CreateDebate


Debate Info

93
51
Arguments FOR Arguments AGAINST
Debate Score:144
Arguments:100
Total Votes:179
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Arguments FOR (61)
 
 Arguments AGAINST (39)

Debate Creator

yudish9(27) pic



Abortion!

Arguments FOR

Side Score: 93
VS.

Arguments AGAINST

Side Score: 51
2 points

1. The defining characteristic of a person is sapience. You need thought. You need self awareness. And to get those things you need a functioning brain. Since there is no coherent brain activity in early fetal development until AT LEAST 22 weeks we are most certainly not dealing with anything we could meaingfully call a person prior to that time. And since something like 97% of all abortions occur in that window and any occuring after it are almost always for reasons of medical necessity that alone should end this discussion.

2. EVEN IF we insisted on calling a fetus a person before then. Hell, even if we called it a person from the second it was conceived even though calling a few undifferentiated cells a "person" is insane... that still wouldn't be an arument for outlawing abortion since that requires declaring that the mother has no legal right to control over her own body. That it is superceded by another "person's" right to use her body for their own preservation. That is not a right that exists in our society. That right is possessed by NOBODY, and for good reason. I sure as hell cannot commandeer your body against your will to preseve my life. Nobody can walk up to you and force you to have surgery to give up a peice of your liver or some bone marrow because I need it to survive and my "right to life" trumps your right to have final say on what happens to your body.

If we do that we define people as community property. Which is what outlawing abortion based on arguments that the mother doesnt have the right to say if her body gets used to carry a child to term would be doing. It's despicable.

There is no justification fr outlawing abortion. Regulating it, yes. Placing reaosnable restrictions on late-term occurances, yes. Outlawing? Absolutely not. It must be legal.

Side: Arguments FOR
lallijo1(20) Disputed
1 point

1. that thing inside you is not a virus. It has the potential to grow into an adult human which is very precious. Oh, and it has a heartbeat at 5 weeks. So there are millions of babies killed with a heartbeat every year. how sad

2. I don't want to control your body. Rather i want to protect the growing human inside of you.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
goundy(18) Disputed
1 point

You seem to lack the vital understanding that has made your rebuttel incorrect; this is about sapience not heartbeats.

What he is saying is completley correct; your reasoning is irrational.

Oh, and it has a heartbeat at 5 weeks. So there are millions of babies killed with a heartbeat every year. how sad

You completley ignored his point and used a quick-fix spurious statement to rebut his intelligent, phylosophical answer.

Lastly, how can you retort his argument with such a petty argument of your own; you wrote 6 lines of opinionated reasoning.

Side: Arguments FOR
2 points

When does life start? That is the question. This debate will be over in a matter of minutes if someone came up with the answer right now.

Evangelists would believe it starts at contraception while scientists debate that it is more accurately the development of the brain which is the seventh week of development.

Of course any right minded person wouldn't put the science of birth in the hands of someone with no scientific expertise so it is generally accepted that the 7th is the week that a clump of cells turn into human.

However how can any scientist or evangelist understand when a child gains a soul as the question is purely philosophical?

The soul has been deemed integral or essential to consciousness, personality and every free thinking person has a soul which defines his existence as a human being rather than an imamate object.

Plato says that a soul is a combination of various aspects. Mind, reason, emotion, appetite and desire. These characteristics define a soul. According to Platoan philosophy, if you were void of one of these aspects you are without soul.

-An unborn child has a mind which allows it to make functional processes in its body but is not capable of and thought. Thought encompasses things such as imagination, ideas and reflection. A lot of people say dreams are proof of an unborn child’s thought but dreams don’t count because they are instinctive of a human slumber. It forces the brain to stay asleep as an inactive brain causes your brain to disable processing information from nervous system and other systems. This could ultimately cause you to loose consciousness all together so an automatic reaction is to wake up, it’s like a screensaver.

-An unborn child has no reason; it has no choices to create over itself. No study has shown that an unborn child has ever been able to conduct its own decisions rather than its own instinctive actions.

-It has no emotion, no joy, sadness or pity. (For all your religious nuts out there, pain is not an emotion)

-Appetite is only created through its instinct to survive, I suppose it counts.

-Unborn children have no desire. They do not want anything but their instinct to, live, eat, and kick stomach every now and then. There is no aspiration or defining motive.

If anyone has any counters against these points I would like to hear what you have to say. However I do believe this is an erudite explanation of the creation of ones consciousness from a philosophical standpoint. When an unborn child gains all these aspects it moves from inanimate object to living, breathing, free-thinking human being.

Ty.

Side: Arguments FOR
casper3912(1581) Disputed
2 points

"Life" please specify what you mean by the word "life". technically a fetus is indeed alive, a zygote is alive.

