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.
By legalizing abortion, we have crossed a very fundamental line - that human beings are not intrinsically valuable and value is assigned by the whims of an external institution (government) or is assigned by another person (the mother).
Abortion has set the precedent that it is moral to kill innocent human beings for the sake of preserving the convenience and alleviating the suffering of others.
The main point for abortion is that the fetus does not become a human being until the second or third trimester. Until it is sentient, the fetus does not receive the same ethical privileges the mother gets.
Second or third? Which one is it then or is it just a matter of taste? And you do realize that this is a completely arbitrary way to define humanity as it's completely contingent on medical technology? As in, the more medical tech advances, the viability of fetal life also grows meaning that in 5 years we might be able to save 3 month old fetuses. If something like this happens, then we must conclude that we've been killing human beings all along as it turned out that fetal life could be saved well before the third trimester.
Secondly, explain to me why sentience is necessary to rights and privileges? A newborn child is not sentient in the same sense the mother is sentient - does that mean that the mother's ethical privileges are more important than the babies? When I'm sleeping I'm not sentient - for the duration of my sleep have I foregone my rights because I'm not utilizing my capacity for sentience?
Why is determining sentience by medical equipment and science worse than determining it by the feelings of people without vaginas and who are not pregnant?
I mean, how is the moment of the sperm penetrating the egg more or less arbitrary than the moment the penis goes in the vagina? How about the moment you take a girl on a date? Why not? I mean a human life could have resulted from that.
If all we have are feelings and superstitions otherwise, what's wrong with using medical equipment and science to determine something?
Sounds like you got this from a Christian Pamphlet titled "How to get a libertarian to agree with you" Subtitle: "Throw the word "government" in there somewhere and ignore it would be government outlawing abortion" - (this assumption from your original post above).
All right, I'm getting alot of crap saying,"What about rape?" "What if you father raped you?"
Well you know what? Does anyone out there know the percentage of abortions due to rape? I'll tell you.
0.88%. That's right! LESS THAN ONE PERCENT!!!! (I'll repeat that) LESS THAN ONE PERCENT! Don't use that argument anymore because I just want to vomit with disgust.
.88% is like 3,000 people (that we know of, most rape goes unreported... and ignoring your numbers are like 99.9% probably inaccurate given past sources you've cited). 1 person is too many. Rape is an argument. You've not answered the debate's questions and your sole point seems to be dismissing a single aspect of a larger issue.
Sometimes the undesirable consequence can be something like, a terrible life for the actual child. This in a sense is selfish, if yourself does not wish a horrible life on a child.
Sometimes it could be for reasons of disease, cost to society, health of the mother.
Anything can be viewed as selfish. It completely depends on the perspective and who the individual is.
Now, is it alwasy wrong?
No.
Many selfish reasons out weigh selfless reasons.
Sometimes selflessness does more harm than good.
There are too many variables to determine whether something like this is or is not acceptable.
Which is why abortion is no one's business but the mother and their doctor.
"Sometimes the undesirable consequence can be something like, a terrible life for the actual child. This in a sense is selfish, if yourself does not wish a horrible life on a child."
If somebody want's to have unprotected sex, have an unwanted kid, and not be a good parent they are making that choice. I don't wish that on anybody. And that is when it's none of my business.
Selfishness is't always wrong but in that case and in the case of abortion for the sake of abortion it sure is.
It shouldn't be up to us to decide when somebody is human. Say we go by the third trimester augment or whatever. What's the difference between the day before that deadline and the day after?
Why can't the fetus have a say? Why isn't it the fetuses business?
If people don't want kids/ aren't prepared to have one it's not that hard not to have one but that's beside the point. Nobody talks about responsibility anymore.
Yeah..., yeah..., I know..., I never dispute. But this time I think I actually agree with you when you say:
Sometimes the undesirable consequence can be something like, a terrible life for the actual child. This in a sense is selfish, if yourself does not wish a horrible life on a child.
Sometimes it could be for reasons of disease, cost to society, health of the mother.
I mean, think of the terrible life a homeless person must be living. I do not wish such a horrible life on that person. The cost to society alone can be unbearable (depending on how many must be taken care of). If you support me in dishing out retroactive abortions, I'll support you with regards to regular abortions. United we stand. What say you ;)
I hate to say it, but a vast amount of abortions are NOT done because of rapes/danger to mother & baby. By no means are even these completely acceptable, but there's no excuse for all the others. Honestly, the stupidity of some people...
Okay, I know that I won't win a lot of fans with this argument, but I feel like I need to be honest with you people. By now, some of you may have noticed that a lot of my views are quite liberal. And for people who like to buy into platforms, it could easily be assumed that I'd be pro-Choice. But I'm not. I actually came down more on the pro-Life side of argument for reasons considerably different than the typical. See, I don't really believe in God. And I think the arguments that we hear the most are kind of religious in nature.
The first argument that I never entirely bought is the argument that fetus IS NOT alive yet. That doesn't hold water for me and, if it does, then our laws are logically inconsistent. I never everyone says the fetus is not alive yet (they kind of regard it as a cancer). My first concern with that is that I don't believe that women actually believe that. Every pregnant woman that I have ever met has just been positively glowing, with this sense of "there's a little person living inside of me". I don't really believe that women think their fetus is dead or not living. Furthermore, most states have legislation on the books that recognizes the life of the fetus (and I'm not just talking about abortion). In most states, if some psycho kills a pregnant woman, he's charged with two counts of murder (the woman and the baby). In most states, if you do something to cause the fetus to die, you can be charged with that as well. I have never been able to honestly sell the argument to myself that the fetus is not alive yet. I don't think anyone truly believes that.
The existing foundation of our laws is based upon the right to privacy (Roe v. wade).
But I don't buy that either. Yes, I believe in the right to privacy, but emergency police powers supercede the right to privacy. That is: the police can't come waltzing into my house whenever they feel like it. However, if someone is in my house and they're strangling me in front of my window and the police can see it happening from the street, they can't just shrug their shoulders and say 'well, we don't have a right to go into his house." The fact that they have reason to believe (THEY CAN SEE IT) that my life is in real danger supercedes my right to privacy. Yes, they can come into my house, because they see a crime taking place. The right to life is above the right to privacy.
Privacy doesn't hold water in this scenario. YOu can't have a society that both recognizes the life of the fetus and yet refuses to protect it.
Like I said, it's not really a religious argument. If I become convinced that the fetus is not alive, then I'm likely to think differently. But like I said: I don't think anyone HONESTLY believe that.
I'm going to have to say true according to most people's morality. Some people like to say "unless rape or incest," but even then you are admitting that there is something important about the life of a fetus.
To abort a fetus is selfish. It is for your own benefit, which is selfish. The consequence is the death of what most people consider a human being, which most consider to be undesirable.
However, selfish acts shouldn't be condemned. Selfishness is the backbone of progression. If we banned abortion just because it's selfish we'd have far more men and women enslaved to the system of child rearing, something that ruins most potential of greatness if that child was unwanted.
It's great that you're thinking outside the box really it is. But why should somebody be denied rights just because they're inside of somebody opposed to being outside of somebody? Why is potential not a factor? Why should our constitution not apply to somebody because they haven't been pushed out yet? Is that not discrimination?
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.
Ha, I stood on the side of the road for half an hour holding up a sign that said abortion kills children and only got nine negative responses, mainly from people who were smoking and in beat up cars. The rest were positive. Honks, thumbs up, waves, and there was probably ten times more of them. there was also a large group of people who didn't respond. In reality, if just a few more of these people moved to pro life, abortion would be illegal. Your smaller than you think. There are reasons why sex is for married couples and clearly you people are too dumb to figure out why. You'll never get anywhere good if you live like that.
Abortion is selfish, you were thinking of yourself when you did it yes? Not of the baby. And people try to make themselves feel better by saying "Oh thats not a child that just a clump of Cells." Who says so?
Having sex with someone your about to marry is one thing, but multiple people? Lots of people? Thats just discusting. I don't want to marry someone who has been everwhere and seen everything. I want to know what diseases your carrying and what your gonna pass on to me and my children. Plus, people like that? They never really love you, they just say they do so they can get in your pants and give you a baby you can't take care of. That poor child is most likely going to end up aborted, orphand, or abused. Yeah, he really loves you.....
That is true for some situation. It is FAR from true in all situations.
A woman who has been raped for example, is NOT removing a consequence of selfish actions. First of all, the baby isn't a consequence in that situation. It is a result of a crime.
It can also be done because of financial causes.
Also you need to know, that an abortion is not something you just .. do.
An abortion is not good for yourself either. There is a chance you're gonna be sterilized for life.
Some women HAVE to do it, not because they want to, and trust me when I say, that VERY VERY few women WANT to take abortions.
So if a woman who had been raped and had given birth wanted to kill her child because it was a reminder of the crime, should she be allowed? Thats like the father killing someone and the child getting the death penalty. Don't punish the child for the crimes of the father.
Should a woman and a man be having sex in the first place if they are not financially secure? If someone gets drunk and kills someone while driving does that automatically mean he/she is free of charges because he/she was not all there mentally?
People need to learn to be responsible. People are being less and less responsible and other people are having to take care of them and other people are having to pay the price. This is what America has come down to.
Don't punish the child for the crimes of the father.
In a case like that, you're putting an innocent person, to be punished for 18 years for some crime the person was a victim to.
