectivity down. Call out his hypocrisy and you will win, helloim. I am saying this as a friend to you. He is angry just because he doesn't get people like you and I to submit to his subjective views on murdering babies. People like him belong behind bars not in therapy sessions.
Helloim, you are a righteous individual. I am with you on this. We are already losing liberties because of pro choice ppl. Their agenda is only solely focused on aborting infants because all they care about is the women's rights but not the rights of the men having their say nor the children's rights to live. That's the main issue. There is no equal say from the man and you and I both know, it takes a man and a woman to have a child. Responsibility kicks in. That's why it's important to stay chaste until marriage with the right person of the opposite sex/gender. That means the boy meeting the right girl or the girl meeting the right boy and then growing up towards maturity to share a loving and healthy relationship that goes towards marriage for eternity.
Abortion is dumb, all the woman who have any are STUPID!!!! Abortion could ruin the race of mankind!! Then we would all be dead!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
I do NOT like the idea of abortion and obama is stupid to give federal funds to abortion!!!!
Abortion could actually save mankind. An aborted fetus could well grow up to be another Hitler or worse, then mankind would really be f...ed. So think about that!
So to say that you are the dramatic one? Life is full of dramatic events. Of course I do have the flair of the dramatic! But you? You are just a pitiful clown who thinks it's funny to be making jokes about killing living developing babies in mothers' wombs. You are not even close to being silly, you are immoral and evil. Me? Silly? Hardly. I am serious and I remain serious. I do not make jokes around serious mature discussions. Grow up!
I'M BATMAN!
Punches you out cold and leaves you for the cops to find some stolen jewelry on you and saves the infant baby boy who was left for dead near a dumpster. His mother wounded and knocked unconscious by kayref. The Batman drives both the mother and her child to a nearby hospital.
I wrote this speech...read it and it will answer your questions.
Abortion: Choose Life-it begins at Conception:
Think about this. A girl had an abortion, thinking that the baby wasn’t living so it wouldn’t matter. But, after she had the abortion, she saw what she thought wasn’t living, and it actually was. The baby was living and she watched it die. From then on, she couldn’t even live with herself knowing that she killed a living human being.
This story that I just told you is true. A lot of women think that it isn’t a baby before they have the abortion, and I will explain to you that abortion is the killing of a living baby. Well, if life doesn’t begin at birth, then when does it begin? Life begins at conception. This is a fact, because there is a lot of proof that can back that fact up. For example, there is scientific proof and there is Biblical proof. To further explain what abortion is, I will talk about these important things: one, it is spiritually right that life begins at conception, two, how scientifically there is proof that life begins at conception, Three, what we can do about the abortions, and finally, why girls get abortions. Those are all the things that should be thought about, so I will be explaining them, to help you understand them.
Some woman have abortions because of these three things: one, They might think that they’re too young to have a baby, two, their boyfriend or spouse makes them have an abortion, three, if they do have the abortion the girl’s parents would get mad at her. The case also might be that she just doesn’t want to deal with the baby.
First, you probably ought to know what abortion is. Abortion is killing the baby inside you when you are pregnant. Every year 1.5 million babies are killed by abortion. That’s 125,000 babies killed a month, making it 4,000 babies killed each day, or one baby killed every 20 seconds, that is so amazingly awful. That is basically one murder happening every 20 seconds. How brutal. The fact that life begins at conception is spiritually right. As it says in the Bible; Jeremiah 1:5 says, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” The Bible says that life begins at conception, meaning that right at conception the baby becomes a living human being. There are many Bible verses that back up the fact that life begins at conception, like the one I just said. That Bible verse, Jeremiah 1:5 is saying that God intended a unique human being, starting at conception. Just because you can’t see or feel the baby inside of you, doesn’t mean it’s not a baby, and alive and a human being, just like you. That is what a lot of people do not think about, even though you really should.
There also is scientific proof. Some people may think that life begins at birth, or some people even later, but that is wrong, life begins at conception. Because of the fact that the baby forms gradually after conception, then conception is the only real point where you can say that the baby is a living human being. For example, the heart beat starts gradually, over a period of time so conception is the only exact starting point of life. Also, DNA defines a separate human being, and so when does a person form their own DNA? A person gets their own DNA at conception. That is a whole lot of proof, so it is just like saying it is a crime to kill a 1 year old, so why isn’t it a crime to kill a baby when he or she is still in the mother’s womb? That is a question that probably will go unanswered forever, or they will just say that the baby is not living, which is a complete lie.
Now, what can we do about abortion? There many things that we can do about abortion. If you start supporting this pro-life movement then it will keep growing so much then no one will have an abortion. Hopefully then the abortion clinics will shut down, and the law will have to change. But, most importantly you can change the hearts of the people who support abortion, and save the innocent little babies. Now, how can we stop abortion? There are many ways to help stop abortion. Another way is you can donate money to a place like The Pregnancy Resource Center and they will use it to buy an ultrasound machine and to then show the women their babies to try to convince them not to have an abortion. You can also write to the president or another government representative, and tell them about all this proof that I have told you, hoping that their hearts will change and then the law.
In conclusion to all of this, it is spiritually right that life begins at conception, and scientifically there is proof that life begins at conception. There are many ways that you can help stop abortion, so I hope that you take a while and do that. There are a lot of things wrong with having an abortion, so you really should not have one. Just remember that God loves the person getting the abortion AND the beautiful, innocent little babies.
Thank you and I hope that you have realized that life begins at conception, you should help the pro-life movement, and that having an abortion is wrong.
My own mother has 6 children and has never had an abortion!!
Life doesn't begin at conception. A pregnancy is a PROCESS of creating a life. This process begins with CONCEPTION. So conception is merely the beginning of a process.
Before the fetus can actually be kept alive outside of the mother's womb by society, then the mother alone must have the choice. Society should not take away her choice unless society can keep it alive without her.
Life indeed begins at a conception between a man and a woman. You are right nattyc. March on with the truth and ignore nvyn who knows not what he does and chooses to remain ignorant and with much contention. It takes one male and one female to make a child. That is called conception. Conception Definition: The act of conceiving a child. Those who deny this are denying biology itself. NVYN is such an idiot who ignores the facts. This is too easy to take him down in this debate because he is purposefully denying facts.
Exactly. We've all been in that stage as a fetus. If baby lives never mattered, we wouldn't even be here! Pro abortionists want to claim that it's a choice. Well yes, but is it right? Nope, because actions have consequences and often times, in situations like these, more immoral actions lead towards a chain reaction of many many consequences. Regret, coping, emotional trauma etc etc etc. Responsibility is another. Human life matters no matter what and yes, the fate of a developing baby falls in the hands of those who created him or her. The choice isn't as easy as it comes.
Abortion is a terrible thing. Abortion dosn't make you un-pregnant, it makes you a mom of a dead baby. Have the kid and put it up for adoption. Just think, that child could find the cure for cancer or do something extremely great. Abortion is horrible and should be banned ASAP!
I think that stupid teenagers and even older women who decided to have sex when they KNEW they couldn't afford a baby should be restricted from it unless there is a medical problem with the mother.
Exactly. It's a huge responsibility once young teen girls and women have crossed the line of "teen sex and fun". Men and women both have a hand in creating children. It isn't the women alone, you know. Biology teaches us that a woman's egg cannot be fertilized unless a man gives her his sperm in sexual intercourse!
I think abortion should be banned because if they didn't want the baby in the first place they shouldn't have opened their legs, should've used a condom, started birth control, used spermicide, etc. There are many other options such as giving the baby up for adoption! If you don't understand they are killing the baby while the baby is still alive and forming. The baby can move, feel, cry, etc. Why would you want to kill a innocent child? That's so wrong.
Abortion should be banned in all but extreme cases. When you do an abortion you are killing an innocent baby that never had a chance at life. And while he/she will escape the pains of life he/she will also never know the joy of life either. He/she won't have the chance to grow up and have a girlfriend/boyfriend maybe get married have some kids. He/she won't have that chance. The only time i believe their is a legitimate case is when the mother is going to die because of the baby or maybe if the women and or girl got raped. The extreme cases it should be allowed if the persons parents and spouse/lover agree to it like that women who is brain dead and they are trying to save the baby and the baby will probably be messed up or dead when it comes out
This subject is probably the one that I get most angry about. The question is should abortion be legal. Before we start anything we need to know what the word "abortion" means:
Abortion: a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus (merriam Webster dictionary)
Now people (and I'm talking about pro choice people) could say, "Yes that's what abortion means. It's the death of a fetus and a fetus is not a human. Now from that statement we need to see what a fetus actually is.
Fetus: a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born (merriam Webster dictionary)
I got both those definitions from Webster so that's not in my words but back to the argument. A fetus (from the definition) is an unborn child that's in the mothers belly. What I mean by that is like the definition which is the stages before birth. So we can put those 2 definitions together and say that:
Abortion is the death of a fetus = abortion is the death of a unborn child
That's the huge point of this argument of whether or not it's a person that's being aborted and pro choice people claim that it's not because a fetus in not a human and when it actually becomes a Hume but haha clearly I just proved that with the definitions but if you don't believe that (which I don't know why you wouldn't) then I will go into more detail. Like I said the big argument is when it's actually becomes a person. Pro life people like myself say it's at conception that it becomes a person which means that when the egg and the sperm come together as one that's when it becomes a person because that's conception. For pro choice people, that's a bit different. It's kinda hard to get a straight answer from the whole group of pro choice people because Iv heard different things from other choice people. Some have said, "it's a person when it is actually born" or "it becomes a person a few months after conception". There are many other things Iv heard but the list is to long. Side note: the pro choice stance seems very inconsistent about the subject of when a person is a person but the pro life stance already knows when it happens so just think about that. Anyway so we need to find out which side is right. I'll choose one argument that some pro choice people choose which is "it becomes a person when it's born". I'm choosing one because that's the one Iv heard the most and I also only want to put one argument, the most popular argument of pro choice, against the pro life argument which is that life starts at conception so the big question is which one is right? Well that's very simple to find out. Most pro choice people are atheists and atheits always go to science for the answer so there gonna get a kick out of what I'm about to say. There's a less known sience called embryology. Search it if you don't believe me. The whole science is about about this kind of stuff, studying embryos and fetuses. And this science has spent so much time focusing on the abortion topic and has studied the stages of a fetus, has studied the stages of pregnancy, and most importantly has studied when life starts. So that brings everything together to find out which argument, or which side (pro life vs pro choice) is right. Does life begin at birth or at conception. Like I said these are trained professional scientists who have been studying this subject for years and have concluded that life does indeed start at conception. That means a fetus is indeed a person (just like I said with the definitions) and if the fetus, or person, was aborted, that means the person was muderd. So pro life wins that one. That's what people need to understand because it has been scientifically proven that life begins at birth. Now since we know now that life starts at conception, we need to clearify a few things. This is the part where we find the true pro lifers. The other part that gets so controversial is not only the "when life begins part" but also what people think is exceptions to abortion. This is when the morality part hits. Since we know that abortion is muder, and since American let's that be legal, (which for the life of me have no idea why) we could ask if that's human rights violations which it is. This country says that every, let me say that again, every human has rights including rights to there life. That includes the humans that are unborn because they are people. And since we let that be legal we are going against human rights by killing thousands of unborn babies. Sorry that got alittle off track of what I wanted to say next. Like I said, people think there should be "exceptions" to abortion. And I know you have heard them: rape, getting pregnant even though you used a condom, the mother has a big chance of dying, etc. The 2 biggest ones that people are alittle bit confused about is rape and the mother possibly dying. Now I want to clearify something that people think pro life think: WE BELIEVE THAT WOMEN SHOULD HAVE RIGHTS TO THERE BODIES!!!!! Just not when it comes to abortion because it's not the women's rights that are being taken when but its the unborn babies rights being taken away but anyway. Let's talk about rape first. Picture this: a 13-14 year old girl got raped. It's a terrible thing that happened and she got pregnant. The big question is should she abort because it was an unwanted pregnancy. That's a big question that some pro lifers think twice about. Now we need to look at this from a moral sense. Since abortion is murder then the teenage girl shouldn't do it no matter what. Even though she got raped, morally she should not kill the baby. Now people think that I don't think women deserve rights. If you think that look up a bit at the capital letters and read that. Now back to this. People say they should abort it since she got raped and didn't want it. Now let's put that logic in another sense: if me and you were talking and you piss me off then does that give me the right to go and kill my best friend? People would say, "no because that really doesn't make sense. If I pissed you off then why would you kill your best friend?" Now some of you (hopefully) saw what I did there. Those to situations have differently things happening but the same question comes up which is should I kill them for something bad that happened to me? And the answer is no. 2 wrongs don't make a right. And plus you don't have to abort it because there's an amazing thing called adoption which you can give your baby to another family if you can't care for it. And you won't feel guilty about it for the rest of your life! The other "exception" is when the mothers life is at risk. This one is a lot hard to explain then the rape one. But people need to ask another question which is, "who deserves life more?" Which don't get me wrong, everyone deserves life but think about it, the mother has already lived her life. The baby hasn't had a chance to speak up for itself and live it's own life. Now people might think "this kid thinks killing is ok". No I don't, that's why I'm pro life but any baby should have the right to live there life even if that means the expense of the mother loosing hers. It's a crappy reality but it's the right one. Plus there have been so many medical miracles that have saved both the baby and the mother. I believe that's why people need to be pro life because if it (hopefully) gets banned then I assure you, it will save more lives and make this country a better place. Btw I'm only 15.
Abortion should be banned!!!! The baby you are killing has done nothing wrong!!!! How would you feel if your mom even thought about killing you before you ever even experienced the world, The only reason is if the baby could kill the mother. You are killing something innocent. Your mom did not do it to you but you can do it to a child!!! You would not even be here if your parents did not care for you or even care to keep you alive. IF YOU DON'T WANT THE CHILD PUT IT IN A FOSTER HOME!!! don't kill it!!!
Abortion is a topic that is controversial to many, but is it legal? The answer to that is NO. You may say, "But the US Constitution doesn't say anything about that!" I would then reply to you, "Actually, it is." You see one clause in the 14th Amendment in the Bill of Rights states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...nor shall any state deprive any person of life..." Now as if that isn't proof enough, many would still disagree and say that it could go either way, if you read the rest of the amendment and that a fetus is not a person it's just a pile of cells. Well, if it is just a pile of cells, then that means that if you are having an abortion, then those cells are alive, otherwise you wouldn't need an abortion. But here you go again saying, "But it isn't a person yet." I say, "Well, if it is alive, which I've proven to you already, and inside a woman's womb, then what is it? It certainly not an alien or a dog if it was conceived by two HUMANS, which means that those cells are a HUMAN." So, basically people are paying other people to murder their unborn children. If this is the USA that you wan to live in where innocent, unborn children are murdered, then support abortion, by all means, but if it isn't, then you and I and everyone else needs to do something about this. We liven a democracy, the very first clause of the Constitution says, "We the people..." we are a government by the people, we can make a difference. You just have to make a choice.
Taking one's life is a crime. No matter the circumstances. I understand that rape happens. I am sympathetic towards rape victims that ended up pregnant but to me, that is still not a reason to kill a child. I don't care how old they are, from once they are conceived, they are a human being and it is murder. There is no way around that. If anything, you should carry that child and give him/her up for adoption. That would be the best thing for that child if you are unable/unwilling to take care of it. Especially if you were being irresponsible with a certain other, that is your own fault and your own irresponsibility and you should own up to the results.
Of course they have that right. And I understand, as a woman, it would be terrifying for something like rape to happen and to get pregnant. That is something that I struggle with as my belief of pro-life. But, I have to stick with my belief which is to save that life of the child. Once you find you are pregnant, it isn't about you anymore. It is about you and the other life you hold in your hands.
Abortion is the deliberate ending of a pregnancy at an early stage. mmh people a child is a gift from God.what right do you as a person have to actually abort this child.AND THEN SOMEONE SAYS ABORT THIS CHILD IF YOU WERE RAPED WOW JUST SHOCKING.YES YOU WERE RAPED BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN ABORT THE CHILD.YES THE CHILD IS A REMINDER OF THAT HORRIFIC INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED TO YOU,WHY PUNISH THE CHILD FOR THE FATHERS SINS,THE RAPER.ABORTING A CHILD IS THE SAME AS KILLING THE CHILD YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN THE
PERSON THAT RAPED YOU AND IMPREGNATED YOU,YOU JUST COMMITTING THE SAME CRIME AS HIM. THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO HAVE CHILDREN BUT ARE INFERTILE CAN'T YOU AT LEAST GIVE THE CHILD UP FOR ADOPTION BUT THEN YOU WILL SEE WHEN THE CHILD COMES HOW MUCH JOY THE CHILD WILL BRING IN YOUR LIFE
To me, abortion is just MURDER!!!!!!!! I understand that there may be certain circumstances where an abortion would a much safer option for both the mother and the baby. Rape victims; you should kill an unborn child just because it was literally forced upon. There are so many couples who can't have babies, who would be more than happy to adopt that child. For underage teenagers, I don't care what you may think of me, but you should not be out there having unprotected sex. You know that sex=babies. You should be focused on your studies, not focused on screwing. Period.
It is murder indeed. Children aren't to blame when rape happens. Obviously, I do not justify rape, however I also do not justify the taking of a human life. Children can grow up and learn about the terrifying rape event that occurred and then the sons & daughters can literally stand up to those responsible. It is sad for those children, growing up, to have no father. Not every man is guilty of rape. Not every woman is innocent either. Some women have raped men before too and even have committed murder. It's real. Netflix has some shows on serial killers; males & females. You are absolutely right about responsibility and consequences from sex. Indeed it is important to focus on yourself before taking on the responsibility of a parent.
At conception, the fetus now has its own genetic code. unique to the universe. no one has or will ever have that genetic sequence. you are killing someone. stop trying to justify the murder of unborn children for your own accommodations!
This is a much bigger moral issue than people make it out to be. There is no debate as to weather or not unborn babies are inherently human; they are. What is so troubling to me is people are willing to deny the humanity of a baby to justify their own irresponsibility. Their own disdain for personal responsibility when it comes to creating life. Before Roe V. Wade was passed, people recognized that when you have sex, you are responsible for any unwanted outcomes. But now, we live in a time where people live without that responsibility, that would otherwise require them to think about your own actions, before putting life on the line. And yet in every other area of life, killing innocent people is considered an immoral sin? Because that sin is socially acceptable? Because the people killing the unborn collectively have decided that murder is only okay when the majority deems it so, for a lack of personal responsibility? It's something more people should be thinking about.
My name is srtrnc43331 and this is my first time using this website.
First of all, it's murder. You are killing an unborn baby. Just because it isn't considered "alive" doesn't mean that it's non-existent. It's stupid that if you kill someone you get a life sentence or death penalty while abortion is ok. It's NOT ok! Abortion must be banned. It's murderous and selfish!
Abortion is a waste of an existing living thing especially when there’s birth control. If you don’t want the child then put him/her up for adoption, but you should wait until after it’s born.
Agreed my friend. Agreed. What pro abortionists don't realize is we were all once fetuses. We mattered enough to our mother and father individually to come into this world. Abortionists who dehumanize babies to nothing are only compromising their own humanity too. Do Abortionists deserve to live if they dehumanize other developing humans? No. God prevails!
There are 4 parts explaining how there is significant evidence that abortion is unjustified solely because fetuses are indeed living human beings in development. There is no need for unnecessary philosophical debate over this. All pro choicers are self destructive and toxically subjective in all their arguments.
I have more to add here. In my research, I have come across articles of Satanists now claiming the right to abort babies. This is utter madness. Fellow faithful Christians, if you are reading this, you know that revelations is coming true from the Bible itself! Yes, the devil worshippers are going for it. They are targeting the lives of newborn babies in development in order to "sacrifice them" to the Adversary himself!! This is indeed as all Christians with common sense would say; It is Good vs Evil all over again. Abortionists are now siding with them too. Ask yourself, is this truly logical to side with Satan? I say NO! Infant sacrifice is a crime and ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SATANISTS NEED TO BE IMPRISONED FOR LIFE! I testify Jesus is the Christ and is the Son of God. He is our Savior. Our Heavenly Father loves us and His Holy Spirit is already poured amongst His children; sons & daughters alike. I testify the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true church restored upon this earth. I testify that evil shalt never win. God will prevail!! Jesus has already spoken that He has overcome this world. The Satanists stand no chance against the Almighty and His eternal hosts of Celestial angels. It will only be a matter of time when the Light of Christ defeats the darkness of the Adversary himself!
John F. Kennedy and his democrats were way better! But who were the ones who murdered him? The deep state! And of course! OF COURSE THE GOVERNMENT DENIES IT! I HAVE SEEN ENOUGH HOUSE OF CARDS TO KNOW THAT THE DEMOCRATS BECAME SO CORRUPTED THAT THEY BEGAN HATING ON REPUBLICANS WHO WANT WHAT IS RIGHT FOR AMERICA! Kennedy stood up to racism, he stood for God's law of all man being created equal, he stood up against socialism, communism etc. He stood side by side with Richard Nixon and ofc Lyndon the Vice President. Democrats have never been so corrupt until recently!!! Or maybe they always have? I am a mere Canadian who loves America from a distance so on this, I must do more research. Gosh dang it, Vice President Underwood, you treasonous snake!
Update: House of Cards episode 17 of Season 2 - Francis Underwood's wife had a termination of her baby before their political campaign....and they are Southern Democrats.....Wow. WOW. REPUBLICANS ARE RIGHT ABOUT DEMOCRATS BEING PRO ABORTIONIST!!! There was a pro family republican who called out Francis Underwood's wife of being a baby killer. It is true and she DENIES IT! Republicans are the baby defenders, the pro lifers. Democrats? Not even close because POLITICS AND POWER IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN FAMILY APPARENTLY!
"Were you ever pregnant?" - Reporter
"Yes" - Mrs. Underwood
"Was it during the campaign? - Reporter
"It was before." - Mrs. Underwood
"Was it a miscarriage?" - Reporter
"No." - Mrs, Underwood
"Did-did you terminate the pregnancy?" - Reporter. She shows some tears and hesitation but continues on bravely and boldly.
"If I say yes, my husband's political campaign will be in jeopardy." - Mrs. Underwood to the reporter
So you admit....you murdered a child....You're right. Your husband's political campaign is in danger as is yours! SHAME ON YOU BOTH! Oh yes, you would expect your life to be threatened. Your faith too because God doesn't approve of murder!!, Mrs. Underwood!
"My faith would be questioned. My life would be threatened." - Mrs. Underwood
"But I won't feel ashamed." - Mrs. Underwood
"Yes I was pregnant & yes I had an abortion." - Mrs. Underwood
YOU ARE GUILTY OF MURDER AND SO IS FRANCIS! HE KILLED A MERE GIRL WHO GOT TO THE BOTTOM OF THE TRUTH OF THE DEATH OF RUSSO WHO WAS A FELLOW DEMOCRAT WHO HAD DRINKING PROBLEMS!
Clare Underwood, you are under arrest for the abortion of three children! YOU ARE TO BE PUT IN DEATH ROW PRISON FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE WHILE YOUR HUSBAND GOES TO ALCATRAZ FOR LIFE! HE HAS COMMITTED SEVERAL HOMICIDES!
House of Cards show is so useful to learn about American Politics and the treasonous corruption within.
Abortion involves killing and discarding something that's alive. Whether it's right or not to take the life of any living being depends entirely upon the answer to one question: What kind of being is it? The answer one gives is pivotal, the deciding element that trumps all other considerations.
Let me put the issue plainly. If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.
Get rid of the seeds of hate? Don't make me laugh. You are the seed of hatred itself. Be my guest, hypocrite. You really do have a tongue for trash don't you? Yes you do. Your arguments are all invalidated because you are the one repeating trash over and over about killing a baby. People like you belong in prison for life!
I stand with you 100% jstantall. Abortionists are cowards who run from responsibility. Democrats have done the same just for power and politics! Feminazis do it because they simply want to for "women's rights". What about the man though? Oh right, they disregard the man's role but men are just as responsible when it comes to creating a child. Not saying all men are guilty of this but those who have been involved in such situations with a woman individually.
Whether it's right or not to take the life of any living being depends entirely upon the answer to one question: What kind of being is it? The answer one gives is pivotal, the deciding element that trumps all other considerations.
Depends entirely ? Heavily for sure but I am not buying entirely.
Let's say your kid comes to you and says "Daddy, can I kill it" I would bet money that how you answer that question depends entirely on what "it" is. If it is a fly on your shoulder that's been bugging you, then by all means kill it. If it's the kid down the street, then whoa, we need to talk.
The point is this; this is not some esoteric philosophical question. This is common stuff we do all the time without thinking, it's instinctive. We know how to answer this question and we do it all the time.
You haven't brought any new arguments to the table. You've simply been reiterating the same "it's a person, don't kill it" argument. Not good enough as it's been rebutted many times.
This is not a new argument. You're repeating yourself with the same analogy for "it's a person, don't kill it" And your argument has been rebutted many times. The fetus before it can survive outside of the mother's womb is not a person. It's a potential life and it's parasitic in its relationship with its mother, the host.
Well, the question is what makes us a person, and what makes us special above those beings which are okay to kill (most animals, insects plants etc...). I would argue that it's our ability to think and feel at a higher level.
An embryo cannot think, feel, see, hear, remember, or do any of the other things that distinguish us as people and therefore must be put into a separate category then a fully formed person.
Considering your ignorance on the topic of biology that you demonstrated in the evolution debate, I would not be surprised if you were unaware of this, but if you don't believe me I would be happy to provide evidence (or you could save me the trouble and trust me).
The question then becomes: at what point does the unborn embryo/fetus gain the rights of a full grown person? There are two extremes:
1) The moment after conception.
2) The moment of birth.
My problem with number one is that a single celled organism shouldn't have rights that are equal to those of a person, and my problem with number two is that mere physical location (outside rather than inside the womb) shouldn't dictate whether we have rights, so I propose that the embryo/fetus gains rights over time as it develops. How early these rights are given is obviously something that is going to be debated, and, in my own opinion, should be debated because it will be a much more fruitful debate than the current "all or nothing" one that is all too common.
By the end of the 1st trimester a baby can think, see, hear, remember, and many other things.
What is the difference between killing a baby nine weeks after conception and murdering baby nine weeks after birth?
Tell me! I want to know.
An abortion doctor failed to abort a baby and he was born alive. So the doctor took the baby and killed him. The doctor was not charged with murder but was charged with the failure to abort the baby.
Over 68% of Abortions take place before the 6th week the point where the fetus first brain waves are detected and abortions after the first trimester are very uncommon.
FYI an embryo is a stage of life it's not the thing. Your argument therefore falters because of equivocation. And furthermore person hood is a characteristic of the thing, not the thing.
And finally, I don't discriminate against humans; it's just plain wrong. All humans, especially ones in the early stages of development, are worthy of or full protection. That's called moral clarity.
No, it's called moral absolutism and it's intelectually lazy because it means that you refuse to actually think about the issue and use personal judgement when deciding what is right and wrong.
No one likes getting an abortion, and everyone would be happier if there were less abortions; however, in the very early stages when all there is, is a clump of cells, a woman should be able to choose whether she want sto conitinue with the pregancy.
In addition, we already have systems in place that grant increasing rights with age, so I don't see how this case is any different.
Well if I'm intellectually lazy because I can look at a murder and without thinking say it is wrong, than I'm guilty as charged. And I will wear that label with honor.
But tell me why you think no one likes getting an abortion, and why everyone would be happier if there were less abortions.
And about that "clump of cells" are they cancer cells? if not, what kind of cells are they?
