CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I find it hilarious that people actually invents ridiculous excuses as to why Fetuses and Babies are different.
They are just the same Humans who hold the future of mankind! Whatever carelessness the parents has done is something that an innocent child is not eligible to pay with their life.
I know. Right? Look at any 3d Ultrasound and then check out the child once he or she is delivered. It's the same face, same body, same fingers and toes etc.
Some people seem to seriously believe the birth canal a magical passageway that transforms NON human cellular matter into a real live human baby.
This is already a scientifically proven fact that people in the pro choice completely deny. I'm a libertarian but I am pro life even though the technical position in the party is pro choice, 30% of libertarians including myself describe themselves "pro life", movements like the libertarians for life include people that fall under the pro life libertarian column, Dr Ron Paul A DOCTOR for Christ sake
is another example of a pro life libertarian. unfortunately compared to the 70% that self describe as "pro choice" the movement is rather small!
The biggest argument pro choice libertarians have for abortion and against pro life libertarians is that the main purpose of the party was to get the government out of our lives, however I should bring up that it violates the 9th amendment so it is unconstitutional already, besides it is murder regardless, something illegal in every human civilization, abortion completely eliminates the life of a healthy human fetus!
Roe V Wade the law that officially legalized abortion says that a woman can not legally have an abortion until she is 20 weeks pregnant last time I checked fetal brain waves begin at 6 weeks and the baby has all the parts necessary to feel pain at 12 weeks, these facts completely destroy arguments that say that there is a difference between a fetus and human life and you don't need religion to understand that, I am an atheist and I still understand that abortion eliminates human life and is therefore wrong.
Where do I stand on legislation? I think abortion should be legal from week 1 to 12 once you get to the 12 week mark you are too late to get an abortion. Now what about in cases like rape,incest or life of the mother? I would be more comfortable if the states could decide on rape/incest however in cases where mothers life is at risk I say completely legalize abortion.
If you don't believe the facts on fetal development check out the link the prove you wrong, also if you are curious about the libertarians for life movement check out the link to the website.
I know what you mean. I am also Libertarian and I am pro-life as well (for a moment I thought I was the only one!). That's my only qualm about the party. Personally, I would like to take it farther and just ban abortion altogether, but I know that will probably be impossible.
What I thought is interesting in Roe v. Wade is that the mother taking the suit to the Supreme Court had her baby, and became a strong pro-life activist afterwards.
Luckily for us it is not as uncommon to find a pro-life libertarian as it is to find a pro-life democrat LOL, as I had said before 30% of libertarians are pro-life!
I do have to bring up that personally I do not want to abandon ALL abortion simply because women deserve the opportunity to get an abortion when the fetus can not even feel pain which is in the first 12 weeks because in that case abortion would be quick, simple and harmless, I think the states should decide if abortion would be legal under rape/incest which I would predict the majority of the damn country would allow abortion in that case.
I definitely feel abortion should be allowed if the mothers life is at risk for 2 big reasons, 1st big reason there are already alternatives to abortion if the mothers life is at risk early induced labor or c sections, etc. And 2nd there are also extremely rare situations where the baby's life AND the mothers are both at risk then I definitely support abortion in that case to because by doing this you are at least saving 1 life, besides the baby will die either way.
Anyway It's great that you agree with me for the most part, the biggest reason I am pro-life is because of this video from another libertarian fighting against abortion.
She would have the right to choose in the first 12 weeks if the legislation were up to me. Giving the unborn baby salt poison when it clearly can easily feel pain against its will is no better than murder!
You do not have the right to force your beliefs on other people. Women have the right to choose whether you like it or not. Forced pregnancy is no better than rape.
Nobody has the right to murder though, abortion is murder but people don't view it that way they view it as a woman's right. Too many people focus on perspective of the mother instead of the unborn child, when people realize that life is irreplaceable and NOBODY has the right to terminate such a thing that will be the first step in a Roe V Wade reform!
What the fuck happened to this actual debate, you sound like one of those radicals protesting about abortion regulation! Are we gonna continue this debate or are you going to preach your "my body my choice" bullshit?
I did not say persecution I said prosecution. Also can't you under stand that I think women should have an opportunity, apparently you don't when you say that I am forcing beliefs on you and "my body my choice".
So wait what about the unborn child? it's not all about the woman you know, women should have the right to choose when it is harmless or even beneficial not when ever the fuck she wants!
Jesus you make a great point there, technically it might not be murder now but once the termination of an innocent life the doctors know damn well is a human is criminalized it will then be murder! I think my sentence should be changed to abortion is wrongful killing which is definitely a fact. I feel that if a woman has the opportunity to get an abortion in the first 12 weeks after conception or in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother but in all other cases keep it illegal, I think that would make the best law don't you agree?
I have changed a view on this issue, I now support complete decriminalization of abortion under rape/incest instead of legalization under states rights!
I appreciate your vote and comment on the human being question but I'm gonna have to pose the 'pro-abortion' thing as a question in another debate some other time.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible
As I posted in response to Chuz-Life on the troll debate before he banned everyone who disagreed:
If you believe this is a logical argument against abortion, then you have to by definition agree that a human being in the sperm state is a human being, or for females, a human being in the egg state is still a human being,
And then you must logically stop petitioning humans to follow your odd dogma, and spend that time demanding god do so, since in these states god, via nature, aborts far more humans than have ever even been in the fetal state, in all of human history.
Or if you are a reasonable being you could realize that the determining factor is self-awareness and not what that thing will someday perhaps become,
And accept that if one decides to have an abortion prior to the third trimester, nothing in fact is lost at all, not a human, nothing. Nothing more than all of the zillions of sperm and eggs who were never turned into people.
A sperm is just the part of a man, an egg cell is the part of a woman. Losing them is just the same as losing blood.
But once they became together as one and fertilized to create a fetus, it is already meant to become and be treated as a human being. Funny how you guys give humanitary rights to animals but not among the humans who holds the future generation.
The carelessness of the parents is something that the baby is not meant to pay with their life. And Legal isn't always Moral
But once they became together as one and fertilized to create a fetus, it is already meant to become and be treated as a human being.
Fact: At the point of conception the fetus has no more self awareness than the sperm or the egg individually, nor does it 3 to 6 months after that point. After six months it may have the self-awareness of an insect.
So my analogy is factually correct.
But you are not basing your idea on facts, which is fine, I'm happy to address your concerns as well,
you are using potential. You believe that thing, upon conception is meant to be.
You've said so and I will show you where, but let's not gloss over exactly what you believe because I find it is helpful for individuals, like yourself, who have an invested ideological incentive to thoughtlessly defend an indefensible position.