If you think that is fair.. you're a sick person.
So if a woman who had been raped and had given birth wanted to kill her child because it was a reminder of the crime, should she be allowed?
No, I don't think that should be allowed. That is called murder, not abortion.
Should a woman and a man be having sex in the first place if they are not financially secure?
Yes they should. Sex isn't just reproduction.
If someone gets drunk and kills someone while driving does that automatically mean he/she is free of charges because he/she was not all there mentally?
When did I ever say that? No, a person who kills someone while being drunk, should get the same punishment as a sober person.
People need to learn to be responsible. People are being less and less responsible and other people are having to take care of them and other people are having to pay the price.
This is what America has come down to.
Well.. I live in a country where abortion is illegal. I think it is stupid to force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want. I think it is stupid, that the government is forcing people to do things they don't want to do.
In a case like that, you're putting an innocent person, to be punished for 18 years for some crime the person was a victim to.
If you think that is fair.. you're a sick person.
If you think that because the Father did something bad and the Mother doesn't want a child that she has the right to kill the child and that anyone who opposes it is "punishing" them than you are a sick person.
No, I don't think that should be allowed. That is called murder, not abortion.
So if she killed it while it was out of the womb its murder but if you kill it while its in the womb its not? Explain that to me, it doesn't matter if its a rape, you punish the rapist no the child who didn't do anything.
Yes they should. Sex isn't just reproduction.
Indisputably sex's main goal is re-production, obviously it has other uses, but whenever you have sex you take the risk of having a kid, if you dont want to take that risk than dont have sex. If you are going to take that risk than take some birth control, makes sure the guy has condoms and keep someday after pills on hand just incase.
When did I ever say that? No, a person who kills someone while being drunk, should get the same punishment as a sober person.
So a mother killing her child under the stress of having a child she shouldn't be punished as a a normal women? You don't seem to think so.
Well.. I live in a country where abortion is illegal. I think it is stupid to force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want. I think it is stupid, that the government is forcing people to do things they don't want to do.
Babies aren't some objects that women own, the child may be inside of them but that's the child's body, not hers, she has no right to kill her child because she "doesn't want it." The government is supposed to protect human life and stop murder, and considering abortion is the killing life, the government should force them to stop.
If you think that because the Father did something bad and the Mother doesn't want a child that she has the right to kill the child and that anyone who opposes it is "punishing" them than you are a sick person.
Imagine if you got raped. Imagine your father raped you, and you found out you were pregnant with your father's child.
I don't know if you would go through with it, but I gotta tell you I would NEVER ever do that. And forcing anybody to do such a sick thing is just SICK!!!
Explain that to me, it doesn't matter if its a rape, you punish the rapist no the child who didn't do anything.
It has been .. scientifically proved that a 12 weeks old fetus doesn't have any consciousness. A born baby does. So that's the difference between killing a fetus and killing a human being.
And your punishing the mother of the child. Your MAKING her have the baby of a man, who ruined her life. Imagine if you were forced to have the child of the man who .. seriously changed your whole life, in the most horrible ways.
Indisputably sex's main goal is re-production
to you maybe. Sex is a natural thing between two people. Sex stimulates a relationship. If the only reason you're having sex is to reproduce.. then I'm not even gonna have this debate with you.
If you are going to take that risk than take some birth control, makes sure the guy has condoms and keep someday after pills on hand just incase.
Lets say I did that. I take my birth controls, I use condoms.. I do everything. But they can fail. If I used all the protection I could, and still got pregnant, wouldn't I be allowed to take an abortion then, if I were responsible enough to try and prevent the pregnancy in the first place?
And why is it okay to use condoms, but not abortion.
The result is the same.
So a mother killing her child under the stress of having a child she shouldn't be punished as a a normal women? You don't seem to think so.
You are comparing a drunken person, killing another man, with a woman who's getting an abortion. How am I going to take that seriously?
the government should force them to stop.
That's a lovely politic you have going on there. I hope all the babies in your fantasy country are happy, since you know.. people who aren't financially, mentally, emotionally or physically ready for a child are being forced to have it.
I take my birth controls, I use condoms.. I do everything. But they can fail. If I used all the protection I could, and still got pregnant
Of the millions of abortions that happen every year, do you honestly think this one situation is even significant enough to be arguing about?
And why is it okay to use condoms, but not abortion.
The result is the same.
This would be laughable, if not for abortion being such a morbid topic. Abortions take place after a child is conceived, while condoms or any other protection prevent that from even happening. If you call that the same, I would get help. Fast.
Of the millions of abortions that happen every year, do you honestly think this one situation is even significant enough to be arguing about?
Yeah I do think so.
This would be laughable, if not for abortion being such a morbid topic. Abortions take place after a child is conceived, while condoms or any other protection prevent that from even happening. If you call that the same, I would get help. Fast.
I didn't call it the same. I said the result is the same.
To me it doesn't matter how the fetus got there, and seriously, why is it relevant for you to know that?
Wow...I'd say I'm surprised but I'm really not. So you're saying that people who don't want a baby stupid enough to have unprotected sex are on an equal playing field with those who properly applied protection which failed? That's ludicrous and you really should know better.
Well. With condoms.. you have no baby.
And with abortion, you don't have any baby either..
You left out a few important details there buddy. With the killing of a 3-month old with an axe you have no baby. But its the same result! Yippee!
Wow...I'd say I'm surprised but I'm really not. So you're saying that people who don't want a baby stupid enough to have unprotected sex are on an equal playing field with those who properly applied protection which failed? That's ludicrous and you really should know better.
Yes that is kind of what I'm saying.
I think its unrelative how the fetus got there, if it's unwanted, then it is unwanted.
You left out a few important details there buddy. With the killing of a 3-month old with an axe you have no baby. But its the same result! Yippee!
What point are you trying to make here?
first of all, yes you end up with the same result.
second of all, with condoms you don't conceive anything - no baby
with abortion you remove a fetus - no baby
you kill a fetus, and you have to know the difference between fetus and child/human/kid before we go on. You don't kill a baby, you kill a mass of cells.
Of the millions of abortions that happen every year, do you honestly think this one situation is even significant enough to be arguing about?
Yeah I do think so.
This would be laughable, if not for abortion being such a morbid topic. Abortions take place after a child is conceived, while condoms or any other protection prevent that from even happening. If you call that the same, I would get help. Fast.
I didn't call it the same. I said the result is the same.
Imagine if you got raped. Imagine your father raped you, and you found out you were pregnant with your father's child.
I don't know if you would go through with it, but I gotta tell you I would NEVER ever do that. And forcing anybody to do such a sick thing is just SICK!!!
Alright first off rape and insets are terrible things, so what should you do? Punish the rapist/inset, not the kid. Most abortions aren't over this but even if they were the child did not do anything, it doesn't matter if it was a planned child or a rape in an alley way, the child is now alive, you have no right to end its life. Stop saying i'm "forcing people" to go through with this, I'm just forcing them to not kill their kids.
t has been .. scientifically proved that a 12 weeks old fetus doesn't have any consciousness. A born baby does. So that's the difference between killing a fetus and killing a human being.
So? Just cause something isn't conscious its not alive? A baby has a visible heart and lungs after a week or two, is that alive? There is do difference between killing a human and fetus because they are the same thing, just cause baby is in the womb or not conscious does not mean its not alive and has no right to life.
And your punishing the mother of the child. Your MAKING her have the baby of a man, who ruined her life. Imagine if you were forced to have the child of the man who .. seriously changed your whole life, in the most horrible ways.
Doesn't matter what the reason is, the child did nothing wrong, I'm not punishing her ad say "muhahaha now you have to have this baby, how evil of me!" I'm saying "what happened was fucked up, but the child did nothing, please, don't kill it"
to you maybe. Sex is a natural thing between two people. Sex stimulates a relationship. If the only reason you're having sex is to reproduce.. then I'm not even gonna have this debate with you.
To me maybe? No No No, you have it wrong, the purpose of sex is to reproduce that is the only reason, however, people can have it for pleasure thats fine most of us do, so one would think "alright the point of this is to have kids so I better try not to have kids" thus everytime you have sex you take the risk of having kids and usually if your smart about it you won't.
And why is it okay to use condoms, but not abortion.
The result is the same.
No, condoms and the day after pill are to very different things. Condoms stop the sperm from going into the vagina, thus making pregnancy almost impossible, day after pills kill the sperm before it fertelizes the egg, understand? Abortion is when you kill the baby after the egg has been fertelized and it is now alive. Contraception and abortion are two different things.
You are comparing a drunken person, killing another man, with a woman who's getting an abortion. How am I going to take that seriously?
The drunk man kills anouther man, the woman kills a child, understand?
That's a lovely politic you have going on there. I hope all the babies in your fantasy country are happy, since you know.. people who aren't financially, mentally, emotionally or physically ready for a child are being forced to have it.
If your not ready for a kid, the solution isn't to kill the kid, I don't care what the government says about what a person is. They thought blacks weren't people and eventually we forced them to stop enslaving them, now they say the unborn aren't people and we should force them to stop killing them. Again, regardless of the reason, your still killing a child.
Alright first off rape and insets are terrible things, so what should you do? Punish the rapist/inset, not the kid.
you go ahead and do that. But no matter what you think you're doing, you are punishing an innocent woman, who've been raped not only physically, but also the raper fucked her mind up for life.