Finally,
In addition, we already have systems in place that grant increasing rights with age, so I don't see how this case is any different.
True, however life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is guarantied to all of them expect those in the early stages of development, those in their mothers womb. That's discrimination based on level of development and that's just plain wrong. The most dangerous place in America shouldn't be a mother's womb
Looking at the world in black and white with complete disregard for reality is intelectually lazy, and I'm not at all shy to say it. The world is complicated, and when you look at it through an uncompromising moralistic lense you end up oversimplifying problems and giving simplistic answers. Calling abortion murder is simplistic and misses the point of the debate. I am doing my best to discuss the issue as rationally as possible but when you make statements like Well if I'm intellectually lazy because I can look at a murder and without thinking say it is wrong, than I'm guilty as charged it makes it really difficult to continue.
Of course no one wants to get an abortion. Whether you believe it to be murder or not, it's still a sad event and you'd have to be heartless not to feel something. What I am arguing is that banning abortion is not the best way to reduce the suffering that unwanted pregancies causes. Instead we should concentrate on improving sex education, and helping increase the standard of living of the poor (a group that is disproportionately more likely to have unwanted pregancies and get abortions). I know this is difficult for you to understand on your moral high horse, but stop and consider that there might be more to the issue then the oversimplified version that has been hammered into your thick little skull since birth.
I'm sorry but a single cell's rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not trump the right a woman to choose whether or not she wants to be a mother. We are talking about something that doesn't exist as a thinking feeling human being, and I don't understand why you can't rap your head around the idea of increasing rights as development occurs.
The most dangerous place in America shouldn't be a mother's womb
I agree, and that's why I said that a viable fetus should be considered a full human being, however you choose again and again to ignore this fact.
Looking at the world in black and white is called moral clarity. Somethings are obviously wrong like theft, rape and murder. To say otherwise would be foolish and be to deny the obvious. Now you may use your intellect to justify those acts but then your intellect becomes complicit in the act. Not a place I want to go.
Of course no one wants to get an abortion
If that were true no one would get an abortion. People get abortions because they want to.
In regards to "feel something" and "the suffering that unwanted pregnancies causes" You seem to miss the greater suffering and depression women feel after an abortion, a suffering that last a life time. That suffering is far greater than that of finding out you got pregnant. That's the suffering I want to end. Not to mention the trauma of the child which just lead Nebraska to ban abortions after 20 weeks. It's called The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
I don't understand why you can't rap your head around the idea of increasing rights as development occurs.
Because it is wrong to base the value of another human on subjective terms like those. Adopting subjective standards makes it possible for the strong to exploit the weak and that's exactly what your standard does. You ought to be protecting the weak and innocent, not using your intellect to come up with ways to justify their killing. For example you said a viable fetus should be considered a full human being. So those that are not, are not human? You've just stripped them of their objective humanity by your subjective definition of humanity and now you feel justified in killing them, I'm sorry but that's not proper justification. I do hope you can see how dangerous your point of view is because it puts even your life in danger if logically followed through. All I have to do is be more powerful than you and determine that your life is not viable by my standards and then I'm free to kill you; might makes right.
That's why abortion should be banned, because all human life is valuable by the fact that it is human. If we move the value from the objective to the subjective than no one is safe and we have turned the law on it's head because laws are meant to protect people. But who is a person is subject to the opinion of another. I don't know about you but I never would want to be treated like that.
The question isn't about person hood, The question is what kind of life is it?
By your logic it is OK to kill another human, especially if they are smaller and less developed than you , if they can't think, feel, see, hear, or remember than by all means, kill em. What you have just done is discriminated against a whole class of humans that are inferior to you and deemed them unworthy of life by your arbitrary standard. That sounds just like the logic of the Third Reich to me. And that's exactly how they categorized it; the life unworthy of life.
But let me ask you; were you ever an unborn child? If you ever were the unborn child your mother carried, then you have to accept an undeniable truth: killing that child through abortion would have killed you. Not a potential you. Not a possible you. Not a future you. Abortion would have killed you.
Aren't you glad your mother didn't view you in the same crass way you view other humans in the early stages of development. You are in essence arguing for a right that could have taken that very right from you.
And just for the record, most abortions are performed at about 10 weeks. I've included a link so you can see what those embryos look like at 10 weeks. And please tell me what that is if it isn't human.
Also in regards the fetus's (it's a fetus at 10 weeks) ability to think, feel, see, hear and remember watch the video "Silent Scream" to get a sense of just what it is you are arguing for. What you'll see is a fetus (just like you once were) recoil in fear has they fight for their life. But I do warn you, the footage is extremely graphic.
If it can't think, feel, see, hear, or remember; can't survive without complete and total dependence on the biology of another being; and doesn't look particularly like people -- what exactly is it that makes this a "human"?
I've seen "Silent Scream" four times already; I was convent-schooled and thus unsurprisingly I've been shown lots of graphically disgusting abortion pictures. And y'know what? I'm still not remotely persuaded that it is preferable to ruin women's lives or leave them to die in back alleys.
DNA? Your sperm has DNA. Your hair and skin cells have DNA. Your saliva has DNA. Are sperm, hair, skin, and spit also human beings in their own rights?
About "thinking, feeling, seeing and hearing" -- you conceded that an fetus slated for abortion is not capable of doing these things in your post above. "By your logic . . . if they can't think, feel, see, hear, or remember than by all means, kill em." So this new argument that "Silent Scream" contradicts your earlier premise that the fetus does NOT "think, feel, see, or hear" is simply logically inconsistent.
But you posited the "can't think, see, feel, etc." You supplied that and you endorsed it by posting it. Notice how you did that. Can't get out by saying that your characterization was part of a criticism - it was still your characterization.
A clump of cells in utero is not a "child." That's why medical science has words like "zygote" and "blastula" and "embryo" and "fetus."
If you are asking for my personal opinion on abortion, which you seem to be, it is that abortion is a highly imperfect solution to a very real problem; but that until we have developed and agreed as a society to disseminate a completely 100% effective, safe, and pragmatic method of birth control complete with age-appropriate sex education AND eliminated rape and abuse or coercion of children, then the societal costs of limiting abortion access much further than it already is (and it IS limited; states can regulate it after the first trimester and can ban it completely once the fetus reaches viability, and can also determine which procedures will and will not be permitted) are simply too great. Rather than banning it, we need to be working towards making abortion pretty much unneccesary. This is much harder to do than simply banning it, but does have the advantage of actually solving the problems posed both by allowing and by prohibiting abortion rather than just ignoring them.
Tell me how my characterization of your view becomes my view. I don't see how the two things logical follow each other. A characterization of view, I always thought, was different from the adoption of the view. Maybe I'm wrong. So please tell me how that works.
A clump of cells in utero is not a "child." That's why medical science has words like "zygote" and "blastula" and "embryo" and "fetus."
zygote,blastula,embryo and fetus are terms used to describe the stages in the development of the child. They are not ontological terms. So you are right, the stages of development are not the child. They are the stages in the development of the child.
But I don't see were that gets us.
abortion is a highly imperfect solution to a very real problem
So what I hear you saying is that life is a problem and death is preferable to life. So why do you take the side of death and not life?
If the question of abortion is so "debatable" why not err on the side of life? It would seem wise to use caution and restraint regarding abortion. And the unrestrained permission of it would be folly.
Now, about the 100% effective and safe solution. It's called abstinence. Yes, I know all the objections to it, but the evidence tells another story. Abstinence has been shown to be vastly superior to other types of sex-ed. But don't take my word for it, read the report that just came out.
On making abortion pretty much unnecessary. Consider that married couples don't have abortions. Take a look sometime time at the demographics of who gets abortions.
About banning abortion and it's effectiveness on reducing the number of abortions. Check the data. the rate of abortion went through the roof after Roe vs Wade
But really this is not about abortion or sex-ed. It's about trying promote polyamory. Sex-ed is how it's promoted and abortion is how you mitigate the effects of it. It's known as insanity when you do something over and over and expect different results. If polyamory keeps producing such horrible results what makes us think that if we keep practicing it that we will get different results?
If you use something and it breaks in the process, like using your cell phone as hammer, something ought to tell you that it wasn't being used properly for the purpose for which it was designed.
I don’t care to debate nor discuss your convoluted justifications for destroying a human fetus or embryo. My question to you: Why did your mother not destroy you while you were nothing but a cellular glob?
Answer: Because your mother, and probably your father, loved you more than they loved themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hypocrite! You are ready to justify the killing of human fetuses, while at the same time ignorant of the fact that ‘your’ bullshit argument is possible by reason of your mother’s refusal to kill you while your were nothing but a cellular glob!
A female like you who is willing to justify the most cowardice of crimes against her own would-be progeny will commit any manner of crime against her own offspring. So, I think you should make certain that no cellular glob that is human in nature should ever be allowed to grow within your womb, for any child that is born of your matrix will most likely be sacrificed for your own selfish benefit.
This is no argument!! Why, because, you have confessed to the innocence of killing your own would-be progeny.
Down-vote all of my arguments! It still will not change the fact of your willingness to advocate not only the killing of all human fetuses (yes, all human fetuses), but the killing of your own would-be children.
Go ahead! Justify yourself, for your response is nothing more than a self-justification via the state agreeing with you that should kill your un-born progeny.
Oh, I can say much more about females such as you. Please, provoke me!
What the hell are you even doing on a site titled "create debate" then?
Correcting criminals like yourself that think a debate justifies your criminal intention!
Silly criminal, debates are for just persons with just intentions, not criminals with crime in the seared conscience!
STFU? Create Debate is not a forum for justifying the unjustifiable. Create Debate is a debating format for rational thought. Killing an un-born fetus cannot be rationalized! So, why do you stretch the intention of debate? I know! You are justifying your intent!
Typical. You didn't come for a debate, you came for a fight. Debates are for people interested in listening to both sides and expecting to get out of it with a better understanding of the world. You came to "correct" people, not to understand other points of view.
The undebatable? There's no such thing. Every issue is debatable. It's true that some have stronger arguments on one side than the other, but this shouldn't bother the rational person you claim to be.
I’m not defending myself nor my viewpoint, I am boldly declaring the implications of the pro-abortionist. You must understand that if I am truly anti-abortionist, I will not waste time dancing and playing with individuals who promote the killing of human fetuses. I did not come for a fight as you have claimed, what I came for was an intellectual abortion of anti-fetus rhetoric.
The undebatable? There's no such thing. Every issue is debatable. (Self-refuting argument)
I am not God, the creator of the heavens and Earth. Would you care to debate or find someone to debate that proposition?
As I said, some debates have much stronger arguments to one side.
1 is not 4.
I agree. If both numbers refer to the same kind of thing, 1 is not 4. 1 banana is not 4 bananas. One could argue that, if it's not specified, 1 could be 4... For example, 1 family might have exactly 4 people in it. In this case, 1 (family) is 4 (people). But if the numbers are just shown without "units", it's usually implied that they are probably referring to the same thing. Therefore, 1 is not 4.
If you have your arguments in order, every issue is debatable. It's just that some are closer to a consensus than others...
If both numbers refer to the same kind of thing, 1 is not 4. 1 banana is not 4 bananas. One could argue that, if it's not specified, 1 could be 4... For example, 1 family might have exactly 4 people in it. In this case, 1 (family) is 4 (people). But if the numbers are just shown without "units", it's usually implied that they are probably referring to the same thing. Therefore, 1 is not 4.
1 is not 4 is a proposition. The proposition is not an accounting statement. It is a proposition that asserts that 1 and 4 are not predicable of each other. In fact if that proposition is debatable then the law of mathematics is without a foundation.
Your arguments fail to debate the proposition, 1 is not 4 , but yet argues distinctly different propositions.
I think that referring to mathematical rules as "laws" is the kind of misleading argument religious people like to use when implying that when using mathematics you require faith. Mathematics are not the ultimate truth about anything, neither should they be treated as unchangeable laws of the universe. Mathematics, as well as physics, chemistry, etc. are a set of tools invented by humans in order to explain phenomena we observe around us. We made sciences up, and it's up to us to upgrade them in order to improve our knowledge about the world.
Here I didn't go as far as to point a flaw in mathematics or something that should be changed, I actually agreed that in most cases 1 is not 4, and I know how useful that is in our daily life. My point is, we can and should question and debate everything, even the foundations of something which has been working for us all along, because we can never know when old explanations might fail us. This is specially valid for the question of abortion, since our old conceptions about when life begins might be wrong.
Anyways, if my semantic discussion of 1 not being 4 was not mathematical enough for you, here I got another one...
"1 is not 4"
Wrong, this is not always the case. When dealing with binary numbers, when 1 is in the third number from the right, as in 100, 1 represents 4. In 111, 100, 10100, and so on, the third 1 is always 4 (as in the decimal system).
I think you are misunderstanding what a logical proposition is. True, we can pretend to debate everything by use of fallacious thoughts, but when an argument is illogical nothing is debated.
However, in a sense we can irrationally argue everything! Agreed!
You have claimed that “all issues are debatable” while at the same time failing to support your proposition. The fallacious arguments you have submitted fail to refute my proposition and consequently indicate that only my proposition, i.e. not all issues are debatable, is axiomatic.
There is not one axiom you have affirmed that is evidence of your assertion, “All issues are debatable”.
The only logical and axiomatic proposition of this debate is simply: Some issues are debatable.
So going back to abortion... you say that an illogical argument is not-debatable. So could you explain what is illogical about debating abortion? Clearly, just by being here you dispute your own statement.
It seems to me that you are just going around the issue without proving that killing a non-fully developed fetus is the same thing as killing a 3 year old child. Prove your statement without evading the debate and calling it "illogical". - Or else prove why it is illogical to debate this.
The principle of pro-abortion: Human fetuses and embryos are sacrificial.
Welcome to a self-evident truth.
1. The pro-abortionists could dispute the words of the principle, but in doing such the pro-abortionist must necessarily contradict the pro-abortionist view.
2. The anti-abortionist has no reason to debate the principle because the truth of the principle is self evident.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that anti-abortionists will sacrifice their un-born offspring. And furthermore, you will not be mistaken if you think pro-abortionists will sacrifice their un-born progeny for themselves.
Now, let’s see if you and I can logically debate the principle I have affirmed of pro-abortionists.
Seriously, let’s attempt a debate amongst one another as a test of my ability to reason. Good luck!
the truth of the principle is self evident.? You mean that, in your opinion, the principle is false, right? First, logically explain me why do you think this is absolutely false, as in, there's absolutely no situation in which this could be true, no matter which other factors are involved.
Also, I'd like to say that I'm not sure about my opinion on abortion... I do think that interrupting a pregnancy is not good, but I cannot simply ignore the problems an undesired child might bring to its family and society. At this point in my life, I wouldn't consider abortion, but I don't feel like I can make this decision for other people, so I wouldn't like it to be "banned". This matter puzzles me, so I don't usually join debates related to it. I just came into this one because I saw your comment about criminals and the undebatable, so now I'm here just looking forward to seeing you logically prove that there's absolutely no situation in which sacrificing a human embryo is the less of two evils. I'm looking forward to a debate.
the truth of the principle is self evident.? You mean that, in your opinion, the principle is false, right? First, logically explain me why do you think this is absolutely false, as in, there's absolutely no situation in which this could be true, no matter which other factors are involved.
No, the principle of pro-abortion is: “Human fetuses and embryos are sacrificial.” The principle is true to fact; it is not false to fact. My assertion is indicating the ethical standard of pro-abortionists. I am not saying that their principle is good or just, I am affirming the principle of their agenda.
Now, consider the principle of the anti-abortionist: Human fetuses and embryos are not sacrificial.
Does this help?
Also, I'd like to say that I'm not sure about my opinion on abortion... I do think that interrupting a pregnancy is not good, but I cannot simply ignore the problems an undesired child might bring to its family and society. At this point in my life, I wouldn't consider abortion, but I don't feel like I can make this decision for other people, so I wouldn't like it to be "banned". This matter puzzles me, so I don't usually join debates related to it. I just came into this one because I saw your comment about criminals and the undebatable, so now I'm here just looking forward to seeing you logically prove that there's absolutely no situation in which sacrificing a human embryo is the less of two evils. I'm looking forward to a debate.
I’ll reply to this part after we clearly understand one another about the truth of the principle of pro-abortion. This is a fair approach.
I couldn't help but notice what a load of bullst you're capable of dishing out.
Firstly you're way off the topic of the debate. It's whether abortion should be banned! Not whether human fetuses and embryos are sacrificial. If people want to get rid of their fetuses it's their choice (whether it's sacrificial or not).
I suggest you save some of that energy to debating the topic. So far, all i've heard in the hundreds of arguments against abortion is that "it's a person, don't commit murder"... which has been rebutted many times. So bring something original to the debate, don't dress up the same cr*p in different packaging.
People like you should never be allowed to hijack debates with confusing ramblings and illogical emotions that are neither intelligible reasonings or on topic.
Obviously there are many emotions. Please list the emotions that are illogical.
(BTW, your arguments are mostly ad hominem. And as far as I am concerned they don't evidence a willingness to debate a proposition; they merely attack the debater and fail to argue the evidence of your position and your accusations.)
Yes, I will continue to dismiss your posts. (Unless of course you demonstrate sound argument.)
What's wrong with ad hominem arguments against people like you?
(by "people like you" I mean all those who have nothing original to say other than the same soggy "it's a person, don't commit murder" and have a complete disregard for debating ethics, especially the scoring side of things: example? 100 arguments of the same point scores 100 for the side without actually being 100 arguments).
You can take that home and bank it with the rest of my other ad hominem arguments ;)
Oh I forgot, about emotions that are illogical? There are many instances where an emotion can be illogical. Sometimes they're not illogical, so here's an instance where emotions are illogical: Your feelings of guilt and sympathy towards a fetus as if they're actual babies is illogical because they're simply not babies.
I guess that's also an ad hominem argument since YOU feel it? Am I attacking YOU then? Bank it with the rest.
Your feelings of guilt and sympathy towards a fetus as if they're actual babies is illogical because they're simply not babies.
That is not an argument, it is an assertion you have yet to argue the truth or falsity thereof. Moreover, you have not demonstrated how or why emotions are capable of being logical or illogical. So, I am still awaiting a list of illogical emotions.
(Have you heard the expression, “a fool’s errand”? If not, you certainly will once you realize the terms ‘logical’ and ‘illogical’ are not predicable of emotions.)
One more thought, you may want to take the time and research and learn what an ‘ad hominem’ is and is not.
(I need not mention that your statement demonstrates the fallacy of petitio principii. You should research that as well.)
You're annoying me but I must say I find you a little bit amusing.
Call it assertion or whatever you want, it explains why you shouldn't push for a law that will affect the lives of those who don't share your views... and feelings ;)
Criminal? LOL, I was invited to intern with the prosecutor's office.
And FYI, falsely alleging in print that someone is a criminal is called "libel" -- or if you want to be technical, "the tort of civil libel," meaning that I now have a cause of action to sue you if I like. (Ain't screenshots grand?) Congrats -- you just crossed the line between what is merely rude and childish, and what is actually forbidden by law!
Please, by all means, go on making an ass of yourself. It's funny and it totally discredits your position so in effect I win twice . . .
#1 Our mutual anonymity precludes the possibility of personal injury by defamation. No person’s identity has been defamed and hence you have no case!
#2 I find it quite humorous that you must associate yourself with some legal professional as though that would somehow imply your competence concerning legal concepts.
Please, by all means, go on making an ass of yourself. It's funny and it totally discredits your position so in effect I win twice . . .
You may think that you have won something, but at what cost?
Lastly, if I make (as you claim) an ass of myself it certainly was not for myself; for I am a man of substance and not image, and the substance I represent justifies every mother-to-be who has chosen to keep her baby. You, on the other hand, are nothing but image, and hence your image is the result of winning or losing a debate about terminating the lives of unborn fetuses. Great Image no doubt!
Unlike you I don't JUST want to have the last say:
Agreeing to disagree means abortions should not be banned. I'll explain what this means to you since you clearly have no idea. So the 2 sides disagree on whether abortions should be banned, which means each to its own: This essentially means pro-lifers can go on having children (regardless of whether they want them or not). Pro-choicers can go on having abortions as an option. Each to its own! To make a law in any democratic society, the majority must agree, if you don't have a majority, then the law will not pass, so the status quo is abortions CANNOT BE MADE ILLEGAL.. get it?
Government's choice, you say? The government represent the people of a nation if you live in a democratic society. Where do you live?
If you kill a child, I'd kill you myself if I could. But we're not talking about children or babies here are we? so don't try to change the definition of a fetus to suit your arguments because that definition is simply wrong.
Don't try and force me to have children when I don't want to. They're fetuses. I make them and I can break them and make some more, it's a difficult decision when I have to abort them, but when I'm ready to have children I will have children, not when you think I'm ready. It makes no difference to your life, but it has a massive impact on mine so don't butt in! Women who've had abortions have gone on to have children later on when they're ready.
You claim to represent mothers who've chosen to keep their babies - good for you, but here's a news flash: they don't actually need you to represent them! They don't need you to argue that they should be allowed to keep their babies, nobody's trying to stop them! So it's a great position of risk that you've placed yourself in. A very challenging role! I don't know how you do it!
Ah, judging by the inordinate amount of posts you have submitted on this question, I will rationally infer you are on a mission. It’s not everyday we come across an Abortion Missionary; consequently, I will completely disregard anything more you care to post at CD.
May your god bless you according to the abundance of riches you seek.
If you feel the need to say something that's got nothing to do with the debate topic, I suggest you send me a private message?! That way, you're not affecting the scoring with your useless ramblings!
You are the definition of an ad hominem, hypocrite. You clearly do not have what it takes to debate us pro lifers. We care about human lives. End of discussion. As a matter of fact, the taking of any human life is wrong. In some cases, the most severe of criminals are executed because they are a danger to everyone in society and are basically asking for it.
"Some men do not want to be saved, some men simply want to see the world burn." - Alfred Pennyworth to Bruce Wayne
Somehow, abortionists are also affiliated with satanism too and yes, satanism is the very contradictive faith of Christianity itself. Jesus had said, "You cannot serve two masters. You either serve God or you don't."
It is clear that you would rather see people profit from killing babies. You will be stopped, lectured and put in prison for making death threats.
If you kill a child, I'd kill you myself if I could. But we're not talking about children or babies here are we? so don't try to change the definition of a fetus to suit your arguments because that definition is simply wrong. - NVYN the alleged suspect for attempted murder
Such hypocrisy. I'd knock you out and put you in Death Row Prison for supporting abortion and for attempted murder.
This abortion is usually performed in the third trimester.
The baby is forced into the birth canal legs first and everything except the head is delivered. The doctor then stabs the head while it is still in the canal and sucks out the brains.
I will say some very important facts:
At nine weeks a baby has a heartbeat.
At 4.5 months he can feel pain.
This baby, this human being can feel the stab of the knife. He can feel himself dying.
You haven't brought anything new to the debate at all... Still the "it's a person" argument. It's been rebutted many times. Many pro-choice people have agreed that in the third trimester abortions shouldn't be allowed unless it's absolutely necessary to save a life. If the fetus was going to experience a life of mainly vegetative state or the mother would certainly die, then I say save the mother cos she could at least have the chance to have another baby.
Nazis think they're superior to other races when in fact they are not.
The fetus is not a person. And don't say it is because this has been argued too many times.
I'm tired of see this argument: "Abortion would have killed YOU!" No it wouldn't. It wasn't me because it was a fetus. My mother would have killed a fetus, not me! My mother had an abortion before me, but I'm here now so how do you know if it wasn't me that she aborted initially? Are we going to take this debate into the realms of fantasies and reincarnations?
Oh really? Feminazis do exist and abortionists are essentially nazis who want to kill babies. You are one of them. You have zero authority over what people can say and do. You are invalidated in all of your arguments, hypocritical snowflake. Your mother was guilty of aborting that baby before then and with you, feeling no regret for that, you should be ashamed because it could've been you! What a coward you are!
There is evidence of abortionists working with satanists too. It's real. The war against evil is real and you've joined the wrong side, fool!
The question is not what makes us a person. The question is; what is it?
Genetics tells us that it is human, although in the early stages of development.
An embryo cannot think, feel, see, hear, remember, or do any of the other things that distinguish us as people
This argument had some weight before the ultrasound. But in this day and age with 3D and 4D imagining it is simply naive.
But let's say your right and we don't know at what point the unborn embryo/fetus gains the rights of a full grown person. Why not err on the side of life? If we don't know it would seem wise to use caution and restraint. Therefore to allow abortion on demand would be the height of folly.
So in conclusion; if we don't know when a fetus becomes a person we should ban abortion because it might take the life of a person.
Allow me to explain: I do believe that at a certain point in the pregnancy, abortion should not be legal. Where this point is, is what we should be debating. Clearly a single cell cannot think, see, etc... and therefore it is silly to consider this when an embreo has person status. Clearly you think that it should be illegal early in the pregnancy, but do you at least understand why it shouldn't be at conception?
"The question is not what makes us a person. The question is; what is it?"
This is how you debate??? You simply change the question???
So with that stupid tactic I can just say "the question is not what it is (because we're not debating the fact that it's human. It certainly is human alright.) The question is: is it a person?" If it is a person, why don't we give it a passport while we're at it? Register it for voting too. All fetuses should be represented in parliaments to truly be democratic... You people make me sick how you see things and then force your views on others.
Yes I do, because I think clarity is more important than agreement and I'm trying to be precise in my thinking. I don't find ambiguity or equivocation very helpful in debates. I ask the question because it is an ontological question and we need to know what it is that we are taking the life of. Asking the question of personhood doesn't get us very far because it is a characteristic of the thing in question just like the word fetus is. They tell us something about the thing but they don't tell us what the thing in question is. To know that requires an ontological question and that's why I ask; what is it? And you are correct, it is human although in the early developmental stage known as fetus just like you are at the stage known as adulthood, assuming your past puberty and if not you are an adolescent and yet still fully human just like a fetus is. And humans are the sort of things that have personhood; it's not what they are but a characteristic they posses.
Now I think the question, what is it, is one you would ask instinctively. What do I mean. Assuming you have a child, what would you say to that child if it came up behind you and asked; can I kill it? I'd bet money that the first question of your lips would be; what is it? And if it was the fly that's been bugging you, you would say yes and if it was the kid down the street you would say no. You see your answer hinges on the question; what is it and no other question. I hope you can see that. And the reason you would say no to killing the kid down down the street is because you know, instinctively, that humans aren't the sort of thing you just kill flippantly, it requires proper justification. That's why I oppose abortion. Killing humans for the sake of convenience is unjustified and evil.
BTW insult is not an argument, it's what you do when your position is unsound. You try and discredit your opponent to make yourself look good. But notice my character is unrelated to the question at hand, it has no bearing on it. That my friend is known as a genetic fallacy and an Ad hominem. You don't actually answer the question, you just obscure it and that's the opposite of clarity.
Ad hominem? Nice one! I gave lawnman a load of ad hominems a little while ago as well! In my book, it's fully justified to discredit the character of the opposition if they prove themselves to be logically unsound and are showing obvious character weaknesses. By doing that, you're showing everyone that your opposition is incapable of making sound judgements.
Now, I think I've read this story of the boy coming up to his father and asking "can I kill it?"... why? It's because you've written it already in a different post! Recycling is acceptable when it comes to milk cartons, but i find it tedious here. Now I've already answered this but i'll gladly do it again: Killing a grown kid is murder! Why did society make a law to try and stop murders? Because society benefits from having its productive members alive and contributing! Now at the end of the day, morals and righteousness are all about survival of the species. Don't believe me? Thou shall not kill... thou shall not steal... thou shall honour thy parents... etc... all designed to foster a peaceful productive society with the end goal being survival of the human species.
