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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Abortion is it right or wrong?
I think we all agree murder is wrong, so why do some people think abortion is right and ok to do? That contricicts saying you are against murder, yet condoning it with abortion.
Looks like some parallels between abortion and slavery, if you think abortion is ok then you agree also with slavery.
Slavery in centuries past and abortions in this century were defended and promoted by the same arguments. Consider the case in the USA: In 1857, in the Dred Scott case, the US Supreme Court decided, by a 7 to 2 majority, that according to the US Constitution, black people were not legal persons. They were the property of the owner. He could buy, or sell, or even kill them. Abolitionists had objected. The ruling was outrageous, they said. It was immoral and discriminated against an entire class of living persons solely on the basis of skin colour. But those who supported slavery argued that if those who had a moral objection to slavery, didn't have to own slaves. No one was forcing them to own slaves. But they also said: "Don't force your morality on the slave owner. He has the right to choose to own slaves if he wishes."
In a very similar decision just over one hundred years later, in 1973, in the Roe vs Wade Decision, the US Supreme Court decided that according to the US Constitution, by the same 7 to 2 majority, that unborn people were not legal persons. They had no civil rights, no human rights and were therefore, legally the property of the owner (the mother). She had the absolute legal right to keep or destroy her unborn baby. Pro-life people objected. The ruling was outrageous, they said. It was immoral and discriminated against an entire class of living people solely on the basis of age (too young) and place of residence (the womb). But those who support abortion argue that those who have a moral objection to abortion, don't have to have abortions. The pro-abortionists say: "No one is fordcing you to have an abortion. But don't force your morality on the mother. She has a right to choose to kill her developing baby if she wishes."
Abraham Lincoln in the 19th century said: "No one has the right to do what is wrong." 6
This country has just ended discrimination based on race. Are we now going to start discrimination on the basis of age? Saying:"I'm older than you, I'm bigger than you, I have a voice - therefore I can kill you."
Alright, this is a great argument. In the end this is going to get down to a simple opinion: Does life begin at conception, or at birth? I believe it's birth, you believe it's conception.
If someone gets raped, I believe that if they so wish, they may get an abortion, thus killing the child who is, in my mind, not yet truly a living human being.
As you said,
This country has just ended discrimination based on race. Are we now going to start discrimination on the basis of age?
I know that this is an unrelated question, but do you believe in gay marriage? If the answer is no, you are contradicting yourself. Discrimination based on age and discrimination based on sexual orientation...yeah a bit off topic. Just curious.
like i said it has a heartbeat memory intelegence therefore it is qualified as living and its heart beat is tottally seperate from the mother therefore yes its a human being my aunt was raped and had an abortion and says every day she regrets it bcuz she knows it was not the babys fault what happened and she is worse than the man who raped her for killing her own baby
Your mostly talking from emotional opinion, rationally however a baby is living as soon as it is fertilized. And then grows in different stages. And you can’t tell me that a couple days before a women is in labor that the baby isn’t living.
Very interesting !!! However in referring to Dredd Scott you defeat your own agreement. As you state "It was immoral and discriminated against an entire class of living persons solely on the basis of skin colour." The key phrase here is "living person", IMO and in the opinion of most doctors a zygote or a blastophere is not alive. IMO a fetus in the 3rd trimester is alive, and like many pro-freedom/pro-choice folks I support (reasonable) late term abortion bans.
WOA! okay for a while the fetus has gills. No mammal can exist without lungs sooooo... i guess now they arnt even considered HUMAN! but no im not going to go that far because im not that ignorant
Now, you tell me from the moment of conception, this marvelously created being is NOT a human, not a person? If you do, you are a fool, and it's futile to argue against such foolishness.
True, a fetutus life-ness might be considered not trully alive, but an interesting thing about defining something as alive is that they must go though the basic life processes, including reproduction. Since abortion is interfering with the natural act of reproduction, abortion is going against part of what makes us alive.
It's the ability to reproduce that is one of the defining features of life. Stopping the act of reproduction through abortion does not go against that ability, as the mother, (and humans as a species), are still able to reproduce.
Also, you would have to be against any form of contraception if you stick to your argument. Maybe you are.
Even when the baby is but a zygote, a fertilized egg, the child shows intelligent behavior. Dr. Condic from the University of Utah’s School of Medicine states:
"Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures, and organs that work together in a coordinated way…. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism. (Condic 4)." If you want a more in-depth explanation of why life starts at conception, this article does a very good job of explaining it:
The 'parallels' between slavery and abortion that you have proposed are absolutely disgusting. You have made up a correlation between these things when there really isn't one. Your correlation is based solely on how the two issues were handled in the US Court System. Seeing as though both issues went through the same reasoning and debate process obviously they will be handled in the same way and appear to be alike. Pro choicers do not discriminate against the fetus' because of their age, they discriminate against them because they are not even developed human beings. They have no human faculties. They are piles of cells. A dog has no legal rights in this country because it is not a developed human being and has no human faculties. Laws only apply to people, not the blueprints of people. Lets say for instance that 10 workers plan to build a house from scratch. They have no materials, only their knowledge of houses. Are the 10 workers a house? No, they are the potential of a house. The cells of a fetus are the workers and humans are the house. You argument has no intellectual or moral basis and is cemented in an argument which compares the legal process' of two different ideas which were run through the same system. The fact that your argument has so much support just shows how ignorant the people against abortion are on this website.
You made another amazing point, Jawkins. I never thought about it that way, in connection with slavery. But what you stated was right on. Same arguments, same bad decisions.
I slavery there is a minium of 2 roles, the slave and the master. The master projects his authority over the slave.
However in the case of the pro-life view there are a minimum of three roles involved, the woman, the unborn child, and the pro-life church. Your argument tries to link the unborn child to the slave and the mother to the master, but you fail to take into account the relationship of the pro-life church. The role of the the pro-life church like the slave master over the mother.
This of course all relies on the the belief of when fetus is considered a person. If you look at the pro-choice view, there is a longer period of time before the fetus is considered a person. In this view, the slave analogy, the only relationship left is the mother as the slave to the will of the pro-life church master.
The problem that many pro-choice people have with people trying to take away abortion rights is that the pro-life church is using the Government to impose the church's will on a selection of other people that there is absolutely no doubt to them being actual people. The government should not enforce religious ideology on those who do not agree with that Ideology but the pro-life stance demands just that. Many good Christians detest and are outraged with the state mandated religious laws forcing Muslim women in Iran and Afghanistan to wear hijabs or burqas. Why should the Christian church be able to force it's views on the women of the United States?
Abortions should be a last resort, and it is something only a woman with the accurate and honest advice of a doctor can decide on. No church, no government, no body else has the right to insert themselves into this situation. And even if we agree that the fetus is a person much earlier, that still does not mean the church or a politician can speak for that unborn child so they still have no right to interfere.
Why is abortion right? Simple it is an admission of guilt to a felony crime made publicly.
Why is abortion wrong? Simple it is an admission of guilt to a felony crime made publicly with a transformable self- incrimination that can be cast on the public
Why else is pregnancy abortion wrong? Its use is out of context set by official understanding. The term abort is a pause/stop made in an official start of an event, by which a life threating, or dangerous malfunction is the motivation of paused/stop to allow a determination to either terminate, or proceed with the official process. The aborted process is allowed to continue till its natural completion.
It is Ironic but the argument of debate for abortion applies to a woman as she only ever pauses death created when she does not have sexual relations, or artificial insemination, not with the stopping a pregnancy that is on going.
Slavery 1857 the reasons a slave did not have any described United States Constitutional right was caused by lack of representation of record on emancipation from united state of prisoner of war. As wording emancipation is simply re-describing publicly free as equal to liberty and it is not by fact that way. The point of the argument in court was made against the United States Constitution for not having a definition of meaning which could ever describe a man, woman , or child as not having self-value or appointed cost, and this definition is still missing today.
Ironically the liberty of the slaves of the South should be attributed to Abraham Lincoln by a Military decree as executive order, in services rendered by foreign prisoners of war setting a larger boundary for civility and independence.
Technically abortion is murder. They are killing the baby without a justified motive. Simply because having a baby would be an inconvenience is the same as killing your parents simply because their existence would be inconvenient for you, and that would be murder right?
No, that would be incorrect. It would not be murder, because the fetus is not a person. It has not acquired any of the qualities of person hood until like week 22-25 or something like that.
They are killing the baby without a justified motive.
A fetus could not live out side of the womb not in its current state of fetus...ness (haha dont judge) im just saying, for a while that fetus has gills...making it a fish
This is a myth that has been long dispelled. Humans develop gill slits when in the womb, but they are NOT gills and not functional. I believe the idea you are referring to is "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", a theory prevalent around the turn of the 19th to 20th century. It has long been shown false - fetuses are never fish.
Im pro-choice but do not sit there and act like it wasnt taking a human life, its still heartbreaking to think sombody just took the life of a baby that somone else could have loved, I think abortion laws and adoption laws are flawed and are the cause of these debates. Yes a women should do whatever she wants becouse it is her body however it shows she is an evil person if she just didnt feel like raising a child over having sex without protection.
Fetus means little one. How do you not know this, Markie? What has your public edumication afforded you, except to turn you away from the Truth which is Jesus? By the way, I was raised Catholic and at the age of nine, I remember vividly the day a priest lied to us about the Bible being filled with nice fairy tales. At the age of eighteen I knew the evolution I was learning in biology class was lies too. Way before I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, my spirit was in tune with the Truth which is Jesus.
Fetus means little one. How do you not know this, Markie?
You can only address me as Markie pooh from now on, got it?
What has your public edumication afforded you, except to turn you away from the Truth which is Jesus?
Public education does not encourage one religion over another, at least its not supposed to. The problem is that Jesus is not the "truth", in the sense that you believe it to be. Jesus was a normal person like you or me, assuming he existed. There was nothing supernatural about him.
By the way, I was raised Catholic and at the age of nine, I remember vividly the day a priest lied to us about the Bible being filled with nice fairy tales.
I was raised catholic as well. At age 18 I went on a quest of truth to discover if god existed and if the bible was true, after all of my research it has become abundantly clear that god's existence and the validity of the bible is just wishful thinking that comforts people. It makes many people feel good to know that a higher power is watching over them, even if he doesn't really exist. The phrase "Ignorance is bliss" really explains the situation here, for most at least. I would rather accept reality as it is, than believe in something that comforts me.
And by the way, your priest told you the truth, the supernatural stuff in the bible is a bunch of fairy tales. The non supernatural ones are plausible.
At the age of eighteen I knew the evolution I was learning in biology class was lies too.
No, you are factually incorrect. The Theory of Evolution has already been confirmed to be true thousands if not millions of times. There is so much evidence for it, and so little that opposes it, I find it unfathomable to reject evolution "just because".
I get tired of hearing women say it's my body, my choice. Well after you become pregnant it's NO longer just your body, your choice. What about your baby's body and choice. I bet if you ask the baby, he/she would say give me a chance at life, rather than have it snuffed out. To those women that say it's my body, my choice, why is it fair you had a chance at life, but you refuse to afford your baby the same chance at life. If you get rid of, make something stop living, that is murder. If you cut up an apple, make it juice, or sauce, the bottom line is, it's still an apple. Murder is murder no matter how you label it or twist it, murder is murder.
I get tired of hearing women say it's my body, my choice
Oh, so apparently it's your choice then? You get to dictate what women can or cannot do with their bodies now.
I bet if you ask the baby, he/she would say give me a chance at life, rather than have it snuffed out.
This is irrelevant, for it is impossible anyways. Babies can't even talk until weeks/months after birth. And if you were a fetus, you wouldn't be aware of your existence or non existence.
To those women that say it's my body, my choice, why is it fair you had a chance at life, but you refuse to afford your baby the same chance at life.
Isn't the baby biologically dependent upon the mother for life?
Consider this: Person X is dying because he needs a kidney. Person Y is the only person in the world who has a kidney that his body won't reject. Under your previous logic with abortion, police and doctors would force Person Y to give up his kidney in order to save this man.
Compare it to abortion. The fetus needs the mother, just as Person X needs the kidney. Without the mother, the fetus dies. Without the kidney, Person X dies. So your solution is to force the mother to continue the pregnancy, and force Person Y to give up his kidney to save Person X.
Fetal viability becomes possible around week 24-25, meaning the fetus can survive outside of the uterus with the assistance of medical technology.
that was clearly ment to be hypothetical. Yess no Doctor can force someone to give up there organs Just like NOBODY can force someone to give birth to a baby.
Doctors can not FORCE someone to give up their organs
...you're right Doctors can not FORCE someone to give up their organs, police can not FORCE someone to give up their organs, the law can not FORCE someone to give up their organs.
SO given ALL THAT! lets say im prego...but i don't want to be prego...because i was raped(some thing that is illegal and should be reported.) but i don't want to have this kid but in this world abortion is illegal (thats what u want right for it to be seen as murder) so i will be forced to share my organs with somebody i don't even WANT around!
Okay so anyone who starts their debate argument with "WOW DUMBASS" most likely doesn't know how to debate properly. Fear not i shall bring myself down to your level to make this easier for you. As a women you would know that ovulation is for about 2-3 out of a month, 80% of fertilized eggs still dont make it and it is what we call menstruation. The chances of a women getting pregnant from unprotected sex is about 11% (go to your nearest plan parent hood they will tell you!) 7% percent of most abortions is related to rape. that means that more than half of women who get abortions just arent ready to be parents. But isnt it weird that they were ready to have sex unprotected. I refuse to pay taxes because someone didnt pull out...wrap it up keep it moving. women who get raped should report it and to the women who dont I truly understand why they are afraid to..i truly do..but there are things to take like plan B.
Oh my that's rediculous! For one, your example of person x and y as a comparative example to the dependency a fetus has to the carrying mother is not remotely related at all. Someone who needs a kidney from someone wasn't somebody they depended on to live to begin with! In a collective political society such as what we live in as human beings your damn right it's our choice to say weather a woman can have or not have an abortion. People make decisions everyday that to them it's a personal decision but fail to realize as a society it affects everyone. It's irrelevant if a fetus is aware of it's life when it comes to justifying its death by a means of escaping responsibility... are you nuts?
In a collective political society such as what we live in as human beings your damn right it's our choice to say weather a woman can have or not have an abortion. People make decisions everyday that to them it's a personal decision but fail to realize as a society it affects everyone.
You sound like an ass hole...wtf do you mean it's our choice to say whether a woman can have an abortion...fuck you it's actually not you or anybody else's decision its her and her boyfriend/husband's decision if she has one. not yours. i don't even understand where you think at ALL that is your place. and how does whether or not a woman aborts her child effect you...if it weren't for the protests and what not...would you even know that that's where your less the 1% if your tax money goes? and if it weren't for the fact that your money goes toward it would you even care? NO! don't lie and answer yes just think to your self..if i didn't know that less than 1% of my taxes goes to planed parenthood...would i care
"I bet if you ask the baby, he/she would say give me a chance at life, rather than have it snuffed out."
When a baby is aborted, he/she is not nearly capable of intelligent thought.
Think about rape victims though. Imagine you are a woman (or if you are a woman, then just imagine the scenario) who gets raped. After you were raped, you were brutally beaten and left to die. But you didn't die, you were saved just in time and taken to the hospital. Now a few weeks have gone by and you are still shook up. This is something you will never fully get over and you will always remember the man's face. You now suffer from depression and have trouble going out in public. You eventually return to the hospital and discover that you are pregnant with the man's baby. The man who raped you. The child will obviously look like his/her father to an extent. A constant reminder of what happened to you. Now imagine the problems the child will have after discovering that his father was/is a rapist.
The famous gospel singer, Ethel Waters, was a product of rape. Her mother was 13 years old when she became pregnant with Ethel, and what a tremendous blessing Ethel Waters was to this dark world! A light for Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords! Praise God Ethel was not ruthlessly, violently slaughtered while in her young mother's womb!
Ethel Waters was born in 1896. Getting an abortion was out of the question back then. Obviously she grew to be a well-respected musician and I can see your view on the matter. Her abortion would have been a waste of talent, but she didn't have any talent weeks after she was conceived, and what makes you think that an abortion is the "ruthless, violent slaughter" of a child in the womb? What if you were raped by a family member? A brother or even your father, the child will likely be born with deformities and since you are religious, his existence would be seen as a sin, would it not?