You believe, literally, that of the millions of sperm in each ejaculation, and of the 300,000 eggs a woman has in her body, that those very two were meant to meet at that very time. Keep in mind all of the billions of people in the world as well. You believe that it was preordained for those two people to meet at exactly that time, have exactly that egg ovulating, and exactly that one sperm would win the race.
This is your belief, there was no free will, you did not choose, you were controlled by some divine power to make it just so regardless of the astronomical odds. That is the only thing that "it is already meant to become and be treated as a human being" can ever mean.
It is important to describe this exactly because people who say this rarely or never think of the true implications of it. There is no other implication for the statement "it is already meant to become and be treated as a human being." To be true there necessarily cannot be free will at all or choice at all.
But okay, that is what you believe.
If that is the case, then the person who aborts also has no free will.
This too is necessarily true because every action has a reaction, and if all potential was "meant to become" then at some point an abortion which was not "meant to be" would result in a different child than would have been born, who'd consequently have different DNA, who'd consequently make different kids than were meant to be,
etc, etc, etc,
This is not outlandish or silly. It is the only conclusion to your theory of "meant to become," the only one.
If you have free will then humans are random and you have to measure life by self-awareness because everything else is too random to apply.
If you do not have free will than humans are not random, in which case you are correct, but at the very same time you have no right to deny another an abortion because that too has to be in order for your own theory to work.
Fact: At the point of conception the fetus has no more self awareness than the sperm or the egg individually, nor does it 3 to 6 months after that point. After six months it may have the self-awareness of an insect.
- Lets take a close look at Biological Studies shall we?
1. Living things are highly organized, from the smallest part to the largest.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
Right at the very moment the sperm makes contact with the egg, the egg starts to act independently, It starts to organize, it quickly leans how to acquire nutrition and use it, it knows how to respond to their environment and knows how to adapt to it. It even knows how to reproduce by dividing its cells over and over.
An ordinary Egg and Sperm cannot do any of this. Which concludes that Life starts at conception.
There is no other implication for the statement "it is already meant to become and be treated as a human being."
-Your right, meant to become is different from being treated as one, because since fertilization, fetuses are already a human
P.S
The rest of your post are just repetition of the same arguments. And just why in the world would you drag a Free Will argument in here?
The rest of your post are just repetition of the same arguments. And just why in the world would you drag a Free Will argument in here?
It is not a repeated argument, it is explaining your position. And it has everything to do with free will, which I explain in the "rest" which you did not understand I'm guessing. You argue that these fetuses were meant to be which means they are pre-ordained, which means there was no choice in their conception.
1. Living things are highly organized, from the smallest part to the largest.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
This is inconsequential unless you also believe viruses, fungi, etc have the rights of that fetus.
The basis of your argument is potential no matter how much you ignore or, more likely, don't understand your own argument.
And when potential is the argument sperm and eggs should be treated equally to the fetus.
You argue that these fetuses were meant to be which means they are pre-ordained, which means there was no choice in their conception
-ahhh...now I understand. And yes, biology itself confirms a new independent DNA was created the moment that fertilization occurs, which means that life has taken place. And with life comes respect for it.
This is inconsequential unless you also believe viruses, fungi, etc have the rights of that fetus.
-You do realize that viruses has no chance of becoming a human right? My point is that life starts at the womb and so does their humanity.
I take back my word, There is no such thing as "Potential to be a human" there is only "The beginning of life"
Alright, that is a bit more defensible, but as a personal belief.
But if one does not believe that the point at which this DNA is created by the combination of the sperm and the egg is in any way special, by what measure should they judge the sanctity of this life?
Can you see that if one does not believe this is special, that if that "life" has no feeling, no conscious, no self-awareness, that person would not feel compelled in any way to treat this "life" with the integrity of a being who is conscious and self-aware?
You've chosen the point at which you want something to be considered human based on a biological step, just as pro-choice individuals base the point they consider something to be human on a biological step.
The only difference is what that biological step is.
For pro-choice it is conscious and self-awareness. For you it is before.
What do you believe makes you correct?
Why should you get to determine what others believe to be correct if no thing is harmed?
I don't think you have that right. Which is the reason pro-choice is the sensible position.
No one is hurt, and no one is forced to act against their will.
Outlawing abortion does not work anyway, humans have tried it off and on throughout history. It only leads to more dead mothers, more botched abortions in back alleys and basements, and more secrecy when young women become pregnant.
It is the less humane position when applied in real life.
But if one does not believe that the point at which this DNA is created by the combination of the sperm and the egg is in any way special, by what measure should they judge the sanctity of this life?
- My argument stands that life starts at conception. if you cannot accept my philosophy, then your answer is something for me to dispute
Can you see that if one does not believe this is special,that person would not feel compelled in any way to treat this "life" with the integrity of a being who is conscious and self-aware?
- Same argument once more; Legal isn't always Moral
For pro-choice it is conscious and self-awareness. For you it is before.What do you believe makes you correct?
- Simple answer: I value life
Our value for life defines our community
No one is hurt, and no one is forced to act against their will.
- Same excuse can be said to Cheating, Bribery, Drug and alcohol abuse. no one is hurt nor forced to act against their will. But why does it feel so wrong?
Outlawing abortion does not work anyway
- My friend, that is the excuse of the lowlifes. The ineffectiveness of the solution is not an excuse to allow immorality to run about
It is the less humane position when applied in real life.
- My argument stands that life starts at conception. if you cannot accept my philosophy, then your answer is something for me to dispute
So your answer is that you refuse to answer the question "But if one does not believe that the point at which this DNA is created by the combination of the sperm and the egg is in any way special, by what measure should they judge the sanctity of this life?"
I will assume then you do not have an argument to support your position. In which case, as is currently the case, you should support others right to have an abortion, and they will continue to support your right to not have an abortion.
I'm assuming this is now your position.
- Same argument once more; Legal isn't always Moral
Legality was not my argument... if you cannot understand what I'm saying you don't have to pretend you do. Just tell me you don't get it.
- Simple answer: I value life
Our value for life defines our community
I value life. Just about everyone values life. There is a very good argument to be made that those who are pro-choice value life more than those who are anti-abortion. So you've not answered the question.
- Same excuse can be said to Cheating, Bribery, Drug and alcohol abuse. no one is hurt nor forced to act against their will. But why does it feel so wrong?
Wait... I'm I arguing with a child?
Cheating, bribery, drugs and alcohol abuse all hurt someone. Abortion does not. At the point abortion is legal t here is not person there to hurt. They are not the same thing. And "feeling" has nothing to do with anything at all.
- My friend, that is the excuse of the lowlifes. The ineffectiveness of the solution is not an excuse to allow immorality to run about
1. There is nothing immoral about abortion and you've not had a single argument to the contrary.
2. The ineffectiveness of a solution is an excuse not to enact that "solution". Otherwise you have a bunch of solutions that don't work... like outlawing abortion.