If you're okay doing that.. really I can't see why the world has become this.
So? Just cause something isn't conscious its not alive?
I didn't say that. I said the ''child'' is not a kid. It's a fetus, not a human. It has been scientifically proved, that a fetus isn't a human.
It says there on the top, that on the 11th week of a pregnancy, the human stage starts.
I'm saying "what happened was fucked up, but the child did nothing, please, don't kill it"
You're saying to a raped woman: Hey, it was your rapist who committed a crime. His baby did nothing, so please be his mother.
You're saying that to a woman, who .. probably is never going to be the same just because of the rape. And then you can make yourself ASK her.. seriously, I would like you to ask a woman face to face, who just got raped by her father or something, to not kill the result of the crime, because of what?!?!?! Because the child didn't do anything? THE MOTHER DIDN'T DO ANYTHING EITHER except being a victim to a crime.
No No No, you have it wrong, the purpose of sex is to reproduce that is the only reason
You must have a sad sad life.
No, condoms and the day after pill are to very different things. Condoms stop the sperm from going into the vagina, thus making pregnancy almost impossible, day after pills kill the sperm before it fertelizes the egg, understand? Abortion is when you kill the baby after the egg has been fertelized and it is now alive. Contraception and abortion are two different things.
Yeah but the result is the same. No baby. You said yourself: So? Just cause something isn't conscious its not alive? A baby has a visible heart and lungs after a week or two, is that alive? There is do difference between killing a human and fetus because they are the same thing, just cause baby is in the womb or not conscious does not mean its not alive and has no right to life.
The sperm making a baby is alive. It is moving around. And blabla. The difference between me and you is, that you think that a sperm is not valuable for life .. me I think that it doesn't matter whether you kill a sperm or a fetus. The result is the same.
The drunk man kills another man, the woman kills a child, understand?
Well no actually. I thought we debated abortion her, not murder?
If your talking about a woman killing her child we're on a different debate.
I'm talking about women who kill fetuses, not children.
Again, regardless of the reason, your still killing a child.
See, this is where I have to say, that debating with you is pointless if you will continue saying fetuses are children. Sure. AFTER the fetus has become human, then it should be illegal to kill them.
But scientifically fetuses aren't human. That is scientifically proved, it was never scientifically proved, that black people weren't human.
you go ahead and do that. But no matter what you think you're doing, you are punishing an innocent woman, who've been raped not only physically, but also the raper fucked her mind up for life.
And no matter what the reason your killing an innocent child.
If you're okay doing that.. really I can't see why the world has become this.
I'm not ok with rape, I just know its not an excuse to kill children.
You're saying to a raped woman: Hey, it was your rapist who committed a crime. His baby did nothing, so please be his mother.
The baby did nothing, regardless of how it came to be alive, it is now alive. The child did nothing to the mother and the child, like all other humans, has a right to life.
You're saying that to a woman, who .. probably is never going to be the same just because of the rape. And then you can make yourself ASK her.. seriously, I would like you to ask a woman face to face, who just got raped by her father or something, to not kill the result of the crime, because of what?!?!?! Because the child didn't do anything? THE MOTHER DIDN'T DO ANYTHING EITHER except being a victim to a crime.
Again, doesn't matter. Your killing a kid, I don't care if its because of rape or the trauma that follows it, the kid did nothing and has a right to live. You can try and slant it to "oh woe is me, I'm trying to protect the mother" well your trying to kill a kid, that is that.
You must have a sad sad life.
Did you listen to anything I said? Sex is to reproduce, but, you can use it for other purposes we all do. Understand? Good! However, if your doing it for fun with your girlfriend/boyfriend, you still have to remember there is a chance of you having a baby.
Yeah but the result is the same. No baby. You said yourself: So? Just cause something isn't conscious its not alive? A baby has a visible heart and lungs after a week or two, is that alive?
No the result is two different things. Condoms stop the egg from ever being fertelized, thus stoping the baby from being alive. If the egg is not fertelized than its NOT ALIVE, once it is though, than it is and an abortion is when you kill the fetus which is a alive. Understand?
The sperm making a baby is alive. It is moving around. And blabla. The difference between me and you is, that you think that a sperm is not valuable for life .. me I think that it doesn't matter whether you kill a sperm or a fetus. The result is the same.
Sperm isn't alive, the egg isn't a live, when they meet they create life. Do you have any knowledge on this subject besides "what if you get raped?!?!?"
Well no actually. I thought we debated abortion her, not murder?
If your talking about a woman killing her child we're on a different debate.
I'm talking about women who kill fetuses, not children.
Abortion is murder, a fetus is an unborn child not some left over product of sex that you own. Killing a fetus is killing a child, if you look at it in any scientific way you would understand this.
See, this is where I have to say, that debating with you is pointless if you will continue saying fetuses are children. Sure. AFTER the fetus has become human, then it should be illegal to kill them.
But scientifically fetuses aren't human. That is scientifically proved, it was never scientifically proved, that black people weren't human.
The fetus is a human, no scientist has ever been able to prove that a fetus is not human, the only evidence they have is that up until a cetrain stage i the pregnancy they are not conscious there is a difference. So yes you are killing a child... Unless you consider anythign that isn't conscious to be dead, so next time your sleeping or passed out at a party someone should kill you and say "well she wasn't conscious, so she wasn't alive to begin with, actualy no IT wasn't alive to begin with"
And no matter what the reason your killing an innocent child.
Correction: Fetus.
I'm not ok with rape, I just know its not an excuse to kill children.
I didn't say you're okay with rape. But apparently you think it's okay to punish a person for being a victim to a crime.
You mention a lot that it is killing a child. You're right about killing, you're not right about child. Because if the 'baby' is less than 12 weeks old, it is not a kid, it is a human.
You can try and slant it to "oh woe is me, I'm trying to protect the mother" well your trying to kill a kid, that is that.
Oh woe is me, I'm trying to protect the mother?!?!?!?!? For God's sake, the woman just got raped. Isn't that enough trauma for one person?
Did you listen to anything I said? Sex is to reproduce, but, you can use it for other purposes we all do.
Yeah I did listen, and you didn't say that. Let me quote:
Did you listen to anything I said? Sex is to reproduce, but, you can use it for other purposes we all do.
You said reproduce is the ONLY reason for sex, that is why you have a sad life.
No the result is two different things. Condoms stop the egg from ever being fertelized, thus stoping the baby from being alive. If the egg is not fertelized than its NOT ALIVE, once it is though, than it is and an abortion is when you kill the fetus which is a alive. Understand?
Condoms stops the sperm to get in contact with the egg. The sperm is alive. If you wanna call a fetus a baby you might as well call all the sperm in your nuts 'all your children'. None of them are humans. First you're a sperm, then you're a fetus, then you're a human, then you're a corps.
Do you have any knowledge on this subject besides "what if you get raped?!?!?"
I thought the debate was about women who got raped.
Abortion is murder, a fetus is an unborn child not some left over product of sex that you own. Killing a fetus is killing a child, if you look at it in any scientific way you would understand this.
I am looking at this scientifically. Scientists say, that a 12 week old fetus is not a human.
And also, you can't say that a fetus is an unborn child. You have no proof of that it is going to be human some day. It is just a bunch of cells .. a meatball.
Correction: A fetus is a child that has not been born yet.
I didn't say you're okay with rape. But apparently you think it's okay to punish a person for being a victim to a crime.
I'm not punishing them, I'm telling them not to kill the fetus, its a child and its done nothing so it too has a right to life.
You mention a lot that it is killing a child. You're right about killing, you're not right about child. Because if the 'baby' is less than 12 weeks old, it is not a kid, it is a human.
You just said its a human so it has a right to life no matter what you call it.
Yeah I did listen, and you didn't say that. Let me quote:
Did you listen to anything I said? Sex is to reproduce, but, you can use it for other purposes we all do.
You said reproduce is the ONLY reason for sex, that is why you have a sad life.
Again your misinterpreting what I'm saying, sex was made for mainly reprodcution, but we can use it for other things, we all do. Again, if you have sex remember its purpose is to make kids so you need to take steps to not have a kid.
Condoms stops the sperm to get in contact with the egg. The sperm is alive. If you wanna call a fetus a baby you might as well call all the sperm in your nuts 'all your children'. None of them are humans. First you're a sperm, then you're a fetus, then you're a human, then you're a corps.
A sperm cell doesn't grow into a human and an egg doesn't grow into a human, they are not alive, once they meet though they create life, this is basic biology class. Explain how a fetus is not a human, and no saying "its not conscious" does not make it non-human and saying "its in the mothers body" does not make it non-human. Really, there is not scientific way that of looking at it that says its non-human besides the whole "it doesn't have all the charictaristics of life" argument because 1. it will develop them and 2. if they didn't count that part then kids who haven't hit pueberty wouldn't be considered human either.
I thought the debate was about women who got raped.
Its about abortion, most people who argue for abortion argue about the rape scenario. Now besides the fact that most abortions aren't over rape, the fetus is now alive, so regardless it has a right to life just like everyone else.
I am looking at this scientifically. Scientists say, that a 12 week old fetus is not a human.
No, scientists say "it is not fully conscious until 12 weeks thus it is not human until weeks" that is not proof that its not alive or human.
And also, you can't say that a fetus is an unborn child. You have no proof of that it is going to be human some day. It is just a bunch of cells .. a meatball.