Souls as supernatural things do not exist, or if you would prefer the less strong statement are not falsifiable or observable.

Free will does not exist, it is non-sensical and thus to say a unborn child has never conducted its own decisions only instinctive actions is to say it has done only what any of us can do.

Before conception, during it, after it etc Life never wasn't during a "successful pregnancy". 2 haploids of two different beings came together, forming a third being. keep in mind a being is distinct from person.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
goundy(18) Disputed
1 point

""Life" please specify what you mean by the word "life".

Sorry what I was referring to was sapience

"Souls as supernatural things do not exist, or if you would prefer the less strong statement are not falsifiable or observable."

What I am trying to get across is that soul is a concept. It’s symbolic of sapience. The concept of soul is key to the philosophical and religious debate about unborn children.

"Free will does not exist, it is non-sensical and thus to say a unborn child has never conducted its own decisions only instinctive actions is to say it has done only what any of us can do."

I was not talking about free will; I am talking about free thought. Free will is the decision to create your own perspective. Free thought defines ones ability to influence its own mindset, create decisions that are not based on instinctual behaviour.

That argument just goes out the window because I did not once mention free-will which is a different concept. The exact phrase I used was “free thinking”.

I feel as if you’re dancing around the concept a bit. I said an unborn baby can’t make any decisions at all, it is completely imamate. Just like a rock, a twig, a leaf, they make no decisions and are only influenced by nature. Yet you’re carrying on about our own free-will.

Yes free-will in the form we know it is an illusion. Our world is only moving in one direction and there is hardly any relativity. However you defeat yourself by saying that statement at all, you deny your own spiritual existence. If you had no free will you would not have wrote that sentence in the first place.

Free-will has no black and white definition. Because if free-will existed I would to be able to do whatever I wanted when I wanted with no consequences but I am restricted to living the life I was giving because of the circumstances of this world. However what you must understand is that free-will is the foundation of our sapience. Without it we are inanimate beings. A mere shell with no occupant.

Most people against abortion are religious fanatics which is why this kind of discussion is appropriate. But you clearly are not. What are you? Are you pro-choice or pro-life or what. It feels like you are dancing between the two.

You made a discussion about sapience and then made a double standard about me not having proof of the existence of a soul?

Also you should debunk my other statements before falsifying my entire arguments in a few short paragraphs.

Side: Arguments FOR
lallijo1(20) Disputed
1 point

I find some of these points shocking and sad. For instance, you minimize-no trivialize- the unborn human's instinct to live, eat survive. This is the very beginning of human life for god-sakes! It is not what is physically there in the womb which is at issue. Rather, it is the fact that this living thing inside the mother has input within it the POTENTIAL to grow. It is this instinct to develop, this fight to survive, to perpetuate itself which is beautiful and precious!! The potential is the important thing which is rare and precious, because one day you and I will both be dust with no more potential. So let's not let young ladies end it because it's hard to raise children and because it takes work.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
goundy(18) Disputed
1 point

"It is not what is physically there in the womb which is at issue. Rather, it is the fact that this living thing inside the mother has input within it the POTENTIAL to grow"

You forget that denying its life is not a precursor for murder. The whole concept is weather its ethical to deny someones potential to exist before that unborn being has a choice of its own.

However the belief resides in the fact that if that unborn being never comes into existence in the first place, it cant make a choice nonetheless hence it is fallacious to ask weather its ethical to steal the right of a non-existing, un-spiritual and inamite being as rights are exclusivly to the living, not the living of the future.

" It is this instinct to develop, this fight to survive, to perpetuate itself which is beautiful and precious"

That is emotional and poetic reasoning

Side: Arguments FOR
2 points

1. It's not a person. Abortion to me is no different than jizzing in a rag, sure there is potential that those cells could have made a person, but they aren't now and that they never will shouldn't bother anyone in the least.

2. Given that there is 0 proof that the cluster of cells has any type of self-awareness, a preponderance of proof that the cluster of cells doesn't have self-awareness, then it is the case of a person doing something to their own body. People should be allowed to do whatever they like with there own body.

3. Even if abortion were illegal, there is evidence that illegality has never stopped women from getting an abortion if they want one. Making it illegal would not save these imaginary people anyway, but it would kill scores of women who decide to get an abortion in a dirty basement instead of a clean hospital.

Side: Arguments FOR
2 points

Who are any of you to decide what is right for a pregnant woman? When a woman has been raped and impregnated she doesn't deserve to have the choice?

So in this wonderland were abortion is illegal ... is it that great? We would have children being born into homes where they are unwanted, women aborting themselves through god-awful ways, or adoption homes are flooded with unwanted children. Sound like a perfect world to you? It doesn't to me.