I mean, the second one was just ridiculous. Really? Do stuff even if it doesn't work because people are "bad"?
I will assume then you do not have an argument to support your position.
- sigh
you do realize that right from the first argument, I had proven that a child is considered alive right at the moment of conception, right?
You said it yourself; You've chosen the point at which you want something to be considered human based on a biological step,just as pro-choice individuals base the point they consider something to be human
Dont deny it.
Legality was not my argument...
-Your argument was Can you see that if one does not believe this is special,that person would not feel compelled in any way to treat this "life" with the integrity of a being who is conscious and self-aware?
In short terms, that is exactly your argument. A different perception of being right does not make that perception moral.
I value life. Just about everyone values life. There is a very good argument to be made that those who are pro-choice value life more than those who are anti-abortion. So you've not answered the question.
- Correction: you value creatures who can be useful to the society rather than valuing life itself. How else would you be a pro-choice if you look more at the benefits than the meaning of a living creature? (No offense intended)
Cheating, bribery, drugs and alcohol abuse all hurt someone. Abortion does not.
- The last person being hurt by those crimes is themselves. How can you say that abortion is harmless when you violated a rule not to kill?
Dont insist that a fetus is not a human when you cannot give a logical excuse. (an excuse for me to dispute)
1. There is nothing immoral about abortion and you've not had a single argument to the contrary.
2. The ineffectiveness of a solution is an excuse not to enact that "solution". Otherwise you have a bunch of solutions that don't work... like outlawing abortion.
-1. I will agree, if you can prove to me that murder is moral.Especially when done to helpless children
2. sigh
Are you saying that if you cannot fight atrocity, its a wise decision to just change your perception for what is right and wrong?
I will assume then you do not have an argument to support your position.
- sigh
you do realize that right from the first argument, I had proven that a child is considered alive right at the moment of conception, right?
You said it yourself; You've chosen the point at which you want something to be considered human based on a biological step,just as pro-choice individuals base the point they consider something to be human
Dont deny it.
Legality was not my argument...
-Your argument was Can you see that if one does not believe this is special,that person would not feel compelled in any way to treat this "life" with the integrity of a being who is conscious and self-aware?
In short terms, that is exactly your argument. A different perception of being right does not make that perception moral.
I value life. Just about everyone values life. There is a very good argument to be made that those who are pro-choice value life more than those who are anti-abortion. So you've not answered the question.
- Correction: you value creatures who can be useful to the society rather than valuing life itself. How else would you be a pro-choice if you look more at the benefits than the meaning of a living creature? (No offense intended)
Cheating, bribery, drugs and alcohol abuse all hurt someone. Abortion does not.
- The last person being hurt by those crimes is themselves. How can you say that abortion is harmless when you violated a rule not to kill?
Dont insist that a fetus is not a human when you cannot give a logical excuse. (an excuse for me to dispute)
1. There is nothing immoral about abortion and you've not had a single argument to the contrary.
2. The ineffectiveness of a solution is an excuse not to enact that "solution". Otherwise you have a bunch of solutions that don't work... like outlawing abortion.
-1. I will agree, if you can prove to me that murder is moral.Especially when done to helpless children
2. sigh
Are you saying that if you cannot fight atrocity, its a wise decision to just change your perception for what is right and wrong?
you do realize that right from the first argument, I had proven that a child is considered alive right at the moment of conception, right?
You said it yourself; You've chosen the point at which you want something to be considered human based on a biological step,just as pro-choice individuals base the point they consider something to be human
Dont deny it.
Mold's alive. I've proven that "alive" is not the benchmark for human.
-Your argument was Can you see that if one does not believe this is special,that person would not feel compelled in any way to treat this "life" with the integrity of a being who is conscious and self-aware?
In short terms, that is exactly your argument. A different perception of being right does not make that perception moral.
And if there is not self-awareness, consciousness, or feeling involved for that thing in question, the foetus, then you have no right to force your belief about what is "moral" onto another.
- Correction: you value creatures who can be useful to the society rather than valuing life itself. How else would you be a pro-choice if you look more at the benefits than the meaning of a living creature? (No offense intended)
Easy, I value life which is conscious and self aware, not random clusters of cells my imagination deems a person. That thing has no feelings, no conscious. If you've ever eaten meet then you've harmed a living thing more than any person who has had an abortion.
- The last person being hurt by those crimes is themselves. How can you say that abortion is harmless when you violated a rule not to kill?
Dont insist that a fetus is not a human when you cannot give a logical excuse. (an excuse for me to dispute)
Because nothing is hurt and nothing is lost.
-1. I will agree, if you can prove to me that murder is moral.Especially when done to helpless children
2. sigh
Are you saying that if you cannot fight atrocity, its a wise decision to just change your perception for what is right and wrong?
1. It's not a child. It's a cluster of cells with no feelings or conscious.
2. No, I said, clearly, laws against abortion don't work anyway, even if there were a reason for them, which there is not. You than said "I DON'T CARE BABIES AND TEDDY BEARS ERRR AND ITS MEANY HEAD TIME SO DO IT ANYWAY" and I said that it does not make sense to do something which does not work, and which in reality causes more death than saves "lives."
"Mold's alive. I've proven that "alive" is not the benchmark for human."
- Im afraid i browsed our debate and I cannot see you proving that being alive does not mean being a human. But I can see that you tried to say that fetuses are not alive, though. Lets not beat around the bush and please tell me what is a necessity to be a human.
Is it conciousness? If so, then are mentally illed, or people in coma considered as an animal? Is it physical structure? If so, then how do you explain bedridden people and senior citizens?
"And if there is not self-awareness, consciousness, or feeling involved for that thing in question, the foetus, then you have no right to force your belief about what is "moral" onto another."
-The legallity of an action depends upon culture of the state. But there is only one rule for morality And that rule is to be followed by every citizen.
Easy, I value life which is conscious and self aware, not random clusters of cells my imagination deems a person. That thing has no feelings, no conscious. If you've ever eaten meet then you've harmed a living thing more than any person who has had an abortion.
- History has always made up laws to pretend that a human being is not a human being. They create lies to mask their immorality and separate themselves from their own brothers and fill in the selfish philosophy that they wanted.
Once, it was pointed at small tribes by the empires. Then by the white man to the black man. Now, a mother to her child.
Is that what you wanted me to see?
Because nothing is hurt and nothing is lost.
- sigh This is just stupid. A person who does not have a sense of value for morality cannot be disputed nor supported.
1. It's not a child. It's a cluster of cells with no feelings or conscious.
2. No, I said, clearly, laws against abortion don't work anyway, even if there were a reason for them, which there is not. You than said "I DON'T CARE BABIES AND TEDDY BEARS ERRR AND ITS MEANY HEAD TIME SO DO IT ANYWAY" and I said that it does not make sense to do something which does not work, and which in reality causes more death than saves "lives."