I'm sorry but thats just stupid, I have no proof it will become a human someday? Well so far all babies born have been human, there have been fetus that have died, there have been fetuses that came out mutated, but it is still human, it is by no means a meatball, I suggest you learn up how biology works and stop pretending that a fetus is worthless.
Correction: A fetus is a child that has not been born yet.
Do you have evidence of that? Do you have any evidence of, that all the fetuses currently growing in woman's bellies are ever going to be a child? Science doesn't, so I doubt you have.
I'm not punishing them, I'm telling them not to kill the fetus, its a child and its done nothing so it too has a right to life.
No it is a fetus, a fetus doesn't have human rights, because it isn't a human. It is a fetus.
You just said its a human so it has a right to life no matter what you call it.
Do you have evidence of that it is a human? So far science can't prove to you that a fetus is ever going to take human form. That is just what we think, because that is normal right? But there isn't any evidence of, that the tiny meatball we see in a belly is ever going to take human form. You can't give something human rights, because 'you think' it is a human. It isn't. Science won't tell you it is.
Again your misinterpreting what I'm saying, sex was made for mainly reprodcution, but we can use it for other things, we all do. Again, if you have sex remember its purpose is to make kids so you need to take steps to not have a kid.
Misinterpreting? you said the only reason, I can't know when your choice of words is good or bad.
Explain how a fetus is not a human
Listen to science. Science tells you, that a a fetus is a bunch of cells. When it is under 12 weeks old, it has no human form, and there is no evidence that it is ever going to be human. For all we know, it is just a meatball.
Its about abortion
the debate we two are debating right now is rape. We haven't debated any other subjects in abortion yet.
No, scientists say "it is not fully conscious until 12 weeks thus it is not human until weeks" that is not proof that its not alive or human.
Science says, that there is no evidence of, that a 11 weeks old fetus is ever going to take human form.
I'm sorry but thats just stupid, I have no proof it will become a human someday? Well so far all babies born have been human,
LOL!
Are you aware of how high the risk of spontaneous abortion is? Especially in the first trimester? I guess not, men usually aren't aware of this.
You know how women keep their pregnancy a secret for as long as they can? It's because, that the risk of loosing the baby in the first trimester is soo big, that telling everybody right away is just going to make a spontaneous abortion .. more painful, if they get one.
very many women who have children, that I know, have had one or two spontaneous abortion.
Don't tell me that every fetus is going to be a human, because that is a lie. It isn't, there is a chance it will be, but there is also a chance that a fly will take human form.
I know a woman who've gone through 9 spontaneous abortions. Several women in my family have gone through some too, and since it runs in my family, I'm probably gonna experience it too someday.
Do you have evidence of that? Do you have any evidence of, that all the fetuses currently growing in woman's bellies are ever going to be a child? Science doesn't, so I doubt you have.
Wait wait wait, your saying there is no evidence of a fetus growing in a women's belly and turning into a child? That is the dumbest thing I'v heard in a long time.
No it is a fetus, a fetus doesn't have human rights, because it isn't a human. It is a fetus.
A senior is a human, an adult is a human, a teen is a human, a child is a human, a baby is a human and a fetus is a human.
Misinterpreting? you said the only reason, I can't know when your choice of words is good or bad.
I said its used for other reasons by us but sex's only real reason is to have kids.
Listen to science. Science tells you, that a a fetus is a bunch of cells. When it is under 12 weeks old, it has no human form, and there is no evidence that it is ever going to be human. For all we know, it is just a meatball.
Fetuses turn into humans, thats a well known fact. Now were also just a bunch of cells, except bigger. Fetuses do have human features, and there is ample evidence its going to become a human, do you not understand how pregnancy works? Its not a meatball, its a human.
the debate we two are debating right now is rape. We haven't debated any other subjects in abortion yet.
...Ok, look, we've debated rape and weather its alive or not.
Science says, that there is no evidence of, that a 11 weeks old fetus is ever going to take human form.
No, scientists say its not conscious thus its not alive witch is a stupid conclusion to come to. There is no evidence that says its not alive.
LOL!
Are you aware of how high the risk of spontaneous abortion is? Especially in the first trimester? I guess not, men usually aren't aware of this.
So your saying that because the fetus might be aborted or it might die there is no proof it will ever grow? ...wow
You know how women keep their pregnancy a secret for as long as they can? It's because, that the risk of loosing the baby in the first trimester is soo big, that telling everybody right away is just going to make a spontaneous abortion .. more painful, if they get one.
So since its at risk for not survivng its not alive? I guess early born children aren't alive either since they are at risk for dying to.
very many women who have children, that I know, have had one or two spontaneous abortion.
Doesn't mean they have the right to have a medical abortion, the fetus is alive and they have no right to kill it.
Don't tell me that every fetus is going to be a human, because that is a lie. It isn't, there is a chance it will be, but there is also a chance that a fly will take human form.
So your saying that since a fetus can die its not alive? Holy shit your logic is stupid.
I know a woman who've gone through 9 spontaneous abortions. Several women in my family have gone through some too, and since it runs in my family, I'm probably gonna experience it too someday.
Doesn't matter how many fetuses die, they are still alive and you have no right to kill them, grow up, I know your a women and you think you own the fetus but you don't, its a living being and you have no right to end its life.
Wait wait wait, your saying there is no evidence of a fetus growing in a women's belly and turning into a child?
Well yes, if you disagree, please give me an evidence. So far you've only insulted my arguments, instead of disputing them with real facts.
Give me an evidence, of a woman, who is currently 5 weeks pregnant, and give me a logical evidence of, that the fetus in her tummy is going to take human form someday.
That fetuses turn into human beings is a well known fact is untrue, it is not a fact, it is how things naturally are. I know several episodes where the fetus didn't get to the human stage, therefore it isn't a fact, that they turn in to human beings.
A senior is a human, an adult is a human, a teen is a human, a child is a human, a baby is a human and a fetus is a human.
If you look at number 4. it says: having the form of a human. Fetuses do not have these. Neither do they have other typical distinctive features of human like ability to feel love, anger or hate.
I said its used for other reasons by us but sex's only real reason is to have kids.
I know, you've said that like a hundred times. You must have a sad life.
No, scientists say its not conscious thus its not alive witch is a stupid conclusion to come to. There is no evidence that says its not alive.
there is no evidence proving its ever going to be human either.
So your saying that because the fetus might be aborted or it might die there is no proof it will ever grow? ...wow
The high risk of spontaneous abortion is not an evidence of, that it will grow or not. I don't recall saying that, but I don't remember, if I said so, I apologize, because that was not what I meant.
My point with saying that is, that because there ARE so many spontaneous abortions all around the world - that is a proof of, that not all fetuses turn into human beings, I just proved you wrong when you claimed, that a fetus turns into human is a well known fact.
It is a natural process, not a fact.
So since its at risk for not survivng its not alive?
why do you keep saying it's not alive all the time? I don't recall saying fetuses aren't alive. I'm saying they aren't human.
So your saying that since a fetus can die its not alive?
Again, when did I claim that fetuses are not alive? I'm saying they are not human.
A fly is alive, it doesn't mean it has human rights just because of that.
Fetuses do have human features
Monkeys also have human features, doesn't mean they're human, neither does it give them human rights.
Well.. I live in a country where abortion is illegal. I think it is stupid to force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want.
You know what's even stupider? Not knowing the consequences of sexual intercourse and later using abortion as a tool to rid herself of the "unwanted" child.
I think I am allowed to say, that almost everyone who had sexual intercorse is aware of what sex can result.
What if I do take all the protection I need. The pill... condoms. What if I do all that. But protections can fail. What if I end up pregnant even after all those things. Aren't I allowed to get an abortion then, since I actually paid to not have children?
Yes, they can. And people should realize the risk of faulty contraceptives. That doesn't make the abortion right though. I think its wrong to use abortion as a fall-back option to contraceptives.
How can you say this? So you think every abortion is done because of rape/danger to mother/failed protection? That's definitely not true.
People wanna have sex, some don't want children.
I realize this. Why else would there be an issue?
So if you wanna stop abortion, then come up with a protection that is 200% secure. Otherwise you are just wasting your time.
What? You're missing the point...if no contraceptive is 100% effective, people should know there is still a minuscule chance they are going to have a baby. Therefore, abortion in this scenario should never have to be done.
How can you say this? So you think every abortion is done because of rape/danger to mother/failed protection? That's definitely not true.
No, what I said was simply, that most people know what sex can cause.
But they will still want to have sex, so unless you have a magical way, where there is no possibility of conceiving, then there is little you can do about stopping abortion.
What? You're missing the point...if no contraceptive is 100% effective, people should know there is still a minuscule chance they are going to have a baby. Therefore, abortion in this scenario should never have to be done.
Well, that is like saying that there is a chance you will end up in a car crash, so you should know that before you enter a car.
People know both of those, they do it anyway. So what can we do? Make the car more protective, and make the sexual protectives more protective.
"In a case like that, you're putting an innocent person, to be punished for 18 years for some crime the person was a victim to.
If you think that is fair.. you're a sick person."
You are calling child raising a punishment!!??!!You are so sick I just want to vomit!!!
Just because the child was conceived in rape doesn't mean the child can't be a blessing to the mother. Who knows, the child could grow up to be a doctor and cure cancer you brainless f#cktard.
