CreateDebate


Debate Info

115
123
Abortion is wrong Abortion is right
Debate Score:238
Arguments:167
Total Votes:320
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Abortion is wrong (81)
 
 Abortion is right (84)

Debate Creator

churchmouse(328) pic



Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day

The goal of every abortionist? Human/Nonhuman? Science says what? A womans choice?  

Abortion is wrong

Side Score: 115
VS.

Abortion is right

Side Score: 123
3 points

Abortion is immoral. The law prohibits it. The growing fetus has a presumptive personality by which the state has a responsibility.

Side: abortion is wrong
4 points

Abortion is immoral to anyone with a heart and a sense of what is right and wrong. But our law in America allows a mother to kill her unborn child, as long as she hires it done. If she does it herself she may face being charged with taking a life. Our laws are whishy washy about this. They do not give the unborn personhood and protection, they stand on the principle that its the womans body and then they stipulate when she can have the abortion. Science is clear to when human life starts....and it does not start after nine months of pregnancy.

Side: abortion is wrong
0 points

.............................................................

Side: Abortion is wrong
2 points

Yeah sure, I'm pro-choice... pro-choice in the sense that the choice is made when the soon-to-be mother chose to act irresponsibly and have unprotected sex.

So many liberals out there try to paint this idealistic picture that you can make stupid decisions without any real consequences, but that's simply not true. When you have unprotected sex, a baby is conceived. At that moment, whether the baby has a pumping heart or not, it becomes a mother's natural and personal responsibility to do what is best for the baby. That could mean one of many options, such as raising the baby yourself, putting it up for adoption, or any number of alternatives. But I will tell you, as basic human decency should tell you, that anyone arguing that the termination of that baby is what's best for the baby is wrong in the most perverse way conceivable.

You chose to act irresponsibly. Now you must face the consequences, and just because you don't want to does NOT give you the right to terminate the existence of a potential human being.

Now, of course there are cases of rape and/or incest conceptions. In these cases, I do not feel that the mother should be forced to carry a child she does not deserve to have. She did nothing wrong, and should not be forced to carry the offspring of her rapist. But at the same time, I still believe that life begins at conceptions, and at that point it become a moral judgment for the mother to make. Do you believe in giving life to another human being, filling it with opportunity to make a name for himself or herself, or do you believe that you'd like to deliver children following consensual and natural intercourse between a man and a woman? At that point, the government should have nothing to do at all with the mother's say; she is no longer the irresponsible one, but rather the victim of a gruesome and despicable crime.

Side: abortion is wrong
catticus90(360) Disputed
2 points

You chose to act irresponsibly.

I got pregnant whilst using the contraceptive pill, it's not as uncommon as you think. Don't assume every person who is pregnant isn't responsible. Just to clarify I didn't abort her, I have a daughter. However I'm just using this as a point that not all accidental pregnancies are because people are stupid enough to have sex without contraception.

Now, rape and incest aren't the only circumstance that warrant abortion. Have you considered medical problems, deformities and disabilities in an unborn baby? What about a heroin addict, a alcoholic? What about someone with severe mental health problems (bi-polar, schizophrenia, BPD)? How about a homeless person? Do you think it is okay in these cases?

I don't think any situation should dictate whether a Mother decides to proceed with a pregnancy. It's how the mother (or doctor) perceives the circumstance of her pregnancy. If she feels the unborn child would have a negative life or her life would be impacted seriously (not superficially) then she has the right to terminate her pregnancy.

Side: Abortion is right
CTEd(15) Disputed
2 points

So a husband and wife that don't want children can never have sex.... Contraceptives fail.

So two people who don't want children can not get married - lack of sex is a slam dunk claim for divorce or annulment. You are required to fulfill your marital duties or your partner can divorce you in almost every state. In addition a healthy sex life is cited by almost all marriage councilors as vital to maintaining a healthy marriage.

So how would a childless (by choice) couple be acting irresponsibly? In addition what is the difference to you?

Either they are going to have sex and and abortion (if they get pregnant), or they are going to abstain so as not to take the risk of getting pregnant if abortion is made illegal.

Guess what - either way, no child is ever born. That couple has decided not to bring a child into this world under any circumstances. Personally I don't think they should have to go their whole lives without having sex.

Side: Abortion is right
Animegirl300(26) Disputed
2 points

They can have sex, but they must be prepared to deal with the result of it. Since when was sex the only thing that kept together a marriage? The purpose of marriage is to start a family, which includes supporting each other in BOTH good times and BAD. If you aren't trying to start a family then GTFO :)

A childless couple isn't acting irresponsibly if they are prepared to take responsibility if they have sex.

Side: abortion is wrong

I support what you say...but I would add this....when a child is concieved...there is nothing potential about it. It is already a living human being.

And I would ask you to think about the rape and incest clause in your position.

Let me ask you this.........if you believe a human life starts at conception, how is death right for even a child of rape? If you walked into a nursery full of babies and the nurse told you that one out of the twentys mother was raped...would you be able to pick that child out? Life is life and although rape is a violent act...so is abortion. So rape is the first wrong....and then on top of that abortion is another. The woman can live with two crimes. That is the same as incest. If you are pro life that means you value ALL LIFE, not just some.

If you are pro-choice and think that abortion should be legal even though you think its gruesome and wrong.....then you are not pro-life. Being pro-life is being against abortion period...unless the woman is dying on the table...and then in most cases both can be saved.

Side: abortion is wrong
2 points

Abortion in general is wrong in the sense of life being erased. It may be less so if it's for a valid reason like health. But I think that abortions made for more reasons than that is the result of selfishness usually...

Side: abortion is wrong
2 points

Abortion:

When life becomes subjective, and a killing an option.

Since when is it acceptable for people say that because it's not 'quite human' we can just do whatever the heck we want with it?

The logic of something needing to PROVE that it has a right to live is just sick. Why is it that we get to define when it's okay to exterminate something?

Why is it okay to kill an unborn child, period? It might be understandable in some situations, but it doesn't make the choice RIGHT.

I LOVE how a person can go to jail for killing their household pets, but then it's suddenly perfectly okay to kill an unborn child because it hasn't met someone's standards of "It deserves to livee~"

I can support a person's decision on the matter when it is completely necessary, but all the people who think abortion is all right and good is just sick :/

Side: abortion is wrong
2 points

Omgosh....what a wonderful and refreshing post. Not used to seeing ones like yours....most people here are pro-abortion and do not value all life.

What you said about killing and cruelty to pets is right on. Hollywood especially will go out of its way to bash people for this...then be first in line to support killing human beings. One answer for them to just be promiscuous.

Side: abortion is wrong
2 points

I'd say the only exception to this immoral act is if someone gets raped and impregnated.

Otherwise, it's straight murder.

Side: abortion is wrong

Abortion is taking the life of a living human being. We see society up in arms about animal rights and animal abuse. Isn't abortion really the worst case of child abuse you can think of? Every abortionists task is to dismember, kill in any way possible...the living human child in the womb. Death is the only goal. The fetus might be small but nevertheless science says it is human and it is alive. What is it called when you take someones life without their permission? Isn't this murder? If you defend the womans choice to kill saying it is her choice....then should you enslave her by putting restrictions on when the killing takes place? Thus late term abortions should be legal if you are pro-abortion. When does her right to body sovereignty end?

I am all for the right of women to choose but when that choice kills another living human being that right should not exist. The living human growing inside her body is not part of her. It has its own bodily systems, its own DNA, fingerprints etc.

Side: abortion is wrong
CTEd(15) Disputed
1 point

Murder is a legal definition. It is the unlawful killing of another human being. Thus Abortion is not Murder. Shooting a burglar is "taking someone's life without permission" however that is not murder either.

The right to bodily sovereignty should be absolute. What right is more basic that control over our own body. You have the right not have an operation, or medical care or drugs. You also have the right not to forcible donate blood, or organs, or risk your life to save another.

All pregnancy carries risks to life and health, the fetus uses the mother's blood and organs. She has a right to stop their use. Can she abort in the 9th month? No, but she should have the right to evict. She has control of HER body, not the fetuses.

Side: Abortion is right
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

It's ironic that a woman can hire someone to kill her unborn, but should she do it herself, be charged with a crime. Why is this?

The fetus was once recognized as a person in our country but after 1973 it lost its identity and was put up on the chopping block, the bullseye was placed on every unborn fetus's forehead.

You talk about bodily sovereignty....I would assume you mean the right for a woman to abort at any time during the pregnancy since she certainly keeps her own body throughout the term. This means any woman because she has sole ownership of her body can decide what to do with it, even kill in the ninth month. Am I right? Is that what you are saying?