- 1. Again with the excuses, can we skip this one? I dont like repeating a statement if it has not originality
2. Abortion was legalized in 1973. And with abortion allowed, everyone believed that the unwanted children and the number of child abuse decrease, right?
The legalization of abortion has not only increased crime, it also devalued human life and created a society corrupted of its morals (you can do more research if you want).
It was never pointless to stand up for something that is right. But it is pointless to stand up for self centered reasonings
Is it conciousness? If so, then are mentally illed, or people in coma considered as an animal? Is it physical structure? If so, then how do you explain bedridden people and senior citizens?
Bedridden people and senior citizens are self aware.
If you are trying in your simple way to say that "if it is justifiable to abort a fetus for the reason it is not self-aware, then you would need to feel the same about one in a coma is is not self-aware"
You'd at least have a sensible argument, but it is still not the same because that person has the structure for self-awareness, and in most cases is to some degree conscious, even in a deep coma, and a fetus is missing the parts which would make this possible. So it is not the same in that way.
But that is also ignoring the fact that we unplug people all of the time, and we do this based on the will of the individual if they left a will, and if not, it is the will of the family.
So applying your exact example to abortion, it would be the case where it was the will of the mother to "unplug" the one in a coma, if you are making that comparison.
Again though, it is not the same. In a coma you have the stuff that makes consciousness possible, a fetus does not have this.
-The legallity of an action depends upon culture of the state. But there is only one rule for morality And that rule is to be followed by every citizen.
Exactly. Which is why it is immoral for you to try to force your will on others. I'm glad you are now pro-choice.
- History has always made up laws to pretend that a human being is not a human being. They create lies to mask their immorality and separate themselves from their own brothers and fill in the selfish philosophy that they wanted.
Once, it was pointed at small tribes by the empires. Then by the white man to the black man. Now, a mother to her child.
Is that what you wanted me to see?
I'm against everything listed here! Wow, it's nice to have someone who agrees that slavery is wrong and now that you are pro-choice, we agree on almost everything!
- sigh This is just stupid. A person who does not have a sense of value for morality cannot be disputed nor supported.
I know, those immoral people are dumby heads, especially those pro-life psychos with their imaginary fetus friends huh?
- 1. Again with the excuses, can we skip this one? I dont like repeating a statement if it has not originality
Skip what? That the fetus has no feelings or conscious? That's the entire premise. It cannot be skipped. It is the central issue, as you know, you now being pro-choice as you've stated.
2. Abortion was legalized in 1973. And with abortion allowed, everyone believed that the unwanted children and the number of child abuse decrease, right?
I know! It's so annoying when those nutty make-woman-do-what-I-want-because-I-really-really-feel-that-way-even-though- I-have-no-real-argument people are all like "I'm going to make up an argument and say that is the reason abortion is legal even though I know it really is not the reason abortion is legal."
So annoying and dumb.
I'm glad you at least realize that has nothing to do with why abortion was made legal. And that you also realize that link you sent is a religious looney propoganda piece with 0 basis in reality. It's nice to have someone who gets it on one of these debates.
The legalization of abortion has not only increased crime, it also devalued human life and created a society corrupted of its morals (you can do more research if you want).
lol, I know, that's just the kind of red herring a pro-life person would throw out then not back up with facts. Because they are totally wrong about it! Since there is absolutely no correlation. Great job anticipating a dumb argument someone might make.
It was never pointless to stand up for something that is right. But it is pointless to stand up for self centered reasonings
Exactly. It is important we continue to stand up for women's right to choose because the alternative is more dead women and not a single extra fetus being born, and since that fetus has no feelings it is definitely the choice of the woman. It feels good to stand up for what's right. It's important these anti-abortion crazies aren't ever allowed to force their will on people again.
"A wise man will change his mind, a fool cannot"
-Socrates
Right again. Sad to say those against abortion rarely change their mind. It's a part of their theology in most cases, which is indoctrinated and nearly impossible to shed no matter how clearly we lay out the logic for them.
I read all your arguments before replying. And god, just why on earth are you trying to turn our wise debate into a flamewar?
Bedridden people and senior citizens are self aware, because they have the body parts that allows them conciousness (statement editted, hope you dont mind)
- in what way, again? .
Isnt being unable to use the conciousness just the same as not having it?
Exactly. Which is why it is immoral for you to try to force your will on others.
- Im afraid you do not understand the concept of morality (or your trolling). Execution and Abortion is Legal, but Murder has always been classified as immoral,
Like what I said before; Legal isnt always moral.
"And that you also realize that link you sent is a religious looney propoganda piece with 0 basis in reality"
-I said make your own research, right? but I dont mind if I gave you more.
Isnt being unable to use the conciousness just the same as not having it?
Uh, I do mind because the entire premise is the brain. Not body parts. Brain. Do you seriously think I'm arguing about body parts? Why on earth would you change that?
Anyway, consciousness is not something you "consciously" use. You are or you are not conscious. Old people have consciousness. Mentally retarded people have consciousness. Foetuses do not have consciousness.
- Im afraid you do not understand the concept of morality (or your trolling). Execution and Abortion is Legal, but Murder has always been classified as immoral,
These two sentences do not go together. They make no sense. One does not relate to the other.
Like what I said before; Legal isnt always moral.
So?
-I said make your own research, right? but I dont mind if I gave you more.
Heres an article from Fox News
Part 2
Debunking the Myth
Fox news is an ideological soap box. They are not a reliable source for a debate site, nor news for that matter.
Your second link I already addressed. The issue is not and never was crime rates. That is a red herring.
I skipped practically ALOT of your arguments because they are just nothing but personal attacks or insults intended for Pro-life.
You've skipped all of my arguments. You have no idea what I'm talking about apparently.
Theres no need to emphasize on it, but you see.....we are in a debate website my friend. We have no need for flamewars.
Okay. Then debate instead of repeating the same stuff over and over.
Uh, I do mind because the entire premise is the brain. Anyway, consciousness is not something you "consciously" use. You are or you are not conscious. Old people have consciousness. Mentally retarded people have consciousness. Foetuses do not have consciousness.
- Conciousness is defined as having an awareness of our external surroundings or internal objects. Mentally illed people, and people in coma do not have it or they have it wrong.
Fetuses however has an awareness of their being, they know how to organize their body cells, produce what is needed and heck, they even know it if their mother wanted them or not.
These two sentences do not go together. They make no sense. One does not relate to the other.
- Im afraid your the one lacking here. The point of my argument is that, morality defines rules as a whole, legal however creates exceptions.
Something declared as legal will not always be moral. But something moral will always be legal. It is up to your biasedness to decide on which should be followed
Fox news is an ideological soap box. They are not a reliable source for a debate site, nor news for that matter.