"No, I don't think that should be allowed. That is called murder, not abortion.
I think you forgot that abortion is murder. You are nothing but a clump of cells outside the womb in retrospect to the clump of cells inside the womb. So saying that you can kill a fetus just because it's a bunch of cells means I can kill you since you are a bunch of cells. Come to my hood some time ;).
"Yes they should. Sex isn't just reproduction."
Because we have distorted it to become what it isn't. If sex didn't feel good, humans wouldn't reproduce, but you have gone and distorted it's true purpose from reproduction to entertainment. If you think about it, that's pretty sick.
"Well.. I live in a country where abortion is illegal. I think it is stupid to force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want. I think it is stupid, that the government is forcing people to do things they don't want to do."
There you just said it!! Right there in you OWN WORDS! It has NOTHING to do with rape! It has everything to do with whether she "wants" it or not. That's so sick . That's terrible. So what you saying is, just because your mother didn't want you, she should have had the right to abort you. Again, like I said, come around and I will perform a "late partial-birth abortion" on you for you since you are so f#cked up in the head as to be so selfish as not to protect the life of an unborn child.
In America, we had a similarly equal problem with "demographics". If a black man was born six inches across the Dixie line, he wasn't a human being, he was property. But if he has born six inches to the north of the Dixie line, he was a free human. And nowadays, you wouldn't dare say a black man isn't human. But 100 years ago it was okay? It just shows you how messed up the times were.
Just as messed up as they are now. If a person is six inches inside a womb, how is that any less different from a person outside of a womb. Just like blacks are people whether they are born in the North or the South, people are people whether they are in a womb or out.
Oh, and to your sh!thead comment on raising a child conceived in rape as a punishment, I've volunteered at the Alpha Women's Crisis Center, and have known women who have gotten an abortion. You see, there's this condition (don't remember the medical term) where a woman's body remembers when the child should have been born. Even in the womb, a woman is emotionally attached to her baby. So every year (and yes, it's reoccurring year after year) , on the day the child should have been born, the mother feels an emotional longing for her baby, as well as other negative emotional side effects. Two women I knew have COMMITTED SUICIDE because of this!!!IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT YOU SELFISH SHITHEAD? ARE YOU HAPPY NOW FUCKFACE? ARE YOU?
First of all, I like to say, that your repost is so long, I don't have the energy to read it all, but I read around the headlines, so if I mess up something, sorry.
You are calling child raising a punishment!!??!! You are so sick I just want to vomit!!!
Well yeah.
Imagine you, imagine your father raped you.
Your father raped you, and you found out you were pregnant, and your own father was the father.
You probably would have the baby, I don't know.
But how about others. Do you wanna force other innocent women, to have their rapers children?
Just because the child was conceived in rape doesn't mean the child can't be a blessing to the mother.
I never said that was impossible. But in some cases, the woman isn't so blessed, and in those cases I think it is her right as an human being, to be able to remove the fetus.
Because we have distorted it to become what it isn't. If sex didn't feel good, humans wouldn't reproduce, but you have gone and distorted it's true purpose from reproduction to entertainment. If you think about it, that's pretty sick.
Well.. entertainment? I don't think of it as entertainment. Sex is stimulating a relationship between two people. It isn't just meant for reproduction, maybe you believe so, but I don't.
It has everything to do with whether she "wants" it or not. That's so sick . That's terrible. So what you saying is, just because your mother didn't want you, she should have had the right to abort you. Again, like I said, come around and I will perform a "late partial-birth abortion" on you for you since you are so f#cked up in the head as to be so selfish as not to protect the life of an unborn child.
well, if you read the first part of my first post, you see, that I said not every situation is selfish.
That means that I think SOME situations ARE selfish.
Two women I knew have COMMITTED SUICIDE because of this!!! IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT YOU SELFISH SHITHEAD? ARE YOU HAPPY NOW FUCKFACE? ARE YOU?
But about what you were saying.
Lots of people commit suicide.. for lots of reasons. Do you want every reason people make suicide to be outlawed?
"First of all, I like to say, that your repost is so long, I don't have the energy to read it all, but I read around the headlines, so if I mess up something, sorry."
Wow, you are a moron. First of all my post is not that long. Saying you don't have the energy to read it is really saying that you are lazy. Second, this invalidates most of your argument because you missed a TON of items. Repost when you have read the whole thing from top to bottom. Then I will consider that reply valid.
Not even close. Some of you points turned into the "straw man" argument. Others only grasped a small part of the entire argument. These are logical fallacies, therefore they are invalid. What don't you get about that? Oh the part where you didn't even read the post and then commented on it. The argument of assumption, another invalid argument. So no, you argument is invalid. Don't even pretend it is. Did you even read the part about the emotional condition?
Attacking the result of the argument. The thesis was abortion causes emotional trauma in women.
You said to me, that two women committed suicide because of abortion, then you asked me if I was happy fuckface, if I recall correctly - very mature I must say.
But then I replied with, that people commit suicide for lots of reasons. Should we outlaw every reason people commit suicide of? If yes, then that is a valid argument, if no, then it is not a valid argument.
Illogical. Scientifically, the fundamental purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction.
You said this: Reproduction is the only reason and main goal of sex
That is not true.
Invalid. Drifting from original argument. I was attacking you calling child rearing a punishment.
What??!
I don't give a damn what you were doing.
I said, that you should not punish a victim to a crime, punish the criminal.
Then you said, that just because a baby is conceived under rape, it can still be a blessing to its mother.
Then I said, that I never claimed, that a blessing can be given under rape is impossible. I think you are right, I think there are lots of mothers who are happy they didn't remove their baby, even if they were conceived under rape.
It is not in all cases though, that the mother is very happy about the baby.
In some cases, where a woman ends up pregnant after rape, she doesn't love the baby, she doesn't want it.
And you guys say, that people should know the consequence and blabla.. but in that case, she was a victim to a crime, and she shouldn't be raising a consequence of being in some crime as a victim.
Invalid argument. You can't claim premises on that which is imaginary.
Yes I can.
I was trying to put you in a situation, just like the pregnant woman, where the baby got conceived during rape. Just so you could understand her better.
Would you give birth to your fathers baby, meaning that your father raped you at the point, where the baby was conceived?
"I was trying to put you in a situation, just like the pregnant woman, where the baby got conceived during rape. Just so you could understand her better."
In case you didn't read my latest post, understand this better.
The percentage of abortions due to rape is 0.88%.That's right! LESS THAN ONE PERCENT!!!! (I'll repeat that) LESS THAN ONE PERCENT! Don't use that argument anymore because I just want to vomit with disgust.
That's a number, I didn't try to encourage raped pregnant women to get abortions.
I was trying to save them from a punishment, they might not want. Some women would want the baby conceived during rape - that is fully understandable, and they should do so.
But seriously, I respect women 100% that make the other decission too. And it disgusts me to see a person like you, vomit over raped women. You are a horrible person.
No your post is irrelevant. This isn't a rape debate, it's an abortion debate. And the fact that you have to bring rape into abortion when that only accounts for 0.88% of abortions is pretty sick. It would be like me seeing a black guy kill someone and then saying all black guys are murderers. Pretty ridiculous, huh? Just as ridiculous as your own point. See, what you are doing is stereotyping without even knowing it. Just because it isn't a race issue doesn't mean it's not stereotyping. But you already know that from my black guy example.
You're confusing two separate things, one is a fetus (or zygote or embryo, or what have you), and the other is a child. You're question is akin to asking "why don't we make scrambled eggs out of chickens?" When a egg is an egg it has certain uses and properties; the same holds true for a chicken. But although one becomes the other, they are not the same thing. You would have a very hard time trying to cut the head off of an egg, or scramble a chicken and fry it up in an omelet. Similarly, a baby is a baby and a zygote is a zygote. They are not the same thing. It is okay to terminate a zygote because a zygote is a zygote and not a person (just like sperm isn't a person, either), but a baby is a person, and therefore subject to laws we have against homicide.
I'm not confusing anything. There is no essential difference between terminating the human life while it's inside the womb or outside the womb - in both cases it ends with the termination of the developing life.
Your egg analogy is nonsensical and in proper analysis it supports my case. You see, we eat eggs... but we also eat chicken. It's perfectly compatible with pre- and after-birth abortion. The only difference is the age of the subject that is being killed.
A baby and zygote share a fundamental characteristic - that both are human beings at a certain stage of development, both belong to the Homo Sapien's species. To say that it's okay to terminate a zygote because it's not a baby is like if I said that terminating a baby is okay because it's not an adult who has fully formed ideas, hopes, emotions and a sense of purpose.
And could you please define your criteria for personhood? What do you mean when you say that babies are persons? They are clearly not capable of understanding the concept of rights or any concept for that matter because their mental faculties have not yet developed enough. So please, what is a person?
A child is sentient, has feelings, and generally would want to live.
Something that has not developed the essential parts to have these relatively complex thoughts does not feel these things. Therefore, you are not taking anything from "them" (more accurately it but okay) because there is nothing too take.
You're trying to turn it into a "less to take" argument with your example of comparing adults to children. That's a complete misrepresentation though.
Now, if you want to argue potential life, that since there is the potential this thing will in the requisite months feel these things, okay.