Pregnancy is not dangerous to 99% of those doing it. Less than 1% of ALL WOMEN getting abortions do it because of health issues. And in most case both mother and baby can be saved. So most woman abort because of social issues.

Having a baby is a natural thing to do. Many women do not even go to doctors to be watched and have no problems at all. So don't make the statement that it carries risks above and beyond what pregnancy implies. How many woman die a year in childbirth compared to those who have successful pregnancies? Not many.

You are saying two things in your statement. She owns her body, but she doesn't. Can she abort in the 9th month? NO..........but she should have the right to abort. Abortion kills. If that is what she wants to do, to kill it even in the ninth month, what right do you have then based on what you have said here.....to deny her the right?

Side: abortion is wrong
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

Funny that for hundreds of years abortion was considered murder. Even today if a woman kills or tries to kill her unborn she can be tried. And if someone else kills or tries, they can be prosecuted and go to prison. Scott Peterson...killed that which you say is not a person that deserved to live.

You talk about body sovereignty......then you cant ever take it away...which means you are for allowing late term abortions. You certainly would not want to enslave the woman carrying a nine month old unborn that she decided to kill at the last minute.

Right?

Side: abortion is wrong
catticus90(360) Disputed
-1 points

It is neither right nor wrong. I agree that the latest time to have an abortion should be reduced. In the UK it currently stands at 24 weeks, which is also an age a baby can survive.

I think it's dependent on the situation of the pregnancy. If the child's going to be brought up into a life of poverty, abuse and just be bloody miserable well what kind of an existence is that? I also agree when a child has severe deformities or disabilities or an instance or rape (because of religion raped children as young as 7 have had to give birth which is no life for the baby or the mother). Even discounting these things it's still a woman's choice.

At what point do you consider it to be killing a human life can I ask? Is it once an embryo has implanted or earlier (contraception)?

My main concern with anti-abortionists is that they don't consider the problem of over-populating. If no one had an abortion could you imagine all the extra people there would be populating the planet? We would be in a massive state of poverty, much more drastic than we see now.

Side: Abortion is right
churchmouse(328) Disputed
2 points

Another moral relativist......sigh....

If there is nothing wrong with abortion then how can you say abortion is wrong after 24 weeks? My neice was born at 23 weeks and last year graduated from college. Although it was a long road...she is normal, in fact she is brilliant and graduated with over a 4.4 grade point. To say...that 24 weeks is the cutoff time is wrong. But then...tell me cattiscus...is abortion wrong? And just to let you know.....without intervention no baby could survive birth without help. One who is born earlier than 40 weeks just might need additional help.

Who are you to say...that poverty would be that childs life? Look at the poor people you would have exterminated in order to save them from a life you find pathetic. There are many poor people who are happy. They say the happiest people live in poorer countries. You have no right to tell someone that they dont have a right to live. Funny your saying that....and you were born. LOL Is your life perfect?

You know Hitler had the same idea.........kill people who are undesirable....the Jew, the black the person of faith....dredges on society. Is that where you came up with the idea? Lets kill unborns because they MIGHT end up getting a divorce....lets kill them because they MIGHT be obese, they MIGHT end up being a drunk or abused, MIGHT become a criminal, MIGHT, MIGHT, MIGHT........... You would have aborted Oprah...she was born into poverty.

What makes you think that you have the right to decide for another human being whether he lives or dies?

It is a scientific fact that the sperm in a male is human, it is a fact that the eggs in a female is human.....when the sperm of a male homosapien meets the egg of a female homosapien.........starts another separate HUMAN BEING, who has its own organs, finderprints and DNA. Louise Brown the first test tube baby was NOT APART OF ANYTHING WHEN SHE WAS CONCEIVED. She began her life in a petri dish. She was a human being from conception. Could she sing the Star Spangled Banner, do times tables, drive a car? No But can a baby who is just born do any of those tasks? No

HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY, by Dr. Bradley M. Patten.

He states, "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermaozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Dr. Keith Moore's text on embryology, referring to the single-cell zygote says, "The cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being. He also states, "Each of us stated life as a cell called a zygote."

Dr. Keith Moore, the Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 2d ed. (Philadelphia, Penn)

J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics (New York : McGraw Hill) In their work on biology and obstetrics, state, “The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”

Dr. Louis Fridhandler, in the medical textbook “Gametogenesis to Implantation Biology of Gestation,” vol.1, ed. N.S. Assau (New York: Academic Press) refers to fertilization as “that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new unique individual.”

Doctors, E.L. Potter and J.M Craig write in Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers) “Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.”

These doctors tesified before a United States Senate Committee on life.

Dr. Alfred Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania.

He said, “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….I am no more prepared to say that these early stages of development in the womb represents an incomplete human being than I would be to say that prior to the dramatic effects of puberty….is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris France. He is the doctor who discovered the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. He says” after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion and not a metaphysical contention; it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

I could go on and on and on showing you proof about when life starts...but would it really matter or affect your views on abortion?

Could you just answer this one question for me. What is the goal of every abortionist?

Side: abortion is wrong

If someone says they are pro-choice even though they would never get one themselves...that is the same as being pro-abortion, because to the life in the womb, it makes a lot of difference how someone views THEIR LIFE.

Side: abortion is wrong

it is imoral because it kills a person and every man is created equal also if the mother is a person who would actually be so irresponible as to have unprotected sex when she doesnt want a child then she should have to bear that punishment and should be able to eventually give her child up to adoption

Side: abortion is wrong

Medical science says life starts at conception. How then can hiring a hit on a new human life be a good thing? I work with many people who do not have faith in God and believe that abortion is immoral...so I believe that one need not believe in God to know abortion is wrong. I happen to believe there is a God and that He is the author of life, that life is sacred. How then from both angles could abortion be a good thing?

Side: Abortion is wrong
Thejackster(517) Disputed
0 points

Thats total BS, there is no current scientific evidence that points to life beginning at conception, only "christian scientists" argue this based on their own personal convictions. Btw, we live in a secular society, you may believe in your God, but not everyone does and therefore should not be dictated to live their life based on your personal definition of morality. Im an atheist and I too find abortion awful. But that shouldn't mean that my personal opinion should dictate over a woman's ownership of her own body.

Side: Abortion is right
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

No evidence? There has always been evidence, you just ignore it.

Here ya go. This lengthy but your going to get it....The information comes from Medical textbooks, Medical dictionaries…from universities such as Harvard and from such medical institutions as Mayo Clinic. Others come from Scientific Encyclopedias. NOTHING CHRISTIAN ABOUT THE SOURCES.

The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:

1. "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."

[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

2."Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

3. "Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."

[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]

4."Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."

[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

5."Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."

[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]

6."The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, thezygote."

[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

7."Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."

[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

8."I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."

[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]

9."The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."

[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

10. "The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."

[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]

11."Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."

[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

12."The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

13. "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."

[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

14. "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."

[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

15. "[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....

"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....

"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.

"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"

[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]

None of these sources mention God...or personal beliefs.

Side: Abortion is wrong

More.........

A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.

Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”

Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.”

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.

Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”

Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states,

I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian. 

Side: Abortion is wrong

More......

The First International Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion:

The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.

The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” summarized the issue this way:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/ scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/

And from the National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226168/when-life-begins/robert-p-george

Modern science long ago resolved the question. We actually know when the life of a new human individual begins.

A recently published white paper, “When does human life begin? A scientific perspective,” offers a thorough discussion of the facts of human embryogenesis and early development, and its conclusion is inescapable: From a purely biological perspective, scientists can identify the point at which a human life begins. The relevant studies are legion. The biological facts are uncontested. The method of analysis applied to the data is universally accepted.

Your life began, as did the life of every other human being, when the fusion of egg and sperm produced a new, complete, living organism — an embryonic human being. You were never an ovum or a sperm cell, those were both functionally and genetically parts of other human beings — your parents. But you were once an embryo, just as you were once an adolescent, a child, an infant, and a fetus. By an internally directed process, you developed from the embryonic stage into and through the fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages of development and ultimately into adulthood with your determinateness, unity, and identity fully intact. You are the same being — the same human being — who once was an embryo.

It is true that each of us, in the embryonic and fetal stages of development, were dependent on our mothers, but we were not maternal body parts. Though dependent, we were distinct individual human beings. That is why physicians who treat pregnant women know that they are caring not for one patient, but for two. (Of course, in cases of twins and triplets physicians are caring for more than two!)

Why, then, do we seem so far from a consensus on questions of abortion and embryo-destructive research?

