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.
Put aside for a moment the more extreme examples of rape or risk of death to the mother if going to term. Even put aside all the debate about rights and freedom of choice. You don't even need that argument to address this debate heading.
It's actually quite common for normal pregnancies to go awry and for the prospective parents waiting eagerly for their baby to find out it is utterly impossible that baby is going to live. Yet, the body has not spontaneously rejected it. In fact the body could carry to term only to give birth to medical waste. It's true. When it happens early enough in the pregnancy process then couples opt for "DNC" (do not continue) in which the failed fetus gets removed. Why would they do that? Because instead of NOT wanting a baby it's the opposite, they desperately DO want to have a baby. But they can't try again until the failed fetus is out. And then there is time involved for the body to reset to try again. And if this happens any time later in the pregnancy then yes it might be called an actual abortion. And what's wrong with that? You've already found out the fetus is brain dead, or it has a condition know to kill it soon and at any time, or there is no amniotic fluid and the fetus is being crushed and twisted by the mother's organs and literally has no prayer.
Biology isn't a simple plant the seed and wait 9 months and here's your baby. It can fail anywhere along the way. And if it fails, but the body hasn't kicked it out, then who can tell that mother who desperately wants to try again and may have limited time to do so on her biological clock that she's evil and cruel for having it removed.
abortion is terminating a living and developing fetus. We have the technology now to know if the baby is alive or not. If the fetus is indeed dead, then it is not wrong for it to be removed if necessary. All of your examples besides the last were in cases where the fetus was dead, or miscarried. In that situation, its (dignified) removal is not an abortion. If the fetus is still developing though, it is wrong to terminate it because it is not in danger. If your example you gave last about complications, for example health risks which are common, is the cause of complications, then there are other ways to deal with it that aren't actually the same as abortion. So if a baby is brain dead, but not necessarily dead, it can be stillborn, or born and then it dies afterward. But if the baby for example is going to pose a serious health risk to the mother, then instead of targeting the fetus, you can try to fix the situation with the unintended side effect of the fetus's death. An example would be the egg being fertilized in the fallopian tube. That would be incredibly dangerous for the mother, yet it is still wrong to flat out kill the fetus. Doctors can try and removing that part of the fallopian tube with the likely but unintentional side effect of the fetus dying in a necessary attempt to save the mother.
Well, here in America abortion is justified every time it is practiced.
It being, well, you know......
A Constitutional right, and all.
A better question would seem to be.........
"Is it ever justified for some fat-cat wealthy, white, out-of-touch-with-the-common-people Washington DC politician to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. And her own life?"
Again, I am happy to bee a liberal. Aldo, I am not saying that elective abortion should be legal, I am saying that it should be legal for the health of the mother, if the baby will die anywat, or if the mother was raped.
Hahahahahaha.. Now you're a liberal? WTF.. Religiously you were Jewish then Cristian...then a non Cristian that believed in Jesus.. Politically you were conservative then liberal then libertarian then `centric` and now liberal again. Do you have a multi personality disorder?
Are you saying you seriously dont remember when you said you were a centrist rather than a liberal or a libertarian rather than a liberal? Do you hit your head?
"Liar. I did not say that I was a liberal and a centrist at the same time. I said that I USED TO BE a centrist....
"
"1. Obama sucks. 2. Atheist. 3. Don't hate me because I am black! Who loves ya, baby? ;) 4. Human. 5. None of yo beeswax! 6. independant libertarian. I be thinking fo myself, yo! 7. One of`the funniest motherfuckers I have ever known. 8. Drink and smoke weed at the same time. Lucky mother fucker. ;)
"
"I am a fucking libertarian Satanist!! Get over it!"
Actually God never changed. His people Israel were supposed to be different and separate than the nations around them.
And its supposed to be the same with the church and each one in the church.
Rev 18
4 I heard another voice from heaven, saying, “Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues; 5 for her sins have piled up as high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. 6 Pay her back even as she has paid, and give back to her double according to her deeds; in the cup which she has mixed, mix twice as much for her.
This is what sets Christianity apart from "co-exist" mentality, which makes popular the thought that truth subjective.
You are one pathetic inhuman narcissistic fool! As always, you only care for the right of the killer, and care nothing for their victim, even when it is a viabe late term baby.
you see, a human fetus is not part of your body, it is only depending on your body. You deciding to terminate a pregnancy is denying the fetus's NATURAL right to life, forget the civil part of it. and if the fetus is not a person, than when does it become one?
Naturally, I oppose the idea of abortion, but I'm not going to blame a woman who was raped and had to get an abortion for an unmeant fetus. That is the one circumstance where abortion is justified.
Neither Party is fighting against life of mother abortions. That is one of the few times it is justified because it is saving one life, rather than losing two lives.
The democrat party supports no restriction abortion of viable babies all the way up to birth for any reason. If you vote for Hillary, you might as well be tearing the limbs from that viable baby yourself because you re keeping it legal.
The GOP as been tryng to get a 20 week abortion limit compromise(with extreme case exceptions) but as always the Democrat party