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.
a fetus is incapable of consent b/c it is not a sentient being in which rights adhere. but if u insist on playing that game, the fetus also cannot consent to being forced into a life in which they are guaranteed to suffer. which means ur inflicting all the harms of existence onto them with their consent. which makes procreation wrong, not abortion.
While a fetus may not be a sentient being, it is still a living human being. And as such, it should be given the same rights and protections as any other human being. To abort a fetus is to take away its right to life, and that is wrong. Not all aborted babies are guaranteed to suffer, as you say. And even if they were, that is not a reason to kill them.
first, you appealed to the lack of consent by the fetus. when that flimsy ass argument failed you ditched it and moved on to an even weaker one. "it's a human being"... so fucking what? why should i care about it just b/c it has some basic ass genetic material?
not inflicting the harm of sentient existence is absolutely a reason to terminate a life before it gains sentience. there is no reason to inflict that harm which is not a purely selfish reason. that life doesn't need to exist. you just want it to. b/c NaTuRe Is RiGhT lmfao what a joke.
First, you said that the fetus lacks consent. While this may be true, the lack of consent does not automatically mean that abortion is okay. If we applied your logic to infants and small children, then it would be okay to murder them too because they can't give consent. But I'm assuming you don't believe that, so you're being inconsistent.
Second, you said that terminating a life before it gains sentience is not inflicting the harm of sentient existence. But again, if we applied your logic to infants and small children, then it would be okay to murder them too because they can't feel pain or suffer. So once again, you're being inconsistent.
Third, you said that there is no reason to inflict the harm of sentient existence on a fetus other than a purely selfish reason. But that's not true. There are many reasons to have a child other than selfish ones. For example, many people have children because they want to make the world a better place or because they want to leave a legacy behind.
In conclusion, your arguments are full of holes and inconsistencies, which shows that you really don't have a strong case for abortion.
ur forgetting that consent was ur criteria, not mine. that it leads to a conclusion u find undesirable is just another reason to consider ur original argument incorrect. so uve got no argument against abortion, by ur own reasoning. well played, lmao.
a sense of self and therefore sentience emerges in the human organism at roughly two years of age. allowing for a standard deviation off that benchmark, im fine permitting infanticide. ur error lies in presuming i don't hold a position that i do in fact hold.
those are both purely selfish reasons to procreate. for a start, both of those reasons are the desires of the procreators themselves. they are only doing it b/c doing it pleases them. otherwise, they wouldn't do it. and in both cases they r forcing life into an existence of suffering just to satisfy their selfish pipe dreams - b/c they never amounted to anything themselves (so they'll force another life into being to make up for their own shortcomings, which oc that life won't do just like the breeder didn't) and b/c they are terrified of their own mortality (so they try to escape into the illusion of immortality offered by 'legacies' that always die out anyways). pathetic.
and u still haven't told me why i should give a fuck that the fetus is a (partially developed) human organism. presumably b/c u cant.
Abortion is easy to argue against. Stick a baby out of the womb at any mid to late stage and place it on a table with a hammer. Do you hit that living baby with a hammer, or do you simply feel better about murder if you don't have to see your victim's face? And if a woman can kill a baby due to financial hardship alone, the father should be able to opt out of child support if he's not interested in having children because you've already set the standard that you shouldn't be forced to deal with an unwanted baby when you're poor. Well the dad is poor. By your standard forget about the mom by the same standard you said forget about the baby.
anything is easy to argue against when you use a plethora of fallacies. but as i actually support legalizing infanticide (as i already said) and do not support stealing from involuntary fathers, we can cut to the chase where ur objections still have no traction w/ me.
yeah, i declined to answer that absurd hypothetical that has nothing to do with my position. i advocate for abortion and i advocate for infanticide. in both cases, by the least violent means possible. this bit about a hammer is just u drumming up shit w/ rhetoric b/c neither of u has anything of substance to say.
While I do agree that the hammer example was a bit of an extreme illustration, the "absurd hypothetical", as you call it, still stands as a valid point. In both cases, no matter the method, the baby is being killed. You don't want to answer it because you can't.
i can and have justified killing the unborn and infants. there's no dodging. you just have to keep asserting that im dodging it b/c you werent prepared for me to not dodge and don't have any argument to make. lmao. what a joke.