Perhaps because the debate over when human life begins has never been about the biological facts. It has been about the value we ascribe to human beings at the dawn of their lives. When we debate questions of abortion, assisted reproductive technologies, human embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, we are not really disagreeing about whether human embryos are human beings. The scientific evidence is simply too overwhelming for there to be any real debate on this point. What is at issue in these debates is the question of whether we ought to respect and defend human beings in the earliest stages of their lives. In other words, the question is not about scientific facts; it is about the nature of human dignity and the equality of human beings.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.

Condic, a senior fellow of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, published her conclusions in a white paper titled "When Does Human Life Begin?" In the report she addresses the topic using current scientific data in human embryology.

An associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Condic received her doctorate in neurobiology from the University of California, Berkely. Her teaching focuses primarily on embryonic development, and she directs the University of Utah School of Medicine's course in human embryology.

As a scientist and as director of a medical school course in human embryology, I have been considering the general question of when human life begins for quite a few years. The argument put forward in the white paper has grown out of discussions with philosophers, scientists and ethicists, as well as out of my own research in this area.

Yet this topic has come to the fore in the lead-up to the presidential election. While the topic of when life begins has generally been avoided by politicians and government officials, recently a number of prominent figures have offered their interpretations, making this a timely subject to consider with scientific rigor and neutrality.

Q: You define the moment of conception as the second it takes for the sperm and egg to fuse and form a zygote. What were the scientific principles you used to arrive at this conclusion?

Condic: The central question of "when does human life begin" can be stated in a somewhat different way: When do sperm and egg cease to be, and what kind of thing takes their place once they cease to be?

To address this question scientifically, we need to rely on sound scientific argument and on the factual evidence. Scientists make distinctions between different cell types (for example, sperm, egg and the cell they produce at fertilization) based on two simple criteria: Cells are known to be different because they are made of different components and because they behave in distinct ways.

These two criteria are used throughout the scientific enterprise to distinguish one cell type from another, and they are the basis of all scientific (as opposed to arbitrary, faith-based or political) distinctions. I have applied these two criteria to the scientific data concerning fertilization, and they are the basis for the conclusion that a new human organism comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion.

Here is her research in the paper.

http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi whitepaperlife_print.pdf

Side: Abortion is wrong

You are avoiding my question.

No God....the choice of the woman....no restrictions.....

Yes or no....you believe abortion should be allowed throughout the entire nine months....because it is the woman's choice, her body?

Side: Abortion is wrong

Can't wait to hear your reply...the Jackster. Hoping you are investigating some of the information I gave.

Side: Abortion is wrong
1 point

My mum wanted to abort me but my dad talked her out of it.

I don't think there is any way to say that it is morally right. Ending a life before it begins.

But then again humans have sex for fun, unwanted pregnancies are inevitable.

There is no way to stop this from happening and there will always be women out there whom could not raise a child very well.

I fell pregnant through a very casual encounter at the age of 18 and the kept the baby. It just didn't feel right to kill something that was depending on me for life.

I've had friends who've had abortions and I know why they did it and I would never condemn them for it, but at base, abortion is very wrong.

Side: Abortion is wrong
1 point

A person doesn't abort a fetus. They don't set out with the purpose of killing something that "is not alive." If that was all they were doing no one would make a fuss. No one's going to arrest me if I break a stone. What they are killing is the potential for that fetus to move to the next stage of human life, a baby. Fetuses left alone will not stay fetuses, they turn into children, which is why they are aborted. It's not that people don't want a fetus, it's that they don't want a child. The whole purpose of abortion is built around a pro-life concept. That the fetus will turn into a child the mother doesn't want to have. If a fetus stayed a fetus there wouldn't be a point to abortion in the first place. There wouldn't be any inconveniences or health issues. It is the fact that human fetuses turn into human babies that makes people want to get an abortion. Subconsciously pro-choicers are admitting that that fetus will inconvenience them because it will be most definitely be a living human with a few months, even if it is uncertain whether it is human at the moment. By killing an eagle egg you get the same fine as if you shoot an eagle. It has the same end effect, whether the egg is an eagle or not. A potential life is destroyed. It's the same with abortion. Whether it is a human or not now, a human fetus will become a human. A human with a life, experiences, and memories. The potential human may become pro-choice or pro-life, or not care and smoke weed its whole life, but at least it will get to experience life. By aborting a fetus you are destroying a lifetime of experiences, whether good ones or bad ones.

From high school bio is the seven requirements for life which fetuses match all of except perhaps the seventh, the ability to reproduce. However 3 year olds can't reproduce either so unless you are going to argue that the killing of 3 year olds is ok as well you cannot argue that a fetus is not living. The argument seems to be saying that unless you have experienced all of life, you do not have the capability to be a life. Well is a virgin a human? Again one of the 7 requirements for life is reproduction, something virgins haven't experienced. So why are they human and a fetus isn't? Because they have the capability to reproduce (in most circumstances). This proves the point that it is not experience itself that makes one alive, but rather the capability to one day experience. A fetus can one day experience and is therefore considered a living human.

The human species as a whole fulfills those 7 requirements of life. So it doesn't matter therefore if a fetus or a virgin do not fulfill one of them. A tadpole is still considered the same species frog, though it doesn't have all the capabilities of a frog. Humans, like all animals go through multiple phases of life. Being a fetus is just one of those phases of life. You yourself were a fetus once, and you yourself have already passed that stage of life. Many seem to have this elitist view that as you have already passed that stage of life you are superior to said fetus. That you hold the power of life and death over that child simply because you are no longer in that stage of life. It's similar to when someone assumes they're superior intellectually merely because they are older. In this case however, instead of ending with a stuck up person and an annoyed person, you end up with a dead person and an arrogant person who believes the death was morally justifiable. I will never be pro-choice. Even if there's a chance a fetus isn't a human I'd rather err on the side of life.

"For the mental health of the future child, sometimes abortion is a good option". This is a direct quote from a debate with a pro-choicer. Under that logic, for the "mental health of the future child" I should be able to kill anyone with a mental health problem. The logic is dangerously bordering on the logic of fascist Germany, that those with mental health issues are not human and do not have the same rights as humans. Babies do not have the same mental capacity as a fully grown human either. So under that logic killing babies is fine. It is getting very close to a dangerous ideology in which killing the old and young is ok because they do not have the same abilities as me or you. I have more thoughts and feelings than a baby. A philosopher probably has deeper thoughts than me. Can I morally kill a baby? Can that philosopher morally kill me? It is an odd train of thought. Because someone thinks more does not make them more of a person. A person in a coma thinks at the same levels or even less than a fetus. Can I kill them? No! If they come out again they will have the same feelings I do, and advanced thought. They are still considered human. So how is it different with fetuses? Even if they don't have advanced thought now, they will later. So just like someone in a coma they should be considered a human being. You can't cherry pick. Are people in comas AND fetuses not human? Or, as we should argue, are people in comas and fetuses both human? The latter should be true.

One major argument pro-choicers throw out a lot is that it could inconvenience a mother financially. But the whole "it's too expensive" argument is freaking immoral. No matter what your views are, the question should be whether or not that fetus is a human not whether or not there's enough money to keep it fed and alive. It’s expensive to keep a person in a nursing home too.

So here we must weigh what is important. Are money problems more important than death? Because whether or not a human fetus is a living being, it will one day be a human being and by killing that fetus you are killing that future human being. (S)he hasn't experienced life yet, but it will if you do not abort it. No matter what you say you have to admit that by killing that fetus, you are killing that future human. There is nothing that can be argued in the contrary.

And that future human could be great. They could change the world. Maya Angelou. Malcolm X. Steve Jobs. Bill Clinton. Regina Louise. Dr. Wayne Dyer. Eric Clapton. Dave Pelzer. Tom Monaghan. What do they all have in common? They weren't wanted by their birth parents, they all might have had “terrible lives” (an argument I’ve heard put forth. They might have a bad life if they’re allowed to live. But they might have a great one). But sure they should have all been aborted depriving the world of some of its best.

I must now put another point forward. Let's look at this argument completely from an outside perspective with no opinions or thoughts influencing our decisions. Let's say it is unsure whether a fetus can be considered human. Is it not better to be unsure and abortion free, in case there is even the slightest chance it is a human life? Do you think pregnancy is worse than death? Because even if you don't THINK a fetus a human life, (and there is no objective answer or there wouldn't be a debate on this) you must admit that if your opinion may end pain and discomfort, and mine may end a death, wouldn't you rather (even if you were 99% sure of your opinion) a life potentially saved is worth more than a life potentially set back?