Your second link I already addressed. The issue is not and never was crime rates. That is a red herring.
-Denial is a psychological defense. If you are gonna accuse my links as a fraud, then you are supposed to carry the burden of proof.
- Conciousness is defined as having an awareness of our external surroundings or internal objects. Mentally illed people, and people in coma do not have it or they have it wrong.
You are incorrect. The mentally ill and people in comas do have a degree of awareness. Your information is incorrect.
Fetuses however has an awareness of their being, they know how to organize their body cells, produce what is needed and heck, they even know it if their mother wanted them or not.
You are incorrect. Fetuses do not have awareness and know nothing of their mother or anything else, and nothing on earth "knows how to organize their body cells" that is a ridiculous notion. This is a very silly sentence all in all.
- Im afraid your the one lacking here. The point of my argument is that, morality defines rules as a whole, legal however creates exceptions.
Something declared as legal will not always be moral. But something moral will always be legal. It is up to your biasedness to decide on which should be followed
Your grasp of the language is as limited as your knowledge of logic. I am not arguing legality and I don't care about legality other than I think it is more moral for one to be free to choose.
-Denial is a psychological defense.
Sometimes, but I'm not denying anything. This statement makes no sense at all here. You seem to be just randomly stringing together nouns and verbs in hopes it makes a sentence.
If you are gonna accuse my links as a fraud, then you are supposed to carry the burden of proof.
I didn't accuse them of fraud, I accused them of being wrong.
A fetus has no self-awareness. That is a fact. The right to have an abortion had nothing to do with crime rates. That is another fact.
Why not just do your own research and search for "Effects of Abortion on Crime Rates"
I hope that you can be more openminded
Crime rate is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the abortion debate or any point I've made at all. Do you not understand that? Crime rate is not part of this debate. You might as well be providing links to unicorns.
- I have no plans on beating the dead horse. But its fine, everyone makes mistakes. Your attitude towards defeat defines your victory
You haven't replied to any of the arguments I've made.
You are incorrect. The mentally ill and people in comas do have a degree of awareness. Your information is incorrect.
- Prove it then.
You are incorrect. Fetuses do not have awareness and know nothing of their mother or anything else, and nothing on earth "knows how to organize their body cells" that is a ridiculous notion. This is a very silly sentence all in all.
I don't care about legality other than I think it is more moral for one to be free to choose.
- Free to choose what?
To murder someone whose only fault is to be created by selfish parents?
I didn't accuse them of fraud, I accused them of being wrong.
- Thats synonymous my friend, both accusations implies your doubt. And with doubt must come reasons. Otherwise, its just plain denial and closeminded defeat.
Come on my little friend, prove to me they are wrong by giving me credible scientific articles
Crime rate is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the abortion debate or any point I've made at all
So your position is that the mentally ill and those in comas do not by definition have self-awareness?
That's retarded.
- Scientists has supported my argument. Whats silly again?
That link is called pseudo science and it's an entertainment article not a scientific finding.
And you didn't even understand the article anyway. The theory is happy hormones have a different effect on development, it has nothing to do with consciousness.
If you can't understand the very articles you link what makes you think you can actually debate this subject, out of curiosity?
- Free to choose what?
Free to choose to have an abortion. wtf?
- Thats synonymous my friend, both accusations implies your doubt. And with doubt must come reasons. Otherwise, its just plain denial and closeminded defeat.
Come on my little friend, prove to me they are wrong by giving me credible scientific articles
It is not synonymous and there is no such implication.
Ignoring again that you have trouble even understanding this debate,
The subject was that those who think that fetuses are self-aware are wrong. You on one hand claim that the mentally ill are not self-aware, then a paragraph later say that the fetus, which does not even have the parts of the brain to make self-awareness possible, are self-aware.
So you see why it is difficult to take you seriously.
Its a long story, but here is the explaination why abortion has a FULL effect on the crime rate
What part of "red herring" do you not understand?
- Done
That link, again, says not a single word about self-awareness. It is not about that at all. You could replace "fetus" with "ant" in that article and it would be exactly the same.
Why do you not see that self-awareness is not the subject of that article? Really, it's disturbing.
So your position is that the mentally ill and those in comas do not by definition have self-awareness?
- I already proven with obvious facts that both kinds of patients do not have any conciousness of their surroundings, much less their own self. You however has yet to prove your claim that: "The mentally ill and people in comas do have a degree of awareness."
That link is called pseudo science and it's an entertainment article not a scientific finding.
- My good sir, the article gave their sources and I would love to hear your evidences that Dr Kazuyuki Shinorhara was a psuedo scientist
Also, you merely called it "happy hormones" but lets be honest, whats the difference between calling it as "Emotion" and calling it "Hormones at work"?
Both cases are the same, only in different languages
Free to choose to have an abortion.
-correction, freedom to murder
It is not synonymous and there is no such implication.
The subject was that those who think that fetuses are self-aware are wrong. You on one hand claim that the mentally ill are not self-aware, then a paragraph later say that the fetus, which does not even have the parts of the brain to make self-awareness possible, are self-aware.
- please sir, dont create lies. What I said was:
"Lets not beat around the bush and please tell me what is a necessity to be a human.
Is it conciousness? If so, then are mentally illed, or people in coma considered as an animal?"(look it up if you doubt me)
What part of "red herring" do you not understand?
-My good sir, just what part of Wikipedia is a red herring?
That link, again, says not a single word about self-awareness.
- Sir, did you read it?
The article showed completely when and how a babies senses develop and it examines the babies psychology and how the emotions of the mother affects them.
A baby knows if the mother is happy, a baby knows if its not wanted. What is not being self aware in it?
- I already proven with obvious facts that both kinds of patients do not have any consciousness of their surroundings, much less their own self. You however has yet to prove your claim that: "The mentally ill and people in comas do have a degree of awareness."
You did not. And had you it still would not help your argument in any way.
- My good sir, the article gave their sources and I would love to hear your evidences that Dr Kazuyuki Shinorhara was a psuedo scientist
Also, you merely called it "happy hormones" but lets be honest, whats the difference between calling it as "Emotion" and calling it "Hormones at work"?
Both cases are the same, only in different languages
Again, inconsequential to the debate. It's a theme of yours. But the "science" in that article is not science, it's a propaganda piece with no backing outside of anti-choice nut's fairytale about conscious fetuses.
-correction, freedom to murder
It does not correlate because murder has a victim and abortion does not.
- please sir, dont create lies. What I said was:
"Lets not beat around the bush and please tell me what is a necessity to be a human.