You'll lose that argument though because either nature or god "aborts" thousands of little potential babies even in the instances when one of the eggs do happen to be fertilized. If god or nature makes this happen on such a ridiculously high level, literally hundreds of thousands of little potential lives that are never born during each ejaculation, who are you to tell someone else they have to go through with this or that one particular pregnancy?
''A child is sentient, has feelings, and generally would want to live.''
----------
You have to be very precise about what you mean by sentience, feelings and the general desire to live. These characteristic are very vague and can apply to pretty much any animal for that matter. An adult pig is sentient, has feelings in the form of anger, fear, sadness, happiness, excitement. A pig also displays a general desire to live and escape suffering.
A pig qualifies for the criteria you’ve put forth yet we don’t raise a pig to the importance of a human child. This means two things - we are hypocrites or we haven’t considered some third characteristic.
---------
''Something that has not developed the essential parts to have these relatively complex thoughts does not feel these things. Therefore, you are not taking anything from "them" (more accurately it but okay) because there is nothing too take.''
---------
I am taking their lives, their future and a life-time amount of choices.
I want you to specify what do you mean by complex thoughts? As I said before, your proposed characteristics are very vague and actually can be used to defend animals, so what is it? Will a baby for example get insulted if I call him stupid? No, he doesn’t and do you know why? Because a newborn child is not capable of abstract thought, is not capable of understanding the concept of rights, the concept of death or any abstract concept for that matter. It’s purely an organism of instinct, it’ll take weeks, maybe even months for the child to start recognizing its parent. Therefore, as you said - since the child is incapable of comprehending and feeling these things, you do them no harm because no harm can be done to someone who doesn’t understand and is ignorant of the concept of harm and rights.
Secondly, you did not address my sleep analogy. When I am asleep, I am no longer sentient, I don’t feel any emotions nor can I express my wills and desires. During sleep, my personality is effectively gone - I’m not excercising my capacity for sentience - therefore because I’m not sentient and thus, incapable of feeling or making decisions, I am no longer human? If someone kills me while I’m sleeping, nothing is taken from me because at the time, my sentience is not functioning.
-------
''You'll lose that argument though because either nature or god "aborts" thousands of little potential babies even in the instances when one of the eggs do happen to be fertilized. If god or nature makes this happen on such a ridiculously high level, literally hundreds of thousands of little potential lives that are never born during each ejaculation, who are you to tell someone else they have to go through with this or that one particular pregnancy?''
-------
So basically, because the fetal fatality rate in nature is so high - it follows that it’s acceptable to terminate fetal life artificially as well? This is an absurd argument. About 5 people die each second of hunger - does it follow that it’s right therefore to artificially starve people to death?
You see, in the case where there are malformations and natural deaths - it’s a tragedy, but the deaths were not the result of actual intent of terminating the life of someone. When a someone gets hit by lightning, we don’t say that the lightning is evil. However, when some guy shoots another for no reason - then we have good grounds to call that man evil and immoral.
Abortion entails clear malicious intent to terminate a developing human being, nature doesn’t.
A pig qualifies for the criteria you’ve put forth yet we don’t raise a pig to the importance of a human child. This means two things - we are hypocrites or we haven’t considered some third characteristic.
You've stated the third characteristic, yourself: it's human. We don't raise a pig the importance of a child because, although they both display sentience, one is a human and the other isn't.
I am taking their lives
In the sense that clipping your nails is "taking the life" of the nail, but no further. A zygote can be said to be organic matter, but it isn't alive in the same way a human being is alive.
I want you to specify what do you mean by complex thoughts?
How about having any thoughts, in general? A zygote, which looks a bit like a blood clot a girl might pass on her period, has no thoughts or consciousness or sentience at all. So literally any degree of brain activity gives the baby a one-up on the zygote.
herefore, as you said - since the child is incapable of comprehending and feeling these things, you do them no harm because no harm can be done to someone who doesn’t understand and is ignorant of the concept of harm and rights.
You can harm something that reacts to the physical stimuli of pain. A zygote cannot be harmed because it doesn't feel pain.
If someone kills me while I’m sleeping, nothing is taken from me because at the time, my sentience is not functioning.
You really can't see the difference between you, a sleeping human being, and a lump of bloody cells 8 months from becoming a human?
‘’You've stated the third characteristic, yourself: it's human. We don't raise a pig the importance of a child because, although they both display sentience, one is a human and the other isn't.’’
-----------
So, ultimately it’s not about sentience and thoughts, it’s about whether we’re dealing with a human being. Since modern embryology and biology tell us that every new distinct human being begins its life as a fertilized egg, we must therefore conclude that abortion is not morally permissible as it terminates the life of human beings. While one can argue that aborting fetuses is permissible because they are not conciously aware of what is going on - it’s no different from killing a sleeping person who is not conciously aware of what is going on. Just because a human being isn’t using his potential capacity for sentience doesn’t mean that he is not a human being anymore or that he has no rights.
When I’m sleeping, I do not cease to be a person just because I’m not utilizing my capacity for sentience just like a fetus doesn’t cease to be a person merely because it is not using its capacity for sentience. Both the sleeping me and the fetus has the potential capacity to gain sentience (I can by waking up and the fetus can by developing it), so there is no moral difference between the two.
And I still haven’t been given a good definition of what sentience is. Is it the ability to have abstract thoughts, the ability to remember and have hopes, ideals? What is sentience?
----------
‘’In the sense that clipping your nails is "taking the life" of the nail, but no further. A zygote can be said to be organic matter, but it isn't alive in the same way a human being is alive.’’
----------
My nails will never grow into a thinking, emotional, sentient human being with hopes and dreams. Saying that a zygote is just organic matter is a euphemism for the sole purpose of distorting the reality of the situation. A zygote is simply a human being at its very first stages of development just like a baby is a human being at a certain stage of development, just like an adult is etc etc.
Calling a zygote organic matter and a clump of cells is if I would call deformed people Defective Homo Sapien Organisms. It’s fine to sterilize deformed people as they’re not humans in the sense a healthy person is a human - they are DHSP’s.
--------
‘’How about having any thoughts, in general? A zygote, which looks a bit like a blood clot a girl might pass on her period, has no thoughts or consciousness or sentience at all. So literally any degree of brain activity gives the baby a one-up on the zygote.’’
--------
Well, a newborn baby has no sentiece and thoughts either. It can’t even recognize its parents for the first few weeks, it’s a being of instinct - tabula rasa. It certainly reacts to stimuli, but so does every other living organism.
Secondly, brain activity may have absolutely no bearing on sentience and thoughts. You need to differentiate somatic and non-somatic nerve impulsses. A person in a coma may have lost his sentience and consciousness, but the brain still keeps the lungs and heart and muscle control functioning.
Since brain activity has no bearing on sentience and personality, you will have to sain why brain impulses define humanity, but a bloodstream, developed fingers and eyes don’t. It’s completely arbitrary.
------
You can harm something that reacts to the physical stimuli of pain. A zygote cannot be harmed because it doesn't feel pain.
-------
Now you have set a very dangerous precedent. If I am killed under anesthesia, I feel no pain. Since I’m incapable of feeling any pain, emotional or physical, can I be harmed? If I’m painlessly killed, then by your definition, I am not harmed.
What about people who are born with damaged nervous systems who are incapable of feeling pain - congential indifference to pain - by your definition, people who suffer from this disorder cannot be harmed.
If a stab Ben Whitaker, I do him no harm as he does not feel pain.
-------
You really can't see the difference between you, a sleeping human being, and a lump of bloody cells 8 months from becoming a human?
------
I am still a clump of cells, you know? I’m just a bigger clump.
And yes, by the definitions and arguments I’ve gotten - there really is no difference.
I have not gotten a definition for what sentience is in the human sense nor have my arguments been given any attention. They have just been brazenly dismissed without any good justification.
Since modern embryology and biology tell us that every new distinct human being begins its life as a fertilized egg, we must therefore conclude that abortion is not morally permissible as it terminates the life of human beings.
So basically you want to give the full rights of a human being to something that is not yet a human being because it will one day become a human being. Probably. So why not let 6 year olds buy whiskey? Why wait until they are 21? After all, they will be 21 eventually. Probably. In fact, every corpse starts it's existence as a human being; why not treat all human beings like corpses, since they will become corpses eventually anyways? Simply put, because we have to treat things as they are, not based on what they will maybe become.
Both the sleeping me and the fetus has the potential capacity to gain sentience (I can by waking up and the fetus can by developing it), so there is no moral difference between the two.
Yeah when what it takes to make you sentient is a shake on the shoulder, and what it takes to make a fertilized egg sentient is 9 months of it growing a brain, among other things, I don't put those two on the same level of sentience. You might be not utilizing your sentience when you sleep, but you can wake up literally at any given point and be sentient. A zygote doesn't have any sentience to utilize. It would need a brain first.
And I still haven’t been given a good definition of what sentience is. Is it the ability to have abstract thoughts, the ability to remember and have hopes, ideals? What is sentience?
So you can find more examples of humans that don't fit my description of sentience and suggest we kill them, as well? No thanks. I don't see why it matters. When you're looking at something that literally only contains 2 cells, obviously that isn't sentient. That's about as far as it need to be defined.
Saying that a zygote is just organic matter is a euphemism for the sole purpose of distorting the reality of the situation.
