CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
An opinion about abortion
My opinion is that doctors should be legally prevented from performing abortions in cases where there is no unusual risk to the mother in carrying to term, or medical necessity has not been established. Abortions should be legal, but they should not be undertaken solely for reasons of convenience. If you feel like there are some points you could make or tough questions you could ask to help me change my opinion for the better, please do.
Perhaps they have genes they don't want to pass on. Why is it considered selfish to not want to bring a child into the world that a person does not feel they can care for? We definitely don't need more kids in foster homes and orphanages. While adoption is an option, there are so many kids out there already in need of a home, adding to the number may seem more irresponsible to people.
No, my reasoning is the world sucks and I feel I am unable to provide the amount of care needed to prevent psychological issues that come from neglect. In that case, I will eliminate the fetus and thereby prevent it from being born.
Or if I have the abortion, they don't have to do it themselves!
Anyway, banning abortion takes away a woman's freedom. A woman is qualified to make a decision and accept the repercussions. She does not need any one else minding her own business. If you dislike abortions, then don't get one. Being pro-choice doesn't mean everyone, or anyone, has to get an abortion, so why does pro-life believe no one can? Why is the pro-life side so busy sticking their nose into other people's business? Why can't the pro-life side just say, hey, we dislike abortion, so we're going to work to provide these alternatives that will appeal to women considering abortion? Instead, they spend all their time trying to tell women they don't have a choice...
Not a child, a fetus. Child implies it has been born, and can survive outside of the womb. Is the fetus going to know it lost a chance at life? Is the fetus able to survive outside the womb? Isn't it equally or more selfish to bring a child into the world with no intention of raising them yourself, and instead placing the burden on the state?
I wouldn't bother debating her, she doesn't do much more then call you and idiot and refuse to refute your arguments because she claims they are too "simple minded"
- Yeah sure, and Natives are not humans because they have no contact with civilization, your grandparents are not humans because they are no longer useful to the society, and you yourself is not a human because you do not know what it means to be.
Isn't it equally or more selfish to bring a child into the world with no intention of raising them
-Same reason as to why we allow bedridden patients, senior citizens, mentally ill folks, and even convicted prisoners to live.
The judgement on who will die and who will live was never something for a human to decide. Its the parents who must face their music not the baby to pay for them
Funny isnt it? You guys fight for animal rights but never for the rights of babies to be born
What makes you think that "you" are nothing but just a clump of cells?
If concsciousness is all that it takes to be called a human, then why are we not killing mentally broken patients? In fact, they even recieves more benefits than prisoners who are full aware of their crime.
We are all human beings, unborn or not, are already alive.
What makes you think that "you" are nothing but just a clump of cells?
Because i'm a complex clump of cells with a conscious.
Something Legal isn't always Moral
I hope you realize making abortion illegal won't decrease # of abortion just increase dangerous abortions that could potentially hurt the pregnant women. Is that what you want? Pregnant Women getting injured because removing a clump of cells from there bodies is illegal?
Why should they have the same rights? A fetus is not the same thing as an infant, or a teenager, or an adult? A fetus cannot breathe on its own, a fetus cannot eat, a fetus cannot think. Even the mentally ill can do some or all of that. If it cannot survive on its own - and by this, I mean breathe, just the bare minimum - it is still functioning as a parasite, which means the mother (the host)'s needs/wants are still primary. Women have the right to choose without other people harassing them for their choices.
"Why should they have the same rights? A fetus is not the same thing as an infant, or a teenager, or an adult?"
- Your argument is so original I dont think I heard that 3 times today, yeah, im sure its over that :)
A Fetus is a human being in the making. The logic of not considering them as humans is just the same as saying that "A newbie will never learn", "A Building can never be constructed" and "Time changes nothing"
Except that in this case, you are treating life as a mere object. Which makes you look worse.
"Women have the right to choose without other people harassing them for their choices."
- Everyone has the right to do as they please, but every actions has its consequences. Abortion is murder and murder is a crime.
Let's take a look at the parallels you tried to draw. A fetus is not "a building that can never be constructed", so much as a building that is not yet constructed. Sure, the materials are lying on the site, maybe part of the frame is built, it has the potential to be a building, but is not yet one. A fetus has the potential to be an infant, but is not yet one. You're right, it's a human being IN THE MAKING. Until it is made, construction can be stopped at any time.
If you want to define abortion as murder, then fine. But it's far closer to self defense, and self defense - people deal with the emotional effects, but (ideally) don't go to jail. I have the right to protect my body as I see fit.