Now, a kid has made it all the way through the whole process of fetal development, which is not easy to do because miscarriage statistics are quite high. That kid has earned its right to be a part of society. Killing that kid is wrong. A fetus on the other hand, can be created very easily and can also be lost just as easily too. The point here however is that the human species is in no danger whatsoever of being extinct, so society hasn't seen fit to mandate saving every chance of adding to its membership. This is the way it should be. Maybe one day, we'll find ourselves in the position of an endangered species and guess what? I bet there'll be a law in every country that abortion is illegal! That's why societies make law. If it has nothing to do with the survival of society, society should stay out of it.
About Ad hominem, Let's say all the nasty things about me are true and much worse. What does that tell us about my claim? nothing. It only says something about me and is therefore irrelevant to the question at hand. So what if I'm logically unsound and have obvious character weaknesses? does that mean I'm therefore incapable of saying anything truthful? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So to say because of this therefore that I think is a a non sequitur. And since recycling is a good thing I'll say it again. Insult is not an argument, it's a failure to provide one. Now your free to use them if you like but they don’t carry much weight with me; I really am much worse than you think.
Now at the end of the day, morals and righteousness are all about survival of the species.
If that is true, then you are mistaken when you said Killing a grown kid is murder Because that means at some point it would become a good thing to kill grown kids when it is necessary for the survival of the species or to foster a peaceful productive society. But who decides what is good for the species, how do you define good, good for who?
But to my question "can I kill it" Your answer tells me that you instinctively know that there is something inherently wrong with murder and that it ought not be done. You recognize that there is something about murder that makes it wrong. And that wrongness is a characteristic of the act and not the peoples opinion of it. Gassing six million Jews was wrong even if the Germans thought it was good. You know that and so do I. But if that is the case then your premise of morals and righteousness being about survival of the species would be false because the wrongness of the act proceeds our perception of it and is independent of us. It is objectively wrong.
And further more how did it come to be that survival of the species was the good to be obtained? Because in your scheme it could have been otherwise. In your scheme it would appear to be that there really is no such thing as the good or the wrong. Because if your correct, like I’ve said, we could have just as well decided that killing grown kids is a good thing. But when we see kids butchered or any other injustice in the world something cries out within us that what we see is wrong. And we know it’s wrong because we know there is a good from which it deviates. And your definition of that good ( survival of the human species) is woefully inadequate to account for that kind of reaction. Because If you were to see someone gunned downed I seriously don't think you are saying to yourself; Hey, we as a society need that person you therefore shouldn't do that. No I think not, your gut reaction is; Whoa! that's not right...what the... We don't make laws to make things wrong, we make laws because we know that somethings are inherently wrong, they are wrong in and of themselves, like murder, theft and disrespecting people; especially our elders.
But what I think is more telling is the way you discriminate on the basis of level of development. Notice how you use the phrase “grown kid” So I ask you what’s the difference between a human in the womb and a human at the park? Level of development. The terms fetus and grown child describe the stages of development in the life of a human in this case. So when the life of a human is unjustly taken be it at 1 month after conception, 1 month after birth or 10 years of age it is wrong, that’s called moral clarity. That’s why the question “can I kill it” is so clarifying. It’s the last word, it, that makes all the difference. What is it, is an ontological question. I’m not asking the question, what’s its stage of development. That would be absurd to answer the question that way. You would never answer your kid that way. Hey daddy, can I kill it? Well son, how old is it, you know the younger the better. But that’s how you try and answer the question of abortion. I keep asking, what is it that we are killing? And you keep telling me how old it is, well it’s just at the fetus stage. OK, so what is it? And like I’ve said before; a question not properly answered doesn’t go away, it keeps getting asked. So I will keep asking the question, what is it? Till I get an adequate answer. But honestly you know as well as I do what it is and the only reason you would answer differently is if you were trying to justify something that you instinctively know to be wrong.
Final thought on showing everyone that your opposition is incapable of making sound judgments. You said; the human species is in no danger whatsoever of being extinct, so society hasn't seen fit to mandate saving every chance of adding to its membership.
This statement from you destroys your whole argument. If this is true, why are there still laws against murder? And why are there hospitals? Why did the President just pass a massive health care reform bill? if we are in no danger whatsoever of being extinct what are we so concerned about? If our survival is not in question then what is the basis for our actions? It can't be survival of the human species, were doing that quite well. So what then is it if it's not survival of the human species? Maybe somethings are actually objectively wrong, maybe human life is valuable and maybe we know it.
Because that means at some point it would become a good thing to kill grown kids when it is necessary for the survival of the species or to foster a peaceful productive society.
We have executions. We execute murderers. These are actually not kids but adults. So we do kill people and I fully support it.
.
Gassing six million Jews was wrong even if the Germans thought it was good
Well, arbitrarily exterminating a race of people goes against human survival.
.
If you were to see someone gunned downed I seriously don't think you are saying to yourself; Hey, we as a society need that person you therefore shouldn't do that. No I think not, your gut reaction is; Whoa! that's not right...what the...
You're absolutely right. But you fail to see that our gut reaction is our subconsciousness and in its own language, it's saying "hey, survival of the species is at stake here!"
.
Level of development
You're exceptionally thick, so I'm not hoping to get through to you at all. I'm simply hoping you'd one day wake up... How is a fetus not the same as person in the park? Well let's see... if the mother suffers a heavy fall or gets a bad virus, the fetus may well be naturally aborted and may no longer be, hell, sometimes it simply takes a little bit of stress felt by the mother for the fetus to be aborted naturally. A person in the park however, takes a hell of a lot more to end.
.
why are there still laws against murder? And why are there hospitals? Why did the President just pass a massive health care reform bill? if we are in no danger whatsoever of being extinct what are we so concerned about? If our survival is not in question then what is the basis for our actions? It can't be survival of the human species, were doing that quite well. So what then is it if it's not survival of the human species? Maybe somethings are actually objectively wrong, maybe human life is valuable and maybe we know it.
Yes, human lives are valuable, but like I said, we're in no danger of extinction. All these measures such as laws against murder, hospitals, national health care, etc... are preliminary steps. Laws to mandate the saving of every possible human fetus would probably be the last thing to do... This may be necessary if something all of a sudden killed 90% of humans on Earth, for example.
Thank you for making my point so well, you are correct. Taking human life requires proper justification. However waving a magic wand and declaring a human life only potential life or something else is not proper justification. It's a unique human life and there is no way around that without ignoring the obvious. Declaring it to be something else and equivocating on terms may salve your conscience but it doesn't change the reality of what it is. It's reality is not dependent on you, it's determined by what it actually is.
If being thick and asleep keeps me from killing innocent humans in the early stages of development and makes me outraged at their slaughter than I'm guilty as charged and wear those names with honor
waving a magic wand and declaring a human life only potential life or something else is not proper justification
It is proper justification for me and a lot of other people. Because with a potential life, we're not commiting murder. Like I said, we're stuck on the "potential" VS "definite" point.
.
If being thick and asleep keeps me from killing innocent humans in the early stages of development and makes me outraged at their slaughter than I'm guilty as charged and wear those names with honor
I hope you're a vegan as well. It would make sense, since eating meat would mean that you're ending lives. If you're a meat eater, you might say "oh it's not human, so it's ok" but others will say "how dare you discriminate towards other species"... but you should be ok living with them hassling you because you hassle others pretty much the same way.
Saying something is proper justification doesn't make it so. You first have to prove that it is and that you haven't done. You've only dismissed it's humanity. . If it is only a sperm or egg it is indeed alive but not fully human seeing it lacks the full chromosome set. But once it fertilizes and the chromosome set is complete; it's fully human. Either it's fully human and alive or it's not. I don't see any other option and the potential life argument doesn't factor in at all.
Again we are talking about the proper justification of taking human life; rabbit trails don't interest me.
About hassling; I will defend the innocent at my own expense; even if it cost my life because that's the right thing to do and it's always right to do what is right.
I've just responded to this notion of potential life so I will answer your questionin in regard to respecting your point of view.
Your are free to hold it. Although I disagree with it strongly I would never use the force of law or anything to prevent you from holding it and expressing it, that is true tolerance.
However, ideas have consequences and some ideas are deadly. So I would say that some ideas are vastly superior to others. What Mother Teresa did was a superior idea than what jihadist are doing. But jihadist are human and therefore are valuable human beings worthy of dignity and respect. So as humans I respect them but it's their ideas that I don't respect. So all that to say that I'm egalitarian regarding persons and an elitist regarding ideas. So as a human I will treat you with dignity and respect but I can't say I will do that with all your ideas, only the ones that are good by objective standards.
And I will further say that since I'm egalitarian regarding persons I will not engage in ad hominem because it is at the man. I will go after your ideas with a vengeance however because i differentiate between the person and their ideas.
Exactly, jstantall. Although a fetus aka embryo aka a human in development cannot think, feel nor receive any full human aspect of emotions and physical stuff yet, it is still alive. Slowly, throughout all nine months of a pregnancy, everything develops; cells, organs, the genitals, limbs, eyes, hair, ears etc etc. All those features develop over time. Hence, this is why there is ultrasound because yes, it's alive. Couples often will say, "We are pregnant" in order to show that it's not just a woman's job to look after the child. The man who is married to her, known as her husband, has to be there for her, for the sake of moral support. A fetus becomes a person within like 9 months. Within 16 weeks or so, it already counts as a developing boy or girl, depending on the chromosomes given by the mom & the dad. XY for boy. XX for girl. XXX for a girl with a defect and XXY for a boy with a defect. Intersex is often mistaken for an extra gender/sex. This is not true but ignorant. To the opposition who are very ignorant and tactically hypocritical: If you do not understand the full biology of human reproduction and birth, then you are A. Either in need of more education on this subject, B. You failed biology and need to be re-educated or C. You've chosen to ignore the facts even though you know it is true.
In my personal opinion, once the fetus can survive outside of the mother's womb (which means society can theoretically take care of the baby without the mother's input) then society can intervene. It should then be allowed to fully develop into an independent life. This stage is around 20 weeks of fetal development.
It not whether it's human. We know it's human. We also know that before at least week 20, it cannot survive on its own. It has all the POTENTIAL of a life, but that's only a POTENTIAL. Until it can be kept alive by society without the mother, it's the mother's choice to continue to bring this POTENTIAL life into existence or not.
So the question is "Is it life, or is it potential life?" and the answer is "it's potential life". So then it's in the same category as any egg or sperm on its own.
Most abortions occur at 10 weeks, can somebody please look at these pictures and please tell me what that is if it's not human. And if you dare go watch the video silent scream and please tell me what is going on there, because they sure aren't removing a clump of cells. If your are for abortion please tell me what that is they are sucking out into the trash.
I don't think most people know what an abortion is, nor have they seen one. If you are for abortion at least inform yourself and watch the video silent scream
In fact, quite a few people have experienced abortion first hand, and it's never an easy decision, but sometimes it is the right one.
It doesn't matter what the thing looks like. Science tells us that thing is not yet a sentient being, therefore it is not killing a sentient being. Cute pictures does not = sound scientific reasoning.
You don't like abortion. Fine, don't have one, but that you choose not to believe the fact that at ten weeks that little thing has 0 sense of self, does not constitute any type of proof that abortion should be banned for those who choose to undergo it before that thing is sentient.
No one is for abortion once the child is self-aware. A self-aware human should not be aborted.
That is not a self-aware human, no matter how cute.
And that said, the vast vast majority of abortions take place before the first couple weeks.
And that said, most science says there is not even a hint of possible self-awareness until around 26 weeks!
I guess you were not man enough to match the video Silent Scream because that video clearly show a fetus doing what you say it can't; showing signs of awareness.
I also I didn't say" few people have experienced abortion first hand". What I said is that few really know what it is.
About being "closed minded "it doesn't matter what the thing looks like."
If it looks human and genetically it's human; it probably is human.
The question still remains unanswered: What kind of being is it? Your attempt to redefine the question hasn't changed the question, nor does it answer it. And a question not properly answered doesn't go away. That's why abortion is still a hot topic 35yrs after Roe vs Wade. There are a lot of people for whom something seems dreadfully wrong and for those of you who support abortion to dismiss us with some fancy mental gymnastics is simply inadequate. So please, answer the question.
You also lose credibility with statements like these"the vast vast majority of abortions take place before the first couple weeks." How do you abort something you don't know you have? In most cases it's a missed period that tips the woman off and that takes time. Facts are annoying things when they contradict you and you can't make them go away by changing them. Do your research first before you make assertions like this, Because for those of us who have. you lose credibility. But I think you make my point that most people don't know much about abortion.
But tell me iamdavidh, were you ever an unborn baby? Because if you were. you have to acknowledge that an abortion would have killed you, not something else but you. And that means abortion kills people in the early stages of their life not something else that later becomes them, but them.
Listen, you want to believe it's a living thing based on that video, fine, I'll trust science. If science says it's a sentient being, I'll be against it.
In the meantime, don't make these poor girls feel worse they they already do about the whole thing.
So you're against it, but obviously a lot of people think that "silent scream" is rubbish.
You know what, beatles make a noise when you squish them. They're not sentient though, and they actually have more brains than a fetus before the first couple weeks.
Meanwhile, these poor girls, half the time they were raped, or their still just kids them self,
and you get these nuts calling them nazis and killers and everything else,
you know what, they're not killers. I don't know what a fetus is, you don't, but science does, and science says they aren't people yet.
It says they're people after the third-trimester,
before then, leave these girls alone until you have some scientific proof beyond,
"I really really really really feel it's a living person."
And to the last ridiculous paragraph. Had I been aborted I would have never existed, and so no, I would not have been killed. So there. I was a sperm once too, should guys stop ejaculating?
... and pretending you hear the screams of things that haven't developed vocal cords is perfectly sane
got it, thanks for the heads up :/
These downvotes don't impress me either. I realize there is a religious coupe going on on create debate right now. But you'll get bored of being wrong eventually and move along to a site that will reinforce your misguided opinions instead of challenging them. Don't worry about saying good-bye, I hate long good byes and I tear up, you know, the emotion and all...
You are good at making my point thank you. A question not properly answered never goes away, and equivocating on terms is a poor attempt to cloud the issue.
It does appear you are rather uninformed about fetal development. I do hope you would be more open minded and consider the possibility that you might actually be mistaken.
I only down vote faulty logic :) and insult is no argument, please deal with ihe issue at hand and actually respond to what is said and not what you think is said.
What amazes me is that iamdavidh has the patience to put forth logics to argue against your stupid feelings and belief system. The question is never whether the fetus is a human! We all know it's human! It's a human sperm and egg so ofcourse it's human.
The question really is "is it a person?"... and it's clearly not. Leave your beliefs and bible at home please.
Iamdavidh is perfectly logical and rational. Jstantall, you're the one that's irrational. Can't you see? Oh, wait that's like asking a crazy guy if he can see that he's crazy!
Science has been wrong in the past. If science were always blindly trusted, we would never progress. It is challenging science that makes us find new and better answers.
Why do we need an excuse to get rid of a fetus if we don't want it? It's our fetus, not yours, we can get rid of this one and then we can make another one! Women have children after abortions all the time, it's when they're ready to be mothers!
It's not a person before it can survive outside the womb, so if you think it is a person good for you! Don't force us to see your point of view as we don't force you to see ours.
Why do you want an excuse to kill it? What has a fetus ever done to you to deserve the fate of death itself? You re a disgraceful smear on humanity itself.
how is stabbing a pregnant dog, the same as abortion. it is completely different. we're not saying u can stab a pregnant person but we're saying that the pregnant person should have the option to abort. not that it is ok to go and stab any person that is pregnant.
Read what I was replying to. I was being facetious.
Following the logic of the statement I was replying to, it would wrong to have an abortion ever under any circumstance, but something like say, stabbing a pregnant dog in the vagina, would be just fine... if one were to follow the logic,
which it's become quite apparent few posting under this topic are capable of.
Apparently I won this little debate because the entire thread that lead to my (again) having to over explained simple logic to the pro-lifers was deleted.
I guess the one I was arguing with had a sudden epiphany and saw how ridiculous I was making them look so decided to delete all their replies :)
I'm sooo sick of people like you who feel like they have to be contradicted to know that they're getting the point accross. It is ridiculous and is getting on my nerves.
I've lost everybody in this thread... can we just say that:
- stabbing a dog anywhere is kinda sick and is not ok (unless you eat dogs like in some countries).
- abortion should not be outlawed until week 20 into the pregnancy.
- people who are pro-life should keep their point of view and not force it on others and make them feel like they're murders, cos it's not like killing a person.
Friend, it has nothing to do with you unless you can keep it alive yourself. Before the fetus turns at least 20 weeks old, it has no chance of survival outside of the mother's womb. This means she alone should have the choice. You should not butt in just because of your own feelings. Consider other people's feelings, consider the people who are directly affected by this. They should have the choice to keep the pregnancy or not before it turns 20 weeks. If you can't keep it, then butt out! It's not an infant, it's merely a POTENTIAL life, which is in the same category as an egg or sperm on its own.
I would just like to add one more thing. Everyone who is for abortion seems to insist this should solely be the woman's decision. Why is that? What about the father? Why should he have no say in a child that he would have to bear legal responsibility to if it were born?
Suppose, a father says he does not want the child and she has it anyway. He is still legally liable to this child. Now, suppose the opposite. He wants the child, is willing to raise this child without any financial support from the mother and is willing to bear all financial burden of the mother while she is unable to work. He should not have this right?
When the man has sex with a woman, he knows he is potentially creating a life. He must be prepared to accept whether the woman wants to keep it. It's inside her, not him.
Consider you taking your child over to a neighbour and asks him to babysit the child while you go out for dinner. The neighbour shouldn't have to babysit just because you asked him. He has to look after the child, so he has the choice to do it or not. You are responsible for this child whether he wants to babysit or not.
The father doesn't have to carry the baby for nine months and then have it wreak havoc on his body while he pushes it out of a hole four sizes too small. If he does make the offer to fully support the child without the mother being around, good for him, but he still can't force her to carry and birth it.
It's a moving story, yes. However the boy is now a life! Before it became a life, it was only a potential life attached to its mother and is completely dependent on her. Only she should have the say in whether it should be kept or not. I am pro-choice, so I say give the women who are considering abortion as much counselling and options and information as you can, but before the fetus can survive outside of her womb it's her choice and society should not make her do anything she doesn't want to do.
Speak for yourself, unintelligent ape. I believe he has argued logically and you? You haven't brought a thing to justify your claims on abortion. It's all excuses. It's a pity you didn't get aborted since you claim fetuses are non living which they aren't and it's exactly my point. The hypocritical claims you pro abortionists have is; it's a choice. But do you ever think before acting? Why are you so anxious to avoid the responsibilities and consequences of your actions? This is why morality is important in society. This is why marriage was created to prevent out of control sex, in order to prevent consequences of a baby being created and then a mother who doesn't know A THING ABOUT HOW TO TAKE CARE OF HIM OR HER!!!
"Abortion is stupid. All these* chicks that have abortions are stupid."
First of all, check your spelling before an argument, always.
Second of all, saying abortion is stupid isn't helping your case at all, because you show no evidence that proves abortion is 'stupid'. How can you prove that abortion is stupid, which means "having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense". Doesn't really prove much, buddy.
Thirdly, All these "chicks" having abortions could be having them for many reasons, once again it doesn't prove they are in any way stupid. They could just not be able to take care of the child, they could be financially unstable, the baby daddy could have forced them, the dad could be abusive, they could be druggies. You never know. Saying someone or something is stupid just because you don't agree is bias. Try and look on all sides of the fence before picking a side, buddy.
Those chicks chose to have sex in the first place. It's no surprise that they complain about being pregnant. Who are the ones who had sex in the first place right? It's their responsibility and the man's responsibility too. It takes one man and one woman to make a child.
This is not an argument but supporting evidence of why abortion should be banned. This woman knows first hand what abortion is and what it does. If you are going to argue for abortion you will need to overcome this woman's testimony. But I bet most people will just attack her character falsely.
I bet that's what you all claim eh? I once saw a man named Jesus defending the lives of children by saying they are the most cherished, the most precious and are the most vulnerable. They are to be protected at all times. Legit words from the Son of God who would denounce you immediately!!
Let's assume that we don't know when life begins or at what point those cells in the mothers womb become human. And let's say we can't answer the question, what is it. If we take all the arguments for abortion and weigh all the objections then I have only one question. If we don't know the right or wrong answer to the question of abortion. Why not err on the side of life? If we don't know, and this debate demonstrates that, then why not use caution and restraint? It's seems to me that if this issue of abortion is "debatable" then it would be unwise to throw open the gates of permission.
What if we are wrong and it turns out that we have actually snuffed out the life of over 45 million children? I think the guilt of that would have a more profound affect on our nation than thousands of women who die from back ally abortions. See, in abortion we as a nation are complicate in the act because we as a nation sanctioned it. In the back ally abortion we have no guilt because the parties acted contrary to our law. If you think nations don't have guilt, ask a German about the Holocaust. The don't like to talk about it for obvious reasons.
Err on the side of life? ERR??? This is not guess work. The fact is we DO know that it's human, we DO know that it's definitely a POTENTIAL life (but not ACTUAL life). We DO know the answer to most of these questions. We just want a choice. Don't word it as if you've sanctioned abortions. You are simply giving people a choice. Put it another way, you haven't taken away their rights to choose.
Holocaust is killing Jews.
Choice to abort a fetus that cannot survive outside the womb until at least week 20 is the same as using a condom or abstaining, or masterbating into the toilet.
There is a VERY simple answer to the abortion debate:
Abortion should NOT be a form of birth control. It should ONLY be allowed (as a final solution) in the event of a pregnancy resulting from rape, incest, or other sexual crime.
That sounds like YOUR solution to a minority of people. Don't you dare make everyone abide by the minority's rules. If it was a simple answer, it wouldn't be such a huge issue.
Abortion isn't a form of birth control like condoms or the pill, for those directly involved it's a difficult choice that they have to make because bringing a human life up is no easy task. It's not like having a pet (and even that is a big ask because not all pet owners are responsible).
Again, it's the choice of those directly involved. It doesn't affect anybody else's life, so leave it alone.
Of all the arguments I have made about this issue I think it comes down to this simple fact; Abortion should be banned because the most dangerous place in America shouldn't be the womb.
I say this because statistically speaking more human beings are killed there everyday than anywhere else. That in my opinion simply should not be.
I would like to offer some clarification on the question "can I kill it" and the follow-up question "what is it"
As I have stated before; the taking of human life requires a high level of justification. No argument that I've seen for abortion rises to the level of proper justification. Please note what I'm discussing; the taking of human life, not any life but human life in particular.
So what does that have to do with the question "can I kill it" That question needs to be clarified; hence the follow up question. What I want you to notice is what kind of question "what is it" is. It is an ontological question. We're asking about the very nature of the thing in question. And that's important because it determines how we answer the first question. But notice this is a strictly ontological question; it is not a question about level of dependence or development. Why is that important? Because if the thing in question, ontologically speaking, is human then it requires a high level of justification to kill it. If it's not human, no justification is necessary. I'm not saying if it's human you can't kill it, sometimes you can and must but you must properly justify your actions. This is were abortion fails because the only reason it gives for the most part is because the mother just choose to. And yes I'm sure she went through some tough decisions but bottom line; she wants to. Because the fact is she doesn't have to; she has other options.
But what happens when you kill without proper justification? You have to find a way to justify the act because your conscience is smitting you. This is always done by making the victim less than human or not human at all. Because after all if it's not human, no justification is necessary. And this is were I have seen all the arguments for abortion go. They leave the ontological question and move to other areas that are more easily justifiable. Most of them are framed like this: can I kill it? What is it? it's just a..... Well of course you can They all answer yes by qualifying the object by something that is easier to justify; a standard that is lower not higher. But let's answer the question head on and notice how the gravity of the question changes when we answer the follow-up question correctly. And by correctly I mean answering the question according to the kind of question it is, an ontological question. can I kill it? What is it? It's a human, one at the very early stages of it's development......
So let's take the question of this debate head on; Should abortion be banned?
What is abortion?
The taking of a human life at the very early stages of it's development.
Why would you want to do that?
Because I don't want the inconvenience of a child.
Does that sound like proper justification for the taking of human life, especially the weakest and most vulnerable human life?
I have reduced, intentionally, all reasons for an abortion to a matter of convenience because ultimately that's what it comes down to. If a pregnancy, regardless of how it came about, stands between you and what you want it's an inconvenience; and we all know what we do with inconveniences. But this one is a little sticker because it's human. But if we can take away or cloud it's humanity then it will be easier to do.
So should abortion be banned? Of course it should, for obvious reasons.
The fundamental issue regarding the abortion debate is not women's rights or other factors which concern personal autonomy, but over the status of the unborn child. Variants of the personal choice argument presuppose that the unborn child is not a human person, for if the unborn child is indeed a human person, then no amount of freedom justifies its elective termination. Henceforth, variants of the personal autonomy argument beg the question by presupposing their conclusions: they are valid if and only if the unborn are not human persons.
First premise is that it is prima facie morally wrong to kill any person. Jane English makes an interesting point that this is not always the case. For example, would not self-defense be a legitimate example of when killing a person is justified? However, the abortion opponent could also claim that fetus' are innocent entities, but even then prima facie it would seem that self-defense would still be legitimate.
A fetus is a person because it posses "intrinsic potentials". However, before that he admits that an argument that shows unborn are persons because they have the persons to become persons is absurd...
A fetus is not a parasite. Its an undeveloped human. No skin cells, hair follicles or any other bunch of cells. A undeveloped human. A woman has eggs for reproduction. These eggs have to be fertilized to create a fetus. If left unchecked as long as the fetus is healthy a human being will be formed inside the womans womb. If a woman doesnt want a child its her responsibility to prevent it from getting started. Women have plenty of ways to prevent unwanted prgnancy. Killing a fetus is wrong. Its a very young human. You can argue details but bottom line is it will one day, if all goes well,become a functioning member of the human race. Terminating this is murder. The question we need to ask is why do we have this problem in our "advanced" civilization. Most abortions are from unwanted pregnancy not rapes or medical conditions. Are women not ready for their rights? Mass murder of undeveloped humans because of irresponsibilty. We shouldn't condone this behavior as a womans right. WE should condemn because its a womans responsibility to be a mother when she decides to create a fetus.
abortion should be banned. abortion is like killing a baby. would you do that? if you would then go ahead and abort, but it is still wrong and should be banned.....
Right but that doesn't mean that abortion is justified! Rape and incest are terrible but are the children to be blamed for the sins of their fathers? And/Or their mothers? No! You would need to talk to God about this with earnest prayer! Taking a human life is just as bad as rape/incest! It's true!
"I have simply seen no argument that comes close to proper justification for the taking the life of a innocent human being."
So a thirteen year old girl gets raped, and you're saying that the govenrment have the right to force that girl to keep her unwanted baby? I would imagine the girl would never really bond with her baby, and the child would have to grow up knowing of its conception and live with the knowledge that it was not wanted. Surely that is justification enough? That is not a life anyone would want, and surely aborting that baby in its early stages of development would be the better thing to do.
Also, think of the number of children that would end up in care if abortion was banned. There are enough of them already, the banning of abortion would most definately increase this number, and the more children in care, the lower the quality would become. Where would they get the money to look after so many children? Our taxes? It would get rediculous, and there would be a lot of children out there wishing they had never been born.