Side: Arguments FOR

Abortion is not murder because a fetus is not a human. Therefore, abortion is legal

Side: Arguments FOR
1 point

"because a fetus is not a human..."

The distinction is important. A fetus is human. A fetus is not a human. Just like my liver is human (it's certainly not canine for example)... but it is not a human.

Side: Arguments FOR
TERMINATOR(6778) Disputed
2 points

What makes a human a human? What makes you think that your definition is accurate?

Side: Arguments AGAINST
1 point

First time in weeks I've been on the same side as Prayerfails, let's not get caught up on adjective/noun mix ups ;)

Side: Arguments FOR
KatieMarie(288) Disputed
1 point

It moves and has to be provided with nourishment and protection from the mothers womb. So it is not human? How is it not living? Thats like saying a fetus of a dog will not become a dog. Seriously? Please explain..... I really want to know your ideas. I think every woman and anyone that's for abortions, that has a voluntary abortion should have every reproduction organ removed from their body . My Aunt cannot have children and she wants one more than anything and some women are throwing them away like they were the fetus's are trash. Why won't they just have the baby and give it to someone like my aunt.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

It moves and has to be provided with nourishment and protection from the mothers womb. So it is not human? How is it not living? Thats like saying a fetus of a dog will not become a dog. Seriously? Please explain..... I really want to know your ideas. I think every woman and anyone that's for abortions, that has a voluntary abortion should have every reproduction organ removed from their body . My Aunt cannot have children and she wants one more than anything and some women are throwing them away like they were the fetus's are trash. Why won't they just have the baby and give it to someone like my aunt.

Do you realise that most abortions (over ninety percent) occur before the foetus even has brain tissue? Think about that for a moment. Everything that makes us what we are comes from our brain, but what's aborted in the vast majority of cases has NO brain. In many cases what's aborted is a microscopic bit of cells. This isn't the same as killing infants or babies, so you need to learn more about it and divorce yourself from that mindset.

Side: Arguments FOR
1 point

That is why i am against the healthcare reform. My taxes WILL NOT pay for the MURDER of an unborn child. I refuse....

Side: Arguments AGAINST
goundy(18) Disputed
1 point

“It moves and has to be provided with nourishment and protection from the mothers womb. So it is not human? How is it not living?”

Anyone who bluntly says an unborn child is a living thing is missing the concept. People need a wider understanding of this topic as it is of huge philosophical importance. Does an unborn baby have self-awareness/sapience/soul/spirit/intellect/free-thought?

If not, abortion is no crime

“I think every woman and anyone that's for abortions, that has a voluntary abortion should have every reproduction organ removed from their body . My Aunt cannot have children and she wants one more than anything and some women are throwing them away like they were the fetus's are trash.”

Quite a harsh statement. Seeing as the main people who need abortions are teen mothers. These people are far-worse off than any person not capable of mothering children. I am guessing your auntie is aged 30-40, middle-class. These teens are pregnant; they get ostracized, have to fight for economic dependence and may soon be forced to limit the growth of their education to take care of a child. This will ultimately lead to very poor living standards for both of them in the future. If she doesn’t get an abortion, two lives are ruined and we have another generation of dysfunctional youths consisting of crack fiends, prostitutes, pimps, gang members and robbers. Low level income will force them to poor strata’s of society.

Don’t give me some inspirational story about how some mum got out of a life of hardship and she and her son are doing fine. That’s not reality for the vast majority. I grew up in a shitty neighborhood and I would like to see the last of these dysfunctional youths off the street, back in school and focusing on their career. However we can’t just make it happen, first we have to make sure there is not going to be more of them in the future.

“Why won't they just have the baby and give it to someone like my aunt.”

I agree.

Side: Arguments FOR
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

is there any other human beings that are not human persons? if so then it should be legal to kill them according to a argument from sapience/personhood.

Your stating the following:

If something is not a human person, even if it is a human being then it is allowable for it to be killed.

The human person argument has problems, in that more then a fetus can be argued to lack personhood.

are you a human person after birth but before lets say you can crawl? are you a human person if your condition is one of severe down-syndrome? are you a human person if your in a coma. are you a human person when your asleep?

Abortion is not murder simply because the law allows it.

Also the distinction between a human and human is significant but should be more pronounced; "a" is easily overlooked.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
1 point

Pros of Abortion

Many a times, abortion helps to safeguard women's health. There are many women, who suffer from various hazardous medical conditions such as heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia, severe diabetes, etc. As these diseases can be life-threatening, an abortion often helps to avoid serious medical complications from childbirth. But abortion should be carried out after proper medical advice as it can lead to potential miscarriages in the future.