Side: Abortion is wrong
1 point

How can you even make the argument that abortion is moral? It's not, anybody who says otherwise is an idiot and I'm going to tell you why. I know a common pro-choice argument is simplify posing the question "what about in cases where the mother's life is in danger/rape/ incest etc.?" It is EXTREMELY flawed logic to look at all abortion cases through a scope that shows you only a minuscule percentage of abortion cases. Next, legality and morality are two completely different things; just because something is immoral doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal (adultery). So there is no need to bring up how making abortion illegal doesn't significantly decrease the amount of abortions.

Abortion raises many ethical issues. When is it not okay to abort a fetus? When there's a heart beat? When it's born? It makes no sense how something can be so disposable 5 minutes before birth, but valued as much as a human being after. What changed about the fetus in those 5 minutes?

If a pregnant woman is killed the assailant can be charged with double homicide. If a fetus is so worthless and just a "pile of cells", then why is it valued just as much as a human life when it is wanted? Who is the mother to decide if the same fetus has no value, or infinite value?

Is the fetus really part of the mother's body? When you see a pregnant woman, you don't say "how's your belly?", you say "how's your baby?" because the fetus is obviously different from the rest of the woman's body. Find one science textbook that labels a fetus as part of the basic female anatomy.

Abortion also raises many ethical issues. What is an acceptable reason for having an abortion? If your child is retarded? Disabled? If your child is a girl? With further advances made constantly, what if soon we can find out a fetus's sexuality in the womb? Is it okay to abort a baby because they are gay? Where do you draw the line.

"I've noticed that everybody for abortion has already been born."- Ronald Reagan

Side: Abortion is wrong
Quantumhead(733) Clarified
1 point

How can you even make the argument that abortion is moral?

Easily. A life of pain and torture is quite arguably worse than a swift and humane death. Forcing a baby into the world which the parents don't want will more than likely cause the child deep psychological issues, drug addiction, a lifetime of unhappiness and neglect, followed by an eventual suicide. And that's even doing you the favour of accepting your stupid notion that a fetus is the same thing as a person.

Side: Abortion is wrong
4 points

Take this hypothetical.

A woman, her child and a doctor are out hiking in no mans land and they have an accident (a fall lets say). The child is injured. He needs a blood transfusion and the mother and child are the same type (the doctor is not).

The doctor explains the risks to the mother - the child needs a lot of blood and he has no way to measure how much is being taken... there is a risk she will loose too much blood and die.

She agrees

He hooks her up, so she is supporting the childs life. After 10 minutes she is starting to feel lightheaded, and gets scared. She decides she doesn't want to do this anymore - she has 2 other children at home that need her.

Does she have the right to unhook herself? The child will surely die. Of course she does, it's legal, and nobody has ever tried to make it illegal. Even after agreeing, and being hooked up, she can change her mind.

So if a women gets pregnant, and the fetus is hooked up to her, why does she have to stay hooked up? At some point between her and the fetus the umbilical is part of her body. Does she not have the right to disconnect it if she feels she is not up to going through with it?

Why would a women be legally required to keep her fetus alive by allowing it access to her body, but has no legal requirement that she keep her child alive after it is born (even if there is 0 risk to her life)? A women has a right to not have her body used by someone else.

Side: Abortion is right
churchmouse(328) Disputed
2 points

She has a right to unhook herself...but she is not slaughtering the child. The child might die might not....nature takes it course.

The fetus in the womb is not dying on its own its fine. The mother pays someone to kill it. This is totally different.

So since you are pro-abortion....I assume you are pro-abortion since you do give the woman the right it is her body.....to kill it even after nine months.

Got one for ya. The woman is in scheduled for a csection in one week. She gets scared and decides that she does not want the baby. Is perfectly acceptable for her to kill it at nine months?

The woman took the risk that she might get pregnant. If she did not want a baby she should not have had sex, or done something to prevent it like sterilization.

And for your information the baby is not part of the mother. It has its own DNA, bodily systems, heart, circulatory system, fingerprints. If the baby is part of the mother....do you think that she should be able to kill it after its born?

Side: abortion is wrong
Sitara(11082) Disputed
1 point

Strawman. Prochoice is not proabortion anymore than it is proadoption or proparenting.

Side: Abortion is right
1 point

It's not a baby until it has sufficient brainwaves....................................................................................................................................

Side: Abortion is right
Chuz-Life(496) Clarified
1 point

As a clarification and not a dispute. The Umbilical cord is produced by the child's body.... not the mothers. So, the umbilical cord is not 'part of' the mother's body like you claim.

Side: Abortion is wrong
Republican2(349) Disputed
0 points

In your hypothetical, the woman is not aware of the impending accident. If a person goes hiking, they aren't expecting of an accident to occur, or they would not have undertaken it in the first place. Pregnancy is different because it requires sex which is a decision that everyone knows may result in pregnancy. Now you may think, "Taking a hike in no man's land is also a decision that includes risk" and you'd be right. But I believe this is where the debate breaks down to individual opinion. I am of the opinion that when a person becomes a parent (by deliberate decision or otherwise) they are responsible for the safety of that new human. Even to the extent of risking their own lives. That is my definition of assuming responsibility for the risks. That being said, I don't think there should be laws in place to force people to carry thorough a pregnancy, or donate blood to their injured child. But I believe it to be immoral for a parent to favor their own safety over that of their children. Born or not.

Side: abortion is wrong
churchmouse(328) Disputed
3 points

I respectfully think you are wrong.

Hiking is not dangerous really....mountain climbing on the other hand is. You take risks to do it. This is taking responsiblity for your actions...even if the risks you took backfired and became reality. And this is the case for intercourse between a man and a woman. THE RISK IS ALWAYS THERE....unless the woman or the man is sterile. If a woman has sexual intercourse with a man who was wearing protection....and that protection broke....how do you think she would feel? Anxious? Worried? If a woman who takes the pill had sex with a man...and later learned she forget to take one the day before...how would she feel? Worried? Sure she would....because mistakes happen...but that does not change the risk factor that she took. The risk was there...and human error, condom malfunctions can happen. How is that the fault of the new life they both created? It is unfortunate, but nevertheless, the life got started.

I dont think it should be individual opinion....it should be what the facts state. And it is a fact that at conception that which is living in the womb is a human being. Now its small, but that does not change its state. A little ant working hard on a hill....has all it needs to live....its small...but the workings of his bodily system works. And a fetus however small...has the same qualities...but is human. The heart starts at around twenty days...and every day grows and something develops. The issue is...does anyone have the right to kill a living human being without its concent. We have people here who are against killing animals for food, but they are pro-abortion and believe killing humans is obviously more moral. Figure that one out.

If you say they are responsible..is the responsible thing to do is kill it? How responsible is that? Do you think that two wrongs make a right?

You say there should be no laws to enslave the woman, that she should NOT be forced to carry a baby to full term. That means in your statement that you also would condone abortion in the ninth month. So don't come back and say........"ooops...now I don't mean that...only until its viable.." And gee when is viablity and what does that matter....the woman does not want it...and by your own statement should be allow to kill it whenever she wants. Anythink less as i said would enslave her and FORCE HER TO DO WHAT YOU SAY, NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO...in this case our government. How humane is your statement really? Donating blood does not kill anyone.

And in the United States we can really force people to give blood. When someone is arrested for drunk driving...most often they have to give blood. Denying it would really be an admission of guilt and the arresting officer can use it as evidence.

I don't get that you think its immoral for a parent to favor their own safety over their childs, yet believe the mother can kill her child while it is in the womb. ????????

Yours is certainly not the Republican stance thats for sure.

Side: Abortion is right
2 points

I am actually pro-abortion but pro-choice will suffice. Human beings are moral agents, moral agents are moral because we are perceivers and valuers, the ability to perceive and value is only possible when we are conscious. it is therefore our being consciousnes that gives us moral agency.

Prior to and independent of our consciousness (and by consiousness, I mean both waking and sleeping levels), our bodies are only able to be classified as human insofar as moral agency is concerned. The term "human-being" really only applies to humans that embody all the distinctions which are sufficient for moral agency. It is only then that we are truly identifiable as human-beings. a hand that is detached is not a human being, an eye, an ear, a heart, leg, etc... these are all just part of the whole, and even when assembled we are not yet a person unless we have the conscious element.

Since consciousness only becomes possible at the onset of the third trimester ~ 26 weeks, it is immoral to kill, what I would then call a child. Prior to consciousness the fetus is a fetus, not having moral agency because it lacks the sufficient condition of personhood. Many people like to think about potentiality arguments with regard to a fetus, that it could become conscious. However, potential doesnt relate to the here and now and are therefore invalid insofar as the moral status of the action (abortion) is concerned.