I do realise that there are problems with abortion, for example, the amount of people who have unsafe sex because they know they can either take the morning after pill or have an abortion is rediculous. But, I'd like to know that if the contraception i was using didn't work and I fell pregnant through no fault of my own, I would be very happy that I have the option to have an abortion.
Also, when do you begin to class a fetus as a human? I personally would not think of it as a human untill about 12 weeks. It doesnt even enter the fetal stage untill the 11th week, surely abortion before this stage is not inhumane?
If there was a contraception out there that was 100% effective, then this would be a more valid arguement. I'm young, and have dreams and aspirations that I could never fulfill if I became pregnant. If contraception can't garrentee that i won't get pregnant, I definately want the choice to have an abortion if i needed one.
You're view seems to be very black and white, and you seem to dismiss the huge grey area that exists. Abortion exists for a reason and should not be banned
Let me clarify my position, since I misstated it. The first question that needs to be asked is " what kind of life is it?" If it is a human life then no reason for abortion is adequate. Therefore no further questions are needed.
I find it rather disturbing that we want to have sex without commitments so badly that we are willing to kill the result of that sexual union.
But isn't that just like human nature, everything is just fine until something conflicts with what we want and stands between us and what we desire. Then laws get broke, peace treaties ignored, property taken and people killed. But the most heinous crime is when we make laws to exonerate ourselves. When we call evil, good. We may be guiltless before the law but that doesn't mean we are not without real quilt. But praise be to God that He has provided a solution to the two greatest problems man faces, guilt and death. With God there is forgiveness, but not without great cost.
Yes, abortion should be banned. What about adoption? They need to stand up for the mistake they made and have the baby, and if it is unwanted, put it up for adoption. Just don't kill it. I understand that the baby really isn't a baby yet but if a baby isn't wanted, then the person needs to have safe sex. It isn't the baby's fault.
Murder! i dont care how you got pregnat and why usually it is your choice. so why murder someone you made that is your own flesh and blood. imagine that! murder! murder!
I think that abortion is absolutely wrong in all ways because it's killing a innocent life. For all you know, that baby could've been the one to make a cure for cancer or AIDS. I think that in a situation such as being raped, that the baby is innocent and the baby had nothing to do with whoever raped you, it's not the baby fault. There are all kinds of options in the world like adoption that you could choose if you don't want your baby. Unplanned pregnancy is no reason to have an abortion because I feel like if you had sex willingly then you knew what the possible outcome could be. I AM 100% AGAINST ABORTION FOR ANY REASON. NO BABY DESERVES THAT!
The purpose of intercourse is to create life. Just like everything else in life, we've corrupted it into a luxury and no longer something sacred that should be used for more and never just alone, pleasure. Once you put it in without a condom or birth control and you ejaculate you made the decision and approved the life you created, everything is a choice. You may not believe that in that first week its living but when a woman tries to get pregnant but can't physical she still takes those first weeks into consideration so if she feels a difference, a missed period it gives her hope, why? Cause even though its only those weeks she still created and had life in her or else all these early miscarriages wouldn't matter to anyone but it does cause believe it or not a mother understands that no matter what time she has something in her that she didn't have before and when it dies its something that was part of her, aka life.
Yes abortion should be banned you have time and money to keep yourself having sex , you have money to take and raise a child. Now,in the same senses it shouldn't because if a girl gets rapped and pregnant then they have all the right in mind of having a abortion if it was me and I got rapped , I would get an abortion, I have a friend that has a friend that was rapped and kept her baby because she said "NO matter what that is her child and she is going to raise it" I respect abortion's but again at the same time I dont
abortion should be banned because this foetus which has just developed how do you know that it wont grow up to be the most succesful person in the world or be someone great , it is like endindg someone,s life before it begins
When you abort someone you're killing them. At that point what seperates you from someone who murders? Why can't you give the human a life? why deprive the baby of a life when it hasn't even been born yet. There should be no excuse for abortion. It is wrong and it is defiantly not the best option.
Steve Jobs, Faith Hill, Aristotle, J.R.R. Tolkien, George Washington Carver, Edgar Allen Poe, Babe Ruth, Johann Sebastian Bach, Herbert Hoover, George Lopez, Simon Bolivar, and Marilyn Monroe. What do they all have in common? They were all orphaned either from birth or when they were just children. They are the ultimate examples of how great and wonderful life is. The rode to success was harder for these people but they persevered. They become presidents, CEO's, Actors/Actresses, singers, inventors, Philosophers, and American Icons. Not everyone will become as great as these people but everyone deserves the chance.
In my personal opinion, yes. Abortion should be banned. I am pro-choice, I just believe that a woman's choice to have a child is before engaging in sexual activities, not after a person has been created.
Of course, there are scenarios such as rape or cases of bodily disorders that are different from another abortion. A woman in those situations must come to the difficult decision through god and deep personal contemplation.
On the level of morality it is murder and the fact that people have illegitimate children shows their level of responsibility. It should be banned as far as a illegitimate children or children of rape victims are concerned please put them up for adoption in Israel.
First of all, abortion is murder. Abortion means removing another person's right to live. If killing a person is illegal, why would abortion not be illegal, when in fact abortion is also killing a person.
Second, most religions have a stand against Abortion. Examples are Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam.
Lastly, if you do not want to take care of that baby after being born, you can do that by letting him/her be adopted, not by killing him/her.
Abortion should be banned to an extent. If you have chose to have sex then you should not be able to have an abortion. You knew the possibility of pregnancy and you took those chances. But on the other hand if you are raped you should be able to have an abortion.
It should be banned because you are killing a human. You might say, oh, its the mothers choice you sexist pigs. But, have you ever asked the baby inside if it wants to die? Have you considered its opinion? It just wants to live. Life is love. And if you are having a baby and don’t want it, maybe you should have thought about that night you had with that man.
Yes, abortion should be banned. It's not just a question based on if you're religious or not, it's a question based on if the unborn child has human rights. Obviously, it does. If you base your argument off of sentience, does that mean when you're asleep I can shoot you? No, of course not. That would be murder or attempted murder.
(Although I am a bit of a hypocrite, as I believe abortion should be permitted based on specific cases)
I think abortion should be banned - aborting a baby is just a 'nice' way of killing it. It's an easy option, and I understand that perhaps the mother thinks the baby will have a horrible life, but if the baby can't make the decision of whether it wants to live with a horrible life or not, why should the mother have the right to decide for it?
If somebody desperately doesn't want their baby, then they should have it put up for adoption.
One main reason people agree with abortion is, for example, if a 13 year old is raped and unable to look after their baby, why would you bring the baby into the world? The answer is that, although I would sympathise with the girl in question, I would also have to acknowledge that letting a baby be alive is more important. If the girl can't look after the baby, she can either put it up for adoption or try and find a family member/ family friend to take in the baby. Maybe it is easier for her to get an abortion, but when something is in terms of life and death, you can't always just choose what is easier.
Another reason people often get abortions is that their baby will have a medical condition where, if they were to live, they would suffer from being paralysed or blind, or any other number of medical conditions that can be diagnosed before the baby is born. The problem with this is that, by deciding to abort a baby simply because they will have a medical condition, is essentially labelling the value of a child with down syndrome (1/3 of which are aborted) as lower than a child who doesn't have any medical conditions, when, in reality, a life is a life.
Of course there are other reasons someone might get an abortion, but those are the main two I see/hear people say. My opinion is that abortion should only be allowed if the mother/baby is going to die because of the pregnancy. However, it shouldn't be allowed on the basis of mental health (abortion can actually trigger depression/trauma in some people) or because 'the child wouldn't have a good life'. It is better to be alive and paralysed than to be dead. It's better to be alive with down syndrome than dead. It is better to be alive and separated from your parents, than dead. Anything is better than being dead - there is no possibility of a good life if you don't have a life to begin with.
Psalm 139:13-16: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."
Psalm 22:10-11: “Upon thee was I cast from my birth, and since my mother bore me thou hast been my God. Be not far from me, trouble is near and there is none to help."
1. Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you."
I am in conflict. I have not formed an opinion on this subject yet. But I would like to ask some questions I hope both sides can answer. Is it okay to make an 8 year old give birth? You can get pregnant as soon as you start ovulating (having your period), which can begin as early as 8. If this 8 year old was raped, and she conceived a potential child from the rape, do you think it is O.K to make her have give birth to that child? But then again, is it okay to kill this potential life ray could grow up into a beautiful loving, breathing human? Can pro-lifers and pro-choicers come to a middle ground or is it only black or white? To me, both sides have complexes that do take some thinking through. Moral ethics and science really have pushed themselves further away when it comes to abortion. The only thing I can confidently say is that it would would be hard for both sides eight? It's a really complicated issue and I think I've made an okay choice saying that I won't come to my own conclusion just yet. Research and critical thinking skills will get me there in the end. (I hope)
Educate yourself guys! Form your own opinions and remember, take everything with a grain
Aborting a baby is a heartless, cruel decision to make. The baby is a human being, just like you and me! You are taking that babies life before it even got to really begin. There a thousands of loving families who can't have children of their own, that will gladly take in your baby. Getting pregnant is also your own personal fault, that doesn't mean you need to take their life because of your mistake. I believe abortion is the worst thing women can do.
At any stage of pregnancy, the unborn are human beings, and their right to life should be protected. Abortion bans do cause decrease in abortion. Abortion is also ableist because most babies with down syndrome are aborted.
At any stage of pregnancy, the unborn are human beings
Who cares, if it hasn't developed a brain yet its not murder.
Abortion is also ableist because most babies with down syndrome are aborted.
The last thing this world needs is more retards, especially when all you care about is "human human soul soul" when you wouldn't give a shit about an equally sentient but non-human being so your morality is divorced from any true goodness or compassion for beings.
1. The art of love takes two. You can't kill a man's son or daughter (which a fetes by definition is) without even asking his stance on things. If you keep it legal it should take two votes not one.
2. Adoption is also an option. Abortions also aren't cheap so you're not really financially gaining anything with them. Adoption is free and humane.
3. The right to live equals the right to be born. The child's body is being destroyed, not the woman's body. It's an issue of children's rights not women's rights. The act of taking a human life (and a fetes is factually human) is by definition murder. Do we really have the right to play God?
Let's just ask ourselves first what good do abortions actually do? Is convenience their only perk? You hear pro-abortionists bring up the most outrageous and exaggerated hypothetical scenarios to justify abortion. That already sheds light on their detachment from reality. If you're going to argue all abortions should be legal than centre your arguments around regular abortions and share regular stories to build your case. Even if we would agree that incest babies should be aborted that would not also justify a healthy 20 year old woman aborting her healthy 5 month old baby in order to save her "career". There's a leap of logic there. Every type of case needs its own argument. Once we're passed rape, incest, underage girls, people with down-syndrome etc we really art to also talk about Lizzy who wants to have an abortion to save her "perfect figure". I'm open for debates.
Life begins at conception, making abortion murder.
Conception is the moment a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell, which begins the process of cell division that creates a human. [256]
Tara Sander Lee, Senior Fellow and Director of Life Sciences at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, stated, “life begins from the moment of conception when the sperm fertilizes the egg, because there is the creation of a new, totally distinct, integrated organism or a human being, which is going to be biologically distinct from all other life forms on this planet.” The first cell is biologically distinct because it has its own DNA that is different from either biological parent and all other humans. [257]
Ending a life is murder legally and ethically, even a life that is only a few growing cells at the time of death.
Pope Francis explained, “Abortion is murder. Those who carry out abortions kill…. At the third week after conception, often even before the mother is aware (of being pregnant), all the organs are already (starting to develop). It is a human life. Period. And this human life has to be respected. It is very clear…. Scientifically, it is a human life.” [258]
That people may face difficulties without abortion as an option does not excuse or justify murder. A reader of The Atlantic, who gave only the initial K., clarified the moral dilemma: “I wish that I could be pro-choice because the awful circumstances so many women face—that I can’t even imagine facing—seem so much more real to me than the rights of a fetus who doesn’t even always look human. But abortion is the intentional killing of a human being and we look back with horror at anyone in history who decided a group of people did not actually count as people. We cannot solve the problem of injustice against women with more injustice. We need solutions that support women without killing fetuses.” [295]
Con 2
Legal abortion promotes a culture in which life is disposable.
Echoing a 2014 remark by Pope Francis that connected abortion to “throwaway culture,” Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, New Jersey, stated, “abortion represents a failure to recognize the sanctity of human life and promotes a culture in which human life in its most vulnerable moment is perceived as disposable. Such a proposal targets poor women as needing an expedient solution to a complex problem.” [260]
Tobin previously declared legal abortion a “brutalization of the American heart” on par with the “dehumanization of the undocumented” immigrants. [261]
Alveda King, former Georgia state representative and niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., also connected abortion to other societal ills: “Abortion and racism are both symptoms of a fundamental human error. The error is thinking that when someone stands in the way of our wants, we can justify getting that person out of our lives. Abortion and racism stem from the same poisonous root, selfishness. We create the deceptions that the other person is less important, less worthy, less human. We are all fully human. When we face this truth, there is no justification for treating those who look different than us as lesser beings. If we simply treat other people the way we’d like to be treated, racism, abortion, and other forms of inhumanity will be things of the past.” [262]
As King notes, some fetuses are treated as less than human. This ideology combined with legal abortion could create a slippery slope to designer babies, gender selection, termination of disabled but healthy fetuses, and other trait-selection-based abortions. The slippery slope can then extend to the mentally disabled and elderly in general.
[262]
“[A]bortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation,” according to US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. “Technological advances have only heightened the eugenic potential for abortion, as abortion can now be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics, such as a particular sex or disability.” [263]
Con 3
Increased access to birth control, health insurance, and sexual education would make abortion unnecessary.
Abortion rates in the United States have fallen at what the CDC called a “slow yet steady pace” since a peak in 1981. That year there were 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44. The rate fell to 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 2019. [264] [265]
Experts largely contribute the decline in abortions in the United States and elsewhere to the improved safety and availability of LARC (long-acting reversible contraception) including IUDs and contraceptive implants that can last up to 10 years. [264] [266] [267]
Access to health insurance to pay for contraceptives also contributed to a drop in abortions. With the passage of Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), more people were insured with access to free or low-cost contraceptives and reproductive care. [264]
Linda Rosenstock, Public Health Professor of Health Policy and Management at UCLA, summarized the simplicity of the connection: “In the United States each year, about half of pregnancies are unintended and about 40% of those lead to abortion. Access to birth control leads to fewer abortions.” [264]
Further, teens are having sex later in life than their parents. 38.4% of American high schoolers reported they have had sex (down from 54% in 1991) and only 27.4% reported they were currently sexually active (37.5% in 1991). [268]
Because teen birth control use has not increased significantly, experts attribute the decline in part to better sex education. A 2021 study found that students who received comprehensive sexual education initiated sex later than students who did not participate in sex ed. The later teens have sex, the less chance there is for them to become pregnant unintentionally, which leads to fewer abortions. [264] [268] [269]
Historically, abortion was a popular means of birth control and family planning due to a lack of reliable contraception, education, and other resources, and the fact that childbirth was incredibly dangerous. Better options are now available, including more effective birth control, better healthcare and health insurance, and sex education to ensure an unwanted pregnancy does not happen in the first place.
"If you won't even accept left center feminist frequency and probably center bias center for countering digital hate then you are so extreme right there is no convincing you." - "sciencerules" the hypocritical strawman loving snowflake (Opponent on the wrong side)
"Truly truly I say unto you, if ye are not reborn from water and of the spirit, thou shalt not enter thy Kingdom of God." - Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Our Savior who is on the righteous side)
"If you won't accept that real women have gone through abortions and have regretted it, then you are clearly a human being without a conscience and because of this, pro lifers are even more justified to fight for baby lives because yes, they do matter. You clearly are extremely leftist and you are clearly ignorant and retarded. There is no common sense within you and you clearly are sexist towards men. You are a hypocrite and you are clearly hateful. There is no truth within you. You have proven time and time and again that you would rather support pedophiles and immoral toxic ideologies rather than defending the lives of human beings, especially developing newborns. What does this say about yourself? That you are no longer behaving humanely but rather, inhumanely. You will be committed to Arkham Asylum for life because you just proved yourself to be a feminazi. Nazis were leftists FYI snowflake. Cry me a river and get over it." - Dr. Batman (Follower of Jesus who is also on the righteous side.)
Here are four women who have gone through abortions. One or a few will say they've regretted it. None of my arguments have strawman to it. You on the other hand? Yep. You are what you sew. That's how your arguments are invalidated 100% flawlessly.
God prevails!
4 Women give their testimonies on their experiences of abortion
Responsibility is absolutely important. If a woman gets herself into a relationship with a man and happens to get pregnant, it was her decision to have sex with him and the kid or kids will be BOTH of their responsibilities. Women can't do this alone. Men have a say on this and usually, men are portrayed as the jerks who run off while their girlfriend has to look after the child. Seriously. The responsibility won't be there if you as a woman decide NOT to have sex AT THE WRONG TIME. IF YOU DON'T WANT A CHILD, DON'T HAVE SEX UNTIL YOU ARE READY TO AND WHEN YOU ARE MARRIED. Yes marriage is STILL BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN EXCLUSIVELY.
Those who assume pro lifers don't care about the woman's life, you're mistaken. We care about both the mother's life and the infant's. However, killing the infant growing in a woman's womb does not justify it just because the woman wants it out of her. It is murder. If you are a woman reading this, you'd understand, having a child is a great responsibility. So don't have sex unless you are with the right man in a happy marriage and have decided together as a couple to have children. Children are created by two people regardless, therefore the decision of abortion is up to both the man and the woman. Pro abortionists aka child murderers aka severe convicts do not have any excuse to justifying the death of a developing newborn. Pro abortionists argue through poor strawman strategies that it's "my body my choice", however, it was your choice to have sex in the first place; to women who have gone nuts over sex sex sex with any man she can get her claws on. Yeah, control yourself and quit killing babies on purpose. It is absolutely irresponsible. For those who argue "fetuses aren't human", well you were once fetuses too weren't you, pro baby murderers? Why didn't your mothers abort you eh? Because they cherished you, that's why. But growing up to hate on other newborns that are developing, that just brings shame on you as women. You may deny that you regret abortion if you have experienced it, but it will never rest on your conscience. Never. I have won this debate. Any opposition will be banned on sight. My word is absolute and righteous. Baby lives matter and abortion rights will be eradicated 100%.
Pro choice claim it's "my body my choice", however, they do not understand what choice means right? Choice means you have options. Not one but two. That's why pro lifers make sense and pro choice doesn't. Pro choicers all scream, "MY BODY MY CHOICE" AND THEN CLAIM THEY ARE FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS. Yet have you ever thought about asking a real woman what she wants to do if she is pregnant? Yeah. If you aren't a woman who is pregnant or if you are a man who isn't in a relationship with a man, especially in a marriage, THAN DON'T GET INVOLVED. You pro abortionists claim you are for women's rights, yet you don't let pro lifers speak up eh? That's your hypocrisy and I will continue to argue common sense because pro lifers are common sense. Abortion is murder. Fetuses are living. They develop over 9 months. Baby lives matter. Ask real mothers who have seemingly gone through abortions. Pro abortionists may claim they care but they never will because they think baby lives do not matter. All you pro abortionists do is you want to have sex and than you don't take responsibility for the baby. Give it a rest, take responsibility AND THEN YOU WON'T HAVE A PROBLEM. But do you listen? Nope. That's why, pro abortionists are not common sense. They are child murderers with no morality. Anyone as much as lifts a finger, you will be shot down by the truth and only the truth.
Ex abortionist explains how it's a lie that "abortion is easy". Most women who go through with this either never had fulfillment as a mother/wife or simply hates the idea of having children.
Another former abortionist has a conversation about why she stopped being an abortionist and became pro life.
To you abortionists;
Kill the fetuses and what? Everybody is as ugly as you? You abortionists are no better than Joker when he tried to get two groups of humans on two ships to blow each other up.
It is indeed NEVER A RIGHT TO KILL A DEVELOPING CHILD. We ALL WERE FETUSES ONCE. In ALL OF OUR MOTHERS' WOMBS, INDIVIDUALLY. To dehumanize a mere developing fetus aka a developing human being; boy or girl wise says alot about yourself too. Why would your life matter if you dehumanized another's? Your mother and father cared enough to bring you into this world. God created us. Our bodies do not belong to us. Procreation is a gift not something to be played with through irresponsibility. I knew, I KNEW NOT ALL WOMEN WOULD LET THEIR CONSCIENCE REST ABOUT ABORTION GOING THROUGH AS RIGHTEOUS BECAUSE IT ISN'T!!! Relationships takes two people; one man and one woman. The responsibility falls unto both the man and the woman. If you don't want to make that choice of looking after a child, DON'T. HAVE. SEX. DON'T HAVE A RELATIONSHIP.
Former Abortionist Becomes Pro-Life - A Conversation with Patti Giebink
Logic and reason over emotion. The red head doesn't know anything about abortion. Claiming that the nice lady at the stand is denying science? HYPOCRITE! All of you pro abortionists are HYPOCRITES! YOU WERE ALL ONCE FETUSES IN YOUR MOTHERS' WOMBS. BY SAYING FETUSES ARE NOT LIVING, YOU ARE ALSO SAYING YOU ARE NOT LIVING TOO!! "Subjective?" Is biology subjective? Is it built on opinions? NO! And yes, there is responsibility that falls onto the man and the woman! Nice try red head, but you're dumber than all the blonde chicks and brunettes around. Pro abortionists avoid the responsibilities and consequences that comes from heterosexual sex! This is why marriage is important! This is why pre marital sex is wrong and also out of control! I recommend EVERYBODY WATCH THIS THROUGH AND LISTEN. EVEN TRUMP WOULD AGREE WITH PRO LIFERS!
God prevails!
Pro-Choicer Defeated By Simple Logic - Kristan Hawkins
The red head asks "Why are we still here protesting? Why are we here debating?". The answer isn't as simple as you'd think. But pro abortionists think otherwise. That's how it is subjective. The reason why is because "Abortionists persist without logical reasoning. It's simply Kill the baby or else you're "hateful!". Sounds like female Nazis aka feminazis. The point here is, you think there is a choice to abort babies and you think it's right. But just because there is a choice to take human life, doesn't mean it is righteous. What can you say about yourselves if someone had come up to you and had said, "Your life doesn't count". It goes back to my point, we all were fetuses once and if you simply say that fetuses are not living, than you can totally be dehumanized in the same way. Double standards exist. If there are people who want to take the lives of babies away with the subjective belief that it "protects" women, there will be those who defend the lives of developing human beings in women's wombs individually. If you encounter a pro abortionist and he or she tells you, a fetus isn't living, you can tell them, "Well that's just misinformation because biology proves the opposite of your subjective claims". There are risks to abortion too.
Abortion should be legal. The government should never have the right to make decisions pertaining to one's own body and/or a decision to bring a child into the world or not. It takes the moral responsibility to do what is right away from the individual and this would cause us to become more and more conditioned to behave in whatever ways the establishment chooses to mold us. It would contradict the very core of what it means to be free.
If we make abortion illegal, shouldn't we also make adoption? In case you don't know, the business of adoption is in the billions per year. Making abortion illegal would bolster this industry even further, and allow desperate people to become "baby merchants", for profit. An example would be a girlfriend of mine who needed money and decided to sell her eggs. What moral ground does that hold? Not to mention the financial burden more children would put on the American people in light of high inflation and low wages, health care costs, education etc. Forcing you to keep a child could very well sink many families into poverty.
To me, the person undertaking an abortion has enough to deal with that they don't need my opinion on their moral character on top of it. They don't need my judgement because they're the ones having to live with that decision. And of course legal abortion would come with regulations to protect it from abuse. I think there's a lot that can be done to provide people the freedom of choice without allowing them to abuse that freedom, just like many other things in this country. If we make abortion illegal, adoption agencies might start to look like dog pounds.
I think we need to believe that the majority of people in this country, and around the world, are good people seeking nothing more than the best chance at living a healthy and happy life. We are not all predisposed to moral corruption, poor decision making and ignorance. If we want to prosper as a nation we have to believe in our fellow man and that he will do what's right, however, that faith will not come without regulations to protect the system from those of us that would abuse it.
There are thousands of people who want to take these children because they cannot have their own. If you do not want a child, have it and put it up for adoption. At least you will be preserving a human life rather than killing one.
The debate isn't about "should people put up unwanted babies for adoption". It's about "should abortion be banned".
I agree that if people don't want their babies, they should have the choice of putting it up for adoption. But it should not be made compulsory, which is essentially what happens if you ban abortion.
Why should it not be made compulsory? Those children have as much right to live as you and I? Besides, no one loses with adoption, so why wouldn't you utilize it?
People who are not yet born cannot think for themselves because their brain has not developed yet. If you were to say that unborn children have rights, that would be like saying animals have rights too. After all, both minds are not complex enough to communicate with people. Therefore, saying unborn babies have rights is like saying animals have rights? Then why do we kill cows and chickens when they should choose for themselves? Parents have the rights over their unborn children because after all, they are born from their body and actions.
Yes, however, they can still be considered a human. If someone is in a coma, they can't think, so is it okay to say they shouldn't have rights?
The difference between cows/chickens and a fetus is that a fetus (even if it can't think) is a human. The only difference between you and a fetus is that you've been alive for a lot longer.
Also, I think you've put your argument on the wrong view, it says you think abortion should be banned.
Yes it is true that abortion is immorally wrong. However, one must think about what will happen if abortion is banned. If something is banned, is it completely gone? Look at prohibition in the 20's and look at weed now. They were never gone, just made illegal. If abortion is illegal then someone who made a mistake in having sex, such as a teen, can't tell anyone about it for obvious reasons. The only person she tells is a best friend and she can't have the baby because the parents will find out so her only option is abortion. OH WAIT! Abortion is illegal so she has to go to some old lady in the trailer park or do it herself with a coat hangar, either way she will end up with a disease (that I can't remember the name). Abortion is wrong but should not be illegal.
Also, I really don't want to sound mean or offensive but this probably is: Abortion will help with population control. Our world's population is increasing faster than ever. we need to keep our resources. And the main people that want abortions are usually careless people or rape victims. Most families would either be able to take care of the child or be courteous enough to put the baby up for adoption. So I guess it really all comes down to practicing safe sex and coming down harder on rapists.
You're comparing a choice that does not necessarily affect others (drinking) with one that will necessarily affect another life (abortion). How are the two comparable? No matter how the abortion is conducted, it will invariably result in only one thing: the loss of life. The same cannot be said of alcohol.
"If something is banned, is it completely gone?"
This is a fallacious rebuttal; murder is illegal, is it completely gone? Does it therefore follow that we should stop making it a crime?
"Abortion is illegal so she has to go to some old lady in the trailer park or do it herself with a coat hangar"
No, she does not have to do that. That is an option, a dangerous and illegal one, but there are other options.
It's a matter of principle. If the taking of a life is, in principle, a crime then no special pleading should be allowed.
The rest of your argument is an appeal to consequences, and completely ignores the principle of the matter. If our "aim" is to lower population why don't we just legalize randomly shooting people? That would be absurd.
if you don't want to have a child, don't have sex. its as simple as that. just because you had a slip in the moment doesn't mean someone else has to lose a life. if you don't know the consequences of your actions, dont do it in the first place. its not like you will die if you don't have sex, but someone else will die if you abort. don't try to justify that taking a life is of least importance than controlling your desire to have sex.
that is 100% my opinon too! if your not adult enought to take care of what comes along with having sex then don't think that your adult enought to have it people need to GROW UP!!
If you don't want to have a child and are going to end up giving it away, then use protection and do not let yourself get pregnant in the first place. Instead of advocating for abortion, maybe you should advocate for better use of contraceptives so you do not keep getting pregnant and acting like abortion is an easy, moral way out. You are killing a being.