Side: Arguments FOR
1 point

Pro-Choice

Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb.

Side: Arguments FOR
1 point

The concept of personhood is different from the concept of human life. Human life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder?

Side: Arguments FOR
1 point

Adoption is not an alternative to abortion, because it remains the woman's choice whether or not to give her child up for adoption. Statistics show that very few women who give birth choose to give up their babies - less than 3% of white unmarried women and less than 2% of black unmarried women.

Side: Arguments FOR
1 point

Abortion is a safe medical procedure. The vast majority of women - 88% - who have an abortion do so in their first trimester. Medical abortions have less than 0.5% risk of serious complications and do not affect a woman's health or future ability to become pregnant or give birth.

Side: Arguments FOR
1 point

In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim. Often a woman is too afraid to speak up or is unaware she is pregnant, thus the morning after pill is ineffective in these situations.

Side: Arguments FOR
1 point

Abortion is not used as a form of contraception. Pregnancy can occur even with responsible contraceptive use. Only 8% of women who have abortions do not use any form of birth control, and that is due more to individual carelessness than to the availability of abortion.

Side: Arguments FOR
1 point

The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?

Side: Arguments FOR
1 point

Taxpayer dollars are used to enable poor women to access the same medical services as rich women, and abortion is one of these services. Funding abortion is no different from funding a war in the Mideast. For those who are opposed, the place to express outrage is in the voting booth.

Side: Arguments FOR
1 point

Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced.

Side: Arguments FOR
1 point

Like any other difficult situation, abortion creates stress. Yet the American Psychological Association found that stress was greatest prior to an abortion, and that there was no evidence of post-abortion syndrome.

Side: Arguments FOR

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.

Side: Arguments FOR
3 points

Should not the philosophy behind laws and Laws themselves be consistent? If abortion is justified by the lack of sapience. Then could not the same argument be used to justify such things as dumpster babies, killing of severally mentally disabled people, people in a coma or any one who doesn't demonstrate sapience after birth, even during a temporary period like sleep? after all you will eventually demonstrate sapience when you wake up, which would be the same argument given stating that a fetus will eventually develop a brain and demonstrate sapience. well sleeping your moments are similar to the kicking a fetus may have, they are not a demonstration of sapience. The exact definition of sapience is interestingly not needed to show that a fetus doesn't have it. it simply needs to be shown that sapience requires a well enough developed brain and that a fetus lacks a developed enough one and thus lacks sapience no matter what is to be said of further defining of the concept of sapience. If the same criteria is applied towards organisms with developed brains then there are problems. Sapience is not always active, consciousness shuts down, comes in various degrees etc do these problems not amount to anything?

If someone came to me and needed one of my organs. I would not be the cause of them needing my organ. I would not be liable for their situation. A mother in the majority of causes is liable for the situation. She is undeniably creating human life(which is indeed distinct from human person) only to destroy it. combine that with the complications above and this seem to be quite muddled. So the question seems to me to be more of weather our laws and philosophies behind them should be consistent and if they are not then it is not principles but rather utility they are based on. In such a case we should just say we allow abortion because it suits us, not that it is allowed because of some philosophical system or principled decision.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
goundy(18) Disputed
1 point

You forget that denying its life is not a precurser for murder. The whole concept is weather its ethical to deny someones potential to exist before that unborn being has a choice of its own.

However the belief resides in the fact that if that unborn being never comes into existance in the first place, it cant make a choice nonetheless hence it is fallacious to ask weather its ethical to steal the right of a non-existing, un-spiritual and inamite being as rights are exclusivly to the living, not the living of the future.

Side: Arguments FOR
casper3912(1581) Disputed
2 points

Abortion is not murder. I never forgot that. I was attacking the argument from sapience not debating weather it is ethical to deny the existence of a hypothetical being. your commentary isn't relative to what i posted.

it is ethical to deny someone's or rather some human being's existence before they exist. It is ok to wear a condom. any such person being stopped from existing is just hypothetical. A fetus isnt a person, it is a human being. however just what the hell is a person? abortion gets down to questions that have been disputed for hundreds of years, and to this day don't possess satisfactory answers.

A fetus is undeniably alive by the way, it just doesn't demonstrate sapience and can not. Expanding the scope of the argument leads to problems, showing that the argument from sapience is only valid with "but", "ifs" etc which would contradict the argument. Is a baby born less then one day ago really sapient? if not, why not be able to put it in a dumpster. It does not have a choice of its own, and does not seem very "person" like. Thus it fits the criteria and people should have the ability to kill it, for it is very dependent on a care taker(s) and what right does it have to impose on anyone? This is just one of many examples.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

Should not the philosophy behind laws and Laws themselves be consistent? If abortion is justified by the lack of sapience. Then could not the same argument be used to justify such things as dumpster babies, killing of severally mentally disabled people, people in a coma or any one who doesn't demonstrate sapience after birth, even during a temporary period like sleep?