Potentiality arguments actually are appropriate as justifications contrary to pro-life opinions because they are valid when speaking of a fetus that will not be aborted, this is because it will almost certainly gain consciouness. For females that are too young to be mothers due to their immaturity as humans - generally thought of as anything younger than the age of majority (18) but also could extend to any age since mental and emotional maturity are only related to age in childhood adolescence and young adulthood - the potential life of the child has a 98-99% chance of being very impoverished both developmentally and with regards to being a productive member of society. The potential life will likely suck a lot.

Thus...

If moral agency is not established and the life will likely suck, abortion is the ideal choice. Abortion is an a-moral action (not having moral status) prior to the onset of consciousness. So in light of this people should be having more abortions. I think it is more responsible to abort a child that is unwanted and who's life will probably suck, than it is to not. the notion of responsibility should always be predicated upon the quality of the potential child's life - if its life will likely be impoverished it is irresponsible to have it. "Taking responsibility for the mistake of not using protection" is a bad way to think of it.

So I say ...

- Be moral, have an abortion (not a joke)

Side: Abortion is right

(Headdesk)

I hate these For/Against debates about abortion. Abortion is NOT one sided! Both radical sides of the argument are full of idiocy! Which of course is why I have a totally neutral opinion. Abortion is totally okay up until a certain, and totally unacceptable after a certain point.

Side: Abortion is right
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

Abortion is one sided, it is either right or wrong...there can be no neutrality. It is either moral to kill the fetus or its not. Why do you sit the fence?

If a woman has the right to her body as pro-aborts maintain...then abortion should be legal until the childs natural birth....nine months. You say its unacceptable.....at a certain point. Why?

Side: abortion is wrong
chatturgha(1630) Disputed
0 points

Nothing is one sided. There is good and evil, but mostly gray. There is neutrality in everything. How can you say there is no neutrality? That's naive.

I don't sit the fence, I say the radical opinions are idiotic, and it's foolish to not think they are. To say that you can kill a fetus at any stage in the pregnancy isn't right, but never allowing a women to do something specific to her own body also isn't right.

Why do I say that? Well, simple: humans cannot judge humanity with our mere senses. The fact that we can't is the reason racism and fascism and sexism exists in the first place. You can't judge humanity by yourself and neither can I. Nobody can.

But we're supposed to be beyond that sort of thing. Open-thought and technology accelerate us as a race. We're better then to take radical sides anymore.

With that said, what constitutes a human being? Most would agree that a consciousness, a soul, constitutes a human being. We can't measure a consciousness without machines, but we can still do it.

If we can only measure humanity by measuring consciousness, then that means, until a fetus has a developed brain with measurable brainwaves, it is only a mass of soulless meat.

It's a mass of meat until it exhibits brain waves for the same reason a severed arm is a mass of meat: just because it's made of human flesh and cells doesn't make it human. It has no consciousness, and therefore it has no soul.

You cannot measure it's soul without measuring it's consciousness, so you cannot presume that it has a soul before it has a consciousness, but you can presume that is has a soul during and after it has a consciousness because you can measure it's consciousness.

Therefore, abortion is moral up until the fetus develops a consciousness. Afterwards, it is a human being and cannot be aborted. If it is aborted at that point, it is murder. Before then, it's not.

To say that one radical side is right over the other is foolish. Both sides are illogical and presumptuous. Neutrality is the only logic and morality.

Side: Abortion is right
1 point

HEAR! HEAR!

I'd add that it is not the "defining moral issue of the day" since it's only like 15% of the population making tons of noise about it, the same people who always make a bunch of noise about settled issues, but for some reason every rep listens to that 15%.

But why make it more confusing than it has to be? Good answer.

Side: Abortion is right
braydens24(20) Disputed
1 point

Please tell me what is "full of idiocy" about this argument.

Based on the laws of reason, you can't do any action without expecting some kind of consequence, good or bad. In this case, you can't have unprotected sex without expecting to get pregnant, and it is WRONG to believe that you shouldn't have to endure the consequences of your actions. If I murder someone, can I expect that I won't have to receive criminal punishment, simply because I don't want to face the consequences of my actions?

No I cannot.

Side: abortion is wrong
chatturgha(1630) Disputed
0 points

Pro-choice is full of idiocy because unlimited rights in every situation is, of course, ridiculous. You're right, you're supposed to be able to be punished for your actions if you do something stupid. To have the rights to avoid responsibility for every last mistake you make is an abandonment of logic.

Pro-life is full of idiocy because most of the time it is based on the notion that the second a sperm and egg meet and become a single complete cell, they become a human being with all of the same rights of a human being. That is an abandonment of logic.

Logical, truly moral balance is found on middle ground between the two extremes.

Side: Abortion is right
1 point

If you will admit that abortion is EVER the best course of action in a given situation, the you will have to also admit that by definition, abortion is not murder. Now since the killing of an unborn fetus is sometimes legally designated as murder, we could discuss when it is appropriately termed "abortion" and when it is appropriately termed "murder"

I can jump ahead and point out that in cases of "medical necessity" most people would agree that an abortion is not immoral. Now should the determination of medical necessity be a privately or publicly made decision? ie should a government agency have the authority to review a doctor/patient assessment of medical necessity?

Perhaps I've typed enough to spur some conversation.

Side: Abortion is right
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

I can't admit that of course because I am pro-life. Even in the case of incest and rape...the child is also the victim and has the right to life even though the mother had an act of violence thrust upon her. Abortion is also a violent and cruel act. We dont even abort animals like we do our own human children.

In what circumstances do you consider abortion if any murder?

Or do you just think all cases of abortion are ok?

What do you mean medical necessity? Do you mean the less than 1% of the cases when abortion is perform to save the mothers life? In most cases both can be saved.

If there is nothing wrong with abortion....why don't people talk about it like its just any other kind of surgery? It is the most common surgery performed in America today. Do you ever hear a woman say....gee I cant have lunch with you cause I have to have an abortion that day. OR hear a discussion about abortion at the Thanksgiving table? Or a mother tell her kids....about an abortion she had? Why don't people talk openly about abortion today, especially the women getting them? If its moral....then why the stigma? IS THERE SOMETHING MORALLY WRONG WITH ABORTION?

Side: abortion is wrong
fnnkybutt(1) Disputed
2 points

"We don't even abort animals like we do our own human children"

As a former veterinary technician, I can tell you that you're quite mistaken. Many dogs and cats are brought into the vets office to be "spayed" in late stages of pregnancy. The pups/kits that are removed with the uterus are usually killed immediately by breaking their necks or by lethal injection. Horrific, yes it is. But beats the heck out of the alternative, having even more unwanted pets in the streets and shelters.

I don't like having to choose a side that says "abortion is right" because I don't think it is. But I do absolutely believe in the right of a woman to choose an abortion if she and her doctor believe it is the best choice for her. Sometimes an abortion is the lesser of two evils - and I don't think anyone but a woman and her doctor should be allowed to make that decision for her.

Side: Abortion is right
catticus90(360) Disputed
1 point

If there is nothing wrong with abortion....why don't people talk about it like its just any other kind of surgery?

Your surgery opinion is stupid. I never had someone, unless I knew them on a highly personal level, talk about surgery. When was the last time someone waltzed up to you in work and said "hey, today I'm having a groin abcess drained!"

In what circumstances do you consider abortion if any murder?

This the UK abortion act.

To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act, two doctors must give their consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her existing children.

This is my view entirely. You can't pin point exact opinions or 'when is it murder' because it always depends on circumstance. If you mean gestation I can't answer that because it's purely scientific but I personally believe once a baby is a viable living age.

Side: Abortion is right
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

I can't admit that of course because I am pro-life.

Who is the authority on what pro-lifers may and may not admit?

In what circumstances do you consider abortion if any murder?

If it's murder it's murder, if it's abortion it's not murder. Situations where a life is ended for no good medical reason shouldn't be called abortions.

Or do you just think all cases of abortion are ok?

I don't think it's OK to commit murder and call it abortion.

What do you mean medical necessity?

Necessary as determined in the confidential Doctor Patient relationship.

Do you mean the less than 1% of the cases when abortion is perform to save the mothers life?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's disgusting, how often murdering a perfectly viable and healthy fetus passes for a legitimate medical procedure.

If there is nothing wrong with abortion....why don't people talk about it like its just any other kind of surgery?

Because a very young human dies, and people don't want to think about that. They want to put it out of their minds.

It is the most common surgery performed in America today

That gives me the shivers to think about.