I don't THINK an abortion is the diabolical, ruthless, violent slaughtering of a developing child in the womb. I KNOW IT IS! Promiscuous sexual activity that produces a child is a sin, but a child is always an unmitigated blessing from God. ALWAYS, for that is what God's Holy Word, the Bible, declares. Might I suggest you pick up a Bible and start reading in John. Jesus' first words of his public ministry were, "Repent and believe."
I don't THINK an abortion is the diabolical, ruthless, violent slaughtering of a developing child in the womb. I KNOW IT IS!
No you don't. This is just a statement by you as an illusion of knowledge, meant to sway others to your position.
Promiscuous sexual activity that produces a child is a sin, but a child is always an unmitigated blessing from God. ALWAYS, for that is what God's Holy Word, the Bible, declares. Might I suggest you pick up a Bible and start reading in John. Jesus' first words of his public ministry were, "Repent and believe."
Get this bible and god shit out of here. Outlawing abortion for religious reasons is prohibited by the constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. You are making this decision based on your religious beliefs, and if you seek to legislate this, that is against the constitution.
If anyone's brain has not finished developing, it is yours. As evidence by your use of logical fallacies, only an idiot would do that.
Get over yourself and provide a valid argument. Or if your brain is incapable of coming up with a simple logic based (instead of logic lacking) argument, continue with your use of logical fallacies.
Is your opinion on abortion based solely off your religious beliefs? I know this is not meant to be a religious debate, but you mention god and the bible in each of your responses.
16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.’”
Like I said earlier, incestual rape can lead to the birth of a deformed child. While these verses do not actually support abortion, it does prove my point that deformities are seen as a sin in the eyes of God. People who are deformed in any way, shape or form are condemned from approaching God's altar. This is in the Bible, "God's Holy Word" as you put it. God would never punish someone for something they had no control over, right?
You do not grasp how the Old and New Testaments go together. Deformities are not viewed as sinful in God's eyes NOW. You are right - God does not punish folks for what they have no control over. He is a holy God and does not wink at sin, but He is also loving and merciful. If you seek Him, you will find Him!
I do. Jesus died for our sins, therefore deformities are now forgiven. You got me on that. I find the Old Testament to be much more fascinating and enjoy quoting it when given the opportunity lol. Since Jesus did die for our sins, wouldn't abortion be forgiven?
Yes rape is unfortunate, but in no way is it the babies fault, therefor simply disposing of the baby is not the right option. In fact murder should not be an option. Life is a precious gift, and EVERYONE even babies conceived in rape should have the equal right at life. I would like to think if asked, people conceived in rape are happy their mothers choice life for them. Now ask yourself, what if you found out that you were conceived in rape, would you have wished to not be here? I like to think not, I also think most everyone appreciates their chance at life and honors their mothers for choosing life.
Now ask yourself, what if you found out that you were conceived in rape, would you have wished to not be here?
Whether I would have wished to be here or not doesn't matter, because I am making this decision in hindsight.
You must go back to before you existed to make a good judgment on the matter. If you didn't exist before you were conceived, how would you have been disappointed about not living?
You wouldn't have existed to make the thought "damn, I wish I were alive!", therefore this question is entirely invalid. You asked the question with hindsight in mind. But you must take hindsight out of the entire question in order to provide a good answer.
The normal human desire, a lot of times right up to the last breath, is to stay alive, to keep living. We struggle for survival when we're sick, in many ways that we are not even conscious of. The body's natural fight is for life, not death. People commit suicide when they are emotionally ill.
And I'm tired of other woman arguing that it's not a 'baby' until it's able to survive on it's own. What is it, then, a puppy? People treat the unborn no better than a bagful of cats they would drown in a lake. It's horrendous.
That attitude fulfills a Bible scripture (2 Timothy 3:1-5), where it was stated that people would "have no natural affection."
Any woman that could abort their baby has no natural affection, even if it is rape. Kill the rapist rather than the baby.
So a woman in a high flying career/ looking forwards to finishing university/ sixth form or even secondary school should give up their future for the sake of an unwanted child?
It IS a woman's body, and it IS a woman's choice. A woman's uterus is essentially a breeding ground for the potential of a human life to develop -- is it a sin when a woman miscarries? After all, she indirectly had a hand in the destruction of a human life.
What about if a woman gets raped, either by a relative of hers or by a complete stranger? Was it HER body, HER choice for her body to be mutilated by a man? The argument you present would insist that a woman MUST go through with her pregnancy regardless of the terms, whether it be rape, incest, or whether the woman's life is in danger as a result of the pregnancy. We no longer live in the 1700s, we do not have to live by the archaic rules of society set forth for us back then. We are a progressive society by nature and we should allow women the opportunity to exercise complete control over their bodies -- whether or not they decide to abort their pregnancy is THEIR choice, NOT yours.
U guys just don't get it! It isn't just a women's body. There is a human being inside of her. It's illegal to murder any human being and nobody can argue that murder isn't wrong. So why are we killing little babies. You must have never seen or held a newborn baby if you think that it is okay to kill them. They can't even speak for themselves. It's just plain wrong. In the cases of rape, the woman does not need to keep the baby, she can put it up for adoption where it at least has a chance to live.
800 women die every day, according to the WHO, during childbirth. I'd think that we'd agree that the woman's life is more important than a bundle of infant stem cells.
When a woman is pregnant, her baby is NOT part of her body! Her body is nourishing her baby, and the baby has its own DNA, different from the mother's. Heck, her baby may even be a boy. For folks to say the baby is part of the mother's body is ludicrous. If any part of a woman's body is cut off, that severed part cannot survive on its own. If, however, the baby is removed from the mother's body, depending on the age of the little one, the baby can survive out of the mother's body, because it is a separate individual.
No one is arguing that chopping a woman's arm off from her body will allow that arm to live on its own.
DNA may be present inside of the organism that rests inside of the uterus, but my skin cells have DNA too. We're not going to make a law making it illegal to exfoliate.
But to make the argument that a baby's life begins at conception is just as, if not more, ludicrous than the idea that a baby is nothing more than a leech waiting inside of a uterus in order to reach the point of sustainable life. A zygote is VERY different than a human.
It you say. It? Tell that to my young daughter who traveled joyfully to the birthing center to deliver her first child, only to leave with empty arms! Why was it so hard for us to even breathe for a long time after her birth? You're telling me that a mere blob caused us broken hearts? Why did my daughter's full breasts, and an empty cradle cause us such devastation? Why is my daughter saving all her pennies to purchase a grave marker for her full term, seven pound - 9 ounce, still born daughter if she wasn't a human yet? What was the point of my daughter naming my first granddarling? What was the reason for us to take her tiny lifeless body to have her prepared for burial? What was the point of her memorial services? Why do we longingly visit her grave and decorate it? Why do we miss her at every holiday and birthday? Why do we miss her when we think of all the milestones we are missing with her? Why will we miss her for the rest of our lives? Are we really only shedding tears over a potential baby? Is our profound grief for just a blob of potentiality?
I appreciate your compassion for our family's profound loss of our treasured family member, the little girl we had many hopes and dreams for, the little flower whose valuable life we will forever mourn. How dare you dispute our reality?
Sorry if the truth hurts. If your argument was intended to refute what burnjuan said, it was complete shit since it relied entirely on the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion.
I can come up with a refutation to burnjuan's argument myself, it shouldn't be difficult for you to.
How dare I dispute your reality? Wtf are you talking about?
Your argument was a logical fallacy, an argument from emotion. Therefore invalid. Learn what a logical fallacy is, or choose not to and remain ignorant.
Are you even a person yet since your brain is not finished developing?
Straw man of my argument. It's abundantly clear that you do not care to debate me on my argument, but rather on a fictitious version that is clearly not my argument. When you want to debate my argument, at least address a point I actually wrote. Not some made up nonsense that you created to make me look stupid.
I get tired of hearing women say it's my body, my choice.
okay so you're a man
Well after you become pregnant it's NO longer just your body, your choice. What about your baby's body and choice
I'm sorry but uhh..."my baby"'s body is INSIDE my body. Remember, my house my rules. in this case MEN don't have a house so they should shut up sit down and let the WOMEN figure this out.
To those women that say it's my body, my choice, why is it fair you had a chance at life, but you refuse to afford your baby the same chance at life.
To the men that want to give their input on my life...STFU. this baby was conceived out of RAPE, INCEST, or will KILL ME if i have it... just think if that baby is born. i will hate it. because it will be a constant reminder of the wrongs that were done to me. then abuse will start. and that baby would wish s/he were dead! is that anyway for a child to live?
but honestly all that shit you said is IMMEDIATELY shut down by the simple fact that you are a man and should not get to chose what happens with a woman's body Bottom line!
What does that woman need to get pregnant, a man. Therefor a man has a right to say something about the woman aborting his child. Takes two to tango. Call me a butt hole all you want, but my job is to speak the Truth and try to punch holes in all this darkness. I would rather be called a butt hole than a coward, I call it how it is, murder is murder and when a woman has an abortion that is murder. I am a God pleaser not a man pleaser.
God's laws are HIGHER than mans, when He said thou shall not murder, then we need to listen to him. Not the justifications of man, using manipulation and words like fetus, tissue, blob to disguise what their actually doing, is killing a baby.
Again how is abortion the unlawful killing when it is legal? If god was against abortion wouldn't you think he would actually do something instead of sending his insane followers?
Slavery was once legal, just because it was doesn't make it right. This is a imperfect world, we have free will and clearly choose the wrong hand most of the time. When you don't follow Gods plan and design look how screwed up it can all get. My gosh murder is legal and it's happening at an alarming rate!
Slavery was lawful, does that make it right? Abortionists ripping babies limbs apart, crushing their skulls and sucking them up through a vacuum isn't malice?
If when two people have sex and a baby is formed by this, your're saying this organism isn't of human origin? Sounds like a bunch of ludicrous.
To everyone that calls it a cell, blob, fetus, baby, once something starts to live and you willfully stop making it live. This means you killed it. I don't see how hard this is to understand, murder is murder, killing is killing.
It's interesting that when a pregnant woman is murdered, no matter what stage the baby is at, if it perishes the murderer can be tried for a double murder. In that case, you tell me when life starts.
Great point. And that is only man's law. God's law is even higher than that.
It seems so odd to me that the worth of human life is entirely subjective. Whatever the individuals involved in it value, that is the bottom line. But that is, again, their viewpoint alone. They are playing God with something they have no right to do that with.
If you don't want to get pregnant, the time not to is BEFORE conception. Afterward, shoulder your responsibility and don't add murder to your list of sins all of us have..
Really like this point, I call it manning up, in the woman's case womanning up, if you do an action own up to it and shoulder your responsibility. Don't go hide behind a society that's saying it's o k to kill your very own flesh and blood. All the abortion system cares about is MONEY, and they couldn't care less about you or the pain your'e going to experience for the rest of your life. Think about all the birthdays, Christmases, camping trips, sleep overs, ect. Gone because you chose to kill your child, how sickening truly this is. PLEASE wake up people this is MURDER we are talking about!
Great point. however these kind of laws are highly selective. Tobacco is one of the more powerful aborticides, yet I am unware of any that pregnant women who smoke having been charged with manslaughter. By the way should an unborn child be counted in the census ?
This is because you have to assume the mother wanted to keep the baby. Also, this is more prejudice against murderers (which is ok in my opinion). While this is fun anecdote you can't compare the two. No body is going to argue against this "technical mistake". Prosecutors call this murder to bolster their case, but technically, it's not.
This is because you have to assume the mother wanted to keep the baby. Also, this is more prejudice against murderers (which is ok in my opinion). While this is fun anecdote you can't compare the two. No body is going to argue against this "technical mistake". Prosecutors call this murder to bolster their case, but technically, it's not.
Thats a good point. very good im actluy surprised at the argument thumbs up for that...but my counter is that that family was expecting a baby( even if they were thinking about abortion the law doesnt go that deep into you life so it doesnt matter) so in that situation Yes, it is double murder One life and one potential life.
Abortion proves not only bad for the woman's mental health, but also our society's mental health. when an abortion effects the state of the women's mental health, that in fact is going to effect the mental health of our society due to the number of abortions done each year. Think how many mentally unhealthy women we have in our society due to abortion. This will in fact spread to others that know them, come into contact with them and basically making us pretty mentally unhealthy society. So there proves another reason why it's not just the baby that suffers, it shows plenty others suffer after an abortion as well.
And... I'm not wild about it... but in the case of rape or the life of the mother I'm okay with it if it's done very early on, like only in the first trimester-ish.
Just trying to be a light in all this darkness. Murder is murder, no matter at the very beginning or the very end. When the abortion is done, does not change the fact that it is murder.
haha I have been told I should be a preacher, politician no, they lie to much. Lying is not my cup of tea. Yes I agree with murder being o k with the occasion to be self defense. However when murdering the innocent, that is not o k.
So what about when doctors take patients off life support...they were at the end of their life...and the doctors ended it...murder is murder right...WRONG
I agree with you on that point because yours makes sense. you should talk to the rest of the people on your side because their thinking of automaticly acusing the women of wrong doing is bull shit
abortion is wrong because you are taking away someones life and maybe that person could become sucssesful. also it's bad because you are acctually mrdering someone plus i dont think anyone in this life wants to get murderd but it's okay for the baby in ur stomach to ? i dont think that is right.
Ladies Motherhood starts at conception, it is your job to protect that precious baby growing inside you. Be strong when society treats you different, be strong when the man decides to leave, be strong when everyone else tells you to have the abortion. Listen to your conscience stand up and become the mother God intended you to be. Ladies, chose LIFE.
first on behalf of the Ladies, i would like to thank you. you should delete all of your other arguments because this one is the one that makes me think hmmm maybe he's not an ass hole. but anyways.
Ladies Motherhood starts at conception, it is your job to protect that precious baby growing inside you.
What if i don't want my job? it sounds harsh but just think if im willing to have an abortion for WHATEVR reason i obvoiusly dont think it to be that precious now do it?
Be strong when society treats you different
i do belive that society will treat me like im a frigin hero since ya know i didn't get an abortion (i know that that is not the case because nobody cares if i have an abortion. they say they do but nobody would ever know it was me that got one)
be strong when the man decides to leave
Fuck him im a strong independent black woman that dont need no man! haha jk (i mean i am but yeah)
We dehumanized the jews, we dehumanized the blacks, we dehumanized women and now we dehumanize the unborn. I wonder who's next...
The right to life is the most absolute fundamental good we have. Throughout history we've kept trying to justify the oppression and killing of other human beings by coming up with arbitrary criteria that excludes them from the right to life. Right now, that criteria is essentially the level of development.
Throughout history we've kept trying to justify the oppression and killing of other human beings by coming up with arbitrary criteria that excludes them from the right to life.
The arbitrary criteria throughout history are one thing, right now it's something different. It is no longer arbitrary. I believe the fetus is a person when the brain finally becomes sufficiently "wired" if you will, at roughly ~25 weeks.
The fetus is a separate person at conception, and as long as it keeps on growing with life in it.
No it's not. The fetus, up until roughly week 24, is not a person. It lacks all qualities of person hood. Those being:
Consciousness
Reasoning
Self motivated activity
Capacity to communicate, by whatever means
Presence of self concepts/self awareness
The woman is not going to give birth to anything else but a human being. Not a puppy, not a kitten, a human being.
It is not arbitrary, that is a fact.
The woman, if she waits 9 months, will give birth to a human being. Sometime between then and 9 months (usually around 23-24 weeks in my opinion) it becomes a human being. Until then it is just a fetus with human DNA. It lacks all qualities of person hood up until roughly week 23-24.
What does ''sufficiently wired'' actually mean? And why 25 weeks? Why not 25 weeks and 4 hours? Or 26 weeks? Accuracy is paramount here because inaccuracy may result in the death of your person.
By attributing the right to life to the functionality of a single organ cheapens and undermines the whole concept of this absolute right. I do not cease to be a human being simply because my brain is damaged, my brain dies or my brain gets removed or because my brain isn't developed enough. I may cease being a person, but to me personhood is irrelevant and yet another arbitrary criteria.
What does ''sufficiently wired'' actually mean? And why 25 weeks? Why not 25 weeks and 4 hours? Or 26 weeks? Accuracy is paramount here because inaccuracy may result in the death of your person.