Is it conciousness? If so, then are mentally illed, or people in coma considered as an animal?"(look it up if you doubt me)
Your argument that the mentally ill and the retarded do not have self-awareness pretty much proves that you are not equipped to handle any sort of debate nor tying your shoes. It's stupid and wrong, and even if it were correct would not support your case in any way whatsoever. Even if it were true that that mentally ill and the retarded were not self aware, to be clear they are self aware, but even if they were not it would not have anything at all to do with abortion. Nothing. Not a thing.
-My good sir, just what part of Wikipedia is a red herring?
Ugh.
A red herring is a distraction from a debate that has nothing to do with the debate but is stated in a way as if it does.
Whether the mentally ill have self-awareness is a red herring to the abortion debate.
A stupid red herring because it does not even support your case in any imaginable way,
but a red herring none the less.
- Sir, did you read it?
The article showed completely when and how a babies senses develop and it examines the babies psychology and how the emotions of the mother affects them.
A baby knows if the mother is happy, a baby knows if its not wanted. What is not being self aware in it?
No, it doesn't show that at all. It doesn't even attempt to show that.
You do not understand the article you linked.
You didn't get it.
It was too hard for you to understand.
You projected your belief about abortion on to an article not related to self-awareness of a fetus.
I tried to explain to you what the article was saying,
but you still do not understand because you are not very smart...
bordering on retarded some may say and I say this only to point out the irony that
You insist one who is retarded is not self-aware so by your arguments you would not be self-aware yourself.
Which still has nothing to do with abortion but is funny.
Oh great, you are actually still alive. Now, I have something to do now that I am bored
You did not. And had you it still would not help your argument in any way.
-Its posted on the 24 days ago. Look at it please. Your denial of facts can only lead you so far.
But the "science" in that article is not science, it's a propaganda piece with no backing outside of anti-choice nut's fairytale about conscious fetuses
-Such strong accusations must be supported by stronger evidences. Please prove them wrong
It does not correlate because murder has a victim and abortion does not
-Denial sure is a psychological defense, isnt it?
Your argument that the mentally ill and the retarded do not have self-awareness .It's stupid and wrong, and even if it were correct would not support your case in any way whatsoever.Even if it were true that that mentally ill and the retarded were not self aware, to be clear they are self aware, but even if they were not it would not have anything at all to do with abortion. Nothing. Not a thing.
-Oh spare me the indignation and prove my stupidity using valid facts and research papers from trustworthy sources. I asked you what makes a human, and what makes a fetus not a human, yet you cannot answer it.
Isnt it discrimination to call something inferior without a valid reason?
Whether the mentally ill have self-awareness is a red herring to the abortion debate.
-Sure it does, I asked you 24 days ago
"Lets not beat around the bush and please tell me what is a necessity to be a human."
Is it conciousness?
Is it physical structure?
It is not red herring, but an evidence that you avoid
No, it doesn't show that at all. It doesn't even attempt to show that.
- I see that you did not read the article. Rather, you just proclaimed it false without any valid arguments.
The whole time, I kept my mouth shut from laughing at how you deteriorated your own arguments into a childish flamewar. I no longer have any respect for you but I will still keep my politeness. Either way....
This arguments pretty much proves that you are not equipped to handle any sort of debate nor tying your shoes
Funny how you have 4808 arguments but you can actually be this immature
1. That is not proof she did have awareness. That you have the choice to unplug them is inconsequential to the argument.
2. Proof of consciousness can be found in activity in the parts of the brain which allow the possibility of this.
If those parts do not exist, you know there is no consciousness, therefore the freedom to choose abortion is not in any conceivable way the freedom to end a conscious life.
but that's not the truth of why you mentioned it. You mentioned it because you were attempting to compare a fetus, in which these parts do not exist, to an unconscious person, whom does have these parts.
You changed your mind after I explained the difference, so okay we've put the "abortion is same as killing someone in a coma" retarded debate. Glad that's over.
My wife had no sign of any higher brain function for the most part of her (3 week long) coma.
Damn, I thought we were done with this.
Okay, so you didn't see signs, but did an MRI show little flashes of activity? Did the doctors say she would regain consciousness?
If my argument is that the difference is the existence of these parts of the brain and the possibility of consciousness, and my argument is that prior to the existence of these parts abortion is okay and post only should be done in extreme circumstances,
you do see that your argument is a strawman right?
Indeed the entire line of arguments you and that silly kid keep bugging me with are as you say, red herrings.
So copy and paste that argument under her silly drivel, you lunatics only listen to one another anyway.
They are not required for a human being to qualify for the equal protections of our laws.
Legally, yes they are.
You are working under the incorrect notion that the law protects those without a consciousness and without self-awareness. This is incorrect. You are wrong. Why you keep arguing this is a mystery.
then you have to by definition agree that a human being in the sperm state is a human being, or for females, a human being in the egg state is still a human being
neither sperm or egg have the capacity to become human unless they fuse together. They are half of a human being and will never grow to be human and are never human, but a foetus is human because it has the necessary prerequisites to be considered human.
And then you must logically stop petitioning humans to follow your odd dogma, and spend that time demanding god do so, since in these states god, via nature, aborts far more humans than have ever even been in the fetal state, in all of human history.
I'll certainly entertain this argument. There is a difference between us and God- we can't create one hair on a child's body or a foetus from literal nothing, but God can, and because he can, he can abort as many babies as he wants.
Or if you are a reasonable being you could realize that the determining factor is self-awareness and not what that thing will someday perhaps become
Because we can't communicate with a foetus it isn't self aware. That's rubbish. Just because you can't speak to it doesn't make it unaware of what is happening around it. It is aware enough to collect the necessary nutrients to keep living, growing and specializing cells it needs for independent living. Anything that can do this is a little self aware. By your argument, people in a vegetative state are 'not aware' but yet we still feel the obligation to stick IV fluids in there arms and keep them alive.
And accept that if one decides to have an abortion prior to the third trimester, nothing in fact is lost at all, not a human, nothing. Nothing more than all of the zillions of sperm and eggs who were never turned into people.
If your mother decided to abort you I wouldn't have to have this conversation with you. And I think that counts as a loss
neither sperm or egg have the capacity to become human unless they fuse together. They are half of a human being and will never grow to be human and are never human, but a foetus is human because it has the necessary prerequisites to be considered human.
I could say no fertilized egg has the capacity to become a human unless it develops properly. I could say it does not have the capacity to become a human if the woman's birth canal is not wide enough. I could say it does not have the capacity to become a human via a million different scenarios, even after impregnation.
So why is your arbitrary point of "humanity" correct?
I say it is not. I believe the point at which it should be treated with this integrity is the point at which it has feelings, self-awareness, consciousness.
Which is well after the point abortion is not allowed already except in extreme cases.
I'll certainly entertain this argument. There is a difference between us and God- we can't create one hair on a child's body or a foetus from literal nothing, but God can, and because he can, he can abort as many babies as he wants.