BITCH STFU U IGNORANT LITTLE WHORE!! U DUMB OR SOMETHING?? I HAVE TO HAVE 50 CHARACTERS TO SUBMIT THIS SO BAIFYHESDKJFHDKJFHBKJ:DSNFKJPDSHFPKJDHFPIJSDHPGFIJDHSPKFJHDSPKJFHPIUSD
The debate isn't about "should people put up unwanted babies for adoption". It's about "should abortion be banned".
I agree that if people don't want their babies, they should have the choice of putting it up for adoption. But it should not be made compulsory, which is essentially what happens if you ban abortion.
Ok, here's a very real issue of making adoption compulsory: You must make the woman carry the child to full term for somebody else to have the baby. This is while the woman may feel deeply offended/embarrassed/disadvantaged by the pregnancy, and her body is on the line!!!!
Ok, now you're being dramatic and it's not funny at all. If you're not a woman experiencing PMS then you really have no excuse, but if you are then calm down and see my point. It's really quite workable:
Ok, what I mean is make "sex that results in an unwanted pregnancy" illegal. Ok, unwanted pregnancy is the key. Having sex risks pregnancy, everyone knows that, just like driving without wearing your seatbelt risks serious injury. You can risk it if you want, but when the unexpected result happens, you have a choice: You can decide if you WANT the pregnancy OR NOT. If you decide that you don't WANT the pregnancy, then the law kicks in!!!! A hefty fine is a very good deterent. You can build the cost of the fine into the cost of an abortion. This would make the cost of an abortion very very expensive. The proceeds from this could all go into funding educational programs about sex and pregnancy, counselling, etc... You can even build in a jail term for the guilty if you feel that monetary fines aren't enough.
So, as with seatbelt wearing in a car, over a short period, people would all learn to do it responsibly and it will become second nature and not have to be such an issue. Don't make it illegal, regulate it and everyone's a winner.
Does the Government check all moving cars for a seatbelt wearer? YOU are ridiculous.
A "serious invasion of privacy", you say? But forcing people to do something with their body is not??? Contradiction!
So, my suggestion is not ridiculous. YOU are ridiculous. YOUR arguments are ridiculous. YOU should go live in a country run by dictatorship. YOU should deal with YOUR unwanted pregnancies in YOUR OWN way.
Reality check required? Is your statement an argument or a personal attack?
Clearly you are indeed a fool if you believe that I am suggesting an imediate termination and outlaw on abortion. I, as many do, believe that we can work towards the issue, rather than circling it as people like you do.
Who do you defend with your outrageous suggestions? The mother? From what exactly?
The point of it all is to prevent an unwanted prenancy, we can agree on that.
You suggest terminating part of the problem, I suggest that we create a solution to the entire situation.
And, yeah, that reality check I mentioned, it may very well be overdue.
I'm attacking your illogical mind and your silly arguments! If that's a personal attack, then I guess that's what it is!
Ok so you're not calling for abortion to be outlawed, why then are you arguing for their side? You should argue for our side or at the very least choose the "it depends" option! I know you want to educate (as do I), so educate, and if that works out well in the future you won't find it necessary to ban abortion!
I'm not defending anybody with my outrageous suggestions. It's a solution to a problem, which is unwanted pregnancies. It has more educational value then a ban on abortion. Hit people where the pocket is and help them avoid a mistake in the future, don't make them pay for their mistake by forcing them to bring up a child. Forcing someone to keep a pet against their will can have dire consequences for the animal concerned, you get my point?
The only reality check here is that a ban on abortion simply doesn't work. It doesn't work to educate, it simply makes it ... what did you call it? ah yes... "the next underground drug".
Illegal abortions, wow, I never would have guessed...
Oh, sorry, you're serious? Seriously in need of that reality check, perhaps....!
Apart from that, perhaps, you have a point. Fine, this argument can be defined as "after education", as in: "after education has come into play with success."
I am now abandoning this debate, my reasons have already been stated.
Have fun with, whatever, I'll be doing my usual, I'm sure you already understand.
The debate is not about whether or not abortion is sometimes the best course of action, but whether or not a government agency has the right to make laws mandating that a pregnant woman carry a child to term. There are various good reasons for terminating a pregnancy. There are even more reasons a woman may choose to abort that are not good. Is it the business of the state to intervene and evaluate the reasoning process that the woman and her doctor apply when making these tough decisions? I don't think so.
Allowing government entities to have the final irrevocable say in such situations sets a precedent that puts the government in a too high of a position relative to our fundamental liberties.
What can we do short of legislation to significantly reduce the number of abortions performed when there are better options? People like me who abhor abortion need to focus on putting the alternatives front and center.
There are various good reasons for terminating a pregnancy.
I'd like to hear one.
But to answer your question about the role of government in these affairs please consider the following:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Taking the life of another person is an injustice, destroys domestic tranquility, destroys general welfare and robs the individual of the blessings of liberty, If government has no authority to protect an individuals unalienable rights what good is it?
This is how our Founding Fathers saw it:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
Please note the use of the word "all" The decision handed down in Roe vs Wade stripped a whole class of people their rights by denying their humanity.
This ruling goes against the very Constitution itself; It is a disgrace. As I said earlier it turns the law on it's head, the very law it is supposed to uphold.
It appears this court has become destructive of the purpose for which it was founded and according to the Deceleration of Independence it is our duty to do something about.
There are various good reasons for terminating a pregnancy.
I'd like to hear one.
In some cases an abortion may be life saving to the pregnant woman. I don't think that a woman who chooses abortion to save her own life is committing an immoral act.
Taking the life of another person is an injustice
In general I agree that is true, but you yourself admit that sometimes it is justifiable to take a life DO YOU NOT?
If government has no authority to protect an individuals unalienable rights what good is it?
I never said that "government has no authority to protect an individuals unalienable rights". Whatever just authority it does have is derived from the consent of the governed.
How far do we let government go "protecting" us. There are a million more laws I'm sure that can be shoved down our throats in the name of protection. Our right to privacy applies at some point, and I think health care decisions made in a doctor's office merit that privacy from government intrusion.
That scenario of the endangered mother is rare. The vast majority of abortions are performed on healthy women and children. You don't make laws based on exceptions to the norm.
The right to life is the most fundamental right, everything else stands or falls on this one issue. When we as a people deny that right to a whole class of people we have undercut ourselves.
In regards the taking of life; I agree with you, but not when it comes to abortion. And just to be clear, an unjustified action is unjust. I'm convinced that an abortion is unjustified for the reasons commonly given.
In regards how far: I think the Constitution makes that clear, but Roe vs Wade undercuts that very Constitution.
This isn't a debate about some theoretically fetus somewhere. This is about the 1500 lives that are snuffed out daily in our land and it's about you and I because it affects you and I. Don't think laws like this can stand without serious ramifications.
Just consider that 1/3 of our population has been exterminated since Roe vs Wade. Do you think that has an affect on Social Security now that there are more people drawing from it than paying into it. What of the effects on health care? How many doctors and scientist were exterminated
You don't make laws based on exceptions to the norm.
maybe not based on, but exceptions to the norm should at times bear heavily during the legislative process.
The right to life is the most fundamental right, everything else stands or falls on this one issue.
So the argument is... that since the right to privacy from government intrusion is not as of high a priority as the right to life, the government therefore ought to have full access to any medical health records related to pregnant women so they can follow up and make sure abortions are not performed by state licensed doctors? If a teen girl was found pregnant she could be arrested for underage sex and could carry to term while incarcerated........ready to be made into a movie...jeez
I think that in a very real sense, the right to "reproductive privacy" precedes the "right to life". I would love to read a response to this particular point.
In regards the taking of life; I agree with you, but not when it comes to abortion.
Yes I understand you are a firm proponent of the death penalty....isn't it true?...oh right I remember the logic "You don't make laws based on exceptions to the norm"
You don't have to convince me that high abortion rates represent the deepest poverty. I need to be convinced that government intervention (invasion to the privacy thereof) in doctor/pregnant woman relations is merited. Remember I think that the right to life depends on reproductive privacy.
that since the right to privacy from government intrusion is not as of high a priority as the right to life, the government therefore ought to have full access to any medical health records related to pregnant women so they can follow up and make sure abortions are not performed by state licensed doctors?
If I'm torturing little babies in my basement are you saying that I have a right to privacy from government intrusion? And if I'm a doctor I have more of a right to do what I want? Don't you think this goes against one of the reasons for licensing doctors, public safety? Again I say; If a government has not right to protect life, what good is it.
On the issue of the death penalty. The principal in play for me on this issue and abortion is the same; the sanctity of human life.
If I'm torturing little babies in my basement are you saying that I have a right to privacy from government intrusion?
It is true that laws enacted to protect privacy rights also provide opportunity for secret wrongdoing.
Jstantall, you agree that abortions are sometimes medically necessary correct me if I am wrong.
You think that a doctor/pregnant woman relationship should not be private but court monitored to make sure doctors don't commit murder. Again correct me if I am wrong.
I would agree that abortions should be allowed if the mother/ is going to die. However, I don't believe that there are other situations where a baby should be aborted. I wouldn't put abortion under the category of healthcare.
I get that privacy is an issue - but in terms of abortion, it's not private to the government/hospitals. If someone wants to kill their unborn baby, it shouldn't be a choice they can make because they don't want a baby, they're not ready or it'll affect their mental health. I think that a large amount of money that is used for abortion clinics should be instead used for either adoption agencies or support systems for people who think they aren't ready.
about 2% (not an insignificant amount) of pregnancies are ectopic; ectopic pregnancies are the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in the first trimester.
Since abortion contradicts the law, the question is whether the law is right or not. For decades, the law has been contradicted by existing slavery. If the founding fathers thought that slavery contradicted 'all men are created equally' and 'injustice', then slavery would have disappeared a lot earlier. However, this thought obviously didn't occur to them. Therefore, if grown human beings such as 'slaves' don't even have rights, that makes 'unborn babies' even less probable to have rights. So to say that the founding fathers would have saw it as something wrong is an overstatement, rather, it's today's society which finds it wrong. But if it's really right or not, hard to tell because of so many factors
The question is not about person-hood, but humanity and that is genetically verifiable. Answer the question, what kind of being is it? Everything else is superfluous.
And just so you know what side you stand on; your argument is similar to those who supported slavery, they are not full persons and therefore have no rights under the law.
So let me qoute you using the word slavery in place of fetus and maybe you can see where you went wrong
Nothing about the right to slavery is unconstitutional, because (get ready for it): a slave is not a person.
Never in the history of U.S. law has a slave been a "person," and a slave is not a "person" under the law of Britain either. A slave is property and therefore one can do with it as one sees fit.
Your argument fails in that a human who has been born, whether freed or enslaved, is a life in being -- i.e., someone who is an autonomous life fully developed to the point of not being physiologically dependent on another being for basic bodily functions. We recognize that autonomous, born human beings share certain basic rights. These rights do not extend to clumps of cells which are wholly dependent on another living being for their existence. Therefore your analogy does not actually equate at all.
A clump of cells is not what is aborted, do your research first. But let's say they are for the sake of the argument; what kind of cells are they? chicken? no they are human.
On the issue of dependency: you are wholly dependent on other living beings for your existence. By your logic it would be OK to kill you if the issue of dependency was all that was needed to justify your death. And further more we could extend this to the mentally and physically handicapped. It could apply to the sick and suffering, people with cancer and all those in hospitals. The logic you use is exactly the logic the Third Reich used when it began doing these very things; long before it got to exterminating 6 million Jews.
You may agree with the Third Reich that there is such thing as a life unworthy of life, but I don't. A child conceived is worthy of life and should have every opportunity to live it.
Your argument is specious. The sick and handicapped are not at issue. People with cancer are not at issue. None of them have hooked themselves up to the bodies of autonomous adults whose physiological functions are then used to regulate their own.
And of course, the first one to make an overblown comparison between the issue at hand and Nazism is inevitably the loser in any given debate.
I'm questioning the underlying principle in play here and there is a connection between all the examples I gave. if you can't see the underlying principle here I don't know what to tell you.
The argument looks like this:
X is not worthy of life because of Y, therefore we're justified in killing it.
Now just put Jews, slaves, embryos or what ever in place of "X" and put your reason in place of "Y" and you've got your argument.
Can you see the analogy between them now? So my principal objection is with the "Y" when you have an embryo for "X"
Notice what you have done; You've imposed an arbitrary standard (dependent on the womb of another) and then said it is OK to kill any human being who doesn't meet this standard. That standard can be slid anywhere up or down, from conception to old age. It's what is know as moral relativism and it's a morally bankrupt ethic. The question is not; at what point can we kill it, but what is it?
You need to first establish that this standard of yours is morally justified because I'm not persuaded that it is.
Old age? How's that work? No "human being" is going to be dependent on the womb of another for more than about 10 months. Once it's out of the womb, it is by definition no longer dependent on said womb for survival.
The standard is flexible, not arbitrary. It is flexible to a certain defined degree (as it should be) and that degree should, to my thinking, correspond to the level of prenatal physiological development. In other words, rights vest as the being grows and matures.
He has a good point: you are making a standard of "dependent on the womb of another," but that only serves to further your point that abortion is morally blameless. There are many other categories of human beings that are dependent on another in a manner very similar to that of a fetus to the womb. Handicapped people are a good example of this, and, depending on the severity of their handicap may be just as incapable of independent life as a fetus.
I am in agreement that the government shouldn't be mandating the legality of abortion, but I am also of the belief that it is immoral. The two do not necessarily overlap since legality and morality are not synonymous.
The question here is a question of legality, not of morality.
All of us were once a fetus. That is a child. Obviously, none of you chose to watch the posted video, silent screams? Or how about the facts about a 10 week fetus.
The whole argument is whether it is a person or not. Just because the law says it not, does not make that right. We are challenging the law. This is also our constitutional right.
Disagree: unsupported leap in logic. The organism passes through varied stages of development between "fertilized egg" and "child."
Obviously, none of you chose to watch the posted video
Incorrect assertion. Watched it, multiple times, not in favor of outlawing abortion.
We are challenging the law. This is also our constitutional right.
Yup, that's your right, but since SCOTUS has already rejected "it's a person it's a child" not just once but many times, continuing to just assert "it's a person it's a child" while citing to a video from 25 years ago is probably not a very strong argument with which to challenge the law.
If this matter is right and ethical, why are people trying so hard to make everyone believe that it's so? If it's a fact that unborn people aren't persons, then why are you bothering to tell us? It's like telling someone the grass is green. Everyone knows that, it's a fact. Why bother explaining it to someone? So if this is such an obvious fact, why do you have to make everyone understand it with an added disguise?
Denying it now eh? You are the pinnacle of devil worship. Your arguments are so corrupted and contradictive that you have been greatly deceived by the Devil himself. You are denying that abortion is not killing a baby?
Have it your way. Let's do any experiment. Let's put you on the table for abortion. Than we'll see who is no longer existing.
Abortion is killing the baby within a mother's womb, dumbass punk. You are a holocaust denier and you will pay for your crimes, serving life at Death Row Prison. There is no parole for the likes of scum like you. Your arguments are invalidated.
Once the 20 week period has passed, the fetus has a small chance of surviving outside of the womb. Society can then decide if it wants to outlaw abortions after this period, when the baby can actually become a person independent of its mother.
I'd like add a different perspective to your argument. I've changed one key word, tell me if it changes anything.
The debate is not about whether or not slavery is sometimes the best course of action, but whether or not a government agency has the right to make laws mandating that a man may not have a slave. There are various good reasons for having slaves. There are even more reasons a man may choose to have a slave that are not good. Is it the business of the state to intervene and evaluate the reasoning process that the buyer and seller apply when making these tough decisions? I don't think so.
Allowing government entities to have the final irrevocable say in such situations sets a precedent that puts the government in a too high of a position relative to our fundamental liberties.
What can we do short of legislation to significantly reduce the number of slaves traded when there are better options? People like me who abhor slavery need to focus on putting the alternatives front and center.
Keeping slaves and aborting a fetus is not the same thing. It's an entirely different debate.
A fetus that's not capable of survival without being directly attached to its mother via the umbilical cord is still not yet a person that merits society's involvement. It is the mother's property until this point and she must have the choice of keeping it or not. You must not force someone to keep something alive within her because you can't do it yourself. If you can keep the baby alive with milk then by all means take it out and do that if you want. The mother doesn't have to be involved any more.
Keeping slaves and aborting a fetus is not the same thing
Never said it was, only the logic behind it. Here is an example:
It is the mother's property
FYI that's the same logic that was used to justify the beating of slaves; it was the slave master's property.
You must not force someone to keep something alive within her because you can't do it yourself.
That's called discrimination on the basis of level of dependency. Should I discriminate against you because you are dependent on the local grocery store to get your milk? I think not, that would be wrong.
And finally, did you forget what we are talking about here? We are talking about a human being.
The fetus really is the mother's property naturally (she created it and didn't have to buy it from anyone) , whereas the slave is bought or forced to be his/her owner's property. The 2 situations simply cannot be compared.
.
That's called discrimination on the basis of level of dependency.
No it's not. There's no level.
The fetus is either completely dependent on its mother, or is completely not dependent. After a certain period of development, an incubator and some formula could totally replace its mother.
As for me and the local grocery store, I won't die if the local store refuses to serve me.
.
...did you forget what we are talking about here? We are talking about a human being.
No, I agree that it's a potential human life. Not an actual life. The 2 things are not the same.
You keep saying that it's human, which I agree with you. The points of difference seems to be that I regard it as a potential up to a certain point, whereas you think of it more as a definite. You then argue that it deserves all the same rights as that of people. I don't agree I'm afraid. It doesn't deserve the same rights and you can call this discrimination based on level of development ;) (not based on level of dependency as you keep saying). Until it passes a certain stage in its development (mental and physical), it shouldn't have any rights whatsoever.
Here is what I think you are saying by potential life; This human after a certain point can go on and have a life. And by life I'm guessing you mean it in the generic sense, meaning the totality of ones existence, a life lived.
Here is why I think that is a dangerous position to hold. Basing the value of a human on it's potential is a subjective value judgment, someone other than the human in question decides the value of the human life. If someone decides that the life of someone else is not valuable they then are free to dispose of it. That's dangerous because that is how Germany began the road to the holocaust. It started with the sick, mentally retarded and elderly. The did it by making the value judgment that certain humans didn't have potential, they held no value for society. And following Darwin's model of survival of the fittest it was only logical to dispose of them. See potential is a very vague and subjective term that can be defined in a multitude of different ways, it's what's know as an equivocal word.
You see when a value judgment is subjective the line between value and no value can be easily moved to suite the desire of the one with power making every human at risk, even you.
The safer ground to stand on is objective value. The value of the human is in the human itself. By the fact that it is human gives it it's value. This puts all humans on a level playing field. I can't come up to you and because I have more power than you say your life is not as valuable as mine. Taking the position of objective value protects the weakest and most vulnerable members of the human race. We are not free to exploit them because we are more powerful.
I hope you see that by making this subjective value judgment of another human being you have raised yourself above them because you are more powerful. And now because of your power over them you can kill them freely, this is nothing short of the exploitation of the weakest and most vulnerable humans. Conscience ought to tell you that we should protect them, not exploit them.
That's right. It's inside the woman. It's a part of her body like any other organs inside her. Until it can survive outside her womb, it's her choice whether she wants to continue to allow it to develop into a human life. What happens after week 20 when theoretically it can survive outside her womb? Well then society, if it so chooses, can keep it alive and would have the right to intervene. Until then, society has no rights.
Poor argument,A woman's genetic code is different from the code of the baby's therefore its clearly a separate entity.To kill a separate entity is murder...
as long as people (women) are getting pregnant and people (women and men) don't wanna have that pregnancy, then we will have abortions regardless of laws, so-called morals, etc.
the answer is adequate 1) health/sex information and 2) improved availability to contraception since historically (stupid) efforts to control sex have failed
as long as people are buying slaves and people (women and men) wanna sale that slave, then we will have slavery regardless of laws, so-called morals, etc.
the answer is adequate 1) slavery information and 2) improved availability of slavery since historically (stupid) efforts to slavery have failed
I know you're trying to say that legislations are necessary to prevent chaos.
But you're comparing 2 very different things. You're proposing that the rights to a person's own body should be legislated away. It's called living in a prison!
There needs to be improved sex ed in society. How does that solve this issue? Just because people will try to do something outside the law, does not mean the government should just make it legal.
"just because people will try to do something outside the law, doesn't mean the govt should just make it legal"...
are you suggesting that abortions are already "outside the law"? It's happening everywhere and it is everyone's rights to their own body. It's not outside the law unless you make it so!
Besides, making certain recreational drugs legal allow certain societies to control it better. This may be the case with abortions.
are you suggesting that abortions are already "outside the law"?
No.....I was responding to the post that "people will just get illegal abortions anyway" I was simply pointing out that is not a good reason to keep or make something legal.
"Besides, making certain recreational drugs legal allow certain societies to control it better"
Considering these drugs are NOT legal, you have no proof to back that statement up. Secondly, you cannot compare the 2. Abortions would most likely go down if it was illegal as most people would be too scared to do them illegally.
The simple fact of all of this is let people decide what they want to do with teir bodies, I am so sick of republicans saying "no more government" then they have these "rules" which make more decisions for us. Total hypocrisy.
You have a right to choose is my stance on everything.
Ah yes. I remember Joker convincing people to embrace anarchy and Gotham city nearly fell. Good thing the Gothamites aka the good people of Gotham refused to let Joker take control. Same with Bane. It is what we need these days in reality. We need to take back control over society before anarchy causes full collapse.
"Ah, you have come back to die for your city." - Bane
"No, I have come back to stop you." - Batman aka the Dark Knight
The direct opposite of anarchy is dictatorship... trying to legislate and take away people's rights in regards to their own bodies... societies that embrace dictatorships also collapse in time...
And do you believe dictatorships are any better than anarchies or are anarchies any better? No. Neither are good. Your contradictive arguments exposes you as a self destructive snowflake. Law & Order are important in a society. That doesn't mean it's going towards a dictatorship. The people will speak up when a government does things wrong. Look at Canada and America, the people will not comply with libtards nor democrats because they are unjust.
Let me get this straight; you are suggesting that there should be a yes/no policy on every aspect on life?
If I choose not to pay my taxes, I am fined and jailed.
If I choose to kill, I am also jailed.
If I choose to ignore the Stop Signs while driving, I could cause several kinds of accidents.
If I choose to disobey the law, I am a criminal.
Have a think about where I am going with this. While you're at it, add to the list, see how far you get before you realize how wrong your statement was.
That is exactly what pro abortionists are claiming. They want a yes/no policy on right & wrong without consequences but that is just not the case! You're right!
Just think on this, if we allow a murderer to go free, killing whoever he or she desires and we let him or her get away with it, we will all eventually go out of existence because of that!!! Did you know that 4 serial killers who happen to be homosexual got away with murder thanks to "homophobia"? Yeah! It's literally what happened for real! It's the same with abortionists and guess what? Lgbt, abortionists and BLM supporters are all collaborating together!! It's no surprise!
I wrote this speech...read it and it will answer your questions.
Abortion: Choose Life-it begins at Conception:
Think about this. A girl had an abortion, thinking that the baby wasn’t living so it wouldn’t matter. But, after she had the abortion, she saw what she thought wasn’t living, and it actually was. The baby was living and she watched it die. From then on, she couldn’t even live with herself knowing that she killed a living human being.
This story that I just told you is true. A lot of women think that it isn’t a baby before they have the abortion, and I will explain to you that abortion is the killing of a living baby. Well, if life doesn’t begin at birth, then when does it begin? Life begins at conception. This is a fact, because there is a lot of proof that can back that fact up. For example, there is scientific proof and there is Biblical proof. To further explain what abortion is, I will talk about these important things: one, it is spiritually right that life begins at conception, two, how scientifically there is proof that life begins at conception, Three, what we can do about the abortions, and finally, why girls get abortions. Those are all the things that should be thought about, so I will be explaining them, to help you understand them.
Some woman have abortions because of these three things: one, They might think that they’re too young to have a baby, two, their boyfriend or spouse makes them have an abortion, three, if they do have the abortion the girl’s parents would get mad at her. The case also might be that she just doesn’t want to deal with the baby.
First, you probably ought to know what abortion is. Abortion is killing the baby inside you when you are pregnant. Every year 1.5 million babies are killed by abortion. That’s 125,000 babies killed a month, making it 4,000 babies killed each day, or one baby killed every 20 seconds, that is so amazingly awful. That is basically one murder happening every 20 seconds. How brutal. The fact that life begins at conception is spiritually right. As it says in the Bible; Jeremiah 1:5 says, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” The Bible says that life begins at conception, meaning that right at conception the baby becomes a living human being. There are many Bible verses that back up the fact that life begins at conception, like the one I just said. That Bible verse, Jeremiah 1:5 is saying that God intended a unique human being, starting at conception. Just because you can’t see or feel the baby inside of you, doesn’t mean it’s not a baby, and alive and a human being, just like you. That is what a lot of people do not think about, even though you really should.
There also is scientific proof. Some people may think that life begins at birth, or some people even later, but that is wrong, life begins at conception. Because of the fact that the baby forms gradually after conception, then conception is the only real point where you can say that the baby is a living human being. For example, the heart beat starts gradually, over a period of time so conception is the only exact starting point of life. Also, DNA defines a separate human being, and so when does a person form their own DNA? A person gets their own DNA at conception. That is a whole lot of proof, so it is just like saying it is a crime to kill a 1 year old, so why isn’t it a crime to kill a baby when he or she is still in the mother’s womb? That is a question that probably will go unanswered forever, or they will just say that the baby is not living, which is a complete lie.
Now, what can we do about abortion? There many things that we can do about abortion. If you start supporting this pro-life movement then it will keep growing so much then no one will have an abortion. Hopefully then the abortion clinics will shut down, and the law will have to change. But, most importantly you can change the hearts of the people who support abortion, and save the innocent little babies. Now, how can we stop abortion? There are many ways to help stop abortion. Another way is you can donate money to a place like The Pregnancy Resource Center and they will use it to buy an ultrasound machine and to then show the women their babies to try to convince them not to have an abortion. You can also write to the president or another government representative, and tell them about all this proof that I have told you, hoping that their hearts will change and then the law.
In conclusion to all of this, it is spiritually right that life begins at conception, and scientifically there is proof that life begins at conception. There are many ways that you can help stop abortion, so I hope that you take a while and do that. There are a lot of things wrong with having an abortion, so you really should not have one. Just remember that God loves the person getting the abortion AND the beautiful, innocent little babies.
Thank you and I hope that you have realized that life begins at conception, you should help the pro-life movement, and that having an abortion is wrong. WORDS: 981
Um, that doesnt prove anything except what it actually is. When a woman becomes pregnant she starts going through a hormonal change to adjust for this really huge thing that is about to happen to her life. It is natures way of preparing a woman for motherhood. When the baby is lost, through abortion, miscarriage, or accident, all women go back to normal hormones in a quick fashion and it causes depression.
If you think that a woman feeling guilty about the abortion isnt misplaced emotion then let me tell you a general story that I am sure relates to every woman on the planet.
When you get all emotional and upset because your bf or husband does not put the dishes in the right place or some other lame ass reason for getting upset, do you really think that that is really the issue? Is it really not your period or your mom not listening to you? Yes it is. So misunderstanding your emotions and where they stem from is how you define "woman".
But who is going to choose for the unborn child? Like I said was premature, if my parents had chosen to abort me then I would never had the chance to call out my ideas, have you ever thought of that?