You're being unnecessarily technical with this "why not 25 weeks and 4 hours" stuff. The basis of my argument is on the qualities of person hood. A human fetus needs to meet just one of these. They are as follows:
Consciousness
Reasoning
Self motivated activity
Capacity to communicate, by whatever means
Presence of self concepts/self awareness
As for the "why 25 weeks", it was an estimation on my part since I didn't feel like googling the page. This is what I meant by the brain becoming "wired". Here is a quote:
'From the twenty-second week to the twenty-fourth week, connections start to be established between the cortex and the thalamus, the part of the brain that translates thoughts into nervous-system commands. Fetal consciousness seems physically “impossible” before these connections form.' (Easterbrook G., Abortion and Brain Waves)
By attributing the right to life to the functionality of a single organ cheapens and undermines the whole concept of this absolute right.
Everything you are, is that single organ, the brain. You don't exist in your heart, not in your bicep, not in your fingernail. You exist in your brain, because of your brain. This is not "cheapening" of the concept of person hood and life.
I do not cease to be a human being simply because my brain is damaged, my brain dies or my brain gets removed or because my brain isn't developed enough
Damaged, of course not. Brain dies? Yes, you stop being a person. Brain gets removed? Well, in most if not all cases, that equals brain death, so yes you cease being a person. Brain being underdeveloped? As in mentally retarded? You're still a person.
I may cease being a person, but to me personhood is irrelevant and yet another arbitrary criteria.
Person hood is the entire issue at hand. If it is not a person, how is it "murder" ?
A human fetus needs to meet just one of these. They are as follows:
Consciousness
Reasoning
Self motivated activity
Capacity to communicate, by whatever means
Presence of self concepts/self awareness
Consciousness is the prerequisite for all the other personhood characteristics - reasoning presupposes a conscious agent ; self-motivated activity presupposes intent, therefore consciousness ; the capacity to communicate also presupposes intent, therefore consciousness. Any sound or gesture I make without the intent of communication is just that - a random sound or a random gesture with no meaning attached to it. ; Self-awareness also entails a consious agent and the presence of self concepts is an abstract philosophical idea that won't be present in newly borns, let alone fetuses and especially unconscious agents.
It would appear that consciousness is the only characteristic that actually matters. If the right to life is primarily attached to the functionality of my consciousness, the issue is rather simple - When I'm conscious, I have a right to life. When I'm unconscious, I do not have a right to life.
The only time I can be considered a person is when I'm fully awake and conscious. When I'm asleep, drugged or in a coma, I'm unconscious, therefore I'm not a person, therefore I no longer possess the rights attached to consciousness until I regain consciousness. This is the result of attaching conditional clauses to the right to life.
Since consciousness is an inherent quality (I either have it or I don't) - it needs to be defined in the present. Not in the past, not in the future. Just because I used to have consciousness - that doesn't mean that I have consciousness now. Parallelly, just because I will have consciousness in the future - that doesn't mean I have consciousness now. Therefore, the personhood criteria does exclude sleeping people, comatose people and drugged people.
Everything you are, is that single organ, the brain. You don't exist in your heart, not in your bicep, not in your fingernail. You exist in your brain, because of your brain. This is not "cheapening" of the concept of person hood and life.
Yes, I as a person, exist in my brain. But I am more than a person. I'm a part of something objective that trancends my personhood - I'm a human being. My personhood can be taken from me, but not my humanity. And to me, humanity is what qualifies me for my inalienable rights, not something frail and easily destroyable - such as my person, which is nothing more than a physical product of my brain.
I can stop being a person, but I cannot ever stop being a human being. This is why they're called Human Rights and not Person Rights - the former is objective and eternal, the latter is temporary and easily destroyable.
Person hood is the entire issue at hand. If it is not a person, how is it "murder" ?
The same way killing a sleeping human being is murder. Murder is the intentional termination of someone's life without their consent, right? Since we terminate the human being without their consent, isn't it murder by default?
The only time I can be considered a person is when I'm fully awake and conscious. When I'm asleep, drugged or in a coma, I'm unconscious, therefore I'm not a person, therefore I no longer possess the rights attached to consciousness until I regain consciousness. This is the result of attaching conditional clauses to the right to life.
No, this is not how it works. There is still sufficient mental activity in your brain, and since we know that people who are asleep or drugged generally do recover, there is no sense in "killing" them just because they were not externally conscious at this exact moment. Perhaps they are dreaming, or perhaps they are on a DMT drug trip. Only in the realm of coma's does it get tricky. The medical field already struggles with issues of ethics in this situation.
Therefore, the personhood criteria does exclude sleeping people, comatose people and drugged people.
It does not exclude sleeping, or drugged people. Like I said earlier, there is always activity in the brain (otherwise they would be brain dead, which is synonymous with death), and it is fairly likely that they could be dreaming or having a drug trip. And like I said before, the coma issue is tricky.
Yes, I as a person, exist in my brain. But I am more than a person. I'm a part of something objective that trancends my personhood - I'm a human being. My personhood can be taken from me, but not my humanity. And to me, humanity is what qualifies me for my inalienable rights, not something frail and easily destroyable - such as my person, which is nothing more than a physical product of my brain.
I disagree. If you were to cut out every single non essential to you, part of your body, you would end up with your brain. Let's say we put your brain in a robot. Is the robot "you" ? This is what you're saying with your body, it came with your brain. But you are not your body, you are your brain.
What you're saying is that if you were brain dead, and ceased being a person, you would still qualify for rights. This is ridiculous. If you cease being a person, your brain gets destroyed or something, you are no longer you. You cease to exist. Why do your human rights matter if there is no one home in your body?
I can stop being a person, but I cannot ever stop being a human being. This is why they're called Human Rights and not Person Rights - the former is objective and eternal, the latter is temporary and easily destroyable.
While you exist, you are both a person and a human being. But when you cease to exist, for example with brain death, how can you still be a human if you've stopped existing in the first place?
The same way killing a sleeping human being is murder. Murder is the intentional termination of someone's life without their consent, right? Since we terminate the human being without their consent, isn't it murder by default?
The entirety of your argument rested on a misinterpretation of person hood on your part. Sleeping humans are still people, as I explained above.
This whole discussion is about abortion, not the murder of full grown humans. In regards to a fetus less than roughly 24 weeks, it is not murder because it is not a person since it lacks all qualities of person hood.
It is the killing of something that is alive, but people do that everyday. When you take a shower, you kill thousands if not millions of cells. Same thing happened when you scraped your elbow as a child.
No, this is not how it works. There is still sufficient mental activity in your brain, and since we know that people who are asleep or drugged generally do recover, there is no sense in "killing" them just because they were not externally conscious at this exact moment. Perhaps they are dreaming, or perhaps they are on a DMT drug trip. Only in the realm of coma's does it get tricky. The medical field already struggles with issues of ethics in this situation.
Mental activity can also be that of unconscious nature. Consciousness by definition involves self-awareness and the ability to control your actions and to make willful decisions. To equate consciousness with ''sufficient mental activity'' is rather ambiguous, because the mind doesn't need to be in a conscious state at all for mental experiences to take place. In any case you are critically deviating from your personhood criterias in favor of more ambiguous characteristics. I may have dreams, but in no way am I conscious. Brain activity is a pre-condition to consciousness, not consciousness itself.
So, once again I'm forced to ask what you mean by ''sufficient mental activity'', because the term is quite vague. Does it mean electrical impulses in the brain? You said dreams - not all people dream every time they sleep, you know? Do those who do not dream not have sufficient mental activity?
Also, you said that there is no sense in killing sleeping people because we know they will generally recover - we can say the same for fetuses as well. We know that fetuses will ''recover'' after 9 months. But in any case - isn't that irrelevant? Just because they will recover their personhood in the future - that doesn't meant that they are persons now. Mark, you are one of the last persons I expected to invoke a form of the potentiality argument, which you continue to dismiss yourself. A drugged human's capability to regain their personhood in the future has no bearing on their present state.
It does not exclude sleeping, or drugged people. Like I said earlier, there is always activity in the brain (otherwise they would be brain dead, which is synonymous with death), and it is fairly likely that they could be dreaming or having a drug trip. And like I said before, the coma issue is tricky.
But activity in the brain does not mean that the subject is conscious, which was your proposed criteria. Are you abandoning your criteria of consciousness and the characteristics it spawns (reasoning, self-perception etc)?
Because if you do, personhood is no longer the criteria for the right to life - only brain activity is.
I disagree. If you were to cut out every single non essential to you, part of your body, you would end up with your brain. Let's say we put your brain in a robot. Is the robot "you" ? This is what you're saying with your body, it came with your brain. But you are not your body, you are your brain.
What you're saying is that if you were brain dead, and ceased being a person, you would still qualify for rights. This is ridiculous. If you cease being a person, your brain gets destroyed or something, you are no longer you. You cease to exist. Why do your human rights matter if there is no one home in your body?
We still attribute rights to dead people - the right to not have their corpse violated for example. But this is beside the point.
I am not my brain in the same way an engine is not a car. I am the person the brain arbitrarily spawns. It is not uncommon for people to lose their memory and become completely different persons with a different set of values, views and morals. While the person may change, the organism that spawned the person will always, in essence, remain the same - a human being.
Personness simply cannot be the default definitions for a human. If an A.I is ever created - does this mean that the presence of consciousness/personhood makes the A.I into a human being? It would appear not.
While you exist, you are both a person and a human being. But when you cease to exist, for example with brain death, how can you still be a human if you've stopped existing in the first place?
You are essentially saying that if I, as a human person , cease to function - then I also cease being a human being.
Imagine an arm - it is an appendage that has the function of picking things up, holding things, punching things etc etc. If that arm now sustains enough damage to be unable to do all these things - does it cease to be an arm? No, it doesn't - it merely becomes a broken arm. Just because it loses its functionality doesn't mean that it ceases to be an arm.
You however maintain that if my brain ceases to function - I cease being a human being. This is akin to saying that broken arm is no longer an arm. Or that a car without an engine is no longer a car - or better yet, an engine is a car.
The entirety of your argument rested on a misinterpretation of person hood on your part. Sleeping humans are still people, as I explained above.
But as we've found out, your criteria - sufficient mental/brain activity - has practically nothing to do with personhood at all. You have shifted away from consciousness, reasoning etc. to something even more vague and ambiguous.
This whole discussion is about abortion, not the murder of full grown humans. In regards to a fetus less than roughly 24 weeks, it is not murder because it is not a person since it lacks all qualities of person hood.
Well, according to you right now, personhood qualities are not necessary at all - only activity in the brain is necessary regardless whether the activity happnes in the conscious state or unconscious state.
It is the killing of something that is alive, but people do that everyday. When you take a shower, you kill thousands if not millions of cells. Same thing happened when you scraped your elbow as a child.
Except that abortion involves critical damage to the whole of the human in question whereas scraping my skin is quite neligible to my wholeness. A lot more damage is necessary in my case to be in equal proportion to that of the fetus.
Until one's frontal lobe has completed development, at age 25, one is not yet an adult. Until age 25, young people make irrational decisions. (They should definitely not vote). The way children are educated, being brainwashed by progressive propaganda, makes our society an exceedingly frightening and disturbing place. Most young folks are belligerent, arrogant, hateful, intolerant, rebellious anti-Christs with a sense of entitlement. Sadly, I am well-acquainted with such young people. To realize they will be the future leaders in our society is exceedingly sobering.
You can not lump younger ages like you are accurately. I see no reason why young people, if educated adequately (which you'll find is a few of us on Createdebate), should not vote in elections and things of the country.
Consider how 80% of 18-24 years olds voted for Obama. It is proof positive of the progressive brainwashing that takes place in our public institutions of lower learning. That coupled with their frontal lobes being under-developed, their lack of experience, knowledge and wisdom, their deficient education, their lack of suffering, their narcissism, their pride, their sense of entitlement, their rebelliousness, their ridiculous worship of Che, marijuana, booze, Hollywood, the pop music industry, pornography, promiscuity, fashion, etc. makes them unequipped to vote responsibly. Our anti-Jesus society has robbed them of necessary skills to serve others instead of themselves, and ensures they will act as know-it-alls with all the answers but none of the problems, when they are barely out of diapers.
Someone who has an abortion is either immature, selfish, uneducated or just plain cruel. It's like drinking, they want to drink but not deal with the hangover. They want to have sex and not deal with the baby that comes with sex. How selfish of someone to want to kill their own son/daughter. There are many disputes on which when the baby is actually a baby. That is not the point, the point is, when you have sex and get pregnant a child will come from that. Do yourself a favor and really think out the consequences of an abortion before blindly doing it. If you don't want the responsibility then give the baby up for adoption, that is what you owe your child. The right to life, make a stand for those that can't yet stand up for themselves.
Someone who has an abortion is either immature, selfish, uneducated or just plain cruel.
This is not true in every case. Do not make idiotic blanket statements like this.
They want to have sex and not deal with the baby that comes with sex.
It logically follows from this statement that sex should ONLY be performed when you want a baby. Sex for pleasure, prohibited. Sex for reproduction ONLY.
Do you hold these views?
How selfish of someone to want to kill their own son/daughter.
The thing is, it's not a person yet. Therefore, no harm done.
If you don't want the responsibility then give the baby up for adoption, that is what you owe your child.
It's not your choice to make. What if she doesn't want to go through giving birth to a child? It's her choice, not yours. You have no right to force her to continue a pregnancy. She should be able to abort the baby if she wants to.
The right to life, make a stand for those that can't yet stand up for themselves.
Up until ~25 weeks, they have no awareness or knowledge of their own existence. If they were aborted right there, they wouldn't know the difference.
Hey man there are ways around an abortion, no matter what happened they can choose life. Why don't you put yourself in the babies shoes that are aborted, then ask yourself would you like a chance at life? The baby might not be able to answer then, but down the road they sure can. I hold the views that sex out of wedlock is wrong, and when you are married of course I believe in being able to have sex with your partner for pleasure. However most females having abortions are very young and immature, they're in many ways unable to make a rash decision regarding abortion. Many that do have abortions regret it terribly, so it seems it's the wrong choice all around. I know I am glad my mom chose life, aren't you.
Why don't you put yourself in the babies shoes that are aborted, then ask yourself would you like a chance at life?
Because it doesn't matter! You are asking me this question while asking me to take hindsight into account. The baby would have no knowledge, no sentience, awareness, consciousness, ANYTHING. It wouldn't be capable of thinking that thought, so nothing would be lost. If I were aborted, i wouldn't be "sad" about it later. I would have no ability to be sad. I wouldn't have a brain.
The baby might not be able to answer then, but down the road they sure can.
That's what I've been saying. But what you don't understand though is that the "person" in this fetus does not exist yet. When I was a fetus, I as in the person I am did not exist.
Many that do have abortions regret it terribly, so it seems it's the wrong choice all around.
Whether its the right choice or the wrong choice, IT IS THEIR DECISION TO MAKE. Your beliefs do not justify you in making them into law. The constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Most views against abortion stem directly from religion.
I know I am glad my mom chose life, aren't you.
You are saying you are glad with hindsight in mind. If you had been aborted, you would not have noticed anything different. You wouldn't be all sad that your mom had aborted you, you wouldn't exist.
Just to clarify for the people that say there isn't proof of God's existence, here are some pretty solid proofs.
First, the non-existence of God cannot be proven. One cannot prove a universal negative. Alternatively, the existence of God is provable.
The concept, design, and intricate details of our world necessitate an intelligent designer.
Both direct and indirect evidence for God’s existence are well known and well documented. Nothing in history is better known or better documented than the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We even use the year of His birth as the basis for our calendar. He perfectly matched the over 100 unique Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament regarding His birth, life, death, and resurrection. The laws of probability cannot give us a reasonable explanation for either the Messianic predictions or the resurrection, let alone both by the same person.
Jesus’ miracles were witnessed by many and were documented redundantly for additional corroboration. He was seen by at least 500 people after His resurrection. He was seen ascending into heaven. His transfiguration was seen by Peter, James, and John. His wisdom in dealing with many circumstances was astounding. He never promoted Himself or His miracles. C. S. Lewis stated that He couldn’t have just been a good teacher. He was either a liar, lunatic, or Lord. He didn’t even come close to meeting the profile of a liar or lunatic, so He had to be God.