"A fetus has the potential to be an infant, but is not yet one. "
-Question is, what makes you think that it is not yet alive?
I already told you why Fetuses fits the characteristics of living creatures so its no use repeating it
If you want to define abortion as murder, then fine. But it's far closer to self defense, and self defense. I have the right to protect my body as I see fit.
-Self-defense happens when you defend yourself from an opponent. What makes you think that a mere child can fight, much less be an aggressor?
Yeah, that's because I like animals way more than most humans. I mean so many humans spend their day sticking their nose in my business, but animals never do. Fetus is defined as unborn offspring. Natives are a term for certain humans, grandparents are a term for certain humans, child is a term for certain humans, and a human fetus is a term for unborn humans. I'm saying use the correct terminology. As for your second argument...I'm all for assisted suicide if a bedridden patient or senior citizen so wants, and I am all for the death penalty. The mentally ill fall into a grey area, but the bedridden and the elderly are able to make their own decisions, and prisoners (those of the heinous crimes - rape, murder, child abuse, child molestation) gave up their rights when they committed the crime. Who lives and who dies is sometimes something humans have to decide. We go to war, knowing people will die, but fighting for a greater good (ideally). We execute prisoners who can not be released into the public. Decisions have to be made. Everyone (hopefully) is aware of what happens to the kids who end up stuck in overcrowded orphanages, who grow up unloved. Why do you want more kids in that situation?
You opinion about humanity is yours to keep. The argument is "If Fetuses deserves the right to enjoy life as any human should"
"I'm saying use the correct terminology."
- And I did, I told you that the Natives and your Grand parents are no longer considered humans because they are not useful to the society,just like fetuses
You admitted that Fetuses are "unborn humans" yet, why do you refuse to consider them as one of us?
"As for your second argument..."
-All you did was to give your opinions about Euthanasia and Death Penalty, you failed to give me a valid statement as to why Fetuses does not have the same rights that they all enjoy when they are just like them- a human.
"Who lives and who dies is sometimes something humans have to decide."
- Ohh...so would you mind explaining why the golden rule was created?
Every foolishless of men changes over time (e.g Animal Abuse, Slavery and Gay Marriage) But as long as men has conciousness over their actions, this rule will never change
I consider fetuses not YET one of us. The potential is there, but until they are born, they are not the same as an infant. That's why there are two different definitions. Until the fetus is viable, they are human parasites - they cannot survive outside the mother. Fetuses have the potential to develop into an infant. Sperm, eggs, both have the potential to be a human, the fetus is just a little farther along. In invitro fertilization, how many of the extra embryos (an early form of a fetus) are thrown out after implantation? Is that also "murder"?
My point about euthanasia and the death penalty was that there's reasons, and to explain the difference between rights in those cases, and rights in terms of a fetus. If you can't see that, that's a whole different problem.
You think humans NEVER have to decide to kill someone? It can NEVER be right to kill someone? That's a very hard line to take.
People have the right to do as they please with THEIR body, and to protect their body from infringing rights of others. If someone tried to murder me, I will try to kill them first. If something tries to use me as a parasitic host, I have the right to say "hey, I don't want this in my body".
A fetus is made up of cells capable of obtaining energy and use it, they grow and develop, their cells reproduce, they respond to their envireonment and knows how to adapt to it. An ordinary sperm and egg cell has none of this.
A fetus who relies on their parent does not make them any less human. In fact, it only confirms their humanity. For it shows that even in the womb the mother already supplies life for their infant. Both for nutrition and emotion
You think humans NEVER have to decide to kill someone? It can NEVER be right to kill someone? That's a very hard line to take.
- Nope, I said "would you mind explaining why the golden rule was created"?
Come on, if we really have the rights to judge death upon someone, then what for was morality created?
People have the right to do as they please with THEIR body, and to protect their body from infringing rights of others
-Why of course!
Every democratic nation allows freedom of choice in every constitution. Unless life is involve that is.
Like what I said, Abortion is Murder. Accept the facts
If I read your description correctly, I can't agree more.
I would add to it that I would like to see laws which require doctors to do all that they can do (within reason) to save the lives of all of the patients they are presented with. Including children in the womb.
I agree completely the job of a doctor is to save lives not end them before they begin. Doctor assisted suicide is illegal in most states abortion (or at least unnessisary abortion) should be illegal too.
No he's been doing this for a while now. On other debates even. We discussed the matter before I don't wish to discuss it again as I have said all I wish to say I've asked him to leave me alone he has not this is harassment.