Ah, so in your mind power has an inherent right to do with power what they please. But those without power must be held to a higher standard of morality than those with power.
By your logic then, if one is rich and powerful, and another is poor and has no power, that rich person should have more rights.
This is your logic, which is fine, religion is weird like that.
I disagree.
I believe if anything an all powerful being should be held to a higher standard of morality. If your god existed as you describe, this being should be despised in fact for abuse of that power.
But all of this is inconsequential to the subject of abortion because religion cannot be applied to legislation. It is unconstitutional and frankly stupid and backwards as you can plainly see simply by looking at nations who base law on religion presently and historically.
Because we can't communicate with a foetus it isn't self aware. That's rubbish. Just because you can't speak to it doesn't make it unaware of what is happening around it. It is aware enough to collect the necessary nutrients to keep living, growing and specializing cells it needs for independent living. Anything that can do this is a little self aware.
Your information is incorrect. We know when a foetus is somewhat conscious by the development of the brain, not by whether we can communicate, obviously. And abortion is not allowed well before this point already, except in extreme circumstances.
By your argument, people in a vegetative state are 'not aware' but yet we still feel the obligation to stick IV fluids in there arms and keep them alive.
1. We only feel the obligation to keep them alive when it is their will, set out prior to this disaster, or where the family decides when there is no such will present. Otherwise if doctors determine there is no hope for rehabilitation taking these people off of life support is in no way immoral. Sometimes it is the more moral choice when that individual may be in pain. So again, you are arguing with incorrect information.
2. Your analogy is incorrect because that person has a developed brain which is capable of conscious, perhaps depending on level of vegetation. A foeus is not in any way capable of this. These parts of the brain do not yet exist.
If your mother decided to abort you I wouldn't have to have this conversation with you. And I think that counts as a loss
Or if my mother would have had sex with my dad two days earlier or two days later it would have been a different batch of sperm and I'd not exist. Or if it were a different angle and a different sperm won the race I'd not exist. Or if they'd have never met. Or all of those scenarios for each of their parents, or each of those scenarios for each of their parent's parents, etc etc etc.
There are trillions upon trillions of scenarios in which I don't exist, someone else exists, several someone elses exist, none exist, etc.
And in all instances none would know the difference, including myself.
I could say no fertilized egg has the capacity to become a human unless it develops properly.
Yeah and I am saying it is human because it has the necessary prerequisites to be human
I could say it does not have the capacity to become a human if the woman's birth canal is not wide enough.
Despite what you could say, the birth canal has nothing do with the child being human.
Besides we dont need birth canals when we can do C-sections.
I could say it does not have the capacity to become a human via a million different scenarios, even after impregnation.
You could and you stand beside one scenario, thats why we are having this conversation.
So why is your arbitrary point of "humanity" correct?
Yeah I'm sure its right. Let me ask you a question if it isn't human, what species is it.Is humanity now status that one obtains throughout achieving/having things that are either out of there reach/control. It reminds me of the racial comments the 'whites' used to pour out. Because Africans were black and wore practically no clothes they were subhuman- and now because a foetus doesn't have brain, it is also sub-human.
I say it is not. I believe the point at which it should be treated with this integrity is the point at which it has feelings, self-awareness, consciousness.
As far as I'm concerned a foetus is aware of its own existence because it is capable of organizing its cells and collecting the necessary nutrients for not only growth, but survival.
Ah, so in your mind power has an inherent right to do with power what they please.
Yes and no. It is not as if humanity is perfect, remember that most Gods in antiquity (yes its probably a gross generalization) only act this way when provoked. In all the historical cases I've read on still births or miscarriages where a God was involved, the soul of the unborn child gets repatriation after this dilemma. The personas of these Gods are not very bad- in fact they have all that power and answer to no one, so why give the soul of these babies heaven, or reincarnation or any form of repatriation to these children/parents. they have no obligation to and they still do it so they dont abuse there power like what you would like to believe.
But those without power must be held to a higher standard of morality than those with power.
No I am not holding human beings at a higher standard of morality- I do however think we lower our moral construct in order to find loopholes. This is why there is a yard stick for 'consciousness' when we cant even tell if someone is conscious or not when there in comatose. And I have a question- isn't to be conscious to be aware of ones surroundings? Are you aware during the first two years of life, during sleep, while under powerful anaesthesia? If you forfeit your consciousness, are you still human?
By your logic then, if one is rich and powerful, and another is poor and has no power, that rich person should have more rights.
They already do and are a determinant factor on whether the poor live or die, or if they get food, or money for an operation. What a grievance. And we have more power than a foetus and are the determinant factor on whether they live or die, or eat, or get to see the light of day, see a comparison?
This is your logic, which is fine, religion is weird like that.
In the three major world religions every God provides repatriation for those who are faithful, with a few exceptions.
I believe if anything an all powerful being should be held to a higher standard of morality. If your god existed as you describe, this being should be despised in fact for abuse of that power.
You probably didn't factor in the afterlife of the current day religions- In Hinduism, the baby is reincarnated as something else and Hindus are implored to treat animals with respect because there souls are human in essence. No harm done there i guess. In Christianity and Judaism, the one account of an abortion carried out by God ended up with child in heaven. That's better than Earth? So I'm guessing God was doing the baby a favour.
But all of this is inconsequential to the subject of abortion because religion cannot be applied to legislation. It is unconstitutional and frankly stupid and backwards as you can plainly see simply by looking at nations who base law on religion presently and historically.
If its inconsequential, then you shouldn't have brought it up.
Your information is incorrect. We know when a foetus is somewhat conscious by the development of the brain, not by whether we can communicate, obviously.
Yes and the development of the brain suggests further response to stimulus like heartbeat, movement in the stomach and response to pain or noise, which is a form of communication.
Otherwise if doctors determine there is no hope for rehabilitation taking these people off of life support is in no way immoral.
Doctors can't truly determine if someone will come out of a vegetative state and regain consciousness. However with a foetus they know that baby will receive a state of conscious in a few months. If a person in comatose would have woken up in a week, or a month, or three months is it morally just to take that person off life support? Doctors remove people off life support only because of lack of surety and foetus is not a case of lack of surety.
Your analogy is incorrect because that person has a developed brain which is capable of conscious, perhaps depending on level of vegetation. A foetus is not in any way capable of this. These parts of the brain do not yet exist.
Yeah and the computer that is shut down with no way of communicating with the user and no clear signs of reboot is just as good as a brand new computer with its parts being assembled. Better yet, the second one has more value.
Or if my mother would have had sex with my dad two days earlier or two days later it would have been a different batch of sperm and I'd not exist. Or if it were a different angle and a different sperm won the race I'd not exist. Or if they'd have never met. Or all of those scenarios for each of their parents, or each of those scenarios for each of their parent's parents, etc etc etc.