If you were aborted, you wouldn't be here right now. But that means nothing! It may hurt your feelings to know that you're only a small speck of dust in the universe (as am I), but life in general goes on without us my friend. You could greatly contribute to society but then again you could also turn out to be extremely evil...
By that I refer to your statement of: "If you were aborted, you wouldn't be here right now. But that means nothing!"
One man makes a difference, and yes, this can and does affect the world.
Man is the most dominant species on Earth, as I'm sure you would agree, and it is because of this that certain choices of ours greatly impacts the planet. Greenhouse gases is one example, Nuclear War is another. To be honest, there are many things I have done that have affected the world, all of which relate to Greenhouse Gas emissions and preventions.
Anyway, my point is that one man makes a difference, whether we are born or not makes a difference. The level of difference varies, as all men/women are not created equal.
It shouldn't be a choice of do we come into this world, but should be what we will do with the time we have while we are here.
Ok, let's just agree that "one man DOES make a difference". That difference however, can be positive or negative. I have already said that he could turn out to be a peace loving buhdah, or he could be worse then Hitler. It's all a possibility... Let's not get into possibilities... we could be here forever arguing about things that will never be.
On behalf of the Salt & Light team, I would like to speak to you about a subject that is near and dear to our hearts. Today is National Sanctity of Human Life day. Perhaps you have noticed the pro-life sign in front of our church. If not, I invite you to look at it after the service this morning.
Thirty years ago, the United States Supreme Court made up a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Since then there have been 44 million abortions. There have been 112 million births. Using those two numbers, one can calculate that 28 percent of all pregnancies have ended in abortion. Everyday the number of babies killed by abortionists approximately equals the 3,000 killed by terrorists on September 11, 2001.
Now I believe that I do not have to convince anyone here in this church about the evilness and tragedy of abortion. But, if anyone remains unconvinced, go over to our nursery, pick up a little baby, hold it in your arms and gaze into its eyes and you will know the truth. All the pro-choice pro-abortion rhetoric will just melt away.
The real question to be asked is why, in this predominately-Christian nation, do we tolerate this practice? I have spent three years trying to answer that question. I must tell you that I am totally amazed. There really should be no debate at all about abortion. The truth should be clear to everyone. It should be a slam-dunk that abortion should not be tolerated. It should not be legalized. And it should not be a choice. After studying this issue, I now understand how Adolf Hitler was able to pull off the holocaust. It took a tremendous amount of propaganda, lies, and deceit. The Nazis were able to morally confuse many people. It took many good Christians in Germany closing their eyes and remaining silent.
Well the same thing is true today in the United States of America. There are a relatively few passionate activists who loudly spread pro-choice pro-abortion propaganda, lies, and deceit. They are able to morally confuse many people in our country. It is a sad truth that most Christians in all denominations have closed their eyes and have remained silent.
The abortion struggle has corrupted our politics. Legalized abortion is so entrenched in our government because one of our two major political parties has embraced it. To even be considered a viable candidate in that party one must blindly accept the doctrine of legalized abortion. This has made it difficult for the Christians who are traditionally members of that party. Every election cycle, pro-choice candidates try to give Christians reasons to vote for them on other issues. And so, too many Christians forget about abortion as they go vote. They often provide the margin of victory for pro-choice pro-abortion candidates. If a miracle were to happen and those Christians were to hold a little baby in their arms and gaze into his or her eyes just before stepping into the voting booth, our system of abortion would disappear after the very next election.
In conclusion, the most important thing I have learned during these last three years is that the future of abortion is totally in the hands of Christians. We really do have the political power to solve this problem. Our cultural enemies know this and they are scared. They desperately work to demonize and marginalize us. We do not have to convince the sinful pro-choice activists that they are wrong about abortion. We do not have to convince the radical feminists, the biased news media, or the morally corrupt politicians. To win, all we have to do is convince our fellow Christians to truly follow Christ and there is no doubt that they will vote pro-life.
In a democratic society, it's the people that actually chooses to have a choice when it comes to their bodies... not propaganda (which the church excels at).
The church is wrong if it thinks Christians are turning a blind eye to the issue. The issue is very much alive and well amongs people, and they've clearly chosen not to have their rights meddled with!
In a democratic society, it's the people that actually chooses to have a choice when it comes to their bodies... not propaganda (which the church excels at).
The church is wrong if it thinks Christians are turning a blind eye to the issue. The issue is very much alive and well amongs people, and they've clearly chosen not to have their rights meddled with!
If I was raped, lets say by...my father, and i got pregnant at the age of 14, it would not be mentally healthy for me to go through with my pregnancy! It would wreak havoc on my own psyche and screw my child over from the abnormal hormone fluctuations [stress is bad for the baby in utero]. If the pregnancy would be damaging in any way to the mother, because it really is her choice, I believe abortion is appropriate. I AM NOT SAYING IT SHOULD BE USED AS BIRTH CONTROL. If you have more than one abortion because of your own stupid mistakes, then yes, you most definitely carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption. But if the pregnancy is going to be damaging, get the abortion as soon as possible.
No abortion should not be banned, it is the peoples choice if they wish to have a child not be forced to have it, especially if they are young. Shame on the people who say it should be banned. How would you like to be forced to do something??
For one thing people are forced to do things all the time and i suggest you watch an abortion. Did you know that they just vacume it out like a dust bunny as it is screaming and its limbs are being torn off? Take that into acount next time you think about that.
Okay, thanks for proving our point by revealing how ignorant your side is.
They can't scream, they don't have voice boxes. Babies who are born don't even understand pain within the first week, so without a voice box or any way to feel pain, please tell me how your excuse for a disputing argument qualifies as logical.
Also: No they don't vacuum it out. They surgically remove it in certain cases (third trimester and so on), but at an early stage its like taking a pit out of a peach.
You argued against a small number of abortions and used fear tactics to cover your obvious lack of research. Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush, and Karl Rove would be proud. However, a clear thinker would laugh or rant.
People who use graphical images of abortions to argue against it are actually quite lame. Have you seen any surgical operations done? It's quite horrific watching flesh sliced open, but should it be used to argue against surgical operations? All this graphical arguments are pathetic desperate measures to try and convince people it's ok to be forced to do something, that they should allow their rights regarding their own bodies to be taken away.
I say shame on you, all you horror and gore mongers.
It shouldn't. It's the parents choice, if you can't take care of a child you shouldn't have on in the first place. Although there's plenty of other choices to do with your kid like give up for adoption sell for weed what ever, it's nobodies choice to choose for the parents. You have your own choices, abortion can be one of them. Especially in poverty or if you're simply a druggy.
Plus, we don't need another GANGSTER or drug dealer in the world. Just saying !!!
Who says the kid will turn into a gangster? Just saying. I think that when a parent considers abortion they should take into acount the voice that is being silanced.
WRONG. There IS GOING to BE A VOICE. You do realize that fetuses can move around and kick around in his or her mother's womb? That counts as a form of communication.
Abortion should not be banned. I've yet to come across a reason that is not somehow tied with religion.
If you believe abortion is wrong don't have one, but don't push your beliefs on someone else who feels differently because of your own self-righteousness.
Here's an argument that is not about religion: the fetus is a living organism separate from the mother. The fetus has both DNA from the mother and DNA from the father. It is a new being! That is not about religion.
It's a personal choice until the fetus can survive outside the mother's womb. This is around 20 weeks into the pregnancy. After that, society can decide what to do with it because they can theoretically intervene and keep it alive without the mother. Society wants to make laws, it should stick to areas that it could actually control.
Exactly!! It's far safer and more humane for the mother to have access to a professional medical facility in which to be educated and make her decision.
It already is expensive. This is about illegalizing it vs legalizing it. Making a profit off of murdering babies is wrong. Banning abortion will stop abortions itself. If you're talking about a black market that allows such things, that will be going against the law and people like you will be imprisoned for life. Baby lives matter.
If a person still has rights over their body after death, women should definitely have rights over their bodies in life.
I don't think abortion is a good thing, I am a far bigger supporter of birth control and safe sex, but I would never EVER vote to take away a womans right over her own body.
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.
Not completely, tho you are killing a baby human there are some certain times when it could be justified. i.e. rape or the safety of the mother. however it should be hard to get an abortion if you want one just cuz the condom broke
License to Reproduce. It's irresponsible for society to not use modern technology to screen WHO reproduces (any idiot is allowed to reproduce). This responsible law would make this whole debate meaningless
Abortion is such a controversial topic due to many reasons, one being that no one can pinpoint the exact moment the zygote/embryo/fetus (all terms for unborn baby) is alive. Not in the sense of being a functioning cell- because most would not feel bad killing any other single celled organism. But alive in the sense of being considered worth any human infant's life. It's against the law to kill an infant once outside the womb. So when should a fetus be as protected legally as much as an infant? "When it is alive" most say, but technically it is "alive" at conception, as a single cell, that majority wouldn't feel bad killing compared to an infant. So where should the line be drawn? At conception, at 3 months, at birth? That is where most people have trouble with choosing a side for the argument of abortion.
But let's take this variable away for a second, and not to help my argument. Actually, this makes it much harder. Let's say that at conception, at one cell old, the zygote's life is worth just as much as any infants. Abortion would definitely be killing it. This isn't necessarily true but for the sake of argument let's say it is.
Every person has something called "body autonomy." This basically means that you and you alone have control over what physically happens to your body.(Unless you are a minor. Then your parent or guardian has control over this until you turn 18.) This means you cannot be forced into taking medicine or doing procedures you don't consent to, even if they save the lives of you or anyone else.
Everyone has this- even dead people, and this is where the argument comes back in. Legally, unless a person gives consent before death, no one can take their organs to save over 10 people's lives through organ transplants. If these people all had no other donors, they'd die due to that individual's body autonomy being respected.
So, even though this fetus is definitely alive, at least for this argument, you have to respect this woman's body autonomy. It is the law. Her body is hers alone, and her body autonomy shouldn't be disregarded for 9 whole months for any reason. Yes, aborting the fetus would kill it, but it would be respecting her wishes for her body, just like how everyone, including the deceased, are respected.
What about the fetus' body autonomy? It's alive, so it had body autonomy too, right? It had no choice in the matter! Well, like stated above, body autonomy is controlled by parents or legal guardians until 18, so the mother has the say in what to do to the fetus' body. Also, back to my scenario, those 10+ people dying due to their only potential donor not consenting to organ donation? They have no say in the matter either. They still would die. Some consider it unfair- but it is a law that is strongly enforced. In all other cases but abortion, (In certain states) though the value of life at stake is the same, and to most, less than in the organ donation scenario.
And although this case is now strongly supported, even with the idea that abortion is killing an alive human being, this all depends on where you stand on when the fetus is considered a truly living human. So, sacrificing a woman's body autonomy for something we can't even agree is alive is absurd.
Abortion is a woman's right. It is her choice. It is a completely safe (when done correctly) medical procedure that should be a personal decision between the pregnant woman and her doctor. It's really no one's business whether or not someone has an abortion. It doesn't affect you, or your life. A woman is completely capable of making her own decisions about her own life and body. No one should be forced into parenthood or it will be a disaster.
As humans we have rights, freedom of speech which allows things like debates to happen, we also have the right to choose what happens to our own body. But the main argument for abortion infact is human rights. The rights of the unborn fetus and wethat or not the fetus even has rights. It all comes down to science, there are certian characteristics that classifys a living organism as "human", and during the very early stages of development in which a run of the mill abortion can be performed the embryo lacks these charecteristics so although it is a living thing,it is not human and does not have human rights. things such as being able to feed on its own, the dependance of fetus classifys it in science as not living during the stages of abortion where a suction curettage can be performed.
Catholics belive that life begins at conception meaning when the sperm meets the egg, but the reality is that conception is just that,a sperm meeting an egg very close to the sperm and the egg being by themselves but the sperm has fertalized the egg instead of being poured into a sock and hidden under a pile of laundry Although the sperm fertilizing the egg does mean the fetus is in the process of becoming a human,abortions happen at such an early stage that is it pre-human. Saying abortion is wrong because it is denying a life is the same as aying we're denying a life everytime we have a period or jack off, both the sperm ands the egg like the fetus during the time where an abortion can be safely performed
are pre stages of human life and therefore not human and not killing a human life, you dont feel bad about a period the same as you shouldn't about abortion.
If that still hasn't convinced you consider the women..
Before you go to your local abortion clinic and shoot up some doctors(killing people to prove killing is wrong,hm?) Think of the fact that no one plans an abortion. When it comes down to it all it is the womens choice wether she wants to have an abortion or not, it is her body,not yours,not the government, hers, and as a human thather fetus is not she has the right to choose what happens to her body. Having a child puts a tremendous amount of stress on your body and a woman shouldn't have to go through that for a childshe doesn't even want. If the woman chooses to have the abortion or not it is still going to take a huge toll on her emotially. Nobody plans on an unwanted pregnancy but still the woman will feel terrible about the decision to abort it, and if she has the child it like the abortion will have an impact on her life forver.
Sothe next time you choose to state youropinionon how abortion wrong to somebody whos thinking of having one please realize its not your choice.many woman who are against abortion have had an abortion and all woman prolife or not will continue to do so if it really is last resort. Even if the woman has this unwanted child her and the childs life will be negatively impacted in a huge way. The woman wont make the baby her priority leading to a messy pregnancy and complications in the chillds life forever.
wether you're prochoice or not please remember its really not your choice unless it is you with the unwanted child.
You can't get pregnant or contract an STD if your not having sex outside of marriage. We set high standards for our children's education and hold them to it. Why not set high standards for them sexually also, since nothing curtails an education like a pregnancy. Abstinence is the only practice that provides 100% protection against STDs and pregnancy, nothing else comes close.
There is only one question when it comes to abortion, what is it? If it is a human being then it requires a very high level of justification to take it's life. I have simply seen no argument that comes close to proper justification for the taking the life of an innocent human being. The only arguments I have seen are those that try to take away the embryo's humanity and make it less than human.
You can't get pregnant or contract an STD if your not having sex outside of marriage.
Well, that's totally goofy and wrong. Married women get pregnant all the time. (Oh and here's a total shocker: not all married women want to get pregnant.) And of course if your spouse has an STD and you have sex with your spouse, you can catch it.
Nor does abstinence "provide 100% protection against STDs and pregnancy," since rape and child molestation do happen.
And finally, there are a great many "questions when it comes to abortion" -- including the safety and wellbeing of the woman, the privacy of family decisions, the right to bodily autonomy, the state's interest in the life and health of its citizens, the relative value that should be placed on the life of the developing being, and the stage of development at which such value should attach or be assessed -- just to name a few off the cuff.
Actually, you can contract an STD not having sex outside of marriage.
Or, to avoid the double negative, having sex strictly with your spouse. It takes TWO people to make sex. So, you not having sex outside of marriage doesn't necessitate that he/she will as well.
It would require both parties abstain to attain the "high sexual standards" you propose setting. What are our current sexual standards by comparison?
As far as abortion goes, there are clearly differing opinions on when life begins. As such, let doctors inform the law on when defining characteristics appear, and let women make the choice on moral judgement.
If you and your spouse have no STDs and you have sex with no one else how could you possible get an STD apart from a mishap at the doctors? The only safe sex is that in a monogamous marriage.
there is no question to when life begins: it's life throughout. The question is what kind of life?
So, if I make the choice to kill my neighbor using my own moral judgment; it's ok?
If you and your spouse have no STDs and you have sex with no one else how could you possible get an STD apart from a mishap at the doctors?
1. kissing your mom during a herpes outbreak, then making oral with your spouse.
2. a bar fight
3. eating an infected chimp you didn't cook long enough with an open soar in your mouth
4. forgetting to cover a public toilet seat after someone with an outbreak on their thighs forgot to put the cover on a public toilet seat
Probably many more.
But that's not the point. The point is people have been having sex with or without protection for hundreds of thousands of years, and they're not about to stop now no matter how hard you stuff your fingers in your ears and how loud you yell "LALALALALALA" with your eyes closed while stomping your feat and praying.
My point is you're forced to rely on your spouse having been a virgin prior to marriage as well. And you'll really only ever be 100% sure of your own sexual history. So really the only safe sex is to take a vow of abstinence. For life.
There is certainly question to when life begins. You say it's life throughout. What marks the beginning stage then? The question is not what kind of life. What does that even mean?
And of course it's not ok to kill your neighbor. Nice try. Your neighbor is a fully grown person, and does not live inside of you for 9 months. Considering that a fetus lives inside you (and if brought to term must be raised by you for 18 years), you have a little more say over it's existence. And, to paraphrase Obama, pregnant women tend to make the best choices on whether or not they are stable enough to raise children.
I agree that we should have better access to contraception. We can certainly both agree that we should minimize numbers of abortions as possible. And access to contraception would certainly cut down on abortions. Sexual education about contraception is also key. Abstinence only does not work.
Abstinence prior to marriage (both parties) and fidelity within marriage is the safest sexual practice period. That's the ideal anything less than that is a degradation.
On the beginning of life; According to the text book definition of life both the egg and sperm are alive. At the point of conception you have a complete DNA and a different one from both parents. That's an accepted scientific fact that is not in question. The question is what kind of life? cat, dog or a chicken? Nope, humans produce humans.
About killing your neighbor; So long as he is not fully grown I can kill him? So, if it's the neighbors kid who I have been raising for the past nine months since his parents abandoned him; it's OK to kill him if I determine that I'm no longer stable enough to raise him? and even more so if I raised him for the last 18yrs? Yeah right. Try that in a court of law.
Why do you think we should reduce the number of abortions? Is it because you know in your heart of heart that it takes the life of a human being in the early stages of development?
We are drowning in a sea of condoms and sex ed and it has increased the rate of abortion, not decreased it. Abstinence has not been tried and found wanting, but found hard and left untried. Come on let's set high standards for ourselves and our kids, not low ones.
It is a degradation to you, perhaps. Others believe differently. Why should we legislate based on your moral beliefs? Let's face it, unmarried people have impulses, desires, etc. They are going to act on it. Wouldn't you rather they have the tools to prevent pregnancy than not have them?
Perhaps I should have been more specific in my example. A baby grows inside of you. So technically, it is a part of you. A part of your body. You are not obliged to see it to term if you choose not to. This is why a ban on abortion would fail.
We should reduce the number of abortions because it's a very heartbreaking decision for a woman to come to. No woman comes to it lightly. When someone decides to end the life inside her, it is because she knows that it is a better choice than condemning the chiild to a lifetime of unhappiness. Some come to it because they know they cannot overcome an addiction and thus cannot bring a healthy child to term. Others because they know they cannot financially support the child. Others because they live in abusive homes that they don't want to subject a child to. Whatever the reason, it's certainly not an easy choice to make. So providing resources for these women such as education and contraception, can make a world of difference.
As for your last argument, what substantiates your claim?
Behavior research cannot make judgments about social values, but it can evaluate the success of school-based curricula at producing tangible outcomes for young people. The weight of the evidence from peer-reviewed scientific journals clearly shows that some comprehensive sex education programs can reduce behavior that puts young people at risk of HIV, STIs and unintended pregnancy, and that these programs do not promote earlier onset of sexual activity or an increased number of sexual partners among adolescents. By contrast, little if any credible research exists to substantiate the claims that abstinence-only programming leads to positive behavior change among youth.
The credible research sends a clear message to policy makers: if the goal of school-based sex education is to increase positive health outcomes for youth, comprehensive (or “abstinence- plus”) sex education is the proven effective choice. Abstinence-only programming runs the serious risk of leaving young people, especially those at elevated risk, uninformed and alienated.
It's a degradation when it deviates from the purpose for which it was designed. A law should be based on what is right, not personal preference. I would prefer adults control their desires in order that society might function at its best. What if my desire wasn't sexual, let's say I have a strong desire to shoot people who make me mad. Should I act on it? You will say that hurts people and sex doesn't. Really, check out Ted Bundy's story sometime or the thousands of others like it. Consider child pornography, rape etc etc. Or maybe the sexual abuse of women doesn't bother you. Sex outside of it's proper context is always, in every situation, damaging and hurtful to both parties. And if you disagree you are numb to it's effect. However, if you don't have sex you don't get pregnant. And you can't transmit sexually transmitted diseases without sexual contact. It's that simple.
About that baby, it's not a part of you. It has it's own unique DNA. It's not yours, so it's not you. It is a unique and separate human being that you happen to be hosting. That is the undisputed consensus.
about reducing the numbers of abortions: So if I make a heartbreaking decision after a heavy consideration to start killing all homeless people because they are sad, addicted, get beat up and we as a society can't support them anymore. It's OK because it was a hard decision? Yeah right, try that defense in a court of law. None of those reasons you give come close to proper justification for the taking of human life. A pregnancy is not the kids fault, but it is the parents responsibility. And kids should never get the death penalty because their parents don't want to take responsibility for them. The right thing to do is give them to someone who will.
Have you ever had any success with something that you decided from the start that it would never work. Trouble is there are more voices telling kids to have sex than not. Suppose it was the other way around, what do you think would happen to all these problems? Go away? No, but they might return to the levels they were at prior to the sexual revolution. Abstinence only worked well in this country for awhile to curb these problems. And perfection is never a requirement for law. it's meant to reduce the numbers. Slow our stampede into social anarchy if you will.
Ah, now we get to the core of your argument. Sex is a deviation if it's not for the purpose of child-making? So basically, sex is not for pleasure, only for babies? Gay sex is wrong, then? Or sex between infertile married couples? Laws should be based on protecting other people, not on morality. Just like drugs, gambling, and prostitution ought to be legal, so long as those activities do not hurt others.
Your statement that "sex outside of it's proper context is always, in every situation, damaging and hurtful to both parties" is laughable. Many people enjoy sex before marriage and find it to be an enriching part of their relationships. Just because you don't doesn't mean they are wrong. What effect am I numb to? Orgasm? Hardly.
"It is a uniue and separate human being that you happen to be hosting"--like a parasite? So you should be able to choose whether or not to play host for 9 months.
Stop trying to relate my examples to murder. You and I both know the distinct differences between killing a group of cells that live within you and that you are ultimately responsible for and killing an independent person.
You claim that adoption is the "only ethical choice" for parents who are unable to care for their children, but this distinctly ignores two of the possible reasons I gave for abortion. 1-Addicts cannot bring a healthy child to term, 2-Abused women cannot hide a pregnancy and then give a child up for adoption. It also assumes that there would be enough of a "market" for adopted children if abortion were suddenly banned. Rates of children being given up would sky rocket, but would rates of parents wanting to adopt also rise?
Prohibition never works. Prohibition on alcohol didn't work. Prohibition on marijuana is not working. Prohibition on sex before marriage cannot and will not work. Prohibition fails. Period.
Nobody is "telling kids to have sex". We're providing sexual education so that if they make that choice, they will be informed on how to be healthy and responsible. I can't believe you'd rather have them NOT be informed, on the logic that if they DON'T know how to have responsible sex that they'll simply choose not to have it.
Did you bother reading the study I linked to? I'll reiterate the key points of their findings. 1-Comprehensive sex education DOES reduce rates of pregnancy and STD's, 2-Comprehensive sex education DOES NOT increase rates of teenage sexual activity, 3-Abstinence only education DOES NOT reduce rates of teenage sexual activity.
So, basically, the findings were that people are going to have sex, and try as you might, we can't dictate YOUR morality to them. Tricky thing about morals, they're all relative. If people are going to have sex, and IF abstinence only education has been proven to be ineffective at reducing rates of sex or pregnancy or STD's, then why would we continue to stick to it? To appease your moral beliefs? Again, laws are not, contrary to your belief, about morals. They are about people. And so long as sex is consensual, nobody needs protecting from it. Except perhaps you, since you so obviously find offense in the act of love.
I suggest this. Teach YOUR children your moral beliefs regarding sex. But for the sake of society, let's teach all children (including yours) what it means to be responsible with regards to sex. Just in case they fall off the high bar you've set for them. Wouldn't you rather they fall without HIV? Or an unwanted pregnancy?
Sex is a deviation if it's not for the purpose of child-making?
I never said it's sole purpose was procreation. The core question is one of anthropology; does man have a nature and is that nature fixed? You would apparently say no and that man gets to define that nature. Laws should be based on ethics, not morality. However if mans nature is not fixed there can't be law or morality. Because there is no way man ought to be and no norm from which to deviate from. Everything becomes a matter of personal preference and taste. Everyone does what is right in their own eyes. That is anarchy and society crumbles.
Second paragraph: Never said there was no pleasure in it; just that their was a cost that is hidden from your eyes. I could never get you to drink poison if I was upfront about the effects. But if I kept that information from you and packaged it good enough; it wouldn't be hard Case in point; homosexuality. harmless? The average life expectancy for a gay male is 45yrs almost half of heterosexual males. There really needs to be more truth in advertising for the sexual revolution. It has brought freedom to no one; only bondage.
Third paragraph: We get back to the real question don't we? What is it ? If it's not human than no justification is necessary. If it is human than no justification is sufficient. About the choice, you made it when you decided to have sex. That troublesome problem of procreation again.
Fourth paragraph; there is that question again; what is it? just a group of cells or a human being in the early stages of life. If it's human, it's murder. hence the parallel.
Fifth paragraph: The examples you give represent a very, very small percentage of abortions. The vast majority of abortions are preformed on healthy women and children. About adoption; me and my spouse are an infertile couple, we looked into adoption and guess what? there are long waiting list for domestic adoption simply because there are more couples than children due to the fact that over 1500 abortions are performed daily in this country. that's why most couples adopt from overseas.
Sixth paragraph. If perfection is your standard then yes prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition does work, that's what every law is, a prohibition. It's sounds like you are arguing again for anarchy. To that I say; truth in advertising please.
Nobody is "telling kids to have sex"
Really, you just substantiated my previous claim to being numb. Sex is used to sell everything these days. Just go through the supermarket check-out and peruse the latest magazine covers. If you don't know what this does to the male mind and the way it victimizes women you are numb.
About the choice and sex ed. I'd rather we told the kids the true cost of premarital sex. instead of lie to them. Oh yeah little Johny you can play with fire, just follow these simple steps and you'll be just fine and hey here is some firecrackers to make it more fun. Now let me show you how to make a really cool fire using gasoline. Come on! Let's help kids choose what is best for them, and it's not broken hearts, STDs, single motherhood and the whole list of other stuff that goes along with it. About the parallel with fire, in case you didn't know, passion burns. A fire not contained can destroy a whole forest. Don't believe me. Watch the interview Dr. Dobson did with Ted Bundy the night before his execution. I'll quote it for you from memory because it's burned in there:
Dr Dobson: Ted, you once were an innocent little boy. How did you get here?
Ted Bundy: Pornography. I was exposed to it as little boy and it became a passion that was never satisfied. The more I got the more wanted till I was killing women to get it. Just ask any man here who is here on sexual charges and he'll tell you the same thing.
About the study; I don't dispute it. Of course it's failing that's my point. It's only logical that it would if you have a million people shouting, have sex and one small voice whispering, abstain. I doubt you did your homework and looked at the numbers for teen pregnancy and STDs before and after the sexual revolution.
Abstinence is fail proof. You may fail to abstain but if you are abstaining you will never get pregnant. However contraception is not so. You can also fail to use it but if you use it, it can fail and you will get pregnant. It's that simple.
Final thought; if morals are relative as you claim, why are you trying to push yours on me and why should I follow yours and not mine. Is it because you think there is an objective standard that people ought to follow and a way things ought to be. But that's just your personal preference isn't. If you really believed that morality was subjective you would go sit under a tree and talk to no one, but you don't. You try and persuade people that your view is the correct one, but why I ask?