IS THERE SOMETHING MORALLY WRONG WITH ABORTION?

No.

Side: Abortion is right
0 points

I think they did a scientific study a while ago about when a fetus can feel pain (or when the brain was active) and used that to create a cut off point of 24 weeks (in the UK). However this has obviously been discredited after babies as young as 22 weeks have survived, yet the abortion gestation has not changed. This is clearly inhumane, and I think it should be lowered. But how you would find a ethical gestation point is beyond me.

Side: Abortion is right
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

So you say its inhumane but still are pro-choice? What does that say about YOU?

Side: abortion is wrong
1 point

... wait, did you just try to bring science into an obviously poorly desguised religion debate? How dare you? Feel the wrath of whichever idiot is going to argue with you while ignoring everything you just said.

Side: Abortion is right
1 point

I dont particularly care what someone does with their own body if they want to kill their baby thats their problem not mine. What i do think is wrong is when a woman can get like eight abortions, just hand the chick some birth-control and send her home after the first time.

Side: Abortion is right
churchmouse(328) Disputed
3 points

Why should it matter how many she kills? If abortion isnt anything for you....then why do you care? Should there be a limit on how many she can kill?

And I commend you on using the proper terms for abortion, the terms no pro-abort really will use. At least you put it out there for all to see.

"Killing their baby"..........

Side: abortion is wrong
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

I love when someone says what you just did in your post.

You don't care if they kill....in your mind its moral.........but

there should be a limit as to how many THEY CAN KILL.

LMAO

Honey, abortion is a form of birth control for a lot of women.

Side: abortion is wrong
1 point

First off, I would like to remind everyone that this debate involves the morality of abortion, not the legality of abortion. Those two topics are completely different, especially since the legal system is not set up to be a perfect morality emulator.

A fetus does not have the right to life as long as it is nothing more than a product of its mother and father. When that fetus begins to respond to its environment in a way that environmentally expresses its genes to be different than that of what is found in the mother and the father, it is entitled to life. Most scientists believe this occurs in the last trimester of pregnancy, which isn't the best time to have an abortion anyways. But before the fetus begins to respond to its environment like I mentioned, it is not an individual. It has no characteristics different than what the mother and the father have or have at least passed onto it. Something that is not an individual is not entitled to those rights.

Regardless, abortion is typically always a tough decision for every woman. Many find it to not be the most moral of decisions, but it is usually found to be the right decision.

Side: Abortion is right
1 point

Abortion is the choice of the woman, because she has the child. It is best if at the beginning of pregnancy abortion, because that is the child is not large. Just before the birth abortion, I find it disgusting, because the child has to a large extent to be born perfect. So I think it's good as long as it is the beginning of pregnancy, but just before giving birth.

Side: Abortion is right
1 point

It depends on the situation. I am prochoice though. :'(

Side: Abortion is right

It's not our place to dictate what a woman does with her body. If you think that I am wrong, then that same woman should be able to had a part in the decision of me getting a tattoo. It's none of our business. And FYI, if the church hadn't been so anti-birth control, there would be very little use for abortion. Most abortions would of been prevented if that woman had birth control/proper sex-ed available to her. Maybe instead of blaming the women who made this choice, we should blame the group of people in this country who brought is to this point. Yah, I'm talking about you theists!

Side: Abortion is right

If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose.

If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America.

Side: Abortion is right

My body, my choice. I don't want sick babies born from my body.

Side: Abortion is right
0 points

Nobody has the right to another person's body. A woman has the right, for lack of a better term, evict. It is her body, she does not have to gestate for 9 months if she doesn't want to. Arguments about having sex mean you accept pregnancy are ludicrous.

Look at it this way. We don't require parents to give up their organs, or their blood, or their extra kidney, or even their bone marrow in order to save the life of their 1 year old child. If that child needed a transplant or it dies, we do not force the parents to donate. even something like Bone marrow, that will not kill them. We don't force anyone to undergo a medical procedure they don't want to.

So why would we force a woman to keep the fetus alive. It uses her kidneys, blood, lungs, etc. Pregnancy can cause health problems and complications worse than being a bone marrow donor, or even a kidney donor. Why would the law force a woman to go through pregnancy until the fetus is born, but not require the parents to keep the born child alive? Why does the fetus get special protection that a child does not?

The woman needs to choose to gestate for 9 months, and accept the risks that go with it at every stage. She has the right to change her mind if the risks become to great, or even her awareness of the risks become too great. When she becomes pregnant, she should have the right to research and evaluate the risks of carrying to term consult with her doctor and accept or reject those risks.

Side: Abortion is right
churchmouse(328) Disputed
2 points

So then you are one of the pro-aborts who believe the woman has the right to kill all the way through the 40 weeks, right? Wow.

But the created human being is not apart of the womans body that is what you just don't get. She didnt need to get pregnant if she didn't want too either. The fact is...if you have sex if you are a woman, YOU take the chance of getting pregnant. It is her responsiblity and she is the one taking the RISK. No one else is to blame...unless a rape occurred.

Abortion is the most performed medical procedure on earth. It is not like other procedures as abortion kills. The abortionists task, goal is to make sure the human being who is alive, is dead when he/she gets through with it. Now if you don't value life then you condone it. If you do, then you don't. Louise Brown was conceived in a test tube. Other than the egg and the sperm...she did not use any organs of her mothers body.,,just a safe place to grow and mature. Pregnancy and giving birth is the most natural thing on earth. It has been going on since the beginning of time. Most pregnancies are uncomplicated and most women would do fine never even seeing a doctor during pregnancy.

A child who is alive would get all the things you say they wouldnt. No hospital on earth would deny lifesaving measures taken to save a child. Even in the cases where parents want to deny....for religious reasons, the courts usually overturn their wishes. Also in the case of death...if parents kill their child out of the womb....its murder. If she (the man is not an issue) kills it while its in the womb....it is not. So the born child gets protection, the womb child does not.

Side: abortion is wrong
catticus90(360) Disputed
1 point

She didnt need to get pregnant if she didn't want too either

Why don't you respond to my posts? I've said this before but woman do take measures to not get pregnant by using contraception. Contraception fails. I got pregnant on the contraceptive pill which I took correctly, it happens (I didn't abort by the way, but it's just an example). Or do you consider contraception killing of a potential child too?

The fact is...if you have sex if you are a woman, YOU take the chance of getting pregnant. It is her responsiblity and she is the one taking the RISK. No one else is to blame..

Wow , you're one hell of a sexist! Why does a woman have to take sole responsibility of a pregnancy? How dare you say no one else to blame! The man is just as responsible for the action of sex and creating a life yet he wouldn't get your giant speech on the immorality or creating unwanted life. Not once in the whole discussion have you ever mentioned the males role in creating a baby just how terrible the woman is.

Louise Brown was conceived in a test tube. Other than the egg and the sperm...she did not use any organs of her mothers body

She was conceived in a test tube. She didn't spend 9 months on a petri dish growing. Her embryo was placed into a womb and relied on a woman's organs to live. Your statement is all wrong.

If she (the man is not an issue) kills it while its in the womb....it is not

The man is not the issue? Do you realize how many woman get abortions because the person who impregnated them pressured them into doing so? The men often want the woman they got pregnant to abort. He is just as responsible for creating the life as she is and if wants her to abort then he is just as responsible for the termination.

Side: Abortion is right
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

So you are for abortion all throughout the pregnany am I right?

So a couple of weeks before she is due and wants to kill her baby, thats ok?

Should she be able to kill it say....one minute after its born?

Side: abortion is wrong
Animegirl300(26) Disputed
1 point

That's funny: she was so keen on 'evicting' when she had someone's dick up inside her C:

Arguments that say "Cause and Effect don't matter if you don't like it" are also ludicrous. The very purpose of sex IS to have children. That is fact.

I love how people like using things with no regard for the CONSEQUENCES and as soon as they are faced with the consequences they decide to take the easy way out. It's the same thing with people who abuse alcohol.

You get drunk: The result is a hangover.

That's science.

You CHOSE to get drunk.

You also CHOOSE to risk the hangover.

If you can't handle consequences, then don't act on the cause!