You went way too much back in time. The determinant factor in your existence was already placed as a foundation- you were a foetus. You can't argue against that. Yes there were other factors that could stop you from existing, but you do realize that you had to go behind the point of conception to validate your point point of non-existence. That means you did exist at the point of conception and you wre human at the point of conception
Yeah you are the one that doesn't consider it a child/human. Because you said someting doesnt make it law or fact. And who cares about 'holy' or 'pre-ordained' or 'divine'- you are blaming a living being and prosecuting for something out of its control. That is such an injustice.
If there is nothing special about this point then by what measure do we determine others may do as they please with some thing which has no feeling?
The way we decide is with this, if its living and it came from a human being and is a direct offspring in the process of becoming independent, it is human. It can't be anything else. Is it some other species because it is 'unaware'? What isit classified as? Should we be the determinant factor as to whether a foetus lives or dies. REmember you were once like that, an you are conscious now, so let me ask you a question- if by some way your decision affected you when you were a foetus, would you still feel inclined to make that decision? Do unto others what you would like them to do to you, even to the point where one of both parties isn't conscious.
I say it is the point at which that thing has feeling (well before actually, according to all abortion law.)
And you are not/ shouldn't be the final decider on whether a foetus isn't human or not- you are not the one that is entitled to handing out humanity as if it were some kind of gift.
You say "no no no no! No matter what you say point of conception is magic!"
THe point of conception isn't magic- as what the debate says the foetus is human. And if it isn't human enlighten me as to what species it is, because it can't not have a classification.
Okay. Don't have an abortion.
I won't because I would be killing someone for something out of it's control.
Don't expect others to feel like that point is magical though.
And anyone who doesn't consider the foetus to be human only does that so they can kill it whenever it becomes an inconvenience to them.
Yeah you are the one that doesn't consider it a child/human.
Why do you insist on repeating this lie? I do consider a child a human. I do not consider a foetus a human however. It is very simple.
Because you said someting doesnt make it law or fact.
Okay...
And who cares about 'holy' or 'pre-ordained' or 'divine'- you are blaming a living being and prosecuting for something out of its control. That is such an injustice.
It's not an injustice. That living thing has no feeling. Abortion is no more unjust than stepping on a bug or spraying a lawn with weed killer. That thing has no more feeling than the bug or the weeds.
And you are not/ shouldn't be the final decider on whether a foetus isn't human or not- you are not the one that is entitled to handing out humanity as if it were some kind of gift.
Neither are you. I can defend the position that something which is not self-aware and which has no feeling and which has not developed a functioning brain should not be treated the same as one which has those things.
Pro-choice is not "forcing" anything. You don't have to get an abortion. More power to you. You are the one who wishes to force your view on others.
THe point of conception isn't magic- as what the debate says the foetus is human. And if it isn't human enlighten me as to what species it is, because it can't not have a classification.
If that point is not magic than there is no reason that thing should be treated special. The only measure left is self-awareness and feeling. Therefore abortion to the point it is currently legal is more than ample to make sure nothing is harmed.
I won't because I would be killing someone for something out of it's control.
No, you won't because you mistakenly believe something which is not a person is a person. Which is your right and no one cares if you do that. The problem is when you demand that others take your view on this matter. Your view is provably wrong, therefore no one should be forced to follow your view.
And anyone who doesn't consider the foetus to be human only does that so they can kill it whenever it becomes an inconvenience to them.
Your ideal of when and how one comes to the decision to abort is childish and simple. You do not know what that person is thinking at all. And it does not matter because you are not them and should not be allowed to legislate their decision based on your superstitious beliefs.
Sorry about being 41 days late, regional exams and all. But you shouldn't really are and you arent obligated to respond but I feel obligated to.
Why do you insist on repeating this lie? I do consider a child a human. I do not consider a foetus a human however. It is very simple.
You misinterpreted what i said. i was saying that you don't consider the fetus a child or human, which is just me covering anything that i believed would have otherwise been unclear.
It's not an injustice. That living thing has no feeling. Abortion is no more unjust than stepping on a bug or spraying a lawn with weed killer. That thing has no more feeling than the bug or the weeds.
Bugs do have feelings: spray a bug with Raid and you can see by the response that PETA should probably start campaigning against bug spray. And all living things can feel to an extent, but how much does a foetus need to feel to be considered human? That's the question i have to you.
Neither are you. I can defend the position that something which is not self-aware and which has no feeling and which has not developed a functioning brain should not be treated the same as one which has those things.
Pro-choice is not "forcing" anything. You don't have to get an abortion. More power to you. You are the one who wishes to force your view on others.
Im just going to do what you did earlier and say Okay...
If that point is not magic than there is no reason that thing should be treated special. The only measure left is self-awareness and feeling. Therefore abortion to the point it is currently legal is more than ample to make sure nothing is harmed.
So i guess by this logic then you treat all things without any respect- because you're an atheist and well- i think you see where i am going from here. And the only measure need not be self awareness, honestly once something is living it has some form of self awareness.
No, you won't because you mistakenly believe something which is not a person is a person. Which is your right and no one cares if you do that. The problem is when you demand that others take your view on this matter. Your view is provably wrong, therefore no one should be forced to follow your view.
So you are saying if i can prove something found in the constitution as wrong only from my perspective then that means i need not follow it. I believe you are an anarchist in the making....
Your ideal of when and how one comes to the decision to abort is childish and simple. You do not know what that person is thinking at all. And it does not matter because you are not them and should not be allowed to legislate their decision based on your superstitious beliefs.
So you're telling me that people dont abort because the child is at an inconvenience to them? Give me on instance where the child is at a convenience and the person aborts. I don't even want it to be real, just want to see how creative you are. and my beliefs are not superstitious and childish, it seems you cant help but be condescending
Merriam Webster Dictionary defines a "human being" as "any man, woman, or child of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage". A fetus is not yet a man, woman, and it is not a child until it is born. It is a human fetus.
Yeah sure, but according to biology, the characteristics of living creatures are as follows
1. Living things are highly organized, from the smallest part to the largest.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
Right at the very moment the sperm makes contact with the egg, the egg starts to act independently, It starts to organize, it quickly leans how to acquire nutrition and use it, it knows how to respond to their environment and knows how to adapt to it. It even knows how to reproduce by dividing its cells over and over.
An ordinary Egg and Sperm cannot do any of this. Which concludes that Life starts at conception.
In the early stages for a fetus it is not a human being until the first trimester it's a fact that over 80% of abortions occur within the first trimester and are usually insignificant. You know about those fucking annoying pro-lifers that like to push pictures of fetuses in your face well those pictures are zoomed in because a fetus at 12 week is only a little bigger than a rain drop!
Does a woman have the right to an abortion under the U.S. Constitution? If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose.
If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America.