Jesus Christ also supported the truth of the Old Testament and quoted it many times. Consequently, with Jesus Christ, we have an eyewitness to the truth of the Old Testament. This gives credibility to the creation account and God’s interaction with man. The entire Old Testament account is about how God is trying to have a relationship with man while man is separating himself from God by sin. It tells how God is long-suffering and merciful and ultimately how God sent His Son to die for our sins so God could ultimately have a relationship with us.
God’s interaction with man in the Old Testament was often and powerful. Some of the main interactions included Adam, Cain, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, the Israelites, the prophets, and the kings. In addition to Jesus’ testimony to the truth of the Old Testament, ancient manuscripts, archaeology, and internal consistency also testify to its truth. Consequently, much direct evidence including eyewitness accounts and indirect evidence corroborate the existence of God and the truth of the Bible.
My point is to not start another debate inside this debate, just to give you some evidence of God's existence.
The concept, design, and intricate details of our world necessitate an intelligent designer.
False. Complexity does not indicate intelligent design. Intelligent design was never a reputable argument for god.
He perfectly matched the over 100 unique Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament regarding His birth, life, death, and resurrection.
Like what?
Jesus’ miracles were witnessed by many and were documented redundantly for additional corroboration. He was seen by at least 500 people after His resurrection. He was seen ascending into heaven. His transfiguration was seen by Peter, James, and John.
All irrelevant and invalid as proof of god. Eye witness testimony is not proof, nor is it good evidence. Personal testimony is notoriously unreliable.
This gives credibility to the creation account and God’s interaction with man.
No it doesn't.
Consequently, much direct evidence including eyewitness accounts and indirect evidence corroborate the existence of God
Like what? Eyewitness accounts are not good evidence, it's terrible evidence.
Creation points to a Creator, things just don't create themselves. If you went on a space ship ride to mars, saw there were buildings there, you would assume that someone or something designed them, then created them.
Read the Old Testament and find out. Go ask a Theologian, I am sure he would answer any of your questions.
IF you don't believe documents and peoples testimonies of his existence to be true, then clearly you must not believe in any History. So I guess George Washington didn't exist because all we have are historical evidence based off events and peoples encounters.
Creation points to a Creator, things just don't create themselves.
Does it now? Is that why world renowned physicists Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss both believe the universe self created itself?
Let's assume for a moment you're right, creation points to a creator. How do you know this creator is intelligent? What if it's just some inanimate universe creating existence? Kind of like how the Higgs Boson gives particles mass.
You are arrogant and lacking in knowledge to assert that the only possible explanation for the universe is god.
If you went on a space ship ride to mars, saw there were buildings there, you would assume that someone or something designed them, then created them.
Buildings are not analogous to universe creation. Sorry.
IF you don't believe documents and peoples testimonies of his existence to be true, then clearly you must not believe in any History. So I guess George Washington didn't exist because all we have are historical evidence based off events and peoples encounters.
This is a straw man argument, for this is clearly not my position. All you did was twist and distort my position to make it easy to make me look stupid. Congratulations on dishonest debate tactics.
Documents and personal testimonies of the supernatural events in the bible are going to require A LOT more evidence. The claims of George Washington's existence and the deeds he committed, none of them were supernatural shit like "washington once cast a spell and vaporized an entire army" or "washington summoned a tornado into battle and destroyed the british". If there was crazy shit like that about Washington, people wouldn't believe it.
Science supports the notion that the universe had a beginning and that something independent of the universe brought it into being. The well-accepted scientific belief in the universe's origination and expansion and the second law of thermodynamics (energy tends to spread out) support the universe's absolute beginning from nothing. This sounds remarkably like Genesis 1:1! The chances of a thing's popping into being from literally nothing are exactly zero. Being cannot come from non-being; there's no potential for this. Even skeptic David Hume called this "absurd" - a metaphysical impossibility.
Believers reject the claim, "Everything that exists has a cause" and affirm "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." To say "Everything needs a cause would necessarily exclude an uncaused God. This is "question-begging" (assuming what needs to be proved). It's like presuming that since all reality is physical (which can't be demonstrated), a nonphysical God cannot exist.
Why think everything needs a cause, since an uncaused entity is logical and intelligible? Through the centuries, many believed that the universe didn't need a cause; it was self-existent. They did not believe an uncaused universe was illogical or impossible. But now that contemporary cosmology points to the universe's beginning and an external cause, skeptics insist that everything needs a cause after all!
A good number of uncaused things exist. Logical laws are real; we can't think coherently without using them (e.g., the law of identity, X = X, tells you: "This book is this book"). Moral laws or virtues (love, justice) are real. But none of these began to exist. They are eternal and uncaused (being in God's mind).
The question "Who made God?" commits the category fallacy. To say that all things, even God, must be caused is incoherent - like the question "How does the color green taste?" Why fault God for being uncaused? when we rephrase the question to say, "What caused the self-existent uncaused Cause, who is by definition unmade, to exist?" the answer is obvious.
" The chances of a thing's popping into being from literally nothing are exactly zero. Being cannot come from non-being; there's no potential for this."
Science supports the notion that the universe had a beginning and that something independent of the universe brought it into being. The well-accepted scientific belief in the universe's origination and expansion and the second law of thermodynamics (energy tends to spread out) support the universe's absolute beginning from nothing. This sounds remarkably like Genesis 1:1! The chances of a thing's popping into being from literally nothing are exactly zero. Being cannot come from non-being; there's no potential for this. Even skeptic David Hume called this "absurd" - a metaphysical impossibility.
Believers reject the claim, "Everything that exists has a cause" and affirm "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." To say "Everything needs a cause would necessarily exclude an uncaused God. This is "question-begging" (assuming what needs to be proved). It's like presuming that since all reality is physical (which can't be demonstrated), a nonphysical God cannot exist.
Why think everything needs a cause, since an uncaused entity is logical and intelligible? Through the centuries, many believed that the universe didn't need a cause; it was self-existent. They did not believe an uncaused universe was illogical or impossible. But now that contemporary cosmology points to the universe's beginning and an external cause, skeptics insist that everything needs a cause after all!
A good number of uncaused things exist. Logical laws are real; we can't think coherently without using them (e.g., the law of identity, X = X, tells you: "This book is this book"). Moral laws or virtues (love, justice) are real. But none of these began to exist. They are eternal and uncaused (being in God's mind).
The question "Who made God?" commits the category fallacy. To say that all things, even God, must be caused is incoherent - like the question "How does the color green taste?" Why fault God for being uncaused? when we rephrase the question to say, "What caused the self-existent uncaused Cause, who is by definition unmade, to exist?" the answer is obvious.
Science supports the notion that the universe had a beginning and that something independent of the universe brought it into being. The well-accepted scientific belief in the universe's origination and expansion and the second law of thermodynamics (energy tends to spread out) support the universe's absolute beginning from nothing. This sounds remarkably like Genesis 1:1! The chances of a thing's popping into being from literally nothing are exactly zero. Being cannot come from non-being; there's no potential for this. Even skeptic David Hume called this "absurd" - a metaphysical impossibility.
Believers reject the claim, "Everything that exists has a cause" and affirm "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." To say "Everything needs a cause would necessarily exclude an uncaused God. This is "question-begging" (assuming what needs to be proved). It's like presuming that since all reality is physical (which can't be demonstrated), a nonphysical God cannot exist.
Why think everything needs a cause, since an uncaused entity is logical and intelligible? Through the centuries, many believed that the universe didn't need a cause; it was self-existent. They did not believe an uncaused universe was illogical or impossible. But now that contemporary cosmology points to the universe's beginning and an external cause, skeptics insist that everything needs a cause after all!
A good number of uncaused things exist. Logical laws are real; we can't think coherently without using them (e.g., the law of identity, X = X, tells you: "This book is this book"). Moral laws or virtues (love, justice) are real. But none of these began to exist. They are eternal and uncaused (being in God's mind).
The question "Who made God?" commits the category fallacy. To say that all things, even God, must be caused is incoherent - like the question "How does the color green taste?" Why fault God for being uncaused? when we rephrase the question to say, "What caused the self-existent uncaused Cause, who is by definition unmade, to exist?" the answer is obvious.
Nice copy and paste from If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?: 130 Arguments for Christian Faith.
I'm not answering this, since you didn't care enough to come up with your own argument. Hijacking someone else's argument, claiming it to be your own, is plagiarism.
No, you passed it off as your own, as evidenced by the fact that you had no disclaimer.
If you had no intention of plagiarizing, you need to disclose who your source is and what you're quoting. You did neither, so you passed it off as your own.
Because they are world renowned physicists and both believe the same thing, makes it credible?
Hawking also said that there is a such thing as made up time, so instead of acknowledging the possibility there is a God he's making things up now. What outstanding proof that is. I know this creator to be intelligent because look at the creation. There is no way something or someone could create such a complex and fine tuned planet, being unintelligent.
Ok say you saw a well groomed vegetable garden on mars, would you assume it just got there? Or someone/something created it?
Ok let me get this straight, in your opinion just because Jesus committed miraculous acts proves He's not credible? So because Washington didn't commit any miraculous signs proves he is. People went to there deaths saying it to be true about seeing Jesus. If Jesus didn't exist and was just a myth why then did so many people give their lives to say he did exist. What person do you know would die for a myth?
If you are interested in more proof than what I can give, please watch some God debates, like William Lane Craig VS Christopher Hitches, or Dinesh D'souza VS Dan Barker. Theists vs atheists.
Because they are world renowned physicists and both believe the same thing, makes it credible?
It does not. It just shows you that there are more possibilities than just "god is the only answer to the creation of the universe".
Hawking also said that there is a such thing as made up time, so instead of acknowledging the possibility there is a God he's making things up now.
He doesn't acknowledge God because there is no evidence for God.
I know this creator to be intelligent because look at the creation. There is no way something or someone could create such a complex and fine tuned planet, being unintelligent.
Intelligent design is not a valid argument. This is just an argument from incredulity. "Because I can think of no other way for it to happen, it had to be god!" Is that what your thought process has been reduced to? "I don't know, therefore GOD!" That's all you're saying. I don't know how everything is so perfectly fine tuned, therefore god!
You don't "know" this creator to be intelligent, you don't know if there even is a creator. You believe it, because it makes you feel special inside. It' all wishful thinking on your part.
Ok say you saw a well groomed vegetable garden on mars, would you assume it just got there? Or someone/something created it?
Are you really this stupid? Well groomed vegetable gardens on Mars are NOT analogous to universe creation. I already said this premise earlier.
Ok let me get this straight, in your opinion just because Jesus committed miraculous acts proves He's not credible?
What?? I didn't say that. I said Jesus existed, but he did not perform any supernatural miracles or do anything supernatural. He was a normal person, like you or I who gathered a following.
If Jesus didn't exist and was just a myth why then did so many people give their lives to say he did exist. What person do you know would die for a myth?
A person who is deceived. They believe the myth to be true.
If you are interested in more proof than what I can give, please watch some God debates, like William Lane Craig VS Christopher Hitches, or Dinesh D'souza VS Dan Barker. Theists vs atheists.
I have watched plenty. I am not new to this subject.
Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood."
This is a verse in the Bible that states that it is false. Christians strongly believe that the Bible is the true word of God and there isn't a single lie in it. So this leaves the question, is the Bible false or is Jeremiah?
Respond to this profile. Blah123 was one I made after I had forgotten my original info.
The ENTIRE Bible is not completely reliable. It is full of contradictions and man-made stories. Do you believe that Moses parted the Red Sea? The actual journey took 40 years. How about the story of Noah? Two of every species on one boat. The Bible gives the size of the boat too. It isn't nearly large enough to hold two of every species. Did you know that God sent the flood because Angels were interbreeding with humans? How about the story of Adam and Eve? God said "on the day you eat from the tree, you shall surely die" but the Bible later mentions that they lived to be 930 years old and so did their kids, even Noah lived for hundreds of years. How about the Tower of Babel story? You must know that different languages didn't begin like that. The gospels themselves have contradictions. One says Jesus taught for one year, while another says he taught for three.
My point is that the Bible is not completely accurate. The Bible was passed down orally for many years before it was written.
Nope, thanks for trying to help me out there, Markie pooh
I feel special.
but I meant to write George.
But God/Jesus Christ fits the sentence perfectly. George, not so much, since we all know George Washington was a real person who didn't do some stupid ass crazy supernatural shit, which the bible claims Jesus did.
There is more than one miraculous story about God's intervention in General George Washington's life! Here is one:
Seriously? This is what qualifies as irrefutable proof of god's intervention? I'm gonna have to call a non sequitur. Conclusion does not follow. Try again.
"Jesus’ miracles were witnessed by many and were documented redundantly for additional corroboration. He was seen by at least 500 people after His resurrection. He was seen ascending into heaven. His transfiguration was seen by Peter, James, and John.
All irrelevant and invalid as proof of god. Eye witness testimony is not proof, nor is it good evidence. Personal testimony is notoriously unreliable."
You are just like the pharisees and the teacher of law during the time of Jesus. We give you proof and testimony that there is a God, yet you say that they are unreliable. We don't give you proof and testimony and you say that there is no proof and evident of the existence of God.
What makes your life so sad that you must spew forth venom directed at Christians? If you sought God, you would find Him, for He would make Himself known to you. Instead of living for God and others, you would rather live selfishly. You want no accountability; you want to feel no pain that comes with shame; you desire free love, and disregard the reality of an afterlife due to knowing where you would go after living a life of sin here. As Jesus said, "Repent and believe."
If you sought God, you would find Him, for He would make Himself known to you.
I guess you missed the part where I was catholic for 18 years. I have sought God before, problem is he doesn't exist. Same goes for your imaginary friend, fairies, the devil, ghosts, demons, leprechauns, vampires, etc.
Instead of living for God and others, you would rather live selfishly.
You know nothing about me, how do you know I live selfishly? I do not believe god exists, for there is no evidence that he does. I live for myself and others, I do not live for god.
You want no accountability
Statements like this are idiotic. You can't claim to know what I want. I am accountable for everything that I do. I have responsibilities, and there are consequences to my actions. I am perfectly acquainted with accountability.
you want to feel no pain that comes with shame;
Shame for what?
you desire free love, and disregard the reality of an afterlife due to knowing where you would go after living a life of sin here
There isn't any evidence that an afterlife exists. So you claiming that it is a reality is arrogant and ignorant of you to claim something that you could not possibly know.
I do not believe hell exists, nor have I lived my life immorally. I believe that if god exists, he will judge me by how good of a person I am. Not about whether or not I believe in his existence.
If he cares more about me believing in him, than the qualify of my character, then he is not a benevolent god.
lol, really? That's your response? After I tear apart every aspect of your argument, you're not grasping for straws?
Jesus almost certainly doesn't exist. He died 2000 years ago, he was a normal person like you or me.
Perhaps you should open up your mind and look at what the opposition says, instead of gladly committing confirmation bias each and every day of your life.
Mark, you say you live for others. Is delving into the hideous, diabolical industry of pornography living for others? There is absolutely NOTHING funny about porn! It destroys lives!
Is delving into the hideous, diabolical industry of pornography living for others?
There isn't anything inherently evil about the porn industry. I'm also curious why you're accusing me of being some type of employee of the porn industry.
There is absolutely NOTHING funny about porn! It destroys lives!
Nonsense, porn doesn't destroy lives. Fast food has caused more harm than the porn industry.
I didn't accuse you of working for the diabolical porn industry. I said you make a practice of delving into it for your own pleasure. PORN DESTROYS LIVES IN A MYRIAD OF WAYS! Exemplary Josh McDowell can educate you on this topic. Get your head out of the sand on this crucial topic, as you zip your pants back up. The accessibility of porn afforded by the Internet has completely transformed our nation. Maranatha!
Works of art to be ogled at, women are not. Made of flesh and blood, they have feelings, aspirations, and dreams. Our society evaluates the sexual attractiveness of women by creating uncommon, unearthly standards of beauty, causing many to consider they are inferior. We all suffer when women are dishonored by allowing themselves to become immodest slabs of meat on display for all to enjoy. Wives, girlfriends, mothers, sisters, and daughters are wounded when significant males in their lives view nude bodies of indiscriminate women. Males become mesmerized with the so-called ideal specimens, who do not nag or have any expectations of them, who appear to stare longingly back and desire them from screens or glossy, airbrushed pages. Creating fantasy worlds for men, these models cause divisions between men and the women who truly care for them. Not to mention, sex trafficking and child pornography. And folks wonder from whence comes disrespect for, neglect of, and violence directed at women?