You can't justify it, because if you could, you would have done so already. You're just trying to avoid the fact that you're advocating for something that is morally reprehensible. Stop trying lol.
You're just trying to avoid the fact that you're advocating for something that is morally reprehensible.
Hello:
There are no winners in an abortion.. There's only losers, and those who lost less. Abortion is wrong.. It's just LESS wrong than forcing an expectant mother to bear her unwanted child.
Forcing a young worker to leave the workforce because she has a child to attend to, ruins her life FOREVER. It MAKES her dependent on the "system". There's everything in the world WRONG with that.
Excon, you have FAILED to prove that murdering "unwanted children" being an appropriate excuse for abortion. Taking away human life out of inconvenience is wrong. The biggest losers in abortion are blacks (4 black women get an abortion to every 1 white women). Abortion wipes out future black generations.
5 women getting an abortion because they wanted to get one are all decidedly WINNERS.
5 women getting an abortion because they wanted to get one are all decidedly LOSERS. They will have to live with the permanent reminder that they took away a life.
Excon, Again you are WRONG. Young black men (who hold a VERY high majority being raised in single or too often NO parent households) are not taking on responsibility and obligations. Therefore, they are not taking proper precautions to avoid pregnancy through safe sex practice. Democrats assist these young black men in taking away that responsibility and offer abortions as a way out. This is further proved by abortion clinics being strategically placed in urban locations in an effort to murder black babies.
Excon, currently less than 20% of blacks are raised in duel parent households. Compare that to the 1960's when duel parental black households was nearly 80%.This HUGE shift to the current statistical landscape has lead to a whole bevy of problems for blacks that includes low graduation rates, low job participation rates, sky rocketing high crime rates and MUCH more. Asian Americans who are the most successful Americans have the lowest abortion rates. They also have the highest incomes, highest graduation rates and lowest crime rates.
Excon, Again you are WRONG. Young black men (who hold a VERY high majority being raised in single or too often NO parent households) are not taking on responsibility and obligations.
Hello hater:
I have no idea what you're saying, except that when you're poor, got no job, and no prospects, you might as well fuck.
All these black billionaires and millionaires, and black people can't find a job Con? That's wierd. My kindergarten teacher in 1977 was black and knew everyone in town, and was very respected. Maybe it's just blue areas that aren't hiring black people. Of course most black people live in blue areas, so that would explain that...
Excon, you don't understand statistics and facts?!? What part of my post confused you?
This is why I consistently humiliate you and no one here respects you. You are a weak, wimpy TROLL that is CLEARLY afraid of debate. If this website had a moderator you'd be rightfully kicked off. You have 16,801 posts of worthless nonsense.
except that when you're poor, got no job, and no prospects
Noted that blacks overwhemingly live in blue areas, and that Con says they are all poor, have no jobs and have no prospects. I thought the Democrats were helping blacks. Apparently they're allowing them to exist jobless and broke en masse...
5 women getting an abortion because they wanted to get one are all decidedly WINNERS
That's interesting Con. I keep reading articles where women regret their abortions, go into deep depressions and often kill themselves. Was that the win you meant Con?
There are no winners in an abortion.. There's only losers, and those who lost less. Abortion is wrong.. It's just LESS wrong than forcing an expectant mother to bear her unwanted child.
As you said, there are no winners in an abortion. So why advocate for something that will only result in losers? Abortion is morally wrong, and you can't justify it.
Forcing a young worker to leave the workforce because she has a child to attend to, ruins her life FOREVER. It MAKES her dependent on the "system". There's everything in the world WRONG with that.
