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.
Being prolife means more than being only antiabortion.
Being prolife means more than being only antiabortion. True prolifers support abotion if the mother's life is in danger and the baby is too young to survive. True prolifers also value all life from conception to natural death.
This is kind of weird but bare with me. What if farmers started injecting a chemical into cows that destroyed milk because they really didn't want to milk the cow and bottle the milk?
One could argue that it's really not milk at that point. You can't see it you can't drink it yet it will still be a few days before the cows ready to milk. So it's really not milk yet.
Also note that the farmers made the choice to buy the dairy farm(if you know what I mean). Ignoring the responsibilities that came with it. But who cares it's really not milk yet.
We can argue semantics over when something is actually a person vs. a growing fetus thing, but I feel that once the child has breathed first breath (as your bible says, mind you), that's when it's officially an individual.
Because it's outside the mom... and she's growing it.
Like, once it's out, sure, it's no longer a part of her, but why worry about something growing inside of her? It could be a duck if we manipulated it right at its early stages.
I'm just wondering why we must choose the fetus over the mother's interests?
I propose no legislation regulating abortion. If you wish to remove individual rights, I'd like to see why.
And I'm surprised that you don't care about what your bible says. Isn't that what makes you so passionate about abortion in the first place?
"Like, once it's out, sure, it's no longer a part of her, but why worry about something growing inside of her?"
Why get so caught up about inside or out. It's going to be a person either way unless you take away it's rights or the chance of ever having rights. (And you didn't answer my question as to why your opinion should be placed above a potential life)
We have plenty of rights notice how nobody ever talks about responsibility? Really have you noticed that?
If you don't want a kid don't have one. I know that's a really commonly used argument but you know what it's true.
"And I'm surprised that you don't care about what your bible says."
I never said or implied that and you know it. You don't usually swing that low. I'm disappointed.
"Isn't that what makes you so passionate about abortion in the first place?"
That's a good question. It definitely goes along with my stance on this issue but I honestly think if I was atheist I would have the same opinion. -but it's hard to say.
It's going to be a person either way unless you take away it's rights or the chance of ever having rights.
Rights are delegated. Who has delegated rights to unborn fetuses?
your opinion should be placed above a potential life
It isn't. I place the rights of the mother over the life of a fetus.
We have plenty of rights notice how nobody ever talks about responsibility?
Responsibility is not a right. It's a state of mind. Some people are responsible, some aren't. It is not up to government to decide what is and isn't responsible behavior.
If you don't want a kid don't have one.
Yes, and that is solved with abortion.
I never said or implied that and you know it.
Then you would know that according to the bible, life begins at first breath.
Otherwise, I'd like to know how else you're basing your decision.
"Rights are delegated. Who has delegated rights to unborn fetuses?"
I'm aware that fetuses don't have rights. But I'm saying I think it's wrong to choose to take away that option.
"I place the rights of the mother over the life of a fetus."
So one right trumps an entire life full of rights?
"Responsibility is not a right"
Never said it was. But you don't think it should be considered?
"Some people are responsible, some aren't. It is not up to government to decide what is and isn't responsible behavior."
I agree. And for the record I'm not one of those people that thinks 'if it's bad it should be against the law'. But this is a special case. One of the few things keeping me from being a libertarian.(but that's a whole other discussion)
"Then you would know that according to the bible, life begins at first breath.
Otherwise, I'd like to know how else you're basing your decision."
We just went in a circle. We all have different interpretations of what is in the bible. No? Okay shut up.
There is nothing in the bible to indicate that a fetus is considered to be anything other than living tissue and, according to scripture, it does not become a living being until after it has taken a breath.
You cant argue that something is what it may be in the future just because it may become that something in the future. To stick to your metaphor (it was kind of weird, but I liked it) this is like calling grass and milk the same thing because the grass may eventually become milk if eaten, digested, and converted by the cow. But fathers don't ask their sons to go mow the milk just because grass has potential to become milk.
Could a 12 year old walk into a liquor store and buy booze under the basis that, if all goes well, he'll be 21 eventually? I don't see how this is any different than calling a couple merged cells a human being under that basis that, if all goes well, it may become a human one day.
Anyways, The fetus WILL be a baby. Unless something goes wrong and it dies. You or I could die today who knows.(that's not a threat (; ) The whole "where does life begin?" thing just feels like a cop out. We both know that without the abortion there will very highly likely be a person. This is why I'm saying it's about potential.
Could a 12 year old walk into a liquor store and buy booze under the basis that, if all goes well, he'll be 21 eventually?"
Let's say somebodies 20 years of age and I said that he can never ever have a chance of buying or consuming or thinking about alcohol. Because well he's not even 21 yet. -that's more like it. (:
I think it's valid to debate where life begins. If someone gets an abortion at 8 months, they're basically aborting a person that hasn't been fully awoken yet. When someone gets an abortion at a few weeks, that's basically just an extreme period.
People who are 20 will very likely one day be 21, but that doesn't mean that they get all the attendant rights and privileges that go along with being 21.
"People who are 20 will very likely one day be 21, but that doesn't mean that they get all the attendant rights and privileges that go along with being 21."
ROFL. So we should be allowed to kill them right?
"I think it's valid to debate where life begins."
Well.. I never said it wasn't debatable. But it's just cheap.
"When someone gets an abortion at a few weeks, that's basically just an extreme period."
But the difference is choice. When you're choosing to have an abortion you're choosing to take away the potential of a human life. Rather than mere ministration.
That's like saying that if I pushed you down a huge staircase and you died that it was an extreme slip. (;
I'm pro-life (in a sense) and more pro-choice. Being pro-life does not require you to condemn abortion. Being anti-abortion does, but pro-life is just a term dubbed to make the opposition sound like we revel in death. The reality of the situation is most pro-lifers are really anti-choice: the woman has no say in the matter except, perhaps, when certain circumstances arrive (like the health of the mother being in danger), and then it's not so much a choice as the only option. Being pro-choice means you can decide to bring a new life into the world, or you can choose to cancel out the chain reaction that would otherwise lead to life. This doesn't make you anti-life, or pro-death, because you're not killing anyone, you're aborting a fleshy lump (or less), often one about the same size as a blood clot.
And again when you apply pro-life to euthanasia it means forced-life, or anti-choice. A person who is pro-choice can choose to go on living or not; they don't choose death every single time, so once again it's funny the opposition calls themselves pro-life when what the really mean is they want to make your choices for you.
Abortion sickens me, I can see no good ethical reasoning for a mother to kill her child. Having the potential to become life is good enough for me, regardless of whether or not the fetus is actually a human.