It teaches little boys that females are less than they, simply objects to be used for their pleasure. Once a man becomes addicted to porn, for it to continue satisfying, it necessarily leads to kinkier and kinkier places. Men masturbate while viewing porn, and it causes them to prefer that to healthy sexual relations with their wives. Porn is addictive behaviour that robs wives and children of their husband's/father's time, finances and attention. Porn is the leading cause of divorce. Consider the evil of sex trafficking and child porn. Consider how the consumption of porn led Ted Bundy to become a serial killer.
How we spend our time shapes who we are, and how we build the persons we are is cause for social concern. At all times we must ask ourselves whether what we are doing is loving or wise. Are we putting the needs and feelings of others above our own, or is the pursuit of our own pleasure the measure of our lives?
Mark, I ask you, do you believe porn destroys lives, or are you still a doubter even when faced with the facts? What rock have you been living under? Oh, that's right, you're barely out of diapers.
I do not consider myself an immoral or evil person. You have no independent way of verifying my character though, so you are forced to either take my word or believe otherwise.
Can I be a better person? Of course, I am always working on improving myself. I never once said I was perfect and needed no improvement.
Everyone should want to do that for the betterment of society, for a much healthier society. If you cared for someone other than yourself, you would comprehend this. Your narcissism is blatantly obvious, sick and exceedingly harmful.
Folks, get real, the main reason you all are pro-death is that you don't want your plans for free love spoiled. Am I right? Am I right? Am I right, right right?
You must be completely delusional. Nobody is pro death here.
People in the opposition oppose the restriction of womans rights. Nor do we consider it "murder". And it is not an arbitrary definition of who is and who is not a person. It is scientifically validated based on studies of the brain, fetal development, cognition, and fetal viability.
Abortion stops a beating heart, Mark. That is murderous. So what if those in the opposition here do not consider abortion to be murder. It is murder whether or not you believe it to be.
"the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law."
Now, when an abortion takes place, the cells that are killed are not a human being. It makes no mention of stopping a heart. Furthermore, a baby's heart starts beating from 5-6 weeks after conception, so abortion does not necessarily stop a beating heart. Under the definition, it cannot be murder. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
according to me... abortion is the worst technique formed by man... its goin against the working nature or a human being... u hav no right to kill anyone juss because u had fun few months back...!! bt still, in india atleast, most of the girl child is droped by her own parents...!! wht the hell...!!
The biggest argument for most Pro-Choice supporters is that "Who are we to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies". Which for arguments sake is a very good point. However most Pro-Choice supporters, myself included, being against abortion is not about taking away a woman's right. It is about the fact that while people are here fighting for the right of women and their body they are forgetting about a child and their right to their body. I am against abortion, not because of religion but because I believe that every life has value. The majority of abortions are the result of drunken mistakes. People in my generation (I'm 18) are having sex and getting pregnant younger and younger. There are kids at 15 having kids! Many in which who are too young to live on their own are now bringing in new life and instead of either giving the child to families who can't have their own or buckle down and accept their responsibility they kill the child off. they take what could have been a person and kill it before the ultrasound can show a face (that way they can still sleep at night!) I mean I love meat but i don't want to see the face of the cow I'm chomping into and the same rule applies to abortion. People only have the Third trimester law because they don't want to see the face of the child they're killing. Which should tell us that abortion is wrong. It is a way to get rid of the unwanted.
I'm sick of people saying that its their body and their choice. It was their choice to have sex and have the possibility to get pregnant. Abortion is wrong because you are not giving that baby a chance to live life. You are harming another human being.
What if it wasn't their choice to have sex, it is not considered a human being till it is born. It is called a fetice, I do think that most women do use it as birth control and we do need to make better laws. But never judge a women for getting a abortion it was obviously there choice and you don't know their story.
Why do you feel the need to kill children. There are thousands of couples who can not get a baby but want one. And for you to not only deny them a child but to kill it out of hate is wrong. Using words like fetus doesn't justify what you want to do. Why does only a mother have a choice? Why can't a the baby decide weather he/she wants to live or die.
Some of you may be saying, "well a baby can't decide." And you would be right. But we shouldn't have the power to decide who lives and who dies. That child could become the next pope, president, or other important figure. That child could also very well be a drug dealer, user, or criminal. Your not even giving the baby a chance to experience or choose there life, and for what so the mother can feel good knowing that her child is dead. I think abortion is morally and lawfully wrong.
And that is a terrible thing but that doesn't give people the right to kill children. We also have orphanages that take care of the children so I see no need to kill innocent children.
It's obvious which opinion is the winning one here and if a vote were to take place the argument against abortion would be put into law! It's evidential just by looking at the chart information on this debate... Clearly the side for against abortion has nearly 40 more arguments thus the point race on our side is made up of 40 less bias votes. The charts clearly demonstrate that the side for abortion is lacking in arguments most likely because they have been disputed and there's nothing left to say so the only way they can keep it a tight debate is continual bias up voting on less arguments that they have given up defending. I say we won and we're right by majority... Sucks to be you abortionists!
It isn't unlawful based on the judgment of politicians who seek power and re-elections but if subjected to a populous vote from the country... It wouldn't even come close to passing... It's a joke to even think about!
No matter the circumstanses, abortion is a tradgic circumstance. While that does not necessarily mean is should be outlawed, it definately should not be encouraged.
Happy Thanksgiving from The Heritage Foundation! As we celebrate and give thanks today, we invite you to read President Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation below.
The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they can not fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.
In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict, while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.
Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well as the iron and coal as of our precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battlefield, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.
No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.
It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.
And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the imposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the divine purpose, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union.
Forgetting the holy; The Feast of the Intransitive Verb
Published Thursday, November 25, 1999.
By Kevin "Seamus" Hasson
Every fourth Thursday in November work and school are canceled so that families can gather together for the day and thank - well, we'll get to just who it is they may be thanking in a minute. They also enjoy good food, good company and good football. The holiday is currently called Thanksgiving, although there is reason to think that may have to change.
Just about every other religious holiday has been stripped of its original meaning and transformed into a more secular version of its former self. Why should Thanksgiving be any different? In Pittsburgh, Christmas and Hanukkah morphed into "Sparkle Season" and then disintegrated further into "Downtown Pittsburgh Sparkles." Public school systems across the country are renaming the Easter Bunny the "Special Bunny." Even Halloween is being transformed out of concern for its rampant religiosity. In many places it is now the "Fall Festival Celebration." Surely Thanksgiving, a state-sanctioned holiday that purports to give the nation a day to thank God, cannot withstand the small, furious army of radical secularists determined to take the "holy" out of our holidays. A day set aside to thank God can hardly be appropriate when the celebration of Christmas, Hanukkah and even Halloween has become taboo. Something will have to be done.
So I have a modest proposal: Let's practice truth-in-labeling and call the November holiday that was formerly Thanksgiving, "The Feast of the Intransitive Verb." Intransitive verbs, as we all remember from those unpleasant days of diagramming sentences in grammar school, are verbs that do not require an object. Verbs in sentences like "The horse ran" and "The wind blows" are intransitive because the horse doesn't have to run anything or the wind blow anything. They can simply run and blow without any object at all. Well, what about the verb "to thank"? It's supposed to have an object. You can't just sit there and "thank." You have to thank someone. Which is why secularists don't use that word much in late November anymore. Their creed requires them to celebrate the day by being grateful while thanking no one. And it's embarrassing to have to choose between being politically and grammatically correct. So secularists prefer the circumlocution "to give thanks." It doesn't require an object. You can get away with "giving thanks" without having to be grateful to anyone in particular. It's much more comfortable that way. Thank whomever you want. Or, don't thank anyone; it's entirely up to you. Either way you can still "give thanks." That's the beauty of using an intransitive verb; it doesn't need any object.
Of course, once the object of our gratitude is out of the way it's all downhill. The rest of the day is uncommonly easy to secularize. It has none of the outward trappings of a religious holiday. There are no babes in mangers or symbolic candles to remove from courthouse steps. No one is ringing church bells that require silencing or allowing children to hunt for eggs that must be renamed. The staples of Thanksgiving - turkeys, cornucopias and pumpkin pies - in and of themselves present no real threat to the secularist ascendancy. And the football games are an absolute godsend (so to speak) for secularists. After all, the more distracted we all are the easier it is to forget about the one to whom we owe gratitude.
So let's hear it for the Feast of the Intransitive Verb. It's a worthy companion to "Sparkle Season" (formerly known as Christmas), "Special Person Day" (previously St. Valentine's Day), and the "Spring Festival," which was once Easter. Of course, if all this isn't agreeable to you, if it all seems just a little bit extreme, or even if you're just worried that turkey and cranberries may never taste the same again, you could always
be a thumb in the eye of the radical secularists. You could insist on thanking God, and not settle for
generically "giving thanks." You could tell your neighbors that you're grateful to God for all He's done for
you. You could even go so far as to tell your children to do the same - to make sure that amidst all the
construction paper turkeys they fashion in school they get the message across that they, too, are thanking
God.
Defending the public integrity of our holidays is not just petulance. Cultures are built, and eroded, by a
succession of public acts both great and small. Everything from the arts we exhibit to the table manners we
display makes a difference in building up or wearing down our culture. Public holiday celebrations are
particularly potent engines of culture - which is why the secularists have poured so much energy into
changing ours. Pittsburgh's "sparkle season," for example, has done great damage, not only to Christmas in
Pennsylvania, but to our culture nationally. But the fight is far from over. So this weekend enlist in the
culture war and thank God.
Kevin J. “Seamus” Hasson is the president emeritus of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
"Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be - That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks - for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation - for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war - for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed - for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted - for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us."
Think about the mother, she gave life to her child. As well as HER mother gave life. Imagine that decided to abort her daughter (That would one day be the daughter that would have THE child). Then, there would be no life. You need to go through the hardships.
"There is absolutely no way to justify that horrific 'procedure' that then cuts the back of the head that was partially delivered and the brains were scrambled using stainless steel instruments, and evacuated with a suction. This is clearly murder. This is clearly unlike the usual practice of medicine."
Abortion is wrong! If a person is pronounced dead when the heart stops beating why aren't we pronounced alive when it starts? Your mother didn't get rid of you so why do you have the right to get rid of someone? You made the mistake of having an intercourse you need to deal with the consequences! If someone raped you then you can always give that child up for adoption. The only time abortion should be okay is when the child could have a disability or when it could kill the mother, the child, or both!
We are all human beings and we have all lived our lives thinking that murder is wrong and we should not kill unless someone is endangering our lives. Then why are we killing a human that is already inside of us, why is this not considered murder. It is not going to kill us, we owe a duty to these people already inside of us. We should not kill someone that is already alive.
I would forever stay with my opinion that abortion is wrong. No one has the right to stop a child from coming into this world and experiencing it like we did. Not even its mother! It is basically the same as murdering another human being. Along with that, the mother could die or never give birth again, if it's not done properly which I would think would be the right punishment for that mother. Sorry to sound so judging.
This may have been said. What I do not understand with these women who can have healthy babies, but want to terminate a pregnancy, is why they cannot give birth to these children and give them up for adoption. There are so many people who are not fortunate to have healthy babies or babies at all. They would be so privilege and happy to have these babies. It is a total waste of precious life, I just don't understand this. New York perform over 80,000 abortions last year. A late term abortion would be much worse :(
Can we realistically hold this misguided fourteen year old child responsible for her pathetic act when our culture does not afford dignity to human life? How convoluted is this thinking? Our illustrious president adamantly opposes protection for an aborted baby who survives the attempt to end her/his life. He has no problem with the defenseless infant lying there alone, on a blue pad, struggling for every breath. Why is this fourteen year old girl's baby's life deemed more significant than those defenseless babies allowed to suffer to death, unattended? Cassidy's baby was unwanted too. At what precise moment did her baby's life become valuable? How is it legally permissible, in 2012 in the United States of America, for females to have the precious little lives developing inside of them to be diabolically ripped from their nurturing, safe havens. Casey Anthony, remember her, desired an abortion when she was pregnant with Caylee, but her mother, Cindy Anthony, would not allow it. That action would have been accepted by our murderous society. However, when Casey killed Caylee at age two, she was locked up. At what precise moment did Caylee's worthless life suddenly become valuable? At what point was it suddenly not OK to consider killing her anymore? This fourteen year old Florida teen, Cassidy, is a mere child. The frontal lobe of her brain has not yet finished developing. All children make bad decisions, don't they? Did her parents have the right to be informed of the life growing within their daughter's womb? Aren't they responsible to help her formulate right beliefs and correct thinking. That's what conservatives believe. Progressives differ by saying conservatives have no right to indoctrinate their offspring into their narrow way of thinking. Wait a minute, how can they deny them this when, while also saying, everyone needs to be accepted for what they deem right for themselves. According to our present culture that says everything is relative, how could she or her parents be held accountable for her act? I have no doubt many all-wise progressives have said as much though. Again, convoluted thinking much? In my view, it does sound as if Cassidy's parents need to be held accountable for blatant neglect of their child. After all, she is a small girl and her baby boy weighed over nine pounds. How could they miss her bump? According to our postmodern culture, it was their right to neglect her, so we must tolerate it. In a similar situation, it might not be what we deem right for us. We need to accept that what is right for us may not be right for someone else, and that's just the way it has become in our common-sense-is-not-common-anymore society. In a society that says there is no truth, no right and wrong, how could Cassidy be charged with the first degree murder of her newborn baby? As much as tolerance is touted from the rooftops across our nation, aren't we expected to tolerate her decision? In a sense, Cassidy simply took the scissors from an abortionist's hands to use them herself.
Can we realistically hold this misguided fourteen year old child responsible for her pathetic act when our culture does not afford dignity to human life?
EXCUSE ME? SHE KILLED A LIVING BREATHING HUMAN BEING. The fucker even made sure the baby was alive and conscious before strangling it! THAT is fucked up. You intend to pardon her yet play the whole "abortion is murder!" card? Not going to happen.
-
Our illustrious president adamantly opposes protection for an aborted baby who survives the attempt to end her/his life. He has no problem with the defenseless infant lying there alone, on a blue pad, struggling for every breath.
This is both unrelated and not backed up. Please try again. Nice play on imagery to try an invoke an image of something completely unfounded. Are you trying to suggest Obama goes to the local abortion clinic and just looks apathetically at dead babies? AND I THOUGHT I WAS AN ABSURDIST.
-
Why is this fourteen year old girl's baby's life deemed more significant than those defenseless babies allowed to suffer to death, unattended? Cassidy's baby was unwanted too. At what precise moment did her baby's life become valuable?
Because that baby is just that, a baby. A living helpless compositionally independent cognitive cradle of human. Her ability to detach from her child is a psychological abnormality that is related to the psychosis of killers of any other sort. It is a complete removal of the ability to have affectionate bonding. They are in likeness. The baby's life should have become valuable to the mother at some point. Because it didn't, she killed it. We experience grief and anger out of our own understanding, and of internalization of the lack of affectionate bonding. She is not fit to be a mother, and should have had an abortion and saved the child the ability to cognitively process the pain and death. That would have been more humane.
-
How is it legally permissible, in 2012 in the United States of America, for females to have the precious little lives developing inside of them to be diabolically ripped from their nurturing, safe havens.
Another visual to circumnavigate the reality of the situation, that a fetus is not living, cannot feel "safe", nor is able to oppose or favor any situation? How cute.
-
Casey Anthony, remember her, desired an abortion when she was pregnant with Caylee, but her mother, Cindy Anthony, would not allow it. That action would have been accepted by our murderous society. However, when Casey killed Caylee at age two, she was locked up. At what precise moment did Caylee's worthless life suddenly become valuable? At what point was it suddenly not OK to consider killing her anymore?
Same shit different sentences, miss. And again MAYBE CASEY ANTHONY SHOULD'VE HAD AN ABORTION AND SPARED CAYLEE FROM A CONSCIOUS DEATH. Your fear of death is tribute to being aware of what it is to live.
-
This fourteen year old Florida teen, Cassidy, is a mere child. The frontal lobe of her brain has not yet finished developing. All children make bad decisions, don't they?
