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 own 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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
191 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
"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
1267 days ago | Side: abortion 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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1144 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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! ;)
1141 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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 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.
110 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
108 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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
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.
1094 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
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).
530 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
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?
1351 days ago | Side: abortion 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.
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.
1335 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1333 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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!
1180 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1355 days ago | Side: Both sides are self-righteous assholes
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.
Amen right man ._.
1351 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1348 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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!
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1293 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
"...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.
1293 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1291 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1286 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1035 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1286 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1355 days ago | Side: Both sides are self-righteous assholes
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.
1355 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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
1337 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1333 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1128 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
"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.
191 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
“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.
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1147 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
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.
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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."
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1186 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
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
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.
1347 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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 :)
1178 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1182 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
530 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
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!
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1181 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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...
1101 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.....
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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
1353 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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,
1353 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1352 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1348 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1352 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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?
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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
1354 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
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...
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1351 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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).
1186 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1349 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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!
1183 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1182 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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!
1182 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1181 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1180 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1183 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1180 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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...
1180 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1182 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
Stay out of it.
1294 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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!
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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."
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1184 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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).
1183 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
"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.
1182 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
"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!!!
1182 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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!
1180 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
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.
296 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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!
1348 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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?
1346 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
... 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...
1344 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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!
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
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.
1351 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1351 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
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.
1185 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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"?
1348 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1346 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1344 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1344 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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...
1341 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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).
1338 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1337 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1336 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
People like you should never be allowed to hijack debates with confusing ramblings and illogical emotions that are neither intelligible reasonings or on topic.
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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 ;)
1178 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1178 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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 ;)
Stay on track there horsie!
1178 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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 . . .
:D
lolololololol
1344 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
#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?
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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!
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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!
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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?
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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?
1190 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
"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.
1179 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1167 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1144 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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.
1141 days ago | Side: abortion should not be banned
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 b