Constantly issuing rude remarks to another individual after the request has been made that you leave that individual alone is harassment. And I banned you because I had said what I wanted to say was done with the conversation which you insisted on continuing and plus you were issuing personal attacks I don't stand for that.
I actually think assisted suicide should be legal. But if the fetus is not yet viable, then the woman gets to make the decision. If you got pregnant, you make your own decisions. I don't see why you need to make such a personal decision for everyone else as well.
A fetus is not an infant. An infant is defined as "human young from the time of birth until one year of age". Infanticide is wrong, I will even go so far as to say abortion after the fetus is viable is infanticide (although that's really stretching the definition...), but abortion prior to about 20 weeks is not infanticide. And God does not affect the decisions of everyone in this country. By using "Him" as a defense, you are forcing religion unto others, which is against the first amendment of the Constitution. If you, for religious reasons or other reasons, disagree with abortion, then you should not get one. That does not equate to other people should be forced to abide by your beliefs...or the beliefs of a God they may or may not believe in. If that's the case, then I have a friend who's Hindu, so according to her, no one should eat beef. Anyway, the government sure as h* shouldn't be banning abortion because God said it was wrong.
Also, in Exodus 21:22, it says that if a woman kills the fetus (I'm using the woman, because for this debate she's making the decision, although man, woman, it's the same), or causes "the fruit depart from her", that the punishment is a fine. That fine, nowadays, could be considered the cost of the abortion. In the Bible, the life of the woman is worth more than the life of a fetus, or any baby under 1 month old.
So no set fine? So then the fact that a doctor feels $xxx is fair, that could be looked at as a monetary equivalent. Since very few doctors would want someone bringing them a cow...
It wasn't to the doctor it was to the temple. Because it was a punishment it those days when they try'd to live by gods laws abortion was illegal. So the punishment for abortion wich should still be illegal the bible never says it shouldn't should be a fine. To the state. Or police department or court but not the doctor that's a payment in exchange for "medicinal" services not a fine.
It's still money out of the woman's pocket. The money is taxed - that goes to the state or the federal government. Tax money goes to the police department and to the courts.
The bible never says it shouldn't be illegal, or never says it shouldn't be legal? The bible in Exodus is very clear that woman is more important than the fetus, and the bible isn't exactly known for being kind to those who go against it.
And right now this is a religious debate, but the US is not a christian country. The state should not ban abortion because the Christian religion - or any religion - thinks it's wrong. The state should not be banning anything based on the bible, or the Torah, or the Quran, or the Book of Shadows. How far would you get in the debate if you weren't allowed to bring religion into it?
Let me put it another way. I am not Christian. Why do I have to do anything because the Bible tells me to? Also, do you follow the whole bible? Do you find the bible to be outdated? It was written thousands of years ago...
But you see the thing with sex, human beings have the tendensy to do it even though they have no intention of reproducing.
Of course we do have things to prevent the reproduction - but in my opinion, I don't see what the difference is, if the baby's being killed as a sperm or a fetus.
There is nothing you can really do about sperm deaths because only 1 of them will make it out the 200 million. A fetus is a child because the sperm and egg had come together. Eggs dont make babie on their own nor does sperm.
10 - 15% of all pregnancies don't make it through the first trimester.
That means that more than 1 out of 10 pregnant women are not going to make it - that said, you don't have proof that the woman is carrying a baby. It hasn't become a baby yet, and there is a big chance it won't.
I am a parent now, because I agreed to become one.
I didn't plan on becomming pregnant, you can figure that out just by knowing my age. I became pregnant, I didn't become a parent until recently when I decided to keep it.
And no - no one has forced me, I chose myself and that's how it should be!!!
Well like I said in my last argument, sorry you ignored that part, I was pregnant with a fetus.
You said I was a parent to a child - I disagree, because if being a parent only requires your ability to reproduce, then every sick bastard could become one.
Since you like defining words so much, I'm gonna look up the word parent (noun) for you.
1. One who gives birth, or raises a child (animals included)
2. An ancestor
3. A guardian, protector
4. A parent company
5. A source of life
The dictionary says someone who gives birth to or raises someone is qualified as being called a parent. Being pregnant with a fetus doesn't make you a parent.
I told you that 'biologically' you are already a parent of the child you are carrying if and when you are pregnant.
You disagree.
And that is fine... that you disagree.
You're still the biological parent of the child you are carrying though. It's not my opinion, it's a biological fact.
Think of it like this. What makes the biological father of your child responsible for them financially, if your child isn't even a child until they are delivered from your womb?