Fourteen year olds don't go around suffocating babies last I checked. And those that do, or do so to animals or harm people, are fucked up and grow up to be the people we know as mass serial psychopathic killers. Thanks for sympathizing with a real baby killer.
-
Did her parents have the right to be informed of the life growing within their daughter's womb? Aren't they responsible to help her formulate right beliefs and correct thinking. That's what conservatives believe.
Irrelevant, unless you thought it wrong that they denied her an abortion. In that case, you are on the wrong side of the debate and must attribute everything you've posted prior and after as a lie.
-
Progressives differ by saying conservatives have no right to indoctrinate their offspring into their narrow way of thinking. Wait a minute, how can they deny them this when, while also saying, everyone needs to be accepted for what they deem right for themselves. According to our present culture that says everything is relative, how could she or her parents be held accountable for her act? I have no doubt many all-wise progressives have said as much though. Again, convoluted thinking much?
This is becoming political why? Oh yeah because this is a pasted rant you had on your website. Again it dilutes your argument with distractions, and again pries on predesignated beliefs to be favored by the party of your choice about this subject. And I'll have you know, Liberal or Conservative, no two people parent the same. You are stereotyping. Your general misunderstanding of the concept of relativism is astonishing. Relatively her mother should have seen her as unstable and acted upon it unless relatively to a third party, their both batshit, which seems to be the case.
-
In my view, it does sound as if Cassidy's parents need to be held accountable for blatant neglect of their child. After all, she is a small girl and her baby boy weighed over nine pounds. How could they miss her bump?
Let's give you that they're dreadful parents; because they are. Does that forgive Cassidey's actions? No. She is the one whom killed the child.
-
According to our postmodern culture, it was their right to neglect her, so we must tolerate it. In a similar situation, it might not be what we deem right for us.
This statement is very filler and bullshit. your views on society have nothing to do with this. If society is telling these parents how to act, they're not good parents, regardless of what -society says.
-
We need to accept that what is right for us may not be right for someone else, and that's just the way it has become in our common-sense-is-not-common-anymore society.
Like abortion?
-
In a society that says there is no truth, no right and wrong, how could Cassidy be charged with the first degree murder of her newborn baby?
Again no one is saying there is no right or wrong. Relativity isn't the disregard for right and wrong, that's Nihilism. She murdered the fucking baby, she deserves to be charged.
-
As much as tolerance is touted from the rooftops across our nation, aren't we expected to tolerate her decision? In a sense, Cassidy simply took the scissors from an abortionist's hands to use them herself.
OH MY LANTA we have been over this already. If an abortion is merely murder, than let's just murder all the kids and get this damn argument out of existence! Hope you can take a joke,
If I want to copy and paste my own essay that addresses the topic of abortion here, I will! Who are you to tell me my argument is invalid? You are barely out of diapers, with an under-developed frontal lobe at that! There's a greater chance I'll listen to you after you turn 25, as well as after you have endured great suffering.
If I want to copy and paste my own essay that addresses the topic of abortion here, I will!
Great way to circumnavigate the entirety of my post. It's lazy, and it's contents look sloppy in relation to the topic of the debate, of which has nothing to do with politics or the president.
Who are you to tell me my argument is invalid?
A debater. Welcome to CreateDebate.
You are barely out of diapers, with an under-developed frontal lobe at that!
Let me get this straight... my opinion doesn't matter because I am younger than yourself? I am somehow less of a person than yourself based off my age? Well let's assume that's true; that'd mean there is a linear growth pattern between age and validity/importance of argument. This is to say that the eldest are most considerable, even when senile, and unborn fetuses are the least. So why is abortion wrong again? If my argument is less valuable on account of my age, an unborn fetus, by deduction, has the least validity; and, being as such a fetus cannot even form words or thoughts, it cannot provide any considerable argument that it deserves to live, wants to live, or is living. And even if it did, according to your ageist bullshit, it's argument would be null.
There's a greater chance I'll listen to you after you turn 25, as well as after you have endured great suffering.
When is the last time you were 21 in 2012? You have no rational way of comparing your situation to my own. We live in completely different times. And of suffering, you are presumptuous and pompous about it, as though you HAVE suffered, and that thereby you are more deserving an opinion on abortion than myself. The only case in which this could even be remotely true is by related experience, as if you were aborted, and clearly you weren't.
My essay is completely relevant to this topic, young prideful one.
I will reiterate, until you have gained wisdom with age and experience, I will not listen to you, for you have all of the answers but none of the problems. With suffering comes a tenderness of heart that you have yet to develop. Clearly you have not suffered much.
A child of fourteen knows right from wrong and should be tried as that... Your telling me if a fourteen year old held a gun to my head and pulled the trigger that they shouldn't be held accountable?? That's BS ... If you know you could end a life and do it anyway your guilty!
I'm sorry but anyone who uses the Daily Mail to support their argument needs disputing, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you obviously are not British but in the UK the Daily Mail is famous for being a right wing reactionary, bigoted "newspaper" better suited for scaremongering rather than reporting proper news. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously it would be best to use another source as the Mail is less than unreliable.
Would you feel comfortable comparing the Daily Mail to Fox News in the US?
Fox News in the US is casually known as the most right wing lunatic news channel. Strongly republican/conservative. Hate opposing opinions. "He's a LIBERAL!" seems to be a favorite phrase among these types.
Fox News is not filled with false, hate-opposing opinions. It is more factual than the progressive media sources. Conservatives need their own reliable news sources because we cannot believe the venomous lies being touted from the progressive, anti-Christ crowd. Contrary to what has been taught about conservatives for decades, we are not lacking in intelligence, awareness or knowledge.
The abortion industry in America is nothing but a tool to keep the black population in check.
The founder of Planned Parenthood,Margaret Sanger,was a white supremacist who advocated the forced sterilization of blacks,jews,and the handicapped.Planned Parenthood targets black women for abortions. If you are into racial genocide,then Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry are just your cup of tea.
how can u be for abortion. that is taking away rights from a child who isnt even born yet. they are living inside of you! that is the cruelest thing u could ever do to a child. its not their mistake that your pregnant, its yours. so if u dont want the baby, dont kill it, put the poor thing up for adoption cuz if u even consider putting a baby up for abortion, you dont even deserve to have them. how could you do that to someone. they have as much right to live as you do.
how can u be for abortion. that is taking away rights from a child who isnt even born yet. they are living inside of you! that is the cruelest thing u could ever do to a child. its not their mistake that your pregnant, its yours. so if u dont want the baby, dont kill it, put the poor thing up for adoption cuz if u even consider putting a baby up for abortion, you dont even deserve to have them. how could you do that to someone. they have as much right to live as you do.
So if someone's raped, they should be forced to endure 9 months of pain and emotional trauma because of a situation they had no control over? That's ridiculous, and harmful. It's incredibly selfish to insinuate someone should have to endure near a year's worth of pain and suffering because of someone else's mistake.
An abortion always causes psychological trauma to the one who has been an accomplice to her own baby's death. It causes physical trauma to both she and her baby, and sometimes infections to the mother, or even death to the mother. Most importantly, it ends the life of the unborn child. That's real suffering. Suffering that endures long after the "procedure" has accomplished its hideous purpose.
You completely avoided my argument and spun it to make yourself seem right again. If you cannot address my point, don't dispute it.
Now, to address your point, yeah, abortions can have unforeseen psychological and physical damages post-procedure. This is made known to the patient beforehand, they're not going in blind.
Actually, Planned Barrenhood does NOT inform of the to-be-expected psychological, emotional, physical and spiritual consequences. They attempt to pass abortion off as a minor procedure that will only require a bandage in order to heal. They treat ending the valuable life of a baby as nothing more than having one's tonsils removed. They are wicked and care only about the money and doing their part to ensure zero population growth. They are Evil with a capital E!
Which is longer? To endure the 9 month of pain and emotional trauma due to pregnancy or to regret and suffer emotionally and mentally for her whole life because of abortion..?
Any female finding herself in a situation as difficult as this is already suffering beyond imagination. To add murder on top of that suffering would make it unbearable! Murder of her unborn child does not alleviate the suffering of the rape perpetrated upon her. To bring a precious child, created in God's image, into the world after such an act is shedding light in the darkness! Life conquers death!
Its as much the child's fault for being created as much as the rape victim for getting pregnant... Its not there fault or choice ... And although going through 9 months of pregnancy from a rape would be difficult.. Its not the child's fault and it could easily be put up for adoption afterwards.. The child might have the rapists genes but its also a piece of the victim and condeming an unborn child for a horrible act is not going to bring piece to the victim ..it will add more heart ache
You know I've investigated this entire debate and some responses I've disputed and a lot I feel are just too overwhelming to reply everyone. Basically this is my finalization... Everyone who is pro-choice will go to any length to justify abortion (without the exception of rape and life threatening birth situations) as a means to escape responsibility. That's it! People don't want to deal with consequences so they'll justify killing a live fetus for any reason pertaining to it to avoid responsibility. You know what I have to say to those people?... You are cowards!!! And don't think for one minute that because among our society you can get away with it you won't pay for it later. You're just postponing your judgment! Sucks to be you!
Answer me this... If abortion is sooo right, then why is it always a traumatic experience? Huh? When peoples god given or nature rights are under tyranny they don't rationalize the validity of their rights like abortionists do, they simply fight for them... Abortionists want to argue for their right to abort the life of others they would never engage in war for the right to exercise abortion!
If abortion is so right as a means of a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body then tell me why is it illegal for anyone to self induce harm to themselves and why is it illegal for a woman to self induce an abortion when ultimately it's the same result as a surgical abortion... Double edge sword if you ask me! It's only being permitted because people want to avoid consequences and responsibility... Furthermore the people that are supporting it is our democratic representatives and they are only promoting it to get re-elected to their office. Have you heard of any political figure that holds office that has had an abortion? No! And you know why... Because they know that if they let the scum of the country get their way they gain more power without abandoning their own values. It's the same damn thing for gay rights, government assist programs and drug legalization.
True it is a woman's choice! Everybody has there free agency to do whatever they want but afterwards if a woman decides to get an abortion she should be tried based on if it was necessary or not and if not then it should be considered murder! Plain and simple. Can you imagine a woman standing in from of a jury explaining her position on why she got an abortion because it was her choice and there is no other reason behind it. They would laugh because the truth or real reason behind it would be because she was irresponsible and she didn't want to deal with consequences!... I find the defendant, GUILTY as charges of MURDER!
They would laugh because the truth or real reason behind it would be because she was irresponsible and she didn't want to deal with consequences!... I find the defendant, GUILTY as charges of MURDER!
Good thing you would never be on a jury with that that biased of an opinion.
"It's nice that everyone in the media grants that Princess Kate is carrying a baby, not a piece of tissue." ~John Stonestreet of http://www.breakpoint.org/bp-home
How predictable your answer is, roc. Rape covers 2% of all pregnancies. Yes, you anti-Christs all say that if a woman is pleased to be pregnant, it's called a baby. If she is not pleased to be pregnant, you conveniently refer to it as a blob of tissue. How ironic.
Abortion is wrong all the way around. You go to jail if you murder someone that is already born so why is it okay to kill an unborn living child, because life begins at conception.
i think people should not do abortion as a result of that will be killing your own child i wont say i am completely on this side what i mean is sometime women have to do things they are not willing to or maybe they just don't want a child. so i think both are right in their own ways
a mother who did abortion is so stupid. they DON'T have a heart. babies who are developing inside her mom's womb are innocent.
there's nothing wrong if you're pregnant right?
i've heard many women in the world did abortion. it's so sad to hear. if you see pregnant mom delivering her child, she would be very happy and some cries of happy tears.
why don't you appreciate God for the gift He gave you?
if you don't want to have a child yet, why should you have sex?
and when you know you got pregnant, you're so upset and abort them?
I am against abortion, but I agree on abortion on certain cases.
In my opinion, abortion should be allowed given that the woman would find it almost impossible to give the child proper care. Example, if it being born means it will only suffer of malnourishment and poverty for the family.
Otherwise, it shouldn't be. It will just be murder. The baby has the right to live, and it should not be thrown away just because the parents don't want it, even though they can provide for it.
Abortion should only be allowed only if the baby will only suffer when it is born.
Actually, abortion should not be allowed at all case. If the parents don't want the kid, give birth to it then send it to a foster care institution. This is one of the things that the government should put money to. But then again, I understand that not all governments can afford this (hence abortion should be allowed on some cases)... but if the government can afford to build military vehicles that cost millions, if not billions, they should be able to provide for this!
First of you were the stupid bitch that decide to get pregnant so know you have to live with what you have done, I mean if you were raped that is a different story you might as well give it up for adoption but regardless killing a baby before he/she is born is cruel. You never know your kid could have been the next black president, or maybe even the first person to discover that there are more planets out there you never know. Your kid could have accomplished so many things in life and you would have never known. So yes I think that Abortion is wrong.
As Steven Levitt proved in his book "Freakonomics," abortion can increase crime rates. Unwanted children born into financially or socially incapable families are more likely to become miscreants in the future. Mothers should have the liberty to do anything with their child. Not having abortion in suitable cases may actually be detrimental to mothers' health. Although abortion can be considered as "murder", these children have potential to kill even more people in the future.
Lord I could talk about this all day. Ok first of all, lets discuss the women who willingly go out and have sex KNOWING that there is ALWAYS the risk of getting pregnant, because condoms break and all this other crap...and then has the nerve to kill the baby when she gets pregnant. That angers me to no end. It was your decision to have premarital sex, therefore, the consequence is a child, who very well could have a future as an outstanding contribution to society, so, its your responsibility to deal with the consequences. And even if you don't want the child, which is still heartbreaking to me, but still, I would much rather you give the baby up for adoption to at LEAST give it a chance at a good life, but why kill it? Because its the easy way out?? IT WAS YOUR MISTAKE TO HAVE SEX NOW YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES SO SUCK IT UP AND RAISE THE CHILD. Now onto the "touchy subjects" such as rape victims and incest victims...Now these special cases are only ONE PERCENT of all abortion cases and I really don't think that justifies abortion. It really doesn't.
I have always believed that Abortion was wrong ... For the pro choice people or for abortion people ... Keep in mind that there are women in China that are forced to have an abortion doesn't matter how far along you are..... That's wrong in every single way! No one and I mean NO ONE has the right to decide if a life is worth keeping or not ... You want to open your legs and have unprotected sex that's the consequence... There are people who cannot have children and would love the child you don't want to exist.... Your directly killing a life by aborting....that being said there are still circumstances where abortion is necessary ..especially if that fetus or unborn child has an illness that would effect its way of life or if it was going to suffer after being born due to defect... Is it a joy to carry a baby after being raped? No ..but that unborn child had even less choice then you did .. It didn't choose to be made so why take it out on it by killing it ... People need to stop using abortions selfishly ..then it wouldn't be an issue..
So my first point would be is there really a difference between murder and abortion? No not really. If you kill a little girl while she is living in her mothers belly, its okay. NO ITS NOT! If you didn't want to deal with a kid or couldn't afford it, then you shouldn't have got knocked up. That may sound rude but its the truth. And if this were to happen, give her up for adoption, let her have a chance at life. Basically if you agree with abortion you are saying that its okay to kill someone, but only in certain places. So i can kill this little girl while she is in her mothers belly, but not in her bedroom. So i can kill a person in the park, but not at the store. All you are saying is that the place of murder is the only factor.
Also you as a human should not have the power to decide weather a person lives or dies. You should not be able to choose if a girl gets to have a chance at life or if she isn't worth it.
So my first point would be is there really a difference between murder and abortion? No not really.
Murder is done against a living human being, abortion is done against a fetus/zygote. That is a difference.
If you kill a little girl while she is living in her mothers belly, its okay. NO ITS NOT! If you didn't want to deal with a kid or couldn't afford it, then you shouldn't have got knocked up.
I would think you would have heard why that statement is out of touch by now. Most people don't intend to get pregnant then get an abortion when they can't afford it or deal with it.
And if this were to happen, give her up for adoption, let her have a chance at life.
After giving up 9 months, her health, and her occupational prospects much of the time. That is incredibly easy to say, but quite honestly still life ruining for many women.
Basically if you agree with abortion you are saying that its okay to kill someone, but only in certain places
No, you are (almost always) saying you don't believe that said fetus/zygote is a living human. You should try to understand differing opinions before making such statements.
All you are saying is that the place of murder is the only factor.