Side: abortion is wrong

Abortion is right because the moral values that "pro life" advocates usually hold is that of religious sediments, most of the time disregarding whether or not abortion is helpful to society. Abortion prevents unwanted children, and or growth in areas where we most certainly wouldn't want it. Abortion increases happy family rates, and higher average level of education among families. A fetus is, for all intents and purposes, part of the women until removed from the women, and before any pro lifers try to mince those words I'll go outright and say yes it does mean I support the abortion of a child no matter the stage of development, an unwanted baby that couldn't be dealt with for whatever reason at one point weeks is no different from a unwanted baby at another. Ignorant religious people argue that such barbaric elimination of human life is evil, but I find it odd that they would object to something that would result in the immediate entry to heaven(by my knowledge Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all believe babies who die go straight to heaven). Why subject them to the hardships of life when they aren't wanted? I also agree with the fact that mothers should have the only say in whether or not she has an abortion( I also believe however that a man who wants an abortion but gets denied should have the right to be exempt from child support) My ideas on the subject go into extremes far beyond normal pro choice standards, but I honestly feel satisfaction in knowing I support something that is beneficial to society. And before anyone questions the lack of "morals" behind my believes just know that in our modern world, "morality" has no meaning, just different perceptions developed from our understanding of religion. Without religion there would be no such thing as "evil". I prefer to live in a world driven by logic, and to that point abortion is a logical way to better structure the family units in the world today.

Side: Abortion is right
churchmouse(328) Disputed
2 points

And that is wrong? Atheism is a religion. Listen when I debate I rarely if ever bring up religion, I don't have too. Science is clear about when human life starts.

Although I think you are unbelievable in what your post says here...again, I think at least you have the guts to spew what you feel and stand by it. The content is well...cold, inhumane, compassionless,empty....I could go on....

I believe in the saying keep your friends close, but your enemy even closer. I want people like you close.

I believe in free speech...so I am going to address and comment on the things you say here in the most honest way possible. Your views mirror Hitler and Margaret Sangers on life so it seems. Not totally, don't know if your a racist....but on the issue of abortion and many societal factors I think your pretty close. They thought killing certain segments of the population for the good of society was right. You feel the same way...only those you want to kill are in the womb. Do you also feel that people who are already born who are handicapped, mentally challenged, poor, those under a certain IQ should be eliminated? Maybe you do I don't know. Your worldview is simply one of the coldest I have seen.

Abortion prevents unwanted children.....Well first off there is no such thing as an unwanted child. There are people that adopt children every day.

Abortion increases happy family rates....Well if you think murder and killing make you happy then, that alone says a lot about a character of someone.

Abortion tears families apart. Abortion can affect a woman mentally for the rest of her life. It can cause shame, anquish and psychological trauma not only for her but for the father, children even grandparents if they know about the abortion. Most women who have had an abortion never tell anyone because of the stigma, because they know what they have done. If you think living with abortion is easy then you have another thing coming. We will never know statistically how many women suffer because most do not get help, most do not come forward and share.

Studies show that what I am saying is true. If you would like a list of many studies would be happy to fork them over.

Where are you getting the information that abortion increases the level of education? LOL Could you site that study would love to read it.

The fact is Guttmaucher says this...which does not make sense with what you are saying.

"Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15-17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18-19 obtain 11%, and teens under age 15 obtain 0.4%."

" Women in their twenties account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25-29 obtain 24%."

Now this age group would be out of high school and college, most are not even in school.

"About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children."

This group is not going to school....most likely because they have multiple children at home. And if they are going for multiple abortion using it as birth control, they are not the sharpest tools in the shed. Abortion is not cheap and they obviously didn't learn by the first abortion.

" Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children)."

Not the highest education group. You think by having an abortion these womens educational level will go up? LOL

Most abortion clinics are in poorer neightborhoods because it was set up that way. Sanger was a racist and she though blacks were inferior (Hitler admired her and agrees which history can attest to that)so she targeted them specifically. She talked at KKK meetings encouraging its members to target blacks. The Negro Project, Eugenic plan for Blacks....read them they will tell you all about her racism.

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race

(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people"

On the purpose of birth control she said:

"The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)"

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said.

"Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

"I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915)

She was about forced abortion and mass sterilization for blacks. She was an inspiration to Hitler...and obviously her views still guide PP and others like you today.

Your thinking is dangerous to society. You presume to know what is good for society...and that good has all to do with killing. Both Hitler and Sanger believed what you are saying. Look where Hitlers worldview took him.....and the others he mass murdered.

I find what you say about men and abortion commical. I am certainly praying at this point you have no children and won't. I can only imagine how they would be raised.

You say the woman should have the say.....and then you want to be excused from parenting if its your sperm that impregnated the woman and you dont want the baby. Ahhhh you poor thing....not included.

Libertarian worldview.....all about themselves, nothing about anyone else...a cold cold unliveable philiosophy of life. Liberty for your kind is slavery, killing those they think are unworthy to live. Freedom of expression for you people is the gun....pointed at someones head. No absolutes....people just doing what they want to do even if it hurts society, even if it hurts their own family.

Your views are radical and your right you dont care about anything moral...that speak to your conscience and lack of one. For you rape could be good in some circumstances....and well we know your all for killing those that you dont think deserve to live. God only knows who is in that group.

Your worldview is not logical at all in fact I find it hidiously evil and dangerous. It strips away the preciousness of life and living. What a sad world you live in. Which is why those that value life....need to keep you close.

Side: abortion is wrong
1 point

"Atheism is a religion"

No it's not. I view atheism is the theory that there isn't a god, and under those contexts it isn't a religion because it doesn't group in any way shape or form.

"I think at least you have the guts to spew what you feel and stand by it. The content is well...cold, inhumane, compassionless,empty....I could go on...."

Yes I dropped the fear of being open in my views no matter how extreme they are. Cold, maybe, but compassionless? No, at least not by the standard I hold myself to believing that it helps society. Empty? definitely not, my view has a defined purpose that only seems wrong by the dim standards developed by the main religions of the world.(you will hear me criticize religion whenever I see logic spawned from religion born patterns of thinking.

"I believe in the saying keep your friends close, but your enemy even closer. I want people like you close."

I respectfully agree.

"Your views mirror Hitler and Margaret Sangers on life so it seems. Not totally, don't know if your a racist....but on the issue of abortion and many societal factors I think your pretty close."

I respect Hitler's ability to have fixed the economy of Germany, yes. I don't care for the extermination of a race, no. I don't believe it's wrong to admire the positive side to a negative situation.

"They thought killing certain segments of the population for the good of society was right. You feel the same way...only those you want to kill are in the womb"

I do believe it's right(womb not the killing of functioning members of society), Im not going to play the shifty democrat here and change my positions constantly which will appall you in the coming comment most likely.

"Do you also feel that people who are already born who are handicapped, mentally challenged, poor, those under a certain IQ should be eliminated?"

Yes I do because that is a solution to quell inheritable diseases in our species that produce members that cannot add anything to society, let alone enjoy a standard of independent life(this view applies to major disabilities, I am undecided on minor diseases that produce somewhat capable members.) As of IQ, I would love to be rid of stupid people but stupidity supplies the labor of current society I guess so not much can be done there.

"Abortion prevents unwanted children.....Well first off there is no such thing as an unwanted child. There are people that adopt children every day."

And there are children that grow up in an orphanage, tormented by the fact that not only did their parents not want them ,nobody else did either. That is a foundation of an unstable mind that could result in something very bad.

"Abortion increases happy family rates....Well if you think murder and killing make you happy then, that alone says a lot about a character of someone. "

It increases happy family rates by keeping the family unit at a desired number.

"Abortion tears families apart. Abortion can affect a woman mentally for the rest of her life. It can cause shame, anquish and psychological trauma not only for her but for the father, children even grandparents if they know about the abortion. Most women who have had an abortion never tell anyone because of the stigma, because they know what they have done. If you think living with abortion is easy then you have another thing coming. We will never know statistically how many women suffer because most do not get help, most do not come forward and share"

The stigma you refer to only exists due to the unfortunate inescapable entity that is religion. And if living with an abortion is hard, then living with a child you can't take care of is harder. My evidence for that last statement being me and my mother.

"Studies show that what I am saying is true."

Not disputing what you are saying is true, just disputing the meaning and reason behind it.

"If you would like a list of many studies would be happy to fork them over"

The statistics however few I have presented are more or less citations from my private political theory professor Hollis. Wish I knew her first name but never felt the need to until years after being taught.

"Where are you getting the information that abortion increases the level of education?"

Again a loose citation but this one is more obvious. In countries with a higher reproduction rate then normal almost always live in poverty or at the very least a low standard of living. Bangladesh anyone? However, in countries with a normal or even lower then normal reproduction rate, the level of education is much higher, and that isn't by any means hard to justify.

"Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15-17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18-19 obtain 11%, and teens under age 15 obtain 0.4%.Women in their twenties account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25-29 obtain 24&#xNo;w this age group would be out of high school and college, most are not even in school.About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children."