Not really. I'm simply trying to point out that I don't think that a grown human being and an almost invisible to the naked eye lump of bloody cells are the same thing, just because the latter might become the former. I don't think it's possible to "murder" something that is essentially a blood clot.
Well, a newborn baby has no sentiece and thoughts either. It can’t even recognize its parents for the first few weeks, it’s a being of instinct - tabula rasa. It certainly reacts to stimuli, but so does every other living organism.
This still puts is miles ahead of a zygote.
Secondly, brain activity may have absolutely no bearing on sentience and thoughts.
Your jargon threw me for a loop; how exactly can one think without a brain?
Now you have set a very dangerous precedent. If I am killed under anesthesia, I feel no pain. Since I’m incapable of feeling any pain, emotional or physical, can I be harmed? If I’m painlessly killed, then by your definition, I am not harmed.
Well... yes... no shit. If you don't feel pain it's impossible to be harmed. I don't know about emotional harm, but luckily that doesn't factor into this debate at all anyways because zygotes and eggs don't have emotions.
And yes, by the definitions and arguments I’ve gotten - there really is no difference.
I know you're dissatisfied with our arguments and you disregard them out of hand, but that wasn't what I was asking. You, personally, see no difference between yourself and a miniscule lump of cells that lacks a brain, a heart, fingers, eyes, lungs, sentience, thoughts, consciousness, emotions, and, well, just about everything else? Jesus, man, have some self respect; if you were that undeveloped you wouldn't be able to formulate ideas, much less type them on a computer. You're trying to argue that the chicken and the egg are the same thing. They're not. They have obviously different physical properties, and if you try to make a chicken omelet or try to get an egg to eat feed out of a trough you will encounter substantial difficulty.
I have not gotten a definition for what sentience is in the human sense nor have my arguments been given any attention. They have just been brazenly dismissed without any good justification
Welcome to CreateDebate.
No, seriously though, whining about it won't do you any good. Complaining about the reception of your arguments is pointless; suggesting that all the disputes you've gotten are actually attempts to ignore your points for no reason is actually kind of insulting, not to mention annoying. You don't think I feel I haven't gotten good justification from you for you're points? If I did, I wouldn't be debating you, would I?
So basically you want to give the full rights of a human being to something that is not yet a human being because it will one day become a human being. Probably. So why not let 6 year olds buy whiskey? Why wait until they are 21? After all, they will be 21 eventually. Probably. In fact, every corpse starts it's existence as a human being; why not treat all human beings like corpses, since they will become corpses eventually anyways? Simply put, because we have to treat things as they are, not based on what they will maybe become.
-----------------
No, a zygote is actually a human being. From the moment of conception, all of your distinct features have already been determined - your height, eyecolor, sex, susceptibility to diseases etc. A fertilized egg is already a human being by the virtue of belonging to the Homo Sapien species. This argument that a fertilized egg is not a human being is completely out-dated and is based of pseudo-science.
:::::
"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]
"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
"[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....
"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]
::::::::::::::
Secondly, I have never argued that fetuses should have a right to life because they will eventually become humans. I have argued that they have always been human beings from conception. Your argument about corpses and age-requirements are moot because they criticize an argument that exists only in your head. I won’t defend arguments I have never erected.
And the reason we don’t give 6 year olds whiskey is because their mental faculties have not developed enough to understand the ramifications of alchohol to their well being. To understand, they need parental guidance and care and time to grow.
If we treat people as they are, then certainly we must treat a fetus as a human being - because a human is what it is, not some appendage to be removed.
---------------
Yeah when what it takes to make you sentient is a shake on the shoulder, and what it takes to make a fertilized egg sentient is 9 months of it growing a brain, among other things, I don't put those two on the same level of sentience. You might be not utilizing your sentience when you sleep, but you can wake up literally at any given point and be sentient. A zygote doesn't have any sentience to utilize. It would need a brain first.
--------------
You are missing the point. In both cases there is no sentience to speak of. We both have the potential capacity to gain sentience, either by waking up or by reaching the required stage of developement. The difference is simply time and time is arbitrary.
Think of it this way, a patient is in a coma and has no sentience but the doctors say that there’s a good chance that in 9 months he will recover. It would be absurd to pull the plug on him if he might get better after 9 months. Even more absurd would be to say that he is no longer a human because he lacks sentience and isn’t utilizing his capacity for sentience.
-----------
So you can find more examples of humans that don't fit my description of sentience and suggest we kill them, as well? No thanks. I don't see why it matters. When you're looking at something that literally only contains 2 cells, obviously that isn't sentient. That's about as far as it need to be defined.
------------
Yes, sentience needs to be defined because we have to determine whether newborn children, sleeping people and people with mental disorders can be considered sentient.
Your unwillingness to define sentience shows that either you don’t know it yourself or you just don’t care or that you are simply dishonest. Sentience, to you, means whatever it needs to mean in the context of abortions, as long as it fits your ends. It’s a blanket statement - you haven’t really said and explained anything if you don’t define sentience.
-----------
Not really. I'm simply trying to point out that I don't think that a grown human being and an almost invisible to the naked eye lump of bloody cells are the same thing, just because the latter might become the former. I don't think it's possible to "murder" something that is essentially a blood clot.
-----------
Again, science doesn’t really care what you think. A zygote, fetus, baby, infant, adult - they are all human beings at a certain stage of development. I don’t know why you resist this point so much, but just open any random contemporary embryology textbook and see for yourself.
And don’t come talking to me about sentience until you give me a definition of sentience. It’s like if a victim in court wants justice and the judge says: ‘’Well, I don’t think defining Justice is important. Justice is just Justice.’’
---------
This still puts is miles ahead of a zygote.
-------
And miles behind an infant and an adult human being.
--------
Your jargon threw me for a loop; how exactly can one think without a brain?
---------
They can’t. But what you can’t understand is that your brain doesn’t simply give the human a mind. It also controls muscle movement, heartbeats, breathing, seeing etc. The brainactivity you see in fetuses may have nothing to do with sentience - these brainwaves may just be somatic impulses that regulate heartbeats for example. Your brain does a whole lot more than just let you think.
--------
Well... yes... no shit. If you don't feel pain it's impossible to be harmed. I don't know about emotional harm, but luckily that doesn't factor into this debate at all anyways because zygotes and eggs don't have emotions.
--------
Well, I guess we’ve reached an agreement here. Since you implied that killing fetuses is okay because they cannot be harmed due to their inability to feel pain - you must therefore agree that it’s okay to painlessly kill adult human beings. As long as they don’t feel pain, it is okay.
Answer my question then. If I shoot Whitaker while he is sleeping - did I harm him? You have to deny harm if you are intellectually consistent with your reasoning.
----------
I know you're dissatisfied with our arguments and you disregard them out of hand, but that wasn't what I was asking. You, personally, see no difference between yourself and a miniscule lump of cells that lacks a brain, a heart, fingers, eyes, lungs, sentience, thoughts, consciousness, emotions, and, well, just about everything else? Jesus, man, have some self respect; if you were that undeveloped you wouldn't be able to formulate ideas, much less type them on a computer. You're trying to argue that the chicken and the egg are the same thing. They're not. They have obviously different physical properties, and if you try to make a chicken omelet or try to get an egg to eat feed out of a trough you will encounter substantial difficulty.
I have not gotten a defini
------------
Human rights dictate that every human beings has a right to life regardless of their health, intelligence, race, capability, productiveness etc.
While I may be more developed than a fetus, we are both human beings. That is the whole point of human rights - rights that we have solely by virtue of being a human being.
--------------
Welcome to CreateDebate.
No, seriously though, whining about it won't do you any good. Complaining about the reception of your arguments is pointless; suggesting that all the disputes you've gotten are actually attempts to ignore your points for no reason is actually kind of insulting, not to mention annoying. You don't think I feel I haven't gotten good justification from you for you're points? If I did, I wouldn't be debating you, would I?
-------------
How can my disputes be insulting. You yourself admitted that you are not interested in giving a concrete definition for sentience, so my point remains. How can we speak of sentience, if we don’t even know what sentience means?
You can’t throw out a bunch of definitions and criterions and think that you can get away with not explaining them.
A fertilized egg is already a human being by the virtue of belonging to the Homo Sapien species.
A chopped off arm belonged to the Homo Sapien species, does this make it a human?
Generally I agree with you about eggs being human, but not being human beings, not being a person.
Secondly, I have never argued that fetuses should have a right to life because they will eventually become humans. I have argued that they have always been human beings from conception.
Well then this brings us back to the chicken and the egg; you believe something is what it may become because it may become that thing. I really don't know how to address this delusion except with my tried and true example that you would have a bitch of a time finding some breasts to cut off of an egg and serve for dinner.
If we treat people as they are, then certainly we must treat a fetus as a human being - because a human is what it is, not some appendage to be removed.
A fetus is human but it is not a human, the same way an egg is Gallus gallus domesticus, just like the chicken, but it's not a chicken yet. Similarly, some removed appendage is human, but it, also, is not a human.
You are missing the point. In both cases there is no sentience to speak of. We both have the potential capacity to gain sentience, either by waking up or by reaching the required stage of developement. The difference is simply time and time is arbitrary.
Why is time arbitrary? You said yourself earlier in regard to children buying whiskey that time is a determining factor. We have to wait to give a child the rights of an adult.
If you were sleeping I could wake you up at that second and you would be sentient. If I were to remove a fetus from its host, I would be looking at a lump of blood and flesh.