There are many programs in place to help young mothers who want to continue working. And it is not the child's fault that their mother chose to have them. The mother should have the responsibility to take care of her child, not the government.
and in both cases they r forcing life into an existence of suffering
Ah yes, the old "I can kill babies if I'd be a crappy mom" argument. Cool. By that logic, I can pretty much kill almost anyone I see and justify it by pointing out their crappy childhood... Well, your life sucks, and your mom sucked, so here, have a knife in the eye because well, reasons. Oh well. As long as you feel libby about killing others, you'll be fine. Let me call upon the libby god. Oh, you're good. It says killing others is fine just so long as their mom sucks or you predict their mom will suck. Nevermind me...
ah yes the old argument from false equivalency; a non-sentient, parasitic fetus is not equivalent to a sentient, autonomous being in that the former lacks the agency/volition of the latter which makes killing the latter impermissible and the former permissible.
strawman as well, since my argument doesn't rely on a misogynistic fixation on bad mothers. no person should procreate. i don't care what their sex or parenting potential is. im an unconditional antinatalist.
ah yes the old argument from false equivalency; a non-sentient, parasitic fetus is not equivalent to a sentient, autonomous being in that the former lacks the agency/volition of the latter which makes killing the latter impermissible and the former permissible.
So, you think that because a fetus can't think or speak for itself, then it's okay to kill it? By that logic, we should just go around killing anyone who can't think or speak for themselves, like infants and the mentally disabled. They can't defend themselves either, so what's stopping us from Killing them too?
strawman as well, since my argument doesn't rely on a misogynistic fixation on bad mothers. no person should procreate. i don't care what their sex or parenting potential is. im an unconditional antinatalist.
So you think that anyone who has a baby is automatically a bad mother? And you don't think that mothers should have any say in whether or not they have a baby? You're just as misogynistic as you claim BroncoLite is.
and im still not a lib u simpleminded partisan.
You're not a lib? But you're pro-choice! That's the most liberal position there is!
i am perfectly fine with the killing of anything that is not sentient. whether it be a fetus, infant, etc. makes no difference to me.
as i already said, i think that anyone who voluntarily procreates is a despicable person, including both the male and the female. i do not think that anyone should be allowed to procreate, be they male or female. that's not misogynistic.
nope. im not pro-choice. im anti-choice and pro-abortion. i favor compulsory sterilization (males and females) and compulsory abortion for anyone who slips through the cracks on sterilization. so, no, im not a pro-choice lib.
as i already said, i think that anyone who voluntarily procreates is a despicable person, including both the male and the female. i do not think that anyone should be allowed to procreate, be they male or female. that's not misogynistic.
Wow, what a great way to invalidate the experiences of mothers everywhere. You're just a bigoted misogynist who wants to control women's bodies.
nope. im not pro-choice. im anti-choice and pro-abortion. i favor compulsory sterilization (males and females) and compulsory abortion for anyone who slips through the cracks on sterilization. so, no, im not a pro-choice lib.
So you think that anyone who has a baby should be automatically forced to have an abortion, regardless of whether they want one or not? And you want to force everyone to be sterilized? That sounds an awful lot like eugenics, which is a very Liberal idea.
nope. im an authoritarian who wants to control everyone's bodies, without any regard to sex.
eugenics attempts to 'improve' the human species by selective breeding. as im advocating the categorical elimination of all breeding, im necessarily not a eugenicist. and im still not a lib lmao. idk why ur so obssessed w/ trying to put me in that box.
eugenics attempts to 'improve' the human species by selective breeding
Cool. You wouldn't exist if the world were like you. You wouldn't have made the cut. Beethoven and Bach probably wouldn't have either. In fact, I wonder if anyone who ever created anything great would have. Perhaps the people who would do the choosing wouldn't have made it either, ending in an infinite loop of no more eugenics programs due to no pro eugenics people being born again to continue the eugenics programs that killed them...
Cool. I'm willing to bet that it was the lack of use of capital letters and incorrect usage of basic punctuation marks that made it impossible to fully understand anything you typed because it looks like a rooster pecked it out rather than an adult human....
You don't type in the English language, so there's no telling what you meant in any of your posts. It's like trying to intepret a spider monkey that has had its penis cut off and begins throwing its shit as it runs in circles. It chirps and squeaks alot, but no one really knows what it's saying, thinking, or feeling. It's just a stupid monkey making gibberish and nonsensical chatter.
ur forgetting that consent was ur criteria, not mine. that it leads to a conclusion u find undesirable is just another reason to consider ur original argument incorrect. so uve got no argument against abortion, by ur own reasoning. well played, lmao.