Dumpster babies have a level of self-awareness, as noted by their ability to respond to stimuli, that they have a nervous system, and that they have a memory. Sleeping babies are the same.

I personally approve of euthanasia for the severely mentally handicapped, and people who are in comas long enough that their recovery is nonexistent. Provided that the mentally handicapped are violent, and/or completely unable to function.

But this is all besides the point: laws are never consistent in their philosophy.

which would be the same argument given stating that a fetus will eventually develop a brain and demonstrate sapience

We don't base laws on the potential future ramifications of a choice. This is why disposing of a used condom isn't considered abortion, for example.

The exact definition of sapience is interestingly not needed to show that a fetus doesn't have it. it simply needs to be shown that sapience requires a well enough developed brain and that a fetus lacks a developed enough one and thus lacks sapience no matter what is to be said of further defining of the concept of sapience. If the same criteria is applied towards organisms with developed brains then there are problems. Sapience is not always active, consciousness shuts down, comes in various degrees etc do these problems not amount to anything?

This is because sapience comes from the brain. If a foetus has none, it cannot be sapient. Sapience in this discussion is an umbrella word for independent thought, some level of consciousness, an ability to make decisions and so on.

We don't apply it to organisms with developed brains because those organisms are already capable of individuality. At this point, losing consciousness doesn't disqualify the individuality, unless the organism has transitioned into a state where they can not recover their consciousness, such as in a coma.

If someone came to me and needed one of my organs. I would not be the cause of them needing my organ. I would not be liable for their situation. A mother in the majority of causes is liable for the situation. She is undeniably creating human life(which is indeed distinct from human person) only to destroy it.

This is why abortion is made available. In those cases where a woman becomes pregnant, she can abort before the foetus is even a person, before it has a brain. By illegalising abortion, you remove a woman's right to abort the process that creates a human life, you force her to either have an illegal abortion, or to accept that pregnancy automatically leads to a human being born.

In such a case we should just say we allow abortion because it suits us, not that it is allowed because of some philosophical system or principled decision.

The laws allowing abortion do so because it suits the women. They don't parade themselves as some sort of philosophical and moral beacon. It's mostly pragmatic.

Side: Arguments FOR

Fetuses are capable of responding to stimuli. brain development begins in the early embryonic period or at week 5 of pregnancy http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

later on as a fetus they can sense and respond, they can kick and punch. New born babies can recognizes the cadence of their parents language, they learn that stuff well in the womb. http://www.babycenter.com/404_is-it-true-that-babies-can-recognize-their-mothers-voice-at_10323727.bc

The future ramifications of a choice does factor in to making laws; Laws are all about that. The texting and driving laws are about the future ramifications of allowing or not allowing different groups(age based) to text and drive. The question asked is the following: Will banning it decrease crashes? the word "will" is a reference to the future.

Disposing of a used condom is disposing of your own haploids(sperm). it has nothing to do with abortion and is why its not considered abortion.

what is meant by individuality? the zygote has its own dna pattern. it is individual, unique. I have a feeling you mean something different?

the first two weeks of pregnancy your not actually pregnant according to the first article mentioned in the above, there is most certainly nothing wrong with doing something with in that time period to insure you don't become pregnant.

If the laws don't parade themselves as philosophical or moral beacons Then lets say its pragmatic and that there isn't really a justification for it other then people in control find it useful.Then theres this entire other issue of control but thats a different debate.

Laws do indeed parade themselves as philosophical and moral beacons though, common law is a perfect example. Previous court cases and the reasoning behind them can have significant impact on a case. Also the common criticism of a action as immoral is that it is illegal. This common criticism isn't a good one because legality is no substitute for morality but its there because the law is seen in culture as a beacon of what is right.

Side: Arguments FOR
1 point

It`s not a fetus.It has 46 human chromosomes, it’s a male or a female, and it’s complete, meaning nothing else will be added to it, just growth and development.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
gcomeau(536) Disputed
3 points

It has 46 human chromosomes

So do my toenail clippings. Not relevant to establishment of personhood.

it’s a male or a female

So is my goldfish. Not relevant to establishment of personhood.

and it’s complete

So is this post.

