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.
Are you prochoice or prolife?
As yall know, Im prochoice because I believe that life begins at birth and that women have the right to choose. Feel free to ask me questions about my beliefs or debate me on any aspect of this issue.
I agree life doesn't begin at conception. A fertilized egg can not be called a human life nor can an embryo early on in pregnancy. However I do think that abortion at 20 weeks and after if wrong.
I'm prochoice, but life certainly does not begin at birth. Life begins at fertilization.
I believe that it is not 'life' that is sacred, so much as 'people' that are sacred. A zygote is certainly alive, but it's not yet a person.
Still, personhood isn't a place I'm comfortable drawing the line for abortion, as what constitutes 'personhood' is debateable, and the point at which it develops isn't the same for everyone. In most cases, using most definitions of personhood, this would be condoning not only late-term abortion but early infanticide, as self awareness is usually not yet present in infants.
As such, I figure the best bet for a cutoff is when the fetus is able to feel pain. While this is difficult to determine specifically, we can at least know around when this is possible; when the peripheral nervous system is sufficiently developed for the nerve endings to carry the impulses back to the brain, and the brain itself is sufficiently developed to process stimuli. Studies place this about halfway through the second trimester; given that some develop more quickly than others, I'd therefore limit it to the first trimester if it were my call to make. Of course, with exceptions for circumstances where causing some pain would have to be acceptable, such as when the pregnancy is threatening the mother's life. But it really should, if possible, be done before the fetus can feel pain; I mean, when we slaughter animals we tend to do it quickly and humanely to cause as little suffering as possible. Hell, even when we execute criminals most states in the US use methods that are quick and relatively painless. Surely a fetus deserves the same care to minimize suffering in the abortion as livestock and criminals do.
Doesn't really sound like you are given a free choice to do what you want to do in that situation. It sounds a lot like the abandonment will prompts the decision the father wanted to impose on the mother so he could be free of responsibility. Tell me, do you think this situation is more likely to occur in the 1950's or the 1990's? Men have been completely removed from the decision making process, don't act so shocked when fewer and ferwer stick around.
Where does the constitution mention abortion????????? If the states were told "oh by the way, it is not clearly spelled out, but we have decided if you join you have to have legal abortion" would they all have joined the union?
I am with God, prochoice. I do go as far as He does and command people to murder pregnant women. I also don't approve of the murdering of innocent children of families who have no say in a monarchy just because I am mad at the king. But hey, God works in mysterious ways, who am I to question His will.
Does a woman have the right to an abortion under the U.S. Constitution? 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.
I'm pro-life to a certain degree. I'm not going to say that it was wrong for a woman to abort a child if the pregnancy would kill her, injure her, or the baby would have absolutely no chance at a good life.
I already spoke of this. If it will injure the woman, either physically or mentally for clarity purposes, then I won't argue or debate the abortion. If you can prove the woman will experience psychiatric trauma then I would say go ahead and commence the abortion.
The problem is with the 'if you can prove' bit, I think. Risk is a numbers game; it is extremely rare for a doctor to say with certainty that 'if you carry this to term, you will die.' Generally, it's more like a 'significant risk of death' type deal. And that's for the physical things that can be predicted with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
The psychiatric trauma is even harder to declare likelihood for. Consider a woman who was violently raped by a trusted and loved member of her own family, something that has completely turned her world upside down, and that she has been utterly unable to cope with; the only way she's been getting by is to simply not think about it. Does this prove that carrying the child to term will cause psychiatric trauma? No. But, it's extremely likely that at BEST her recovery process will be halted or significantly slowed due to experiencing the entire pregnancy, and further likely that the experience of giving birth and the very real experience of seeing the baby are going to traumatize her further and keep her bound up in that incident. You can't prove it will happen, you can't even reasonably throw out a general likelihood that it will happen, but the risk is there and it's great.
Your reply is valid. I agree. It's most certainly hard to "prove it". It would become a calculated risk game based on previous statistics. I agree with your reasoning.