I never said that consent was my criterion. I said it was your criterion. And the fact that it leads to a conclusion you find undesirable does not make my argument incorrect. It just means you don't like the conclusion.
a sense of self and therefore sentience emerges in the human organism at roughly two years of age. allowing for a standard deviation off that benchmark, im fine permitting infanticide. ur error lies in presuming i don't hold a position that i do in fact hold.
No, my error lies in thinking that you were being consistent in your arguments. You said that the lack of consent is not a reason to abort, but then you turn around and say that it's okay to kill infants because they can't give consent. So which is it? Are you for or against abortion? You can't have it both ways.
those are both purely selfish reasons to procreate. for a start, both of those reasons are the desires of the procreators themselves. they are only doing it b/c doing it pleases them. otherwise, they wouldn't do it. and in both cases they r forcing life into an existence of suffering just to satisfy their selfish pipe dreams - b/c they never amounted to anything themselves (so they'll force another life into being to make up for their own shortcomings, which oc that life won't do just like the breeder didn't) and b/c they are terrified of their own mortality (so they try to escape into the illusion of immortality offered by 'legacies' that always die out anyways). pathetic.
No, those are not purely selfish reasons to procreate. There are many people who have children for selfless reasons. For example, many people have children because they want to make the world a better place or because they want to leave a legacy behind.
And even if some people do have children for purely selfish reasons, that doesn't make it wrong. Every single one of us is selfish in some way or another. And just because someone is selfish doesn't mean they should be denied the right to have a child.
and u still haven't told me why i should give a fuck that the fetus is a (partially developed) human organism. presumably b/c u cant.
The main reason why you should care is because the fetus is a human being with inherent value and worth. Just because the fetus is not fully developed does not mean it has no value or worth.
nothing ive said is inconsistent. i endorse abortion. i endorse infanticide. my endorsements have nothing to do with consent. that was little_cheeb's criteria (i confused you for them since i originally was responding to them).
i already explained why procreating to "save the world" is selfish and asinine. im not going to repeat myself. you can engage the reasoning i already provided or not. i don't really care. my objection was never just procreation is selfish. it is that it is violence perpetrated for selfish reasons.
reasserting that the fetus/humans have inherent value and worth is not an explanation for why i should believe that assertion. the same goes for you reasserting that the differential capacities between a fetus and an adult are irrelevant.
nothing ive said is inconsistent. i endorse abortion. i endorse infanticide. my endorsements have nothing to do with consent. that was little_cheeb's criteria (i confused you for them since i originally was responding to them).
Yes, you are being inconsistent. Do you think that abortion is always wrong or not? Because if you think that abortion is always wrong, then you can't endorse it. And if you think that abortion is sometimes okay, then you can't endorse infanticide. You have to pick one or the other.
i already explained why procreating to "save the world" is selfish and asinine. im not going to repeat myself. you can engage the reasoning i already provided or not. i don't really care. my objection was never just procreation is selfish. it is that it is violence perpetrated for selfish reasons.
Yes, procreation can be selfish and asinine. But that doesn't mean it's always wrong. And even if some people do have children for purely selfish reasons, that doesn't make it wrong. Every single one of us is selfish in some way or another. And just because someone is selfish doesn't mean they should be denied the right to have a child. I shouldn't have to repeat myself either but here we are.
reasserting that the fetus/humans have inherent value and worth is not an explanation for why i should believe that assertion. the same goes for you reasserting that the differential capacities between a fetus and an adult are irrelevant.
I'm not just reasserting that the fetus has inherent value and worth. I'm explaining why I believe that assertion. And I believe that the differential capacities between a fetus and an adult are irrelevant because every human being has inherent value and worth, regardless of their abilities or possessions.
i categorically endorse abortion. i categorically endorse infanticide. there's no inconsistency.
again, my argument has never been just that procreation is selfish. my argument has been that it is selfish and violent. u have to repeat ur strawman b/c u can't muster an actual argument.
nah, c u just asserted shit again without giving any reasons. im done bro.
i categorically endorse abortion. i categorically endorse infanticide. there's no inconsistency.