Side: Arguments FOR
MKIced(2510) Disputed
2 points

First off, finger and toe nails (along with hair) are not made up of cells. They're made up of a protein called keratin. Therefore, your toenail clippings do not have 46 chromosomes. But that's not my point. My point is that although parts of your body, like dead skin cells, have 46 chromosomes, they are merely small parts of a large organism. A fetus or an embryo of a human being has 46 chromosomes in each cell and each cell helps to be part of a body! An entire body!

Side: Arguments AGAINST
goundy(18) Disputed
2 points

I'm not sure this statment proves an unborn childs sapience. Its not all that refreshing either. Yes a fetus is alive. But 'alive' means nothing, it has no greater self-awareness.

Also just because it doesn't need "anything added to it", it doesn't mean it proves your point.

Side: Arguments FOR
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

It`s not a fetus.It has 46 human chromosomes, it’s a male or a female, and it’s complete, meaning nothing else will be added to it, just growth and development.

You keep using the word foetus, do you even have a deeper understanding of what a foetus is?

Side: Arguments FOR
wforcier(97) Disputed
0 points

Yes, it is. A fetus is, by definition, "an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development" If the fetus has not been born, it is still a fetus. The fetal stage of growth occurs after the embryonic stage and will continue until birth.

Definition is from Word Web

Side: Arguments FOR

also i suppose sapience could be made a metaphor to puberty. it is impossible to be considered a man before puberty, during puberty you are becoming a man or rather more accurately you are some mixture of man and boy, and after it you are a man which all men can admittedly act boyishly and in some moments not measure up to the standards of maturity which may be imposed on us by the expectation of our mates [we don't grow up, our toys just get bigger! :) ]. Like wise it could be postulated that it is impossible to be considered a person before your conception, that you are becoming a person well in the womb or rather you are some mixture of a person and non person and that after birth you will have moments in which you fail to meet the criteria of personhood. so what does this entail?

Side: Arguments AGAINST
1 point

All you people that believe in abortion are just a bunch of materialist.

Abortion is murder.

Get it through your thick skulls.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
1 point

The important con that should be considered is can we choose to kill unwanted pregnancies? One shouldn’t be so irresponsible to land up in a situation where they have to be unmerciful to the unborn

Side: Arguments AGAINST
1 point

Most of unplanned pregnancies if extended to childbirth may prove to be wanted later.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
1 point

A growing embryo is considered human with the heartbeats initiating as early as 21st day of conception. So what if we cannot see the human form, it does have the potential to gain one.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
1 point

Choosing adoption as an alternative to abortion would give the baby its right to life.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
1 point

Abortions can cause serious psychological impairment to the woman in the form of depression and guilt.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
Cuaroc(8829) Disputed
1 point

Didn't take you as a point whore.

Side: Arguments FOR
0 points

I'm personally against abortion.

We must look at the reasons women have abortions. In general it has to do with irresponsibility. Very rarely the reasons are medical or rape. Should society be responsible for a females irresponsibility?

Another problem I have is the availability. The first thought that comes to the mind is abortion. If the couple feel they will have financial difficulties - abortion is the first answer. Not improving their home economics or getting better jobs. Abortion should always be the last action - not the first.

However in this society I don't think we can live without abortion. It's like coffee - we don't need it.. but we choose to be controlled by it. So if we are to keep it - it should be heavily regulated.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
goundy(18) Disputed
2 points

A teenagers brain (especially in this 'politically correct society'), is crazy. Its crazy for sex 24 hours a day. When I was a kid I used to beat my poor thing to death three a day. Without correct sexual education, a teenager will go into the world blind about the dangers of sex (you can thank your friendly neighbourhood church and its opal ring "abstinence" crusade for that slip-up). So I do agree on what you say, "society be responsible for a females irresponsibility".

But when it happens, you cant look retrospectivly, you have to look forward. As a teen mother, you cant be given advice such as, "you should have been more carefull", when its already happend. So family planning and all that crap can go out the window.

As for financial planning goes, 16-24 years of age for a young woman is the prime age for develpment in educational areas which will one day solidify that persons job stability and stable income. I dont think that their first option should be to suddenly drop everything and take up the cash register at burger king, thats a sure-fire way to ruin two peoples lives! A woman should asspire to greater things in life rather than paying the rest of her life for a mistake which chould have been fixed with one easy pill, injection, baby-killing device or whatever.

I would not liek to see our kind of society (sex crazed maniacs) without abortion. Young teenagers lives in ruins and the detromental affects it will have to the next generation of disfunctional youths. You have to realize what a young child growing up in a fatherless household is like. His/her mother working 12 hour shifts at a fast food outlet just to keep the shanty roof over their heads. He will grow up in a bum neighbour-hood full of gangs and crack-fiends and eventually become one himself.

Side: Arguments FOR
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

I am 20, polyamorous and a virgin. Our society is not sex crazed.