So what then, is the "the purpose for which it was designed" if not procreation? Pleasure?! Say it's not so!
I would say man has a nature and that it is fixed. And it is for this reason that I strongly believe in not banning abortions and I strongly believe that abstinence only education should be replaced by comprehensive sexual education. Because part of that fixed nature of man is that each of us has impulses and desires of a sexual nature. (And those impulses and desires are not wrong.) Acting upon them is not a matter of ethics or morality. I've never understood how sexual activity came under the morality umbrella to begin with. So long as it is consensual, there's no justification. We don't analyze other types of activity for their moral fiber. Do we talk about the morality of football? The morality of swimming? The morality of sleeping?
Laws, as I stated earlier, should be based on the good of society, namely not causing harm to other people, while protecting each person's individual rights to do all things that do not cause harm to others. Ethics are not fixed, else we would all have identical ethical standards. How do you account for the differences if there is to be but one ideal?
LoL at the sexual revolution bringing bondage. How is safe sex prior to marriage harmful to both parties, though? If you're responsible, no transmission of STD's, no unwanted pregnancies, what is the damage you speak of? As for the life expectancy of a gay man, consider this: homosexuals are 26 times more likely to die from suicide and 87 times more likely to die from murder than heterosexuals. Which says a lot about more about tolerance than it does about lifestyle. Nonetheless, your argument is moot anyway, because homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual. That's not a lifestyle choice, so it cannot be right or wrong.
Would you say when you make a choice to walk barefoot you are also making the choice to host a ringworm inside of you? It's something that could be a consequence of that choice, but it's not a choice you've made. It's an effect. Similarly, impregnation is an effect of sex. Not a choice in and of itself. The choice ought to come prior to impregnation, when one can choose to prevent it through contraception. But sometimes it comes after. Nonetheless, it's up to the individual to make that choice.
The examples I gave represent the reasons abortion ought to be accessible. I agree that it should not be used as birth control. I agree that we ought to reduce the number. I believe comprehensive sexual education with access to contraception is the best way to achieve that. You seem to think that just telling them not to do it and crossing our fingers is best. It's just...jaded. There are about 150,000 children up for adoption per year. I'm not sure how many adoptive couples. My point is, would adoptive couples be able to keep demand up for that many unwanted children were we to abolish abortion today?
Again, let me specify. When I say "prohibition doesn't work" I mean prohibition of things that people recognize to be false laws. These would be laws regarding our bodies. Laws that tell us how we can use them (sex) and what we can put in them (drugs) do not work. People recognize the invalidity of these laws because they understand their bodies are ultimately theirs to do with what they please.
Just go through the supermarket check-out and peruse the latest magazine covers. If you don't know what this does to the male mind and the way it victimizes women you are numb.
I'm all for teaching kids what's best for them. And what's best for them are the tools to make the best decisions for themselves. And those decisions, like it or not, are ultimately up to them to make. It's naiive to believe that all it will take is a strong voice repetitively shouting the abstinence mantra in order to keep people from having premarital sex.
Abstinence is fail proof. You may fail to abstain but if you are abstaining you will never get pregnant. However contraception is not so. You can also fail to use it but if you use it, it can fail and you will get pregnant. It's that simple. And this is a fine way to teach sexual education. I'm not against an abstinent-leaning program, but one that does not promote healthy sexual habits at all is dangerous. We've got to take into account those who will fail to abstain. Not doing so is heartless.
As far as the Ted Bundy bit goes, I really see no bearing here. That's specifically regarding pornography, which I'd be glad to debate the merits of in another debate.
Final thought:
Morals are relative, which is all I'm trying to push on you. My only "push" is that you not push legislation on others based solely on your moral beliefs.
Again with this "be thankful you were aborted" argument. If I was aborted it would not make one single difference. There'd be another baby. The world still exists, life goes on. This debate would still be raging and people would still be making the same arguments. Oh... but I won't be able to make MY arguments because I wouldn't be here??? Big deal! Someone else would make that argument for me. In fact, I'd be here as another person, arguing.
Well we've covered a lot of ground. Let me see if I can tie it all together for you; knowing that there is a difference between proof and persuasion.
What do abortion, premarital sex, homosexuality, pornography(including soft porn, the kind found in supermarket checkout lanes) and Ted Bundy all have in common? What is the one unifying thread that ties them all together? They all devalue human life by reducing it to something less than what it is. You agree that man has a nature and it is fixed. Therefore there is a way in which mankind ought to function. A deviation from that norm is therefore dehumanizing. Let me explain.
Abortion; Renders the human a non-human and therefore it can be disposed of when an individual doesn't want it.
Premarital sex: views other people as objects to be used for ones own personal pleasure and then discarded when no longer wanted.
Homosexuality: An expression of self love. Using another person to express ones love of self and then discarding that person when they no longer please you.
Pornography: The portrayal of people as objects of sexual fulfillment. People are viewed as objects to be used for personal pleasure and then discarded when you are done with them.
Soft porn: does the same as pornography but in a more subtle form; very deceiving since it appears harmless.
Ted Bundy; Became convinced through pornography that people were something that you used to bring pleasure to yourself and then disposed of .
Do you see the pattern. reduce the person to an object to be used, use the person and then discard them. At the core of everyone of these is love of self. Use other people to get what I want and when I'm done with them I move on.
Does the idea of using people like objects bother you at all? It does me. That's why I oppose all these things.
Final thoughts:
football does have morality as do all sports, it's called the rules of the game. There's a way you play that makes it football and a way that makes it no longer football.
Pragmatism is is a poor method for law since it has no way of telling what the good is. Also do a word study on the etymology of the word ethic and tell me what you come up with. Because I may be mistaken but I thought ethics (ethos) were fixed standards and morality (mores)were changing standards.
Giving ones self over to passion is to be ruled by passion and no longer reason; that's bondage to be controlled by your emotions and not your mind.
If homosexuals don't choose to be that way, why then can so many walk away from that lifestyle and never go back. Their high suicide rate is because of people like you who tell them they can't change when they really want to. That leads to depression and eventually suicide. That's not a very loving thing to do.
On moral relativism; if that's true then it's just your personal preference and why should I like what you do.
About legislation: what else do you base law on other than what you believe to be right. But why is it OK to base them on your morals and not mine?
I think the state should remain neutral on sex ed. After all it is the parents responsibility, not the states. Because when the state does it, they are pushing their morality on others who don't agree with it and using my money to do it. And that is wrong.
About Abortion legislation, which this debate is all about. The state has already ruled on this issue, murder is illegal and should be. Roe vs Wade simply stripped a whole class of people protection under that law and denied them rights we all enjoy.
So again the question on abortion is; what is it? If it's not human, no justification is necessary. If it is human than no justification is adequate.
So I say, it ain't a chicken. Humans produce humans. Therefore no reason you gave for abortion is adequate.
Also I like the idea of your debate; I'll be sure to weigh in on it when I get a chance.
Abortion: Gives a mother a choice in carrying a life form for 9 months and then raising it for the rest of her life. Renders the human a non-human and therefore it can be disposed of when an individual doesn't want it. It cannot be disposed of when an individual doesn't want it. Only within a set time frame during which it has not become a person.
Premarital sex: Sex that occurs before marriage. views other people as objects to be used for ones own personal pleasure and then discarded when no longer wanted. Generally I think of premarital sex as occurring within a relationship. If you're talking about casual, random sex, then your argument may hold some weight. But in the context of a relationship, there is a lot more at stake than personal pleasure via sex.
Homosexuality: Sexual desire for those of the same sex. An expression of self love. Using another person to express ones love of self and then discarding that person when they no longer please you. Wait....whaT? Where exactly are you getting this?
Pornography: Sexual media that satisfies urges of those who cannot get laid as often as they'd like. The portrayal of people as objects of sexual fulfillment. People are viewed as objects to be used for personal pleasure and then discarded when you are done with them. Hustler is viewed as an object for personal pleasure to be discarded. Not the people themselves.
Soft porn: Sexy people doing sexy things
Ted Bundy: Serial killer Became convinced through pornography that people were something that you used to bring pleasure to yourself and then disposed of . Turned to violent sexuality (more often detective books portraying sexual violence than pornography) after an inability to relate to humanity.
I'm skipping around on your other arguments because I'm not in the mood for an essay, so bear with me.
Find me the "so many" homosexuals who can walk away from the lifestyle and never go back and I'll find you a group of people who have lied to themselves to make society happy.
Laws should be based on the good of society, not on your morals.
About sex ed, you're naive if you think we can leave it to the hands of the parents. You may be a responsible parent who plans to teach your children about sex, but many are not. We owe a responsibility to every child to give them the tools necessary to make the right choices when the time comes. Whether that's abstention or contraception, only they can make that choice.
Alas, I think I'm a little spent on this topic. I've had this in my argument activity for weeks but I've been reluctant to write back because it's gone all over the place. If you want to debate any of the non-abortion arguments we've been discussing, let's create a new debate, because this long argument full of fifty mini-arguments is just confusing.
The central theme running through your response is sex; all these issues revolve around that central theme. The question seems to be one of teleology; what is it for, how should we use it and how do we deal with it's consequences.
As we, as a culture, remove the boundaries of sexual conduct and blur the distinctions it begins to have serious consequences we don't immediately recognize. The logical out working of the sexual revolution may be missed by those who advocate for it, but it is not missed by the youth. They are looking to us as adults to clue them in on how the world works and we are sending them a clear message about sex. While we sit here and debate these issues and argue that it doesn't hurt anyone and kid ourselves into thinking we are liberating ourselves; we find our children living in fear and bondage to sexual harassment at school. Girls are primarily the target and their grades suffer because of it.
The sexual revolution has liberated no one; it has only dragged thousands into bondage and slowly ate away at a once great nation. You need to really think hard about the ramifications of what you are arguing for. Because you may not see the cost but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
If we as a nation are to avoid going the way of the Roman Empire we need to restore the boundaries of sexual conduct. Our streets are flooded with sexual perversion because we have removed all limitations to sexual expression. The last limitation that remains is "age of consent" and that is being vigorously attacked. The only safe place of expression for sex is within the context of a life long heterosexual marriage. But we have told the youth otherwise; so are we surprised by the way they conduct themselves in school among classmates of the opposite sex.
We don't need to be telling kids to use a condom if they want to sexually express themselves. We should be telling them that sexual expression is only appropriate within the context of a life long heterosexual marriage.
Are we so foolish as a people to think that this is the first time in history a people has moved in this direction? They indeed have and the results are always devastating. Why should we think they will be any different for us.
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."-Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Ok, the central theme thing is completely unfair, considering you were the one who originally argued about porn, Ted Bundy, premarital sex, and the like. I merely countered your argument. So in reality your central theme seems to be sex.
I won't disagree with your argument entirely. There are certainly a number of drawbacks to the sexual revolution. Namely in terms of the feminist revolution. We've taken a number of steps backwards in some inane desire to please men. The "playboy effect" is a very negative behavior that has resulted from the sexual revolution.
This does not mean that the sexual revolution was all bad or that sex outside of marriage is bad.
It's quite a jump to say that sex is only ok in a lifelong heterosexual marriage except for religious reasons. From a religious context, sure, it makes perfect sense, but outside of that it does not. For one, "lifelong" partnerships sometimes don't last a lifetime. For another, people are biologically programmed to sexual desires. Sex is a very fulfilling part of a serious, committed relationship, and I stand by my statement that there is nothing wrong with that.
Furthermore, you entirely ignored my desire to quit debating non-abortion related issues within this debate. If you'd like to debate some other topic, let's start a new debate. (please and thank you)
I do think I need to clarify something however and then I'll leave it at that.
Sex with in the context of a lifelong heterosexual marriage is the ideal and proper function of sex. Any form of sexuality outside of that is dysfunctional and causes problems. As with anything when it is not used properly.
I raised the issues of porn, Ted Bundy, premarital sex, and the like as case studies of this principle. All of these are sexual expression outside of the proper context of sex and all of them cause problems; hence why I would classify them as dysfunctions.
What does all this have to do with the abortion question? The fact that there is such a thing as this debate about abortion proves there is a problem. No problem, no debate. So here is the problem as I see it. Married couples don't have abortions. So who does then? those expressing themselves sexually outside the context of marriage. If this causes a problem (abortion) than we must say something is dysfunctional or unhealthy. We can't say it is the sexual act because that alone doesn't always cause problems. It has to be the context in which it occurs. Because sexual expression in one way is without problems and in another it causes problems. Or to put it another way; one is a healthy expression and the other is unhealthy.
So to sum it all up; You will know whether something is healthy or dysfunctional by the fruit it produces. All the examples I gave including abortion are symptomatic (the fruit) of an underlying problem; sex outside it's proper context.
But this does highlight a problem we in our culture suffer from. We have forgotten the principle of sowing and reaping. When you plant a tree you don't immediately get fruit, it takes time. So if we do something and don't immediately see bad results that doesn't mean there won't be any. It may take years before are actions bear fruit.
So I hope you can see that I'm still debating the same issue. I'm going after the cause and not the symptom however. I also have been careful not to argue from religious reasons, although my convictions inform my reasons.
So I would agree with you that people are biologically programmed to sexual desires and that sex is a very fulfilling part of a serious, committed relationship. But I would say, judging by the fruit, that there is a healthy and unhealthy expression of that sexuality. Maybe we could debate whether or not sex outside of marriage is unhealthy by looking at the fruit it produces.
You lead by setting a higher standard. That's what leaders do; take people were the don't want to go. It takes no leadership on my part to get the family to go to Disneyland. It does how ever to get them to save through out the year so at Christmas time they have something to give to those less fortunate.
Actually, depending on what is allowed in "abstinence", it may not. Oral sex, for instance, can transmit STD's, and many abstinent teens turn to oral sex as a way to satisfy their sexual desires.
I'm arguing that sexual desires are natural. It's easy to succumb to those desires and so abstinence-only education is weak. It ignores the fact that some people will CHOOSE not to remain abstinent. And that these people deserve facts on having safe sex. And furthermore, that if we made contraception more widely available to those who choose not to be abstinent, we can drastically cut down on the numbers of abortions.
Abstinence means to abstain. You can't get pregnant if you're not having sex and STDs are called that because they are sexually transmitted; no sex, no transmission.
About desire, we all got them and we all have an assortment of them. The difference between children and adults is that adults learn to control them. Children act on every desire; if adults did that, society would not be possible. So what I hear you saying is that we should never grow up. Hey kids will be kids, right? Come on. Let's raise the bar and actually expect kids to grow up.
Also, giving condoms is giving permission. You may be self deluded, but the kids get the message loud and clear. Sex outside of marriage goes through the roof with this approach and so does all the other problems associated with it. What I hear you saying is that it's best to create 100 problems to solve 1 problem. I'm sorry but that's what I call moral confusion.
Final thought, Kids rise to the occasion when you challenge them. Yes, some will fail. But better to loose a 100 than 10000. And the converse is also true. Set a low standard and kids will meet it. That's because they are looking to adults for guidance. So, lets expect more out of kids and not less.
You don't nor should you. The government should remain neutral on this issue. It's the parent's responsibility, not the state's. We need to get sex ed out of public schools and give the choice of sex ed back to the parents were it belongs. And may the best idea win.
"Over the past decade, the US federal government has heavily promoted programs that advocate sexual abstinence as the key strategy for dealing with adolescent sexuality, but studies are demonstrating that the approach has little impact on teen sexual behavior or in preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)"
Guess it depends on who's study you read and how they ask the questions. The CDC tells a different story. STD means sexually transmitted and if your not having sex (any kind of sexual contact) you're not transmitting; It's that simple. Ask the CDC what they do in an outbreak, quarantine. Why do hospitals not allow children visitors during flu season? Why are you advised to stay at home when sick? Please tell me why this approach works for all diseases except sexually transmitted ones?
"If it is a human being then it requires a very high level of justification to take it's life. I have simply seen no argument that comes close to proper justification for the taking the life of an innocent human being."
are you concerned about only the innocent unborn embryo or all innocent life?
It makes me sick to think that there are people as thick-skulled as you. Living in your ideal little world with lolli-pop forests and marshmallow skies.
Have you ever heard of RAPE, or INCEST? Abortion should NOT be a form of birth control, but for a victim of sexual abuse of any kind, it should at least be a final option.
You're not killing a KID. I must have said this a billion times. But you're still stuck on that, so it's a shame.
On the subject of why Death is preferable to Life: Because Death comes to us all. And Death is as much a part of Life as Light and Dark, or Good and Evil. Death can't be avoided.
What you're talking about is a POSSIBLE contribution to society on earth if the fetus be allowed to mature into a person. But we've already argued this point of POSSIBILITY to death (excuse the pun): a fetus Could turn out to be worse than Hitler or the Devil itself... but you love talking about possibilities don't you? You have a fixation on things that aren't real. Please read a fantasy novel, don't ban abortion.
Probably because the embryo, being an embryo, can't feel or process much. You call that human?
It's the basis for human life, and not the human life itself. And letting the baby be born would take away the happiness of the mother, and by proxy the happiness of the child. What if they're not financially stable, or the family disowns them because of such a young pregnancy? Not allowing the child to be born is better than taking away the happiness and the lives of (at least) two people.
No, of course abortions should not be banned for you would have them anyway regardless of safety, funding or anything else that might get in the way. We would be back in the days of the butcher shops and that wouldn't be good for anyone. Abortion is not a trivial matter and is one that must be thought out thoroughly by the person or persons involved. I wouldn't like to see us take such a serious step lightly nor would I like to see us take a step backwards in time.
So you would say that it is better that 45 million + children die through abortion than a handful of women through a botched abortion. That doesn't sound like progress to me: That sounds like serious moral confusion. Go check out the stats on abortion rates through out the years and you will see a staggering peak after Roe vs Wade.
And yes, we would still have abortions, they would just be a whole lot fewer of them. Again, check out the stats on abortion rates before and after Roe vs Wade.
45 million + children did not die, 45 million + potential children were prevented from being. That's a big difference. Until you can see that you will not agree with us.
I understand what you mean and perhaps I should have worded it differently but I remember the times before Roe v. Wade where women would have abotions regardless of peril to their own lives! That's what I meant.
interesting that in the eight years of Bush and the years of Republican controlled Congress and era of conservative judges that th 1973 Roe versus Wad has not been overturned
although they claim to be Christian fundamentalist, they too have a use for abortions ... it not just Democrats that go to Planned Parenthood and private doctors for pregnancy terminations
Abortion is aw right that should be based solely on the woman's decision. There is no reason for abortion to be banned, and in fact, that is restricting the rights of women by not allowing them to have abortions. Also, think of those who have been raped and sexually abused and have no choice but to bear the child of a person who did such horrible things to them. An abortion is the only way to escape raising something that would always remind that person of something horrible in their life.
So the woman's decision means killing a child, and that should be ok?
How is the fact that the child was conceived through rape, the childs fault? Would you treat this child different after it was born? So, why treat it any different before?
Finally, abortion is NOT the only way to escape raising a child that would remind that person of something horrible. They can put the child up for adoption. There are thousands of families waiting.
No, wit does not mean killing a child. It means killing a zygote that has no conscious thought. Arguments against abortion use scare tactics like killing cute babies in their mother's arms. This is not what abortion is. Abortion is an escape route for people who have no other choice but to not have a baby. You Kamranw forget the situation of the mother's death.
Also, yes a child that was born because of a traumatic indecent such as rape would be treated differently. Also, what about the mother's career or in some cases the mother's education. Should that be ruined because of the inability for this escape.
Help me with something here, are you saying that a career and education are more important than the life of a child?
Also, were you ever a zygote that had no conscious though? Than you would have to agree that if your mother had an abortion it would've killed you, not something else, but you. Aren't you glad your mother put your life before hers?
Should a child' life be take, because of the actions if their parents? I don't see why people don't just put children up for adoption! I personally would love to adopt a child one day!
If you go to your local crisis pregnancy center and ask about adoption they will provide information and if you choose adoption they will lead you through the process.
Adoption should be a choice but not a must. People should be made aware of this option and any other options available, but don't force them to take the option.
After a woman has an abortion, her initial response in most cases is a feeling of relief. Then, with repression and denial, she avoids the problem, usually for years —5 years is common, 10 or 20 not unusual. Guilt, regret, remorse, shame, lowered self-esteem, dreams and nightmares, flash-backs, anniversary reactions, hostility toward men, crying, despair, and even suicide attempts are symptoms of Post-Abortion Syndrome. Many women turn to drugs and alcohol as a way of masking the pain. Anniversary reactions are an increase in symptoms around the time of the anniversary of the abortion, the due date of the aborted child, or both.
A woman's emotional problems post-abortion may well be brought about and exacerbated by pro-life harrassments. A woman going through any emotional difficulties should be supported by the community and/or her family and close friends.
No, no, no, NO! Abortion should NOT be just another form of birth control. It should ONLY be allowed for victims of rape and sexual abuse that results in pregnancy, and ONLY as a last resort.
Again I must say that only 1% of all abortions are performed because the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Women rarely become pregnant if they are raped.
If abortions haven't got a feasible reason to exist then why do they happen? Do you think it's a fun past-time for the people who have to go through it? Oh, we're bored so let's go and get an abortion for shits and giggles? Abortions DO have really good reasons to exist, that is why they continue to exist, you just haven't opened your mind to our side of the issue. But that's ok, cos we're not interested in forcing you to do what we do, stop trying to force us.
About killing a fetus, I know this may sound a little heartless to you but I'd still like to see you argue this properly: Why shouldn't we kill fetuses? We can make fetuses all the time (some people can't but this doesn't concern them), the human population in the world continue to grow and if overpopulated, we'd be in crisis mode because of food shortages and environmental destruction. We don't owe fetuses anything! If we want to have kids and give them a chance to contribute to society as well as carry on our genetic heritage then we can keep the fetuses, but if we don't want kids, we can just get rid of the fetuses, we don't need to consider if the fetuses have committed a crime or not, we don't need any excuse at all. Hell, they can't commit crimes.
Fine, you want validation? That's all you'll get. Don't ask for anything else.
Starting off, the 9 month waiting period of childbirth cannot be justified to my point of view, I'll admit that right now, because clearly one woman vs millions of others doesn't tip the scales towards my side of the argument. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot I can say otherwise without coming across as biased, as you believe I have for the past 10 arguments or so.
I suppose, since we're already there, I'll state openly that a fetus doesn't have to look like a mistake. Not much can be helped for those that are being aborted right now, but that doesn't mean that we can't change anything for the future.
A fetus is a cluster of cells that is parasitic, according to your side of the argument, and it is potential and genetic human life according to my side. What you need to understand is that we both look at a human fetus in two very different ways, and neither one of us is going to change the other's point of view. An example of this has already been discussed and is as follows: You told several others as well as myself that the fact that any fetus is a potential doesn't help our side of the argument. I disagree in more one way, by firstly saying that we cannot make an immediate decision as to whether or not the child has an 80, 60, 40, 20 or even a 0% chance to live. It is potential because it can exist, and no amount of whining will prove otherwise.
"A fetus commits no crimes because it can't even process anything through that embryonic structure except for required nutrients and other living needs;" this argument goes both ways. On your side it is inhuman, and therefore makes no difference whether or not we kill it. On ours, it may commit crimes in future, or it may not. Hell, it could cure the greatest disease for all we know! But hey! That's it isn't it! We can't know, and we won't know!
Look, I can sit here all day and argue the potentials, but as I have already said, it isn't convincing you, as you are fixed to believe that forcing your belief of punishment for unprotected sex is actually going to send the right kind of message. I disagree, and will happily do nothing more to change what you think.
I made 2 very clear points for you to argue, but again you've gone and taken the scenic route all over the countryside, what's more, you've actually missed the 2 sights you were supposed to visit, here I'll number for you so you won't miss them:
1 - Abortions have good reasons to exist, that's why they exist.
2 - We can remove fetuses if we want and we don't need any excuses. It's not the same as killing people. We're not in shortage of fetuses in the world.
Now, focus! Don't go past "Go" nor collect $200 dollars (referencing the family game Monopoly) until you've talked about these 2 points. Then if you want to make another point, do so in a different post.
As much as I'm against it and think what a horrible feeling and decision that must be for the women, abortion should not be banned altogether. We would go back to the dark ages where doctors and their patients would have "back alley abortions". 3rd trimester should be illegal that's just wrong. It is a very hard topic that I struggle with. Ultimately the choice lies within the women. But what a awful one to make, they will live with it for the rest of their life.
Abortion should not be banned. Pregnant women would still find a way to abort children, and thereby risk dangerous methods, or suspect "doctors", as seen in other countries. Freedom entitles you to do whatever you want with your body, and by that I mean until a new human is complete.
The fetus before week 20 in its development is not yet a life capable of survival outside the womb, it's only a potential and like any other potential life, it should not be treated like a person.
Exactly nattymoon. The baby is not to blame. In fact, you can teach the child as he or she grows up about right vs wrong so that he or she may fulfill a better life and denounce rapists etc. Batman was sort of raped by Talia Al'Ghul, the daughter of the Demon's Head Ras Al'Ghul. If you know DC Universe then you know what I speak of. He was raped and the two had a son named Damian Wayne. At first, Damian believed that vengeance was always the answer. Batman taught him that Justice is more important than vengeance as vengeance doesn't belong to humanity nor is it up to humanity to decide on these matters. The greatest thing is, Batman looked after Damian and taught him that his mother is not as good as she claims to be. When Damian realized this, he saw the light of truth, joining Batman against Talia, who tried to kill Damian for turning against his own mother. The hypocrisy though is, she wanted both of them to join her in killing others. Taking another human life is just simply doing wrong aka evil and none of us on this earth have the right nor the freedom to do wrong/evil. We make mistakes, we do have the freedom to be wrong often because we are not perfect. But we ultimately learn from our mistakes. Rape/incest is just the many imperfections & evil deeds that we face in this world. The life of the child born from that is not to blame. The sins of the Father does not belong to the sons & daughters. They have their own sins to face and their own responsibilities to face. But the responsibilities of others do not belong to those who never had it. A man and a woman share the responsibility of looking after their child. A man and a woman share a life together and so their decisions will often need to be made together.
"you knew the consequences of your actions, now you have to live with it"... by this logic, you'd have no second chances in life if you ever made a mistake? This is both a cruel and inflexible attitude to have in any society.
Victims of sexual crimes which result in unwanted pregnancy should be afforded the option to abort, but only as a FINAL solution.
And the only other exception would be when birth endangers the life of the mother, but of course, THAT decision would be left to the woman whose life is in danger.
What I don't get is people pay to kill their OWN children. They are paying to murder an innosent child. Those people are murderers!! They are killers!! And if they have an abortion more than once it is like they are serial killers!!
Hey girl you have just lost the argument, there is not evidence, no perswation in your "article". all you did was attack another person's ethos. I feel sorry that you have had so many abortions. Perhaps its time to switch your birth control.
They are not children, so stop victimizing the people exercising their rights to keep or not to keep a fetus. You people are exactly the reason why women suffer from depression and guilt!
I propose we outlaw the systematic bullying by pro-life people. We should treat their bullying behaviour with the same disdain and disgust we treat schoolyard bullies. Leave the women alone, they have the rights to determine what's to be done to their own bodies.
i think it depends on the circumstances. if you were raped, and then got pregnant, would you still keep the child. Certainly it shouldn't be a form of birth control, but in some cases it should be allowed. besides if your argument is that we would be taking a life then wouldn't we have to stop anything that takes a life such as war, the death penalty, and meat production?
some ignorant people (mostly men, of course). for women, how would you feel if you didn't want to have a child and an accident happened, with a condom or birth control or anything else. what if abortion was illegal? because procreation is such a burden on women anyway, between periods, pregnancy, and the birth, don't you think that women should at least have a choice? (By the way: if you want to talk about the baby being alive as it's a growing egg, well here's the thing, everything on this is formed with cells and bacteria so think about that next time you shoot a deer or something.)