Okay? I also believe in using abortion as a birth control, although the pill seems a much better option to me.

"Abortion is not cheap and they obviously didn't learn by the first abortion"

Well repetition is the way to learn i guess.

"Not the highest education group. You think by having an abortion these womens educational level will go up?"

No I said the educational level of the family unit goes up, which is true, due to the fact that when you aren't forced to pay for the schooling of a kid you didn't want, then you have much more to get better schooling for a kid you did want.

"Most abortion clinics are in poorer neightborhoods because it was set up that way. Sanger was a racist and she though blacks were inferior (Hitler admired her and agrees which history can attest to that)so she targeted them specifically. She talked at KKK meetings encouraging its members to target blacks. The Negro Project, Eugenic plan for Blacks....read them they will tell you all about her racism. "

I don't care about her being racist. Racism is just a held view, no different then holding a preference over pulp or pulp free in your orange juice. In the field of political theory, in which I have a considerable holding, racism doesn't exist, only racial preference which actually for the sake of argument increases effectiveness among a people. Attack that if you must, but bear in mind I still have not indicated whether or not I have a preference, so don't waste too much time on it.

"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said."

It is quite the negative influence when we consider the very structure of the human mind mixed with the animalistic side of our species that society strives so hard to contain, but that is a part of society not likely too change.

"She was about forced abortion and mass sterilization for blacks. She was an inspiration to Hitler...and obviously her views still guide PP and others like you today."

I am not for forced abortion or mass sterilization of blacks, I merely hold that abortions are a greatly positive thing in society and shouldn't by any means be discouraged. I don't care much about racial differences except how they pertain to statistics involving the economy. And like I said before, I may agree with some parts of a persons beliefs and not the other. Just because I may or may not agree with some similarly held beliefs of Margaret Sanger does not mean I by any means am inspired by her.

"Your thinking is dangerous to society. You presume to know what is good for society...and that good has all to do with killing. Both Hitler and Sanger believed what you are saying. Look where Hitlers worldview took him.....and the others he mass murdered."

Dangerous? No more so then religion is. At least my "danger" is in the name of logical progression of society and whether or not you see it that way is irrelevant. You seem to refer to Hitler in most of your debates, I believe Mao Zedong would be a much better example for the logic you are using, just a suggestion.

"I find what you say about men and abortion commical. I am certainly praying at this point you have no children and won't. I can only imagine how they would be raised."

I be a wonderful dad, I would let them grow their own beliefs on god and structure, those things are up to them to figure out. My duty would be protection and learning of basic functions. It is not my place in my standing to dictate how my child views thing in the world around him. If he wants to be pro life, all the power to him, as long as he(or she) truly believes in what the hold I am fine.

"You say the woman should have the say.....and then you want to be excused from parenting if its your sperm that impregnated the woman and you dont want the baby. Ahhhh you poor thing....not included."

Yes i do believe that. I don't think he should be able to back out if he decides to pay child support, but I do believe he should have a choice. That is probably the most destructive belief I have portrayed, but to win some you gotta give some, and the women won rights to chose whether or not they have an abortion.

"Libertarian worldview.....all about themselves, nothing about anyone else...a cold cold unliveable philiosophy of life. Liberty for your kind is slavery, killing those they think are unworthy to live. Freedom of expression for you people is the gun....pointed at someones head. No absolutes....people just doing what they want to do even if it hurts society, even if it hurts their own family. "

That is incorrect to the extreme but I am not here to argue my party standings. I could go on about your religion and get quite insulting, but for the sake of argument I hope you will drop your attacks on the Libertarian party and respect us for our views as I have respected you without insult(if one has slipped through the cracks I apologize, but I don't remember making an insult).

"Your views are radical and your right you dont care about anything moral...that speak to your conscience and lack of one. For you rape could be good in some circumstances....and well we know your all for killing those that you dont think deserve to live. God only knows who is in that group."

Yes they are radical, I am not going to deny that. And there is no such thing as moral or right or wrong. I think in terms such as beneficial and destructive. And god doesn't know because he doesn't exist. I may seem colder then usually imaginable, but when faced with issue such as abortion we must think about what is best for society. And I am actually quite the party animal, but here I am here to be logical and maybe have a beer when done.

"Your worldview is not logical at all in fact I find it hidiously evil and dangerous. It strips away the preciousness of life and living. What a sad world you live in. Which is why those that value life....need to keep you close."

It is logical as all my views come from a deep understanding of political theory and my understanding of what makes the human mind and what differentiates it from that of an animal(not much). No such thing as evil, said that already. And you misunderstand my intentions. In benefiting society we promote what makes us human. Progression, thinking, in making society a better place we make the world a better place. And my world is sad by no means.I seek only to progress my knowledge and thoughts of world issues. I thank you for having the courtesy of making a quite lengthy response.

Side: Abortion is right
CTEd(15) Disputed
1 point

You make several erroneous Assertions in your post.

Atheism is not a religion. It is the rejection of religion. It requires no active belief. If there were no theists there would be no atheists - we'd all just be people. Atheist is a rejection of Theism. Much like no believing in unicorns or leprechauns or anything else people claim exists but can't prove exists. Not believing in something is not a religion or else we all belong to hundreds of religions.

Abortion does prevent unwanted children. There are 1.25 Million abortions performed in the US every year. Currently there are less than 200.000 families trying to adopt. You do the math. We'd vastly outstrip the adoptive parents in the first year alone.

Women ages 20-24 are not out of high school adn college. a 4 year degree means you graduate when you are 22, some may never go but some also get higher degrees or go part time, or take a year off - so many 20-24 year olds are not out of college.

Side: Abortion is right
Sitara(11082) Disputed
1 point

"Atheism is a religion." No actually, it is not. :'(

Side: Abortion is right
Animegirl300(26) Disputed
2 points

Actually: I came up with my opinions of Abortion without the help of religion. I researched the topic independently, and tried to learn every angle that I could from BOTH sides. I'm pro-life in the definition of I think that every person should have equal opportunity to live, and that people should give the life as much chance to live as possible.

I think abortions that are NOT based on betterment for the woman or baby's health is wrong.

Why should eliminating someone's chance at life be an option just because it's CONVENIENT for the woman?

I care about all people in general having the chance to life their life to the fullest.

Not what people in the Bible said about it.

And abortion only prevents a child from being a 'bother' to their parents (unless it's for medical reasons). The parents decided to have sex knowing FULL WELL that they had the risk of having a child. But once they are met with the result of sex they want to bail out because they don't want to be inconvenienced with something THEY MADE.

If people are going to choose to do something, they need to take responsibility for their actions.

Side: abortion is wrong
0 points

"Why should eliminating someone's chance at life be an option just because it's CONVENIENT for the woman?"

Because it's part of the woman until birth.

"If people are going to choose to do something, they need to take responsibility for their actions."

You are not one to judge what is the correct way of taking responsibility.

I'd argue more but you don't go anywhere beyond the whole "life deserves a chance" stance. You say you read into both sides but I don't believe that as I see no reference to the societal benefits of abortion in your response.

Side: Abortion is right
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

You did not answer my question libertarian, and I don't blame you.

Would you condone the killing of your own family your own children should they become handicapped or mentally challeneged. You said killing this segment of the population was warrented. Just wondered if that included your own flesh and blood?

Side: abortion is wrong
1 point

"Would you condone the killing of your own family your own children should they become handicapped or mentally challeneged."

You are a dumb shit I have answered that question already a while ago. YES.

"You said killing this segment of the population was warrented. "

Yes it is.

Side: Abortion is right
0 points

Killing is wrong. But, sometimes there are exceptions that are severe in nature. What if it means passing on a disease? Or if the mother's life is in danger. Abortion must be given an exception in certain cases though not all. Especially the reckless one's!

Side: Abortion is right
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

So killing is wrong...but you condone some killings if it fits what you define as moral.

Side: abortion is wrong
92nida(1410) Disputed
0 points

What I define as moral is what I have learnt is correct and righteous from the World. Certain things require to be excused. There cannot be just an ending. There always is a story. An abortion done for reasons cuz you made out with out protection is Bizzare. But,sometimes abortion is a requirement. My Best Friend's neighbour had an abortion. That abortion was needed cuz not only was she physically unfit but also mentally imbalanced. If they let the baby grow in her, she would probably harm the baby before he met the World. I'm not trying to side anyone's reason. I'm just saying that the World has to work in accordance with the right amount. You cannot just make plain judgments as being in a society where you can place yourself in a million situations where a better choice could have made a huge difference, instead of just opting for a solution that seemed to you had no other choice.

Side: Abortion is right