It is at a minimum 16 or 18 years to raise a kid(possibly less), at most a life time.

A teen mother is dependent on her own mother. she is in no economic situation to even raise herself. She is burdening her network of support, but given proper support can indeed get a education and a wonderful life.

my dad is more of a provider then a father. At times it seems like he might as well not even be there. Good friends of mine have grown up in motherless houses, split between parents and in fatherless houses. A nuclear family is not proven to be best. All my friends are quite well as am myself. Many of my friends came from backgrounds which should of lead them into being crack-fiends according to you; they are not.

It should also be noted a teenage mother is only a teenager for so long. One of my best friends girl-friends was a teenage mom(and now just a mom), another one of my best friends ex-girlfriends became pregnant by another man shortly after they broke up and is either 16 or 17. I have seen these women and their situation and i fully believe that they still possess every opportunity in the world if not more then they would have not being a mother. Neither of them have rich parents by the way. they are actually on the lower end of the economic spectrum.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
Kinda(1649) Disputed
0 points

So I do agree on what you say, "society be responsible for a females irresponsibility".

I wasn't making a statement. I actually disagree.

Educating teens about sex only enhances their sex drive. I had no thoughts on sex until we started learning about it. At the age of 11 at that. lol. We learn in school that its ok to have sex - as long as you love them. Which is wrong because it will always lead to promiscuity.

People should learn from their mistakes. If I killed someone - should I not be put in jail? As punishment - time for reflection etc? Or should I be allowed to continue because going to jail puts a burden on society, doesn't actually deter me from crime and would surely ruin my life in the long run as getting a job etc. would be much harder?

You're right however. People born in poor conditions (which abortions tend to negate) tend to get caught up in the cycle. Abortion isn't the answer. Less sex - or sex only with the right people is.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
-1 points

Murder is wrong. Abortion is murder. Therefore abortion is wrong.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
wforcier(97) Disputed
0 points

From Word Net - Murder: "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being "

First, if abortion were legal, it would not be murder because it would not be unlawful.

Second, a fetus is not a human being and cannot be held under the context of murder.

Considering your second premise is incorrect, your logic is not sound.

Side: Arguments FOR
yudish9(27) Disputed
1 point

Latter on the fetus becomes a human.That is it is killed BEFORE being transformed to a human.It is being prevented from being a human.

Side: Arguments AGAINST
goundy(18) Disputed
3 points

Ok firstly, I can find about 50 things wrong with your essay. You have spurious reasoning, invalid statistics, and a clearly bias and ethno-centric view. However I have arthritis and the clock is ticking for me to tell you as much as I can as to why this essay, is poorly executed, and appallingly deceptive.

"When a pregnant women feels a kick in her belly, she doesn't say "Oh, the fetus kicked" or "Oh, the mass of cells that hasn't become a person kicked", she says "The baby kicked.""

This statement is full of a personal opinion and doesn’t contain one bit of evidence that proves your point. When she says “baby” she uses it as a euphemism. However it doesn’t matter how she uses, this statement is completely irrelevant to the argument of an un-born child’s self-awareness. Self awareness is what defines a human spirit (or soul if it helps). Hence this is a totally stupefied argument that does not prove your thesis. If you don’t know how or what self-awareness has to do with the topic of abortion, you shouldn’t even be allowed to make a post at all.

”Yes, after conception you have a real human being waiting to enter the world. Why should taking someone's life when they're in the womb be any different than taking their life when they're a baby in the crib?”

You again back up your statements, not with relevant statistics and data, but with personalized opinion. The question of the debate was Abortion; for or against. With this, you should build an argument based on valid points, not perspective.

” have a real human being waiting to enter the world”

It weird how you make use of the word “real” as a twig is “real”; a rock is “real”; even dirt. Everything in the physical universe is “real”. So of course an unborn baby is “real”, what does that prove?

” Why should taking someone's life when they're in the womb be any different than taking their life when they're a baby in the crib?”

Again, your purely prejudice statement is not backed up by any kind of fact. This is what debating is, you give fact in exchange for credibility. Also when you use a statement that implies taking life is wrong, you lay completely oblivious to the fact that as an omnivore you are involved in the deaths of hundreds of animals, hundreds of plant material and every time you wash your hands you are killing germs! You have to be clear how you direct these statements because they are meaningless in this kind of topic.

” Pro-choice advocates claim this isn't a real baby only to justify their wrong acts in their own minds.”

They use arguments to justify there opinion, which is exactly what you are doing now. They never bluntly say an unborn child is not a sapient being without having reason to believe so. If they do say so, then ask them why and they will give you an erudite answer.