Um...in case you did not figure it out... I am a girl, and a girl who knows the developement of a child. If you do not want the child give it up for adoption, there is no reason to kill it.
No adoption is a must. If the child is alive, he or she deserves to live. You are certified as an attempted murderer. You belong in jail for this. Fetuses are, proven by science, living human beings in development. Once he or she is born, it's still illegal to kill the child. Either way, you're not getting away with this.
Alright look no abortion isn't good,but you no what what if a 16 year old girl made a mistake and got pregnant,and she can't support the baby,so she wants to abort it,because the baby would have a bad life,she should be allowed to,yea it was her fault for being stupid but,that was what happened and in a way she would be protecting the baby.Or if someone got raped and got pregnant why the hell would you make someone keep that reminder of that experience its there life let them make a choice.I understand if you just keep having sex and aborting the baby then that's horrible but in certain situations sorry its necessary,and its not your life so but out.
Even if the law stopped the woman from aborting her fetus, I wonder whether the life of the baby would be normal and happy as the others. Abortion is both for the baby and the mother.
Before the fetus can digest milk. Before the time when the fetus could actually be kept alive by somebody else other than its mother and her blood. Nobody else should have a say but its mother.
You can say it's a member of society, but really it is not. It is only the property of its mother until society can keep it alive without her. Society must not make laws that affect things outside of its control. One city should not make laws for another city.
In our society's view today abortion is something to be outlawed. Most of the logic behind this stems from the Bible's teachings unfortunately, leading to yet another flawed belief. Abortion is a thing that should be upheld on a case by case basis. You can't argue that it should be banned because the baby has feelings and such, but on the same note you can't just flat out say that Abortion is a great thing because it can help the people having the baby. By going on a case by case basis and comparing statistics such as: age, income, education, living situations, etc.... I believe the problem of abortion would be solved.
Who has control over a pregnant womens life...she does because something is going good in her life and she doesn't want to mess that up by having a baby not saying having a baby is a burden (i love babies) but you can't control all of life but you can some what control what happens to you..
I don't think it should be banned because like if you don't think its right - don't do the abortion. But they're are teenager outs there who are having babies and if they continue with the 9 months its will ruin their lives. Everyone should make their own choice to do what they want with their baby
I believe that what I have to say has not been said before. I believe that abortion should not be banned, although the facts that I will introduce may complicate the entire debate. Every time a person masturbates, doesn't he release about 50-500 million sperms each time, killing many? Every time a girl is born, isn't she born with two million eggs? The killing of potential lives occur every time a man ejaculates or a women menstruates.
If a woman/girl is in danger of dying from having a baby, and was either raped or unaware of the fact that she was having sex (because they have never been educated), then they should have the right to not get physically hurt from having the baby or waste 9 months of their life, having to take time off from work to care for a baby she will give up anyway–if it even survives. If she doesn't die from having the baby, she will still be in a position of a weaker person. She will be less fit, and might even lose her job because she had to take a maternity leave.
My mother was 26 when she got pregnant with her first child. My father and she were very happy–until 4 months in when she found out that her baby, who she had already named Sarah, had a severe heart condition, where even if it did survive past birth (less than 1% chance), would have serious handicaps its entire life. Is it fair to cause Sarah to feel complete pain and suffering her entire life? At least with the abortion that my mother got, Sarah could feel no pain. She wanted that baby more than anything or anyone else in the world, and her heart was broken that she could not deliver the joy to Sarah that Sarah had first given to her. For three years my mother did not try to have a baby again, and those three years were the hardest of her life.
I agree that it's horrible for a woman to abort a child because they can't afford it, or don't want it, in those cases they should put the baby up for adoption. But if the baby or the woman is in extreme danger, then the woman has the right to choose. If you honestly think that it could be legalized for rape, but not for anything else, then how would you judge if it were rape or not? Even if the person could get consent from a judge, by then the baby would be even closer to being born and have more nerves that could feel the pain. Abortion must be either legal or illegal, and it is unfair to cause people like my mother to have even more emotional suffering. So I cast my vote for abortion being legal.
P.S. I may only be a 14 year old boy, but I have extensive knowledge on political fronts and current events, and my education thus far has been one of the best available to a public school. It has also been scientifically proven that children on average can see the correct answers to problems more easily than adults if given the same amount of knowledge because they have less emotional backgrounds that will impair their logic.
I am actually pro-abortion but pro-choice will suffice. Human beings are moral agents, moral agents are moral because we are perceivers and valuers, the ability to perceive and value is only possible when we are conscious. it is therefore our being consciousnes that gives us moral agency.
Prior to and independent of our consciousness (and by consiousness, I mean both waking and sleeping levels), our bodies are only able to be classified as human insofar as moral agency is concerned. The term "human-being" really only applies to humans that embody all the distinctions which are sufficient for moral agency. It is only then that we are truly identifiable as human-beings. a hand that is detached is not a human being, an eye, an ear, a heart, leg, etc... these are all just part of the whole, and even when assembled we are not yet a person unless we have the conscious element.
Since consciousness only becomes possible at the onset of the third trimester ~ 26 weeks, it is immoral to kill, what I would then call a child. Prior to consciousness the fetus is a fetus, not having moral agency because it lacks the sufficient condition of personhood. Many people like to think about potentiality arguments with regard to a fetus, that it could become conscious. However, potential doesnt relate to the here and now and are therefore invalid insofar as the moral status of the action (abortion) is concerned.
Potentiality arguments actually are appropriate as justifications contrary to pro-life opinions because they are valid when speaking of a fetus that will not be aborted, this is because it will almost certainly gain consciouness. For females that are too young to be mothers due to their immaturity as humans - generally thought of as anything younger than the age of majority (18) but also could extend to any age since mental and emotional maturity are only related to age in childhood adolescence and young adulthood - the potential life of the child has a 98-99% chance of being very impoverished both developmentally and with regards to being a productive member of society. The potential life will likely suck a lot.
Thus...
If moral agency is not established and the life will likely suck, abortion is the ideal choice. Abortion is an a-moral action (not having moral status) prior to the onset of consciousness. So in light of this people should be having more abortions. I think it is more responsible to abort a child that is unwanted and who's life will probably suck, than it is to not. the notion of responsibility should always be predicated upon the quality of the potential child's life - if its life will likely be impoverished it is irresponsible to have it. "Taking responsibility for the mistake of not using protection" is a bad way to think of it.
I am actually pro-abortion but pro-choice will suffice. Human beings are moral agents, moral agents are moral because we are perceivers and valuers, the ability to perceive and value is only possible when we are conscious. it is therefore our being consciousnes that gives us moral agency.
Prior to and independent of our consciousness (and by consiousness, I mean both waking and sleeping levels), our bodies are only able to be classified as human insofar as moral agency is concerned. The term "human-being" really only applies to humans that embody all the distinctions which are sufficient for moral agency. It is only then that we are truly identifiable as human-beings. a hand that is detached is not a human being, an eye, an ear, a heart, leg, etc... these are all just part of the whole, and even when assembled we are not yet a person unless we have the conscious element.
Since consciousness only becomes possible at the onset of the third trimester ~ 26 weeks, it is immoral to kill, what I would then call a child. Prior to consciousness the fetus is a fetus, not having moral agency because it lacks the sufficient condition of personhood. Many people like to think about potentiality arguments with regard to a fetus, that it could become conscious. However, potential doesnt relate to the here and now and are therefore invalid insofar as the moral status of the action (abortion) is concerned.
Potentiality arguments actually are appropriate as justifications contrary to pro-life opinions because they are valid when speaking of a fetus that will not be aborted, this is because it will almost certainly gain consciouness. For females that are too young to be mothers due to their immaturity as humans - generally thought of as anything younger than the age of majority (18) but also could extend to any age since mental and emotional maturity are only related to age in childhood adolescence and young adulthood - the potential life of the child has a 98-99% chance of being very impoverished both developmentally and with regards to being a productive member of society. The potential life will likely suck a lot.
Thus...
If moral agency is not established and the life will likely suck, abortion is the ideal choice. Abortion is an a-moral action (not having moral status) prior to the onset of consciousness. So in light of this people should be having more abortions. I think it is more responsible to abort a child that is unwanted and who's life will probably suck, than it is to not. the notion of responsibility should always be predicated upon the quality of the potential child's life - if its life will likely be impoverished it is irresponsible to have it. "Taking responsibility for the mistake of not using protection" is a bad way to think of it.
Though i don't think i would be able to get an abortion because i hate big medical procedures i don't see why other people shouldn't or can't. There is not a limit on how many children a women can have, meaning if a women gets an abortion that is not one less child she can have on the future. Most only want 2 or 3 she can still have those 2 or 3 children. At the stage of pregnancy when abortions happen the baby obviously wouldnt be able to live if it was taken out of the womb that early, so is it really considered alive in the womb even if it has a heartbeat. It isn't until the 6th or 7th month that baby might have a chance of surviving if it is taken out early. People say that if it was a mistake you should have been more careful and should deal with it. But if there is a way to fix it it why is it bad? Abortion is in no way an easy route there are consequences and it is punishment enough for a mistake. And if the baby was formed without the mothers consent she whould be able to get rid of it as to not be reminded of the forced father.
Women have a right to do what they want with their body.
Yes they do, but the child inside of them is not part of their body it is a separate living being.
What if a women is raped and gets pregnant? so she just has to live with a messed up child?
This scenario does happen, however, it is much rarer that most believe, most abortions are from irresponsible sex but regardless it is still no reason to kill a human.
The fetus is not really sentient until it comes out
It is arguable that they are not conscious, however, just because they aren't does not mean they are not alive or do not matter.
This scenario does happen, however, it is much rarer that most believe, most abortions are from irresponsible sex but regardless it is still no reason to kill a human.
okay so its rarer? and your point is...?
your tying to say that most people who get preganant, are not preganted bc of rape. okay fair enough...than im going to say most people who get pregnant do NOT get an abortion.
So it shouldnt be an issue than, Because if you want to compare number of births to abortions. well births outnumber abortions by a landslide. So I guess you could say in comparison, that abortions are rare aswell.
And everyone just keeps arguing its not right to kill a human being, and yes i agree. Thats why in our society a fetus is NOT considered a human being until it is born.
And everyone just keeps arguing its not right to kill a human being, and yes i agree. Thats why in our society a fetus is NOT considered a human being until it is born.
1. Try not to comment on stuff thats been posted over 100 days ago.
2. I am against killing humans, not just human beings. Something being a human being or person is an intellectual issue, and as history has showed us, this concept of person hood has almost always left one group out and had them get screwed over. It being human or alive is a scientific issue, after conception it is alive and human, now I believe all living humans are entitle to human rights, if you don't agree, well... thats your problem.
your tying to say that most people who get preganant, are not preganted bc of rape. okay fair enough...than im going to say most people who get pregnant do NOT get an abortion.
Most people who get an abortion are not raped, that's just a fact. Most people who get pregnant don't get an abortion, however, I would argue that 22% is still rather high.
So it shouldnt be an issue than, Because if you want to compare number of births to abortions. well births outnumber abortions by a landslide. So I guess you could say in comparison, that abortions are rare aswell.
This issue isn't how common they are, again, 1 out of every 5 pregnancies resulting in an abortion is still pretty common.
What I'm saying is, rape is not a cause to kill (abort) a human baby, period.
Try not to comment on stuff thats been posted over 100 days ago.
1.thats okay thanks. I comment on whatever I want to.
Most people who get an abortion are not raped, that's just a fact. Most people who get pregnant don't get an abortion, however, I would argue that 22% is still rather high.
1. Of course most people who get abortions are not raped. Anyone could tell you that. and you could say 22% is high, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm all about personal choice. what about all these people having babies for the wrong reasons?
What I'm saying is, rape is not a cause to kill (abort) a human baby, period.
1. its not? how would you like to be violently raped and forced to have that mans baby? lol are you kidding me? thats ridiculous.
2. until you can actually get pregnant, your opinion means very little to me. and regardless of whether you think its right or not, abortions will never be illegal. It will never get to that point.
Lastly, I will just say if abortions did become illegal, there will be much bigger problems. There would be Dr's doing it under the table, and women even doing it to themselves bc they feel its what they need to do. this would cause higher levels in crime and diseases. People always find ways around things.
Of course most people who get abortions are not raped. Anyone could tell you that. and you could say 22% is high, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm all about personal choice. what about all these people having babies for the wrong reasons?
If you don't want it, you can give it away or put it up for adoption. Its not a personal choice when your dealing with someone else's life.
its not? how would you like to be violently raped and forced to have that mans baby? lol are you kidding me? thats ridiculous.
1. Rape = Tragic and gives you the right to defend your self from the rapist.
Rape ≠ Justification to kill a baby.
2. Whats ridiculous is that you seem to think that one human's emotions trump another human's life.
until you can actually get pregnant, your opinion means very little to me. and regardless of whether you think its right or not, abortions will never be illegal. It will never get to that point.
Not really any point made here, but ok.
Lastly, I will just say if abortions did become illegal, there will be much bigger problems. There would be Dr's doing it under the table, and women even doing it to themselves bc they feel its what they need to do.
First off, if it were to go underground it would be MUCH harder to find a doctor let alone do it. Secondly, if they are still getting abortions then that's their problem, if they damage themselves while killing an innocent human than they shouldn't get a whole lot of sympathy for that.
this would cause higher levels in crime and diseases. People always find ways around things.
Yes they do, however, you seem to be taking the ideas of drug prohibition and applying it to a medical procedure that isn't exactly easy to preform.
Abortion is not a drug, and logically, if people knew that they would have to use a back ally doctor who is likely untrust worthy they would probably be a bit more careful while having sex.
I think it should remain as a choice for the mother. What if the child is the result of a rape? What if the mother's life is in danger? What if the child is to be born with a life-threatening illness? I think the quality of life should be taken in to consideration and not necessarily the quantity. If the child was going to live perhaps twenty/thirty years with a debilitating disease is it fair to allow him or her to suffer with no prospect of ever being fully healthy?
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy..why should one kill a living object in you?? I see it as if you are sexually active and know the consequences that they should take on any Consequences that comes your way and thats including a BABY ..
the answer is quite simple. absolutely not. It blows my mind that this is still an issue thats brought up all the time. As human beings I cannot comprehend how we feel we have the right to tell another human being what to do/not to do with there own body. As a women how dare someone tell me what i can and cant do with my body, quite frankly thats none of there business. My body, My decision, its that simple!. To the people who agree wth this idea. How would a rape victim feel if they happend to get pregnant and forced to give birth to there attackers baby? And yess ofcourse theres always adoption, and I cant even tell you how many kids are raised in foster care because they have no parents. Lastly at the end of the day people are going to have sex (no strings attached) wether you like it or not. If we force women to have babies they dont want, how are those babies going to end up when there older?! Think about it.
Why would you ban it? Is it not the women's choice? What if it's rape? Or if it's incest? There's a large chances that they'll end up not proper once born.
i think abortion should not be banned if a women does not want her child you cant force a women to not abort hr child as a result of that this matter could turn into child abuse of not taking care of her child who she didn't want in the first place. instead of children suffering child abuse they should peacefully go back to heaven!!!
There are several cases that support this, the first of which is in the case of Rape or Incest.
Oh? You say the baby didn't choose that? Okay, that's fair. But neither did the woman, no girl gets up and says "Hey, I wanna get screwed either by a family member or against my will!" Why are we punishing them? Furthermore, that child would always be a symbol of a mistake. The woman, and possibly the man responsible, would have to look after something that is in and of itself a manifestation of hostility, taboo and hatred.
Another case is parents who aren't ready, including but not necessarily teenagers: The first reason I will cite is that there are cases (and yes, the Doctor can tell) in which delivering the baby would prove fatal to the mother. If its homicide to kill an unborn fetus, then the baby deserves to go on trial if it kills its mother. The normal case is people too young to have children; they can't take on that responsibility. Its more merciful to kill the thing than torture it with starvation and neglect. Finally there are people who shouldn't have children. Its called Munchhausen, and its very real. To say abortion to be banned is, in some small way, to support child abuse.
I will end by disproving the argument that this is murder; the fetus is hardly self-aware. It can't feel pain, and sinks back into nonexistence or goes to baby heaven depending on your belief. Do you consider it murder to step on an insect? How about putting down an old dog who can no longer enjoy life? There are a few choice differences, but these creatures are about as self-aware as that fetus. If the things could talk for themselves, they would honestly be ambivalent towards death.
Hey yo fear mongers, thanks for trying to use all your biased and invalid sources. As a retaliation, since its apparently fair to cite whatever you want, I cite Ray Bradbury's The Assassin. Its a good short story, don't know if its online. If so, then great. The story is about a baby who is responsible for the death of both his parents, and considering the credibility of some of your sources, this one works well too.
Hell no! I'm firmly against ending the life of someone who has yet to live, however if there is no heartbeat then the foetus has nothing to feel. It is, at that point, not a human being. So it's all about the timing of the abortion as to whether it is morally right or wrong. However for all those who believe it should be banned, how on earth could u force a rape victim to give birth to her rapists child? It is up to them, though i'm sure if they were all forced to give birth a fairly high percentage of those mothers would feel a degree of resentment towards their child AT LEAST. I'm also sure it would be a huge strain to any relationship, if not a relationship ender! How is that a fair start in life for a child? Not recieving the full amount of love that it should from the day of it's birth.
Banning Abortion never was and never will be the solution to the Abortion problem. If Abortion is banned we will have more back ally Abortion and women going to other countries to get Abortions legally! The funniest part about the whole Conservative pro-life movement is that it is obvious that family planning centers are more effective at avoiding Abortion but they are still against it LOL!
Family Planning Centers Prevented 760k Abortions In 2010
Banning abortion is justified. Hear it from an ex abortionist who explains the horrors and regrets, the different phases of how she thought it was righteous and a relief but then turns towards regret. Pride only comes before a fall. Your arguments are invalidated. Continued backlashes will not cease against unjustified toxic abortionists.
Former Abortionist Becomes Pro-Life - A Conversation with Patti Giebink
what if the mother has aids? or some other hereditary disease which could cause the child to suffer throughout his/her life? isn't it better to abort the baby than let it suffer? or lets take another scenario. what if the mother is guaranteed to die while giving birth or what if the mother would die if she continued to carry the baby? its better to get an abortion right than risking 2 lives. what if a 14 year old is raped? obviously you cannot expect a kid to carry a kid.
A woman should never be forced to have a child. That alone is reason enough to endorse the option of abortion. No one should be forced to have a child that they don't want.
No, abortion shouldn't be banned. If you want to see an example of a country that bans abortion, look at El Salvador.
The suicide rate among young women there is skyrocketing because they're getting pregnant (often as the result of sexual assault) and have to give birth with far less medical support than there would be in the West.
Women are also dying from complications during pregnancy because they can't get an abortion for medical reasons either.
If a woman miscarries, she can falsely be accused of aborting her baby and imprisoned.
Banning abortion is not going to stop abortions; women will go to dodgy back-street practitioners who will not give them adequate care or perform the procedure with sterilised instruments.
If you're anti-choice, you have the right not to have an abortion. You have the right to try and persuade friends etc. not to abort. But it doesn't mean you should stop women aborting who actually NEED an abortion for the sake of their own health or well-being.
I would advocate a relatively short time frame in which an abortion can be had, as long as there wasn't a long waiting time to get an abortion at a clinic. When the foetus develops a capacity for suffering (so around 20 weeks) there should be a cut-off. There should also be better sex education, because humans will always be humans.
Abortion should not be banned because it's not murder the child is not fully developed yet it doesn't have actual thoughts or opinions or decisions yet. Imagine if you had been raped even if you did have the child and brought it into the world you would always know that you had a child who was created from such an awful act imagine if you were that child is that the way you want your life to have started. Or imagine if you were a stupid teenager with hormones you can't control and you get carried away if you gave the child not only will it make you imbarassed and miss a large amount of school which could possibly damage your career and impact the rest of your life. If you kept it you would be throwing your life away but if you gave it up for adoption you would know you had a kid out there and how would they feel as if they had been abandoned and there parents didn't want them. What if you always wanted kids you really didn't want to let it go but you couldn't keep it you had no way to and it would be a horrible life for the child. What If you had a child with mental disorders although yes they do deserve a life but what kind of life is that always having to go to special schools being treated differently and never knowing why being bullied all the time for how you were born and when your parents are gone who's gonna look after you and take care of you. It is no one's buisness what you do with your own body and your own cells child birth won't hurt the father of the baby and it won't hurt anyone else but you mentaly and physicaly.
When a woman chooses to have an abortion for whatever reason that may be, it is solely her decision. She is the dominant decision maker in the scenario. Obviously the father and surrounding family have valid opinions but the mother makes the final decision. An abortion is no-one elses business BUT the mothers and immediate surround family. For this to even be a topic of discussion is disgusting. If it is not your child, your family then you have zero business snooping around and barging your opinion onto the mother & / or surrounding family. Speaking without statistics, it is well known WORLDWIDE, that abortions save mothers and the unborn child in loads and loads of cases. Abortions have the ability to save lives. Many people who are against abortions, I FEEL, never think outside the box. They believe (which they are not wrong) that abortion is murder and or killing the fetus. Yet what they don't think about is the bigger picture. abortions give mothers and families the option to save that child's life and when he or she is ready to come into the world again they will. Just because a woman can get pregnant does not in any way shape or form show us that that baby which will be born in the following 9 months, will be born into a stable environment.
depends on the cases. sometimes abortion is necessary if the pregnancy leads to the mother's life threatening conditions. but in other cases, it shouldn't be allowed. like you just cant abort a child because you slipped in your precautions while having sex, or if you get pregnant pre marital. its your fault, you face the consequences rather than taking a life.
Abortion is a tool for whom cannot handle or support the child, while adoption may be an option. There is also situations where carrying the baby could result in the mothers and or the babies death, in conclusion abortion is a grim, yet necessary tool. Besides it is the mother's choice.
First, by virtue of having to carry the baby inside her body for 9 months, the mother gets a say in deciding whether she wishes to carry through with the pregnancy or not. And by virtue of having to take up the responsibility of providing for the baby after its birth, people get to choose whether they are financially and emotionally prepared for parenthood or not. So, it doesn't even have to be just the extreme cases like teenage pregnancy and pregnancy due to rape, where the choice of abortion should be made available, but the choice to abort should be provided under all circumstances where parents can't support the child. It is because in such cases, giving birth to the child works against the favour of the child itself, as it is denied an appropriate, nurturing environment to grow up in.
-Second, the responsibility of parenthood is a huge one and calls for sacrifices on part of the parents (especially, on part of a mother) in terms of their professional growth. We have to understand that a parent is not all that a person might want to be, and that's okay! We have to understand the implications of childbirth on the lives of the parents.
-In a broader sense, not bringing children into this world, when there exists an inability to give the child proper opportunities of education and healthcare, contributes immensely to population control, besides saving the child a lifetime of wretchedness.
Abortion should not be banned. If the mother's pregnancy is risking her own life, abortion should be an option for the mother.
If abortion is banned, many high risk pregnancy will eventually kill a mother's life. Therefore, there is always another try to have a healthy pregnancy again. Allowing a person to undergo an abortion need to set a criteria so many women will not opt out for abortion.
I would suggest that abortion can only be done when the pregnancy caused complications with health, abortion will only be allowed below 12 weeks gestation, consent of abortion for below 21 years old, got raped and baby's abnormal deformation.
This may save a lot of complicated pregnancy and life.
The debate isn't about "should people put up unwanted babies for adoption". It's about "should abortion be banned".
I agree that if people don't want their babies, they should have the choice of putting it up for adoption. But it should not be made compulsory, which is essentially what happens if you ban abortion.
Let's say abortion was banned, congratulations you got your way now there are lots of women dying from illegal and unprofessional abortions because trust me, if abortion were to be illegal there will be some women still getting abortions and since it was banned you'll have to get them done by some random guy who says he's experienced. I am aware that this is happening today but lots more of this will happen if abortion were to be banned. Now since I sound a little selfish only thinking about the women's side then let's talk about the children. Overpopulation, people have unprotected sex and well babies are created now I know some will love and protect their babies but others will drop them off in an orphanage or the streets. Now you'll see lots of kids needing new homes and not as many families providing them with it. Now there have been some arguments that the kid could be the next Albert Einstein or Bill Gates, using that same logic the kid could be the next Hitler. Now the argument that it's immoral to kill a child that has no say in the matter. In ethics, there is no define line of right or wrong.
Most people get an abortion because they will not be able to provide for their child. Therefore, when they are born would have to go into some sort of foster system or adoption. There are many cases in which children have been abused or mistreated and it is understandable for parents to be concerned. People would rather peacefully "kill" their child than put them through the struggle of the foster system or feeling as though their biological parents didn't love them enough to keep them. In many families or cultures, if you become pregnant very young or when you are unmarried, you bring shame upon the family and could be disowned. So, the mother could get an abortion to avoid all the struggles. Some people need to get an abortion, such as medical reasons and if they give birth to the child, it could kill them. There are many reasons why abortion shouldn't be banned, and if you don't agree with it, don't do it.
it's quite simple for you to argue on the side of the embryo. well and good, it may be living but please don't forget that it is not the only one being affected. for one, think of the woman that you are forcing to carry this child. taking into consideration the world economic state at the moment, i don't think anyone has the right to force someone to give birth to a child. remember most of the people who consider abortion are young girls who are barely supporting themselves; where is the money for diapers, medical bills formula clothes and ,most importantly, school fees coming from? in some countries getting pregnant before( which is common among people who request for abortions) is abominable and it can lead to parents disowning their daughters. would let this pregnant woman suffer on streets with no food, transport or even basic shelter from the harsh elements all because you are trying to preserve the life of an embryo you are not even sure will not be a still birth? would you live peacefully knowing you are the cause of the destruction of what was once a beautiful family? how much joy will it cause you to realize that the only reason as why a girl who would have been the next Margaret Thatcher, the next Emma Watson, the next princess Kate is but the winds that dry our clothes all because she passed giving birth in the dumpster across the block?
Abortion is OK. IF you don't like just don't do it. DO NOT try to force others to give up on a choice they should have. Plus, tummy babies have no feelings, it's OK to kill. They will never notice it and sometimes, abortion is just the best choice for a community, because an unwanted baby shouldn't be born.
I believe abortion should not be banned for only a couple reasons: 1) If you ban abortion, the only thing you'll be doing is lowering 'official' abortion rates, but you'll be raising back-alley abortion rates. Back-alley abortions usually only happen when abortion is illegal in that mothers country or state, or when the mother doesn't have enough money to have an official abortion. Or 2) The mother's health is involved. The mother's health is always involved, but the decision must be made upon a life or death situation for the mother. If the baby is threatening the life of the mother, then it's mom's choice of an abortion or not. Banning abortion will not make 'murder' rates decrease, it will raise many others.
Pregnancy abortion is just a public admission of guilt describing the crime of murder. Admissions of guilt are very hard to detail as illegal crime as they are the confession to such actions and not the crime they describe to others. Admissions are found to be Unconstitutional and are in most cases proven to be a crime outside the crime described by the self-incrimination.
If there is a technical justification science is the only organized group that performs pregnancy abortions as a united State. In vitro fertilization officially stops a human pregnancy an female specific amputation reinstates a woman’s menstruation cycle.
It should be noted that no-where in the process of in vitro fertilization does the science community state a pregnancy abortion takes place.