The answer is His DNA, Conception and the fact that the child's life began at that time.
Really, until a person behaves like a parent, they're nothing more than the egg or sperm donor. Ask neglected and abused kids about their "parents". If a man or woman makes a donation to the infertility clinic, no one calls them a parent if a fetus develops. The definition of the word parent, as far as society is concerned, has changed over the years, but the dictionary doesn't always reflect that.
But then you give him a test, and asks him to cook your dinner. The dinner turns out to be aweful.
Would you hire that person just because he has taken some kind of education in cooking?
No - because if he can't cook his paper is useless, and he will probably never be hired by anyone.
If you found some homeless kids on the street, and wanted to find them a good home, would you pick the couple with the best reproductive abilities? No, you would hire the parents who could give the children their entire love and care.
How is forcing someone to be a parent a positive thing? I personally don't want to be a parent now, possibly ever, if I get pregnant I don't want to keep the child, and I like to have options. And no one, in my opinion, has the right to force me to put my body through a pregnancy that I don't want.
As long as abortion takes place before the fetus develops any consciousness, then I personally feel aborting that fetus couldn't be any worse than killing a tree. If it can't think or feel, and isn't conscious, then couldn't care less whether it was alive or dead, just like a tree, If I couldn't feel or think, and had no consciousness I think I would be indifferent to somebody else's killing of me. This fetus isn't alive like we are alive, isn't living like us, more like a tree. Before this baby has developed consciousness I truly don't think it is any worse that using a condom or birth control, however those are a lot less cost effective, less trauma, and less cost to society.
I'm not totally against the idea from a moral point of view. My thing is, in cases of rape or incest, where the victim would essentially re-experience the trauma due to the birth of the baby.
But my real issue is the limitations on freedom. People have sex. It's a fact of life. Birth control fails sometimes. Another fact. Women have the right to make decisions when it comes to their bodies, and until the fetus is able to live outside the woman's body - about 20 weeks - its rights do not trump the woman's rights. I think doctors should have the right to refuse to do abortions, because they should not be forced to go against their ethics, but the government should not ban abortions outright. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, it is her decision. It is not as though the abortion is so easy. It's painful and it's emotional, and can cause sterilization. Women should be educated about the aftermath prior to being in the situation, but not in a judgmental manner. If the government bans abortion, it's going to be significantly easier for them to ban birth control, a women's ability to have a hysterectomy or a tubal ligation, and so forth. We have to be very careful when dealing with social issues like this and predict what's next down the line. Banning abortions opens the door for other things to be banned.
It should be noted, I said women's bodies and their rights. In the case of a situation where the mother wants to keep the baby and the father wants an abortion, there should be an opt out clause where the father pays x amount for the abortion, and then is relieved of the burden of child support if the mother does not abort. This at least balances the playing field a little. Men are still at a disadvantage if they want the baby and the mother wants an abortion, but that's life.
If you don't want to have a kid don't have sex it's as simple as that. You don't need contraception (though I do agree condums are a smart option if your worried about STDs) and you don't need abortion those options are cheating you cheating a human being out of a chance at life. all you need to prevent pregnancy is good old self control. Besides what if your mom had aborted you? Would that be fair?
If my momma aborted me I would not care, because I would be dead. As for cheating a human being out of a chance at life, it depends on what your definition of a human being is (is a fetus a human being?).
The primary function of sex is to impregnate the female if the female consents to sex she dose so knowing that there is a chance she will get pregnant and should be prepared to accept that.
You are wrong. That is not the only reason to have sex. So you are saying that infertile people cannot get married, old people, people who do not want children.? I have the right to choose. My consent to sex does not equal my consent to pregnancy, because I do not want children. That is why I want my tubes removed, and that is my right. Get your rosary off of my ovary!
So a married couple who chooses not to have kids should never have sex? A couple with health issues that run in the family who choose not to pass on their genes? Sex is a part of human life, and has a number of health benefits in and of itself, and people who use contraception should not have to avoid sex until they are ready to have kids. And again, what about the rape and incest victims?
I was really having a hard time on this one, but I was probably biased because I always feel until the life is here, the choice should go to the mother.
I think it's a great idea to make it illegal to just have an abortion because you decided you didn't want the child, but in the case with accidents happening it should still be up to the potential mother.
What I mean is this, outlawing abortion after a broken condom between two consenting adults of well off means, is the same as outlawing the use of condoms in the first place. The two consenting adults of well off means never made the decision to have children, hence the reason they chose a condom, so it wouldn't be right to force them to stick with a child that they obviously didn't want.