Again you use the phrase, “wrong acts in their own minds”, partly reflecting an un-backed opinion and a naïve statement reflecting your mis-interpretation the pro-choice cause.

“Women can so callously stomp out a living being simply because they're inconvenienced.”

This quote only proves you have little and a very subtracted view of why a woman would have abortion. “Inconvenient”, in the way you are implying suggests that all woman, despite rape, teen pregnancy, financial instability and risk of life to mother are inadequate reasons to have an abortion. In fact you put them in a light that makes them look greedy and unwilling. When you use the word “callous”, you unreasonably sensationalize your argument implying you have reason to change people’s opinion for personal gain rather than stating relevant statistics and articulately explaining as to why your view is more feasible.

” abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control.”

This statement implies that you have no understanding of what birth control is as the word explains it itself. It is to regulate the chance of contraception. Abortion is used after contraception and isn’t used to prevent it.

” 100 percent effective one: abstinence. Maybe if abortion wasn't available, people wouldn't be so careless in the first place.”

Abstinence being taught in schools is the reason why children are deprived of sexual education. Sex-ed, was implemented to combat the failure of abstinence teachings as unplanned pregnancy skyrocketed from the 1950 to this day and is still going up.

“If abortion wasn't available, people wouldn't be so careless in the first place”

I have a suggestion, why don’t you conduct a study proving your thesis? You’re saying that abortion availability determines the amount of unplanned pregnancies? Firstly, ruling out abortion all together won’t stop abortion it will just be conducted in an illegal fashion and will be incredibly unsafe. “Every year, about 19-20 million are done by individuals without the requisite skills… 68,000 woman die as a result…Many woman travel to third world countries where abortions are legal” - World Health Organization.

” What would you do if you knew the child would have an intelligence level lower than that required to enter public school? ... Would you still have the child or would you want an abortion?

This is the kind of backwards-thinking you’re suggesting we make. We cut back on vital scientific research with the intention of leaving us in the dark about our children’s future complications. With no in depth analysis as to why abortion is wrong on a philosophical and scientific scale, you have no structure to base your ‘banning of genetic research’ on.

“Legalized abortion could turn babies into science experiments.”

If your making assonance to anti-stem cell research, you obviously have no clue about prosthetic stem-cells that are not derived from a fetus. If not then I apologize as this sentence was totally random and had a hardly visible connection to your argument. Also who cares if babies, sapient or not become science experiments. Babies are tested all the time. Firstly they are tested for blood levels and all that sought. They are analyzed for the sake of statistics and data. They won’t be dissected if that’s what you’re suggesting. An unborn baby, assumedly an aborted fetus, is ripe for scientific discovery on the other hand. Again with no analysis as to why abortion is wrong, you have no right to say why experimenting on an aborted fetus is wrong.

“Abortion eliminates legal rights of the unborn child.”

If an unborn being never comes into existence in the first place, it cant make a choices nonetheless hence it is fallacious to ask weather its ethical to steal the right of a non-existing, un-spiritual and imamate being as rights are exclusively to the human beings, not the fetus’.

” The documents of our founding fathers state that we are all entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

What makes you think that when he said “we”, he was referring to humans and fetuses? A fetus is a tangible object with potential for sapience but with no current consciousness. So how can it be that an object without any mind of its own be able to possess rights that overcome it in depth?

” By legalizing abortion, we take those rights away from a future American citizen.”

By that logic it means if I was choosing to become an American citizen in the near future, I am already entitled to American rights. I live in Australia and I am now able to possess guns, not use the metric system and pay tax to America rather than Australia. How can that possibly make sense to you?

“Abortion is against doctors' Hippocratic Oath.”

Just so you know the term Hippocratic Oath wasn’t named that way because it was hypocrisy, it was because it was named after the Greek Philosopher Hippocrates.

” Every American doctor must take this fundamental oath, which says "First, do no harm".”

Almost all schools in America have abandoned that oath since 1970. It’s meaningless.

” It threatens the very fabric of the entire medical field if doctors start using their own personal philosophies on life to decide who should or shouldn't be harmed.”

An abortion is a patient’s choice, not a doctor’s choice…

” Whether or not you think abortion should be allowed, it cannot be disputed that a doctor is harming a living organism.”

Again living organism is a wrong word to use. As I said before, living organism encompasses all life forms including bacteria, animals and plant life. Yes it is harming it but not harming a sapient, free-thinking being.

I hope you have the audacity to read and digest this information. I suggest you should read the rest of my material on this debate as you will soon find out that abortion is not a black and white topic but it truly relative. I hope you will also see that you have to use relevant data to back up your information rather than basing it on solid opinions.

Side: Arguments FOR