Stop telling me you endorse stuff, that says nothing about you being consistent, it just tells me that you endorse things. At least get a better argument, repeating yourself does not make for a good argument lol.
again, my argument has never been just that procreation is selfish. my argument has been that it is selfish and violent. u have to repeat ur strawman b/c u can't muster an actual argument.
No, I know your argument has never just been that procreation is selfish. But you still haven't explained why you think it's wrong. You just keep saying it over and over again. We're just going in circles.
nah, c u just asserted shit again without giving any reasons. im done bro.
I gave plenty of reasons. You just don't want to listen to them because you're too busy repeating yourself.
Fetuses should have a say whether or not they should be aborted and flushed down the toilet.
Fetuses should also have voting rights and a say in what their host should, or should not eat and drink.
I often hear the voices of unborn fetuses shouting down the canyon;-'' hey ma, give us a break and stop stuffing your stinking guts with those phaal curries and drinking that Irish Poteen.
Being pro abortion is the same as seeing a child drowning and not helping them because you think their mother and father do not love them. Let the kid drown. His parents aren't interested, so why should I be?
Abortion is also RACIST. Four black women get an abortion for every 1 woman. Abortion statistically wipes out future black generations. And who are the biggest fighters for abortions?!? It's white liberal Democrat women.
fetuses cannot consent, but they do not need to. They are not conscious people, and as another user said, no one asked them if they wanted to be concieved either. The needs of the mother are what matter, especially considering the serious damage, both physically and emotionally, that can be done to women through a unwanted child.
The fact that fetuses cannot consent does not mean that they are not human beings. They are human beings who have not yet developed the ability to consent. Just because they cannot consent does not mean that they can be killed. Unwanted children can be placed for adoption, which is a much better solution than abortion.
It's pretty simple, really. Abortion is murder. It's taking the life of an innocent human being who has done nothing wrong.
What about the woman's choice? Well, she made the choice to have sex, didn't she? And now she has to live with the consequences of that choice. She can't just kill her baby because she doesn't want it. And don't get me started on rape. There are way too few examples to even factor into the equation here.
And what about all the adoption options out there? There are plenty of couples who would love to adopt a child, and there are plenty of children who need homes. So why not give them a chance at life instead of taking it away?
A woman shouldn't be forced to have a child. People say that if a woman chose to have unprotected sex, she should have been ready to take responsibility for the consequences. But what if a woman is raped? What if contraception fails? Contraception doesn't always work. I've heard people say that if there's some underlying issue, such as financial problems, it should be fixed. But what if it can't be fixed? Often, it could be far worse for a child to live in awful conditions, or even just with an unloving parent. Yes, a foetus can't consent to an abortion, but nor can it consent to a life.
Galya, you make some valid points. However, I believe that the life of a foetus is more important than the life of the mother. A fetus cannot choose to be aborted, but a mother can choose not to have sex. If a woman does not want to get pregnant, she should be more careful. I know that contraception doesn't always work, but it is the responsibility of the woman to make sure that she is using it correctly. I believe that abortion is wrong because it goes against the sanctity of human life.
Man, I hate the defense "the mother could have chosen not to have sex." Why not argue even further? The mother could have chosen not to have any physical contact. The mother could have chosen to not go on dates. Be single for life! That way abortions can never happen!
Look, the point is, people need to be careful. If you're not careful, you get pregnant. It's not that hard to understand. You can have sex, but you need to be responsible and use contraception. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be having sex. And if you get pregnant, you need to be prepared to deal with the consequences.
well, naturalism fallacy for a start. besides which, appealing to nature doesn't get you anywhere. humans are a part of nature. everything any human does is therefore natural and by your reasoning right. so both procreation and abortion are natural and therefore right. great contradiction you've worked yourself into.
I think it is the lesser evil to have the right to have an abortion. Abortions definitely prevent life, but should be far from the label of murder. I do think that there should be some process to approve the abortion, but ultimately still give the right to the mother in the end.
no because i agree that its a human but its not a living breathing person, it cant live on its own, it cant survive at that stage. until its out of the womb and not apart of the person carrying it, then the person carrying can choose what they would like to do with it even if its to abort it.