Think of it this way, a patient is in a coma and has no sentience but the doctors say that there’s a good chance that in 9 months he will recover. It would be absurd to pull the plug on him if he might get better after 9 months.
I think oftentimes in this situation it is up to the family to decide if they want to keep him on life support or pull the plug. And that's what I'm advocating, here: choice.
Yes, sentience needs to be defined because we have to determine whether newborn children, sleeping people and people with mental disorders can be considered sentient.
Why?
Your unwillingness to define sentience shows that either you don’t know it yourself or you just don’t care or that you are simply dishonest. Sentience, to you, means whatever it needs to mean in the context of abortions, as long as it fits your ends. It’s a blanket statement - you haven’t really said and explained anything if you don’t define sentience.
Here's the first definition of sentience I could find online, from thefreedictionary.com, as it turns out:
1. The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness.
2. Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought.
So please point out to me where I have either broken this definition down to suit my own needs for this debate, or otherwise defined it as something other than this definition. If you can't then your pointless, abrasive speculation was all for naught, save for making you look like an ass.
Again, science doesn’t really care what you think.
You calling yourself "science," now? I can go with that.
A zygote, fetus, baby, infant, adult - they are all human beings at a certain stage of development. I don’t know why you resist this point so much
I don't know, science, where did I resist that point? Perhaps I have done a poor job of making my position clear, but I am against the notion that a zygote is an infant, or a fetus is an adult, not that babies and zygotes are different stages of human development.
And don’t come talking to me about sentience until you give me a definition of sentience.
Woah, science, calm down. First of all I didn't mention sentience in the bit you're addressing, secondly if you've got such a stick up your ass about a definition why don't you try defining it yourself? I don't really give a damn because I know what you're trying to get at by defining sentience; you gave it away in your examples. And I don't think that argument holds water, so instead I'm trying to stick to the obvious and not the tricky word games.
They can’t.
They why did you say otherwise, science?
But what you can’t understand is that your brain doesn’t simply give the human a mind. It also controls muscle movement, heartbeats, breathing, seeing etc. The brainactivity you see in fetuses may have nothing to do with sentience - these brainwaves may just be somatic impulses that regulate heartbeats for example. Your brain does a whole lot more than just let you think.
No, science, what you can't understand is that I knew all of this before you started lecturing me on it! I'm just waiting for you to tie it into your argument so it becomes relevant.
Since you implied that killing fetuses is okay because they cannot be harmed due to their inability to feel pain
Source, science?
I'll save you the time: I never implied that. This is a straw man argument, similar to the one you complained about earlier and even more similar to the one you're trying to concoct by getting me to define sentience.
Answer my question then. If I shoot Whitaker while he is sleeping - did I harm him? You have to deny harm if you are intellectually consistent with your reasoning.
You're very pushy, science. Yes. I do deny harm. He can't feel pain, so you didn't put him in pain. Is this so complicated?
How can my disputes be insulting.
It is not the disputes I find insulting, science, but the notion that because you are not personally satisfied with the arguments against you the debaters that posted them must be deliberately and arrogantly trying to dismiss and ignore your posts while themselves asserting absolutely no justification for their own arguments. That, science, is what I find insulting.
You can’t throw out a bunch of definitions and criterions and think that you can get away with not explaining them.
Okay, my welcoming you to CreateDebate was clearly a bit premature; Welcome to the Internet, science! Leave your righteous indignation at the door, please.
You've again in this compared a born baby to a recently fertilized egg.
At some point, late, late term pregnancy, the parts of a mind develop which are capable of feeling on some primitive level. Prior to this, the fingernail analogy is still accurate.
You're still arguing potential life, just from different angles and over and over. The argument is potential though, not existing life, potential.
If your arguement is potential human life, okay.
But then you also have to accept that god or nature abort more potential children every single time there is a pregnancy than every doctor in the world combined has aborted.
You're choosing an arbitrary cutoff point, conception, with no reasoning to back up why this would be your cutoff point.
Why not choose the moment of penetration? I mean, if you're inside why should you be allowed to pull out and not have a baby? That's a potential life.
How about when you take a girl on a date? I mean, potentially you could fuck her and have a kid, so really if she says no not raping her is killing a baby.
The "cutoff" point does not have to be arbitrary though, because we have knowledge.
We know that this thing is not going to be capable of feeling or thought in any capacity at all until the third trimester at the earliest.
If you are arguing against abortion before this time, you are by definition arguing potential, and so are pro rape, anti-condom, anti-pull out certainly, and must absolutely adhore either nature or god for letting all of those little potential babies die.
I do not agree with this. I think its selfish to practice any kind of sexual activity without realizing the consequences/ knowing they can be taken care of later. Life is sacred, people ought to know this.
I agree that you should be aware of what can happen if you have sex. But you can use protection, and sex is a joy that should be allowed to enhance a relationship. Even if the couple does not want children yet. Otherwise, what's the point in us creating protection? But sometimes the protection we use doesn't work. And it's not fair to punish a child to a suffering life over that.
"But you can use protection, and sex is a joy that should be allowed to enhance a relationship. Even if the couple does not want children yet. Otherwise, what's the point in us creating protection?"
Fundamentally and Scientifically, the sole purpose of sex is reproduction. So my question is, how do you know whether or not society corrupted what sex really is turning it into something it's not?
no mother on this planet would really go forward for murdering her child.
But this statement is exclusively true for ''mothers'' i believe and not the '' non mothers''.
Everybody possesses the right to get attracted towards opposite sex and make love with both of their mutual appreciation,
making love of-course do makes a difference in people's life.
Its the way how almighty created ur with millions of hormones which induces our sensuality.
If sex was something really wrong then god himself would have created some other alternative for expanding the human race.
Why would he created the desire which exists in every normal people.
The desire should have lasted only once or twice in a life as per requirement.
People we are living in a probabilty surrounded era where every mechanical and non mechanical things have some or more failures.
If precaution fails during love making, its just a matter of bad luck and abortion happens to be the best way to superceed it.
If a girl gets pregnant at an early age, would other people invest their time and effort to take care of that unexpected child,
just try and think that the girl might have got a life of her own where she might have expected a goal in her academics as well as non academics fields.
There's a saying that if right thing done at some wrong time, then it does more harm than good.
And if people still think that if precation fails, then a girl sholdn't go for giving birth to a child to whiom she is incapabale of giving a better life, should probably eradicate their cars if the fuel goes down unexpectedly.
This is not always true, what about if a child got raped, and got pregnant? Does she deserve to have a baby? What if a smart grad got raped, does she deserve to possibly ruin her life? But if a woman just doesn't use protection and doesn't care about having a baby or not and just changed her mind about it then, yes that is unfair.
If the child was born it could end up living a horrible life, so living in poverty and suffering is better than not being born? They aren't sentient when abortion happens, it's not like killing a human being, I don't think those people understand the science of developing into a hulan being and abortion, you have NO real arguments.
Who are you to decide for another person whether or not they want life or not?
If they aren't humans then what are they? Look at Law of Biogenesis.
So should an infant be killed because he/she is still developing? If development is the determining factor then any person under 40 can be killed because your brain doesn't stop developing until then. If we decide its someone before then, then we become like Hitler who killed people based on them not being developed enough evolutionarily (Jews, Blacks, etc.). Are you better than Hitler?
Okay. In most cases, by the time the fetus is aborted it is merely a clump of cells. No organs, no brain. Just cells splitting. That brings up the question about "souls" and religion. And the truth of the matter is we are a couintry with the freedom of religion (or NOT to have a religion). Remember. Seperation of church and state. If we based all laws off of religion we would stone people, have slaves (still), and not be aloud to go out on Sundays
Actually, if we didn't have religion then we would still have slaves. A lot of the main abolitionists were clergymen and the entire movement was a religious movement to stop inequality.
But, nevertheless, so you are for murdering another human being?
This presupposes that the "clump of cells" is a human being, this idea sounds ridiculous. Why is it wrong to "kill" a clump of cells, but it's perfectly fine to kill elephants, deers, and other game for sport? Those animals have a much more highly developed brain and ability to feel pain than this clump of cells does. This "clump of cells" is not a human yet, it is only a series of cells dividing, so it should not receive rights.
What is it then? If it isn't human then what is it?
If you are going to determine whether or not we should kill something based on development then we have become like nazi germany saying that the Jews and Blacks are not as well evolutionarily developed yet. If you want to think like Hitler, then go ahead, but once you act upon those beliefs, you are a murderer
What is it then? If it isn't human then what is it?
It is merely a fertilized egg dividing repeatedly. How can we call it murder when it's not even a human yet? The mere potential to become a human does not equal being a human.
If you are going to determine whether or not we should kill something based on development then we have become like nazi germany saying that the Jews and Blacks are not as well evolutionarily developed yet. If you want to think like Hitler, then go ahead, but once you act upon those beliefs, you are a murderer
I understand what you are trying to say, but you are clearly misunderstanding my point. In regards to your statement saying we have become like nazi germany, we can clearly see through scientific evidence that the embryo lacks a brain or the brain is just beginning initial steps of development. This is not mere speculation without evidence as with the Nazi's baseless idea that the Aryan race was superior to all.
I do not agree with the assumption that life begins at the moment of conception.
I do not understand why people believe the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will. This is merely opening the possibility for the government to force other medical procedures on people.