No, you are saying the state of life is the factor.
Also you as a human should not have the power to decide weather a person lives or dies
Again, whether or not said being is a "person" is the question at the bottom of the abortion debate.
Abortion is should not be allowed because it is basically murder. Killing an unborn child is about as bad as killing your own mother but worse because your mother can defend yourself for the time being. It can also cause inability to have children ever again if not done properly.
no matter how much you try the pending thought of almost becoming a mother shall forever be at the tip of your mind. That thought will also come with guilt. and a lot of it.
Abortion is certainly always extremely sad. But philosophical arguments aside, embryos depend upon the mother for life. They are, if you will (and I'll be slated for this) parasites, in the medical sense. It is up to the woman whatever she does with or to her body, and it is an unfortunate fact that regardless of the nature of conception, the lady gets to decide what happens to her body and anything in it. I am for abortion.
I'm against abortion to an extent. Many argue that it's the woman's body and about how she feels. But what about what the Father wants? Is it fair to cut of a possible life, even though someone is willing to take care of the child, provide and love it? Is it fair that because it's physically impossible for the Father to have the baby that he has no rights about what happens to it? There are many single woman nowadays for the simple fact is they can have children. If men were able to have kids than I'm sure there would be an equal amount of single dads and mums.
However, in certain circumstances I understand. Such as, if the Mother's health is at risk and she has no support from the Father or family or if someone has been raped. But even then 26weeks is a bit late to make the decision if you want your baby or not, many babies have been born and survived at this age, so it's unfair to end it's life. Therefore, I think the abortion cut-off date should be lowered.
Abortion is a cruel thing that should not be taken like its a woman's choice. They need to man up to the consequence if they get pregnant. This is absurd the foolishness of people taking an innocent little life that God had a plan for.
If a woman does not want a baby, she can have her tubes removed or use contraception....................................................................................................
Straightaway I feel it important for me to state that I am against abortion. However, I know that many are for abortion and therefore complete abolishment of abortion is virtually inconceivable based on modern politics.
Therefore, I believe restrictions should be tightened on abortions. Im not a legislator or a specialist in that field so I could not say what the exact restrictions and cutoffs would be. Some I would consider abortions for rape victims and have cutoffs placed at about six weeks or when a heartbeat is first detected. With small amounts of research it appears that many women are able to detect a pregnancy withi this timeframe.
All i have to say to all you women who are living on recruit difficulty is Your murdering human beings and i hope a law gets passed to stop women who feel that they are entitled to be able to murder a human being i can understand if you were raped that could cause trauma or danger but if you just cant keep your legs closed then you should deal with the consequences you have no right to kill a person period
I disagree with abortion - simply because I believe that, by destroying a fetus, you are destroying a human.
The most common reasons people tend to agree with abortions (from what I've seen) are:
-the fetus isn't a baby - it's just a cluster of cells
-what if the woman was raped?
-what if the child would have a bad life because of a condition it has?
-what if the woman can't look after the baby?
I would say that, even if you think a fetus doesn't classify as alive - it is still a human. The only difference between a fetus and a baby is that the fetus is just a few months/weeks earlier in development. I would say that, even if you don't want to call it a 'living being', it is still a human being, and should be treated as such.
Nobody would deny a baby its basic human rights simply because it's not a child yet. Nobody would deny a child its basic human rights simply because it isn't a teenager.
Nobody would deny a teenager its basic human rights simply because it isn't an adult.
It is wrong to kill a fetus, a baby, a child, a teenager and an adult. The only difference between all of them is that they are in a different stage of development/life.
And how do we decide when the fetus becomes a living being and not a cluster of cells? At 5 weeks when it has a heartbeat? At 8 weeks when it starts to move? At 9 weeks when it can open and close its fists? At 13 weeks when it has facial features? At 16 weeks when you can feel its movements? Maybe it's when it can survive outside the womb. But how do we know when that is? It could be at 22 weeks, with a 0-10% chance of survival. 23 with 10-35%. Or 24 with 40-70%. Maybe it's best to wait until it's above 90% at 27 weeks. Or should it be at precisely 21 weeks and 5 days - the earliest it's survived?
In order to allow an abortion, there should be an exact date/time when it stops being legal - when the fetus is considered alive. It is impossible to put an exact time on it, unless you believe that life begins at conception.
If a woman was raped and became pregnant, I would be immensely sympathetic towards her - and would understand why she would want to abort the baby. Of course she wouldn't want to be carrying the child of a rapist, a living reminder of what she's gone through. However, I would strongly encourage her not to have an abortion. In my opinion, a life is a life. It is wrong to destroy a life. If you are to destroy a fetus (even if it makes your life a hell of a lot easier) you are essentially destroying a human life.
Many women choose to get abortions because their baby has been diagnosed (before birth) with some sort of condition. I know this argument is common as, in Britain, over 90% of babies who are diagnosed with down syndrome before their birth are aborted. My response to this would be that, to deny a fetus its right to live simply because it could end up being blind, or even just have autism, is to place the value of a human being with one of these conditions as lower than a healthy being. You are essentially saying that, because your child will have down syndrome, they aren't worth the time/effort. I understand that maybe some people will say "it's not that simple", and maybe it isn't, but you're still denying a human being the right to live, because it's difficult for somebody.
Maybe you think their life isn't worth it but, considering the fact that the fetus has no say in the matter and can't influence your decision, how is it right to make that decision on behalf of your unborn child?
The final reason that I have often heard is "what if the mother couldn't look after the baby?". To this I would say, you are in an unfortunate situation - you don't want your child to end up in a bad home or in foster care - but you can't look after them yourself. I would suggest either keeping the baby and trying to find support from a helpline or charity or find someone to adopt them. Obviously, it is difficult to find a suitable home for your child to grow up in, and possibly even more difficult to let them go. However, I firmly believe that it is worth it a million times over if you are letting somebody live.
Aborting a fetus? Termination of an unborn baby that has feelings as well as you and hasn’t done anything to harm you? Selfish! Lazy!
Not using birth control and being too love-y at a young age? Irresponsible! Immature!
Illegalizing murder of living people but allowing murder of existing feti? Stupid! Hypocritical!
What’s the point of abortion then? What are pros of it? Abortion is murder! Don’t come at me with the “my body my choice” crap. You are holding another life in that womb! So it’s Not just YOUR body!
I feel like if you are not prepared for a child, then you should take the necessary precautions beforehand, such as using protection such as condoms, or birth control (which is not a guarantee that you will not get pregnant by using this solely on its own.) Or abstain from sex altogether. I don't feel much sympathy for those who end up getting pregnant when they weren't careful, and then they want an abortion because they are not 'prepared' for a baby. But it is a consequence that they need to deal with I think. They should 'grow up' and take responsibility for their actions and do what it takes to raise the child they brought in to the world, even if it wasn't supposed to happen. The child should become the priority. However, in some cases I understand abortion, for instance if a woman is raped. I feel she has the right to go through with an abortion, or if severe risk factors are involved.
Women should have the ability to choose what they do with their bodies. The government should not be allowed to force women to continue a pregnancy against their will.
Would I care if I were aborted? I wouldn't care at all. Because if I was aborted, I wouldn't be able to think to myself "damn it mom and dad, why did you abort me?" because I wouldn't exist to think that thought in the first place.
Similarly, these "unborn babies" also do not care, because they do not have the capacity to think these thoughts since they no longer exist.
Oh but I bet as a fully developed human now, there are things you wish you could go back in time and change for the better earlier in your life right? Things you were not conscious of the consequences at the time huh? And if that became possible I bet you would leap at it. It's not right to have an abortion under the circumstances of avoiding responsibility or consequences from irresponsible actions when that life from day one has the potential to be something great 50yrs down the road!
Just because something is legal doesn't make it healthy or right. Take smoking for instance, it kills millions but it's still legal. Why? because it circulates money. The same as the abortion industry, they only care about money, not about taking human life. For you to call a baby a parasite is truly wicked.
Read and KNOW the Bible before you make false accusations, that's like me making claims about the health field and medicine when I've never studied a thing about medicine.
Read and KNOW the Bible before you make false accusations
They are not false. The bible copied the story of the great flood from the story of Gilgamesh don't believe me? Read Gilgamesh for your self then.
Christians also copied the Egyptians.
In the year that Jesus was supposed to be born, there were some common beliefs amongst people in the middle East and if you wanted to recruit followers you had to have your religion have the same features. It’s no use saying – “Follow us, we believe in loving your neighbour as yourself”. You had to have some neat things that showed your founder was a god. And better still, have features that existing religions had so recruits would not have to give up on stuff. Not all early Christians followed this line but those who didn’t had their books burned or heads cut off by Constantine or both. (Cobourg Atheist article)
But history is hard to kill and facts have emerged over the centuries that makes it clear that the key stories of Christianity and even the Jewish stories were copied from earlier Egyptian stories and others.
It takes more faith to believe something just evolved by chance and took billions of years and we are nothing more than intelligent ''evolved'' primates, then to believe that God created all this.
Your a disgusting individual... In 20+ years when everyone is infertile because of the toxins were putting in ourselves and our air, you'll be begging for someone to get pregnant .. A child is a miracle and taking it for granted is a fucking disgrace! I hope you never have children...your the only parasite here!
Thank God all the precious, vulnerable, defenseless babies who are diabolically murdered in abortion mills go straight to the arms of Jesus! They will never know the sin, pain, evil and suffering of this fallen world, and they will never have the opportunity to reject sweet Jesus!
There is plenty of proof of God's existence. The knowing in our hearts is enough! Just because you say I am wrong means nothing, and, contrary to what you said, you did not have to say it.
When I was younger I knew Santa existed. I just knew it. I would argue with other kids who didn't believe in him. I knew my parents weren't Santa because they had already told me they weren't him. I never actually saw Santa (except at the mall) but enough people, books, movies and songs advertised the existence of him that I knew he HAD to be real! However, once I reached a certain age, my parents admitted that Santa isn't real. I couldn't believe it. The man whose existence I defended for years was not real. Sure there was a lot that should have given it away (flying reindeer, visiting every child's home in a single night, toy-making elves, etc,.) but I knew he was real and that was all the proof I needed.
Santa is a lot like religion. There are people, books, movies and songs that all claim that God exists but there is not any scientific proof. People rely on a book written many years ago by men who received the information orally many years after the events in the Bible took place. The Bible is full of contradictions and in Jeremiah 8:8 he even claims that the Bible is full of "falsehoods", but none of that matters because people know in their heart that the Bible is the "True Word of God". Who needs proof when you have intuition, right?
The fear of questioning your own religion is what keeps you from doing so, at least that is the case for most religious folk. Why though? Are they afraid that they won't be able to find their way back? Or is it the fear of hell? The common vision of hell does not come from the Bible, but rather a very old book called The Divine Comedy. That very book is rumored to have been inspiration for the Christian version of hell.
Is living a moral life not enough, after all, the moral choices passed on through the western world mainly came from the Bible? Questions regarding your own religion should not be punishable by eternal damnation.
All this being said, I am not an Athiest. I do believe in the possibility of a God. He could be any God though. There are many religions out there. Hinduism, Judaism, and Buddhism are all much older than Christianity. Buddhism actually has a messiah who was born from a virgin mother, as do many other religions but I point this one out because the story came hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus. Virgin birth is a common theme in religions. I know all of this because I am a Religion student, believe it or not. Religion fascinates me, especially western religions. So don't tell me to go read the Bible, because I already do.
Even in your dispute you said, 'even though THEY never..." No matter how hard you try to dehumanize and belittle a fetus, subconsciously we all know they're human beings. The potential life is there; those babies could find the cure to cancer or be the next president. How could you know? And by your logic you then don't have 'any meaningful amount of sentience' because at one point you were also in that stage of life. Pro-'choicers' never cease to disgust me.
hey um see im not christian either but life is life u gunna go out and kill ur newborn brother or child or cousin they r innocent they r what keeps this world good and spinning children and tht is wat a fetus is it even knows its mothers heartbeat more than its own it has memory and intelegence a heartbeat and is living it is a child are the worlds way of saying we still have hope
You seem to make 2 arguments. The first is that a fetus is precious because a woman wants it and personally feels its precious. I can't argue with that. She has every right to feel the fetus is precious and not get an abortion. However, because that woman feels a fetus is precious does not mean that 1 week old fetuses "are" precious. A first addition batman comic book may be precious to me but that does not make it so for society (for the purpose of creating laws, etc).
Ask a woman who has been raped or a 14 year old homeless girl how precious that 1 week old fetus is. The point is until we can prove that the fetus is precious its just one story/feeling against another
Your second argument is really just another statement that you think human life is precious all the way around. I would argue that besides being a member of the homosapien species, a 1 week old fetus is no more "human" than a chicken fetus.
Of course you compare an unborn little one to a comic book and a chick. What an atrocity for your public education to have been the cause of such convoluted thinking. How frightening and disturbing for our society.
Instead of denigrating me, why don't you make an argument to bolster your case? You seems to feel you have some great wisdom on the subject so please enlighten me.
You are so cynical!! For one I have terrible parents who abandoned me for my entire childhood and guess what... I am currently going to college and majoring in political science... We're all at some point responsible for our actions regardless of our upbringing, there is no excuse. second it's not a child fault that the life of a 16 yr old is ruined because it was born! For you to say something like that just describes you as the epitome of resentment and hate and besides I don't think there is one mother in this world that would say there's any greater opportunity in life than being a mother. lastly if someone wants to commit suicide for any reason it's because they are a coward and a quiter! There's no excuse for committing suicide. You're far gone man!
You're not making an argument at all... You're just arbitrarily making statements that nobody can contest because they're completely self incited and you make no supporting points for anyone to question. I can do it too... Unborn children should not be killed, the sky is blue, grass is green... ect. See! You're a fucking moron, please leave or I'm going to report you for being a one cell nuisance!!!!!
Where's your proof! Show anyone besides you who I've insulted before they insulted me first or didn't deserve it through a negligent comment like yours!
I've just read through this argument you reported Cuaroc for not making a constructive argument this is a debate website he can make any statement he likes constructive or not it's called free speech but you insult him for exercising this right and then admit you have insulted only him that is Cyber Bullying in this instance you are in the wrong
Okay TheJudgeAshman... I don't care what you think and maybe you should keep your opinion to yourself and mind your own business. If I'm having a debate with someone and somebody else wants to come to their aid with dumb arbitrary dead end statements I'm going to say something because that's part of my free speech! By the way there's nothing wrong with insulting somebody's exercised free speech, it's when someone tries to prevent others from using free speech is when it's wrong!
So you agree with me that you were wrong because if you had managed to get Cuaroc banned you would be preventing him from using his right to free speech.
Yup. My arguments were somewhat silly, but so were yours. That's the point. We can't make broad stroke decisions one way or the other on "possible" outcomes in the far off future. You could use this argument to pull at peoples heart strings but that's about it.
To me "ending life" in and of itself is not bad. We kill plants and animals all the time, some times in the name of "being humane" (put it out of it's misery). So what makes killing people bad? People have a sense of self, sense of being alive, know what death is, what it means to be human, have dreams and aspirations, other people depending on them, etc. An early stage fetus has none of these properties as far as science can tell. In fact, as far as science can tell an early stage fetus is just a "bunch of tissue". People of faith don't believe this. Fair enough. By definition science and I won't be able to convince then otherwise.
So, science thinks an early stage fetus is just a "bunch of tissue" with none of the feelings/thoughts I outlined above. If you believe this, it's very hard to say a 16 year old girl must go though a pregnancy she does not want for the sake of a "bunch of tissue". What if the fetus develops in to a "person" in the womb, but then dies a painful death due to some complication in child birth? This is just an extreme example, but it clearly shows there are cases where aborting a "bunch of tissue" is better than some of the possible outcomes. And, since there is no downside to aborting a "bunch of tissue" clearly that is the right thing to do if the mother wants to.
But what if science is wrong? It could be, but I have a very high degree of confidence its not. If it's ever proven wrong, I would change my view.
So, the debate is: is a early stage fetus a "bunch of tissue" or a person. Science (as best I can tell) thinks it's a bunch of tissue. The faithful do not.