Not really but I'm definitely more prolife than you are it seems. So to you a full term pregnancy can be terminated? But once its born (maybe a few hours later) terminating the baby would be murder?? Thats disgusting.
You're talking about killing a full term baby. A child that is in every way exactly the same as a newborn. Why is killing a new born wrong if its outside the womb but its right if its inside the womb???
Thankfully there are very few governments in the world that agree with you. If you kill a full term baby in the womb its a crime.
You're killing potential sheep every time you eat a lamb, so what the fuck's your point?
A lamb is a young sheep. You're not killing a potential sheep, you'd be killing an actual one.
Hitler, you're way off on a tangent here. Unless Atrag has said that he wants sheeps' lives to be specially protected by law in the same fashion that humans are, you can't use that reasoning against him.
Come on. If it would die right at birth. Its not like Im saying women do this for fun. Im not that dumb. But what if the fetus would die one minute after birth or not even be born alive?
I don't get what your arguing. The mother still has to deliver in either scenario. Why would the woman want to kill the baby and then deliver it? If its going to die anyway??
No I dont start medical school to September. Look. Explain this very slowly to me because I'm clearly not getting it. We're talking about a 9 month old fetus. Its almost ready to be born. It is alive in the womb but we know that it will die with 100% when it is delivered. You believe that the woman should be able to kill the baby while its still inside the womb. I understand this. What do you think a 'abortion' of a full term baby consists of? Can you explain it?
"The process of third-trimester abortion is especially wrenching. The practitioners must euthanize the fetus in utero by injecting a drug into its heart, and then induce labor so the woman can deliver a stillborn child. "
Its not like i get any joy out of such a heartbreaking situation. By that time the mom and or the father has bonded with that baby to be. I would reserve this for the most horrific of situations like if it doesnt have a heart or brain or it will be born with tay sachs. I do not support recrational late term abortions. No one does that I know of. But riddle me this: would you rather a 40 week fetus be aborted or abused for years? I admit to being heavily biased: I was abused and while Im grateful to be alive, I cant help but think being abused for years is a fate worse than death. I once woke up screaming that my father was going to kill me. I thought he was going to kill me. I would have rather been aborted and go to Heaven, trust me. I know that might disgust you, but Ive been to Hell and back. I deeply respect your position though and hope we can remain civil as I respect your mind.
Prolife because even the negatives of life are worth more than a state of unconsciousness.
I say put it up for adoption before abortion
There is no better experience in life than breathing new life into someone, whether it be through a newly met spouse, giving a homeless man 100 dollars, or bringing a new soul into this world.
And while the world may seem like a shitty place, and on a global scale it is, in our microcosmic parts life is full of things to be experienced! how great that we are actually able to experience things.
Everyone has had a share of negativity in their life and noones struggle is more hard than someone elses struggle, we are all in hell right now, it is our goal to climb out, inch by inch, in order to become what is necessary for the betterment of life.
There is no greater sin a society can commit than de-humanizing and then destroying another people en mass. I pray someday our children and grandchildren will recognize abortion as mass murder. Moving further from Christ is not the solution for a society that has moved too far away from Christ. Destroying children is not the answer for a society that is destroying the family.
64% of women who have abortions claim to be coerced into doing it. That statistic would have disgusted me if it were only 10%. Abortion does not help women, it helps irresponsible men and those who seek to fundamentally transform our culture, those who think they are doing mankind a favor by discarding any potential, any contribution an unwanted child could have. They reclassify a human into something sub-human. Such an action always leads to evil.
We think we are so much smarter than our forefathers when we make the exact same mistakes. We think we are beyond racism when we worship eugenics pioneers like Margaret Sanger. We think we have moved beyond sexism when we sell our daughters a false reality, and degrade them if they want to be full time mothers. We think we have moved into a new age of humanism, when we can't even reconcile our own offspring's humanity with our own materialistic ambitions.
So you would rather stop evil than promote good? Don't bring your non-existent figment into your argument in order to obstruct the autonomy of decent individuals.
Well 2/3rds of my post didn't mention God. Abortion can be sufficiently argued against from any religious or non-religious background. Besides that, your post makes little sense.