I'd like to know what arguments of mine you think are "silly" so I could have a chance to defend them. I also support abortions in the case of rape and in the situation that an unborn child will cause death to the mother due to complications but that's only because those things are out of a woman's control. Being responsible and understanding the risks of having sex is not out of control for anybody thus it's not justified to stop life because someone was irresponsible and they don't want to deal with the consequences. Abortion is so contradicting in the cases of irresponsibility because essentially the reason for abortion is to avoid responsibility. Responsibility can be avoided by adoption and nobody dies! With that being said it's irrelevant if the fetus has a sense of awareness. I can make a like argument by saying it's okay to kill a toddler for convenience because hell, by the time they're fully developed they'll have no conscious memory or awareness of that earlier stage of their life; yet that's murder! Is there a difference between killing a tadpole and a frog? Not that I'm trying to select that as a crime but still, nobody I would think would view the act any different than the other! A fetus by the way I believe does have consciousness. It has consciousness relevant and necessary to survive at that stage... It's not just on auto-pilot. Just because a fetus can't hold a job or drive a car doesn't mean it's not aware of it's life!
Sorry, silly was a bad choice. The opposite of your augments makes just as much sense so It does not seem to "add" to your case.
I agree fully with the responsibility part. However abortion is not "free and easy". Lets say the average is $400. To the type of person likely to get an abortion the cost alone is prohibitive compared to condoms for example. The women I have know that got an abortion did not go in to it lightly. It was one of the hardest decisions they have ever made. So, I believe in the vast majority of cases "blatant irresponsibility or laziness" was not really a factor. I don't think many people say, "Aw screw it, if I get pregnant i'll just get an abortion." Heat of the moment is a very powerful thing. They wish very much that they did not get pregnant. Please don't argue abstinence. We know that does not work as broad form of birth control.
I can make a like argument by saying it's okay to kill a toddler for convenience because hell, by the time they're fully developed they'll have no conscious memory or awareness of that earlier stage of their life; yet that's murder!
You could make that argument. Some scientists may even agree with you, but I don't. While a toddler may not have all the properties I listed in the previous argument, I think it does have some. This is the major reason I think a toddler is different from a "bunch of tissue". Another, much less important reason, is most of the "bad" parts of birth are over. The mothers desires to not be put through pregnancy and child birth no longer need to be considered. There is a big difference to the mother between "I'll adopt your baby and take it right now" vs. "After 9 months or pregnancy and child birth, I'll adopt your baby".
Not sure if there is a difference between a tadpole and frog but it's not relevant because neither has the properties of a sentient person. The reason not to kill a frog is because it seems wrong to kill it for no reason. Maybe it has children depending on it? I'm sure you would be OK aborting a frog that was somehow growing in a woman's uterus if she wanted to?
A fetus by the way I believe does have consciousness. It has consciousness relevant and necessary to survive at that stage... It's not just on auto-pilot. Just because a fetus can't hold a job or drive a car doesn't mean it's not aware of it's life!
As I said before, this is where the debate deadlocks. At conception a fetus (maybe that's not the right word) is literally 2 cells (actually maybe it's only 1?). The only way you can think 2 cells has "consciousness" is if you believe in something supernatural (like a soul or spirit), or your not that familiar with consciousness, how the human brain works, etc. If you agree that there is not consciousness at 2 cells then the only thing we disagree on is the length of time it takes for consciousness to arise. As best I can tell the scientific community thinks it may be some time after 21 weeks.
I think it would be much more accurate to describe 2 cells as on "auto-pilot" than "can drive a car". Obviously your argument is a huge exaggeration of my position. It's on auto-pilot because that's all 2 cells can be.
Your comment about "what makes a 1 week old fetus precious" I found to be an interesting remark. Considering a fetus is a living thing. Any living matter I would call precious. Especially when this fetus is going to grow into a human such as you and I.
The government says it's o k to kill the babies, why then using that logic is it wrong to kill other people? See they're either both right or both are wrong, you can't pick and choose with one is murder and which one is not.
You are killing the potential for a living being, who would have created many more living beings,so you would essentially be killing millions of future people, it doesn't matter if they can camprehend it or not, that does not determine right or wrong.
they have nerves and pain sensories explaing why they move accross the womb in discomfort so during the abortion they wuld feel it and know something was wrong because of theyre honest existence :) js
Women have every right with what they do with their body and I agree, however when it comes to something as significant as abortion it’s not as straightforward as that. I don’t think a fetus would be fine with being aborted, and not to mention I don’t think the mother of said fetus would be fine with it either, well unless she’s a terrible human being. Abortion in general is terrible, killing a fetus before letting it grown into the world and so on… why??? I hear story’s about my mom when she was pregnant with me and my sister she was a single mother and basically had to go through the pregnancy alone. When her family members learned she was pregnant and having twins everyone advised her to have and abortion, like imagine being a single mother and learning you gonna have twins and everyone telling you to just get and abortion, my mom like the strong woman she is didn’t listen to anyone’s so-called advice and went through the whole thing and I’m glad she did because otherwise I wouldn’t be writing this here today. There comes a sense of responsibility when it comes to motherhood and I guess the people that have an abortion lack that responsibility. I actually have a cousin that has gotten an abortion so many times that apparently now she’s infertile. At least think twice about abortion. Because for all I know abortion is definitely bad.
If a woman wants an abortion is really up to her, true...but why did she allow herself to get pregnant in the first place and these so called loving unwedge mothers, have abortions or someone that is seeing a married man, will have an abortion and just so the wife of his, does not find out. Yea, let's destroy a fetus, a live human being why don't we now! Let's make an infant suffer and simply abort it and toss the baby in a near by trash can outside the wonderful hospitals, where doctor's operate on people and save lives daily.
Being the fence on this issue for some time, I have decided that as long as a woman has the right of ownership to her own body including the fetus inside her until birth, she has the choice as to do whatever she wishes to do with her own body.
But the fetus isn't her body... And people don't have the right to harm there own body without consequences... So how is it right for a woman to destroy a fetus and there be no consequences? By the way it's illegal for a woman to self induce an abortion but ultimately whats the difference between that and an abortion performed by a doctor! That is how contradicting the subject is.
you're wrong... You're claim is purely based on opinion and a very ugly one it is because it insinuates that women have the power of god which they don't because they don't create life out of thin air... they need the sperm of a man too... And as long as it equally takes one or the other to create life a woman does not have the sole power to decide if it lives or not. No woman has a right to end another life to avoid responsibility... They should be shot if they do!
You have GOT to be fucking kidding me. There's no way this can be an actual argument...
I'm sorry, do you know how utterly idiotic you "argument" is?
You are saying that because a woman participates in an abortion (the reason you completely disregard), they should also be killed. Do you not understand that this sounds... completely and utterly retarted. The organism (whether a zygote or fetus) hasn't even reached personhood, so it HAS NO rights.
That comparison is like saying if I kill a bee (which has no understanding on modern conventions or other knowledge), I should be killed.
Oh I am? when you're the one comparing an insect to the life of a human being. An insect no matter at what stage of it's development doesn't remotely have close the potential ability to do the things human beings can do... By the way bees don't kill there own at the development stage of hatching! You know you are a fucking lunatic for rationalizing the killing of a fetus is okay because it has no awareness! Do you remember anything from the age of 1 day to 3 or 4 yrs old? No you don't. So it makes no difference then according to your rationalization if you kill a child either at the fetus stage or up to 3yrs old. Any stage is required to become anything through any point of the human life, you can't simply achieve one stage without the previous so don't sit there, hiding behind your computer screen and insult me when you clearly don't have the presence of mind of how life works!! You simply don't belong on my level of intelligence, remove yourself from the adults sir! By the way I did state the reason that I find unacceptable for a woman to have an abortion and that was to avoid responsibility. Learn to read, comprehend and retain before you open your mouth JACKASS!!
I didn't say anyone claimed, I'm pointing out though the similarities of what people, specifically women in their believe they have the right to an abortion, and what a god has power to do!
You are so...i can't even...your just an ignorant idiot.
No woman has a right to end another life to avoid responsibility... They should be shot if they do!
never in my life have i read something so...
I almost want to cry...because it is disappointing that you think thats all an abortion is about... If a woman was raped...she doesn't want to be reminded of it every day... and some men actuly decide that they don't want their wife to give birth to a child that was concieved out of rape. it's not always that she doesm't want the responsiblity but you wouldnt know because your a man...leave it to the women to decide because men get plesure out of creating a child...thats it. woman get pleusre for that short peiriod of time and then the next 9 months of her life are hell. so shut up about shit you dont know
It physically needing the mother to live doesn't mean its not a unique organism. You saying the mother owns it is essentially saying it is the mother's slave. Also, a newborn baby or even a six-month-old one requires its mother's presence to live just like a baby inside of a mother does. Just because it is dependent on someone else doesn't mean it is not its own being. If it is okay to kill a "fetus" because it is dependent on her mother than with that same logic it should be okay to kill a birthed child since it is still dependent on its mother
The physical location of the baby should still not determine if you get to kill the baby. Comparing it to your heart doesn't work either considering your heart is an organ that you need to survive while the baby is a completely independent organism that needs you to survive.
Physical location isn't my argument, it is PrayerFails', but, since PrayerFails hasn't logged on in 4 years, I wouldn't expect a response anytime soon. Though, I would point out that you can remove lots of body parts and independent organisms that die without you. You can remove your kidney, gall bladder, appendix, uterus, a lung, etc., parts of your liver, stomach, colon, etc., arms, legs, ears, etc. You can kill bacteria, viruses, tape-worms, etc. etc. etc. that are relying on you to live.
Yeah true. But I will say none of those organs have any potential to become anything more or grow into a fully-fledged thought-capable human being. A human baby on the other hand can.
In addition to the reasons that abortion itself can be justified:
Self-defense - All pregnancies pose a risk to the mother.
Mercy - a fetus that is in pain and will not live.
Selective reductions - from triplets to twins, or twins to a single, etc. - to improve the overall chances for those remaining.
-------------------------
There are additional arguments against making abortion illegal:
-------------------------
Ineffectiveness:
"Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates." (ref)
Laws making it harder to get abortions are making them happen later in the gestation, and are more dangerous/costly, etc.
Complexity:
The actual complexity of writing a law that applies for the range of possible circumstances:
Should selective reductions to improve the health of multiples be legal?
Should it be legal to protect the life of the mother? (how certain does the doctor have to be that death is likely?)
Should it be legal to protect the health of the mother? (how do you define "health" - severe organ damage? mental health?)
If a 10 year old is raped by an uncle and becomes pregnant - which is better: having the child or an abortion? Who gets to make the decision?
Should embryonic stem-cells be used for research or in curing diseases?
What about extra fertilized eggs created for in-vitro fertilization?
Would several forms of birth control pills, IUDs, etc. become illegal?
What penalties should be imposed on the woman, the doctor, other people who knew?
Enforcement:
Is it reckless endangerment for child-capable women to consume coffee/soda/tea, sushi/oysters/clams/mussels/crab, several types of fish, homemade ice cream, mayonnaise, lox, steak tartar, pâté, unpasteurized milk, soft cheese, deli meat, etc. etc.? If she has consumed any of these and has a miscarriage, is she guilty of negligent homicide?
Should all miscarriages be investigated as potential abortions/murders?
The cost of investigating all the new potential crimes and jailing of all the new criminals, etc.
Scarcity:
Are there lots of 9 month pregnant women getting abortions to fit into a dress for a party?
Alternatives:
Focusing on education about the responsibilities of sex, using protection, etc. reduces abortions.
An IUD program in Colorado was very successful at reducing both teen pregnancy and abortion rates (ref)
Except the fetus has a heart and a mind of it own and saying that it’s yours like it’s your property is very ugly your basically killing a potential human being that after eighteen years isn’t yours so no?
And also why is everyone forgetting the moral responsibility that comes with an abortion like it no big deal to kill your own baby. I just don’t get it?
I broke the dead tie! Yaaay! naw but really its all religion based for the pro life argument and therefore should not be taken seriously. Roe V Wade will stand as law.
True as it may be, the interworkings of the case are irrelevant. The supreme court made a ruling, and regardless of how the case was conducted the law is now the law and it will stand.
from wikipedia not the best source but whatever: a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy
Thats the right decision! Obviously when the fetus becomes an actual baby and it's like 3 weeks b4 the due date the mother shouldnt be able to kill it off then...but in the beging before it is a baby when it is just a fetus HELL YEAH if i don't want it i give it back to its prevous owner Da LAWD hahaha naw but really
Right now there are people trying to decide when life begins. Abortion is destroying life - therefore it has to be murder. As long as the baby remains in the uterus it will be nourished. It will grow and be delivered at term. If you disrupt that in any way, knowingly and intentionally, you are killing a life. Abortion is truly a wicked act, an abomination on mankind.
Scientists declared that in the first month window to get abortions the "life" is just a self replicating cell with no brain, personality, heart beat, ect and therefore it is not killing a life. It's more like squishing an ant then murdering a human.
Read some accounts from people who have actually worked in the abortion field and got out of it because how wicked and gruesome it really is. Don't believe everything scientists say and ''prove'' do a little research on your own and have a heart towards to the ones that can't speak for themselves. Murder is murder, call it what it really is.
I am calling it what it really is. If people cant stomach it thats their proble. Science has dubbed it a self replicating cell to a certain point of time and therfore murder is not an appropriate label. Pussys with queasy stomachs need to grow a sack and suck it up.
As soon as a spermatozoa/sperm cell is fertilized which is the process in which a sperm cell successfully meets an egg cell in the Fallopian tubes, the baby is living, or zygote which becomes an embryo and then a fetus. Either way you look at it, it’s not just squashing a bug or something insignificant. It’s really a living being and the first organs it has is the heart and blood vessels. Also just like regular human beings a fetus can poop and pee in the womb.
Yes, it has to be murder. But! murder takes place in two ways not one described by religious definition set as words and admission of guilt once made by midwife long ago.
By medical standard a woman is killing a life by simply allowing embryo to go unfertile, while a man is then forced to murder countless lives as he would be chosen by a woman in advance, then used as creator of living substance to fertilize only one embryo to spare her of this fate of death by becoming creator of life in the Human Reproduction System.
No wonder there is a religious story of Adam and Eve the truth is a horrible fact of nature almost every-one is unwilling to face. And it is the year 2018.
I understand why you might think that the pro-life movement is just religion based. But honestly, it's so much much bigger than that. God created us. He created our bodies so perfectly and he focused on every cell. He even knows how.many hairs we have on our head. He cares that much for us. He even sent his only son to Earth who was tortured, mocked, rejected, and eventually died on a wooden cross for our sins. He made the tiny babies in the womans tummy too. He cares so deeply for us. It breaks my heart too see innocent children slaughtered at the hands of Satan and his demons. I sometimes feel sorry for the mothers. Who have to go through this kind of thing. When people persuade them to make decisions. Yes, the physical baby is inside of her physical body but the heart and spirit was made, and belongs to God. And not a single person on this Earth has the authority to take that away. So I stand with God, that abortion is wrong, but not because it's what my religion says. Because of my personal relationship with Jesus, this is what I believe and know to be true.
I never said I was religious, but if what you say is true, then why do we have any laws like don't rape, steal, assault, murder? I would say they seem to all be based on religion as well, so if you condone abortion, then you wold also condone any of the previous crimes I suggested. So if someone you know was murdered, then why should you be upset since their act was right for them. It's either they are wrong or right, black or white, no grey. Don't tell me murder is wrong then turn around and tell me abortion is right. Contradiction.
but if what you say is true, then why do we have any laws like don't rape, steal, assault, murder?
Seriously? You honestly think it was religion that came up with outlawing rape, theft, assault, and murder? Wow...
These were outlawed because they violated people's rights. These can be perfectly explained from a secular perspective. It is obvious that religion has poisoned your mind. I bet you're of the mindset that religion is responsible for morality too, right?
So if someone you know was murdered, then why should you be upset since their act was right for them
Murdering someone else is a violation of their rights. The accusation that its all because of religion that murder is illegal, is just a public declaration to all that you haven't researched your shit and that you've been well indoctrinated into your religious teachings.
Don't tell me murder is wrong then turn around and tell me abortion is right. Contradiction.
Murder is wrong. Abortion is neutral. It is up to the person to decide. Not you Jawkins. This is not a dictatorship. A fetus is not a person since it lacks all qualities of person hood.
Wait, so abortion doesn't infring on peoples rights? You are taking away the babies right to live. I don't care if it's just a fetus, it is going to be a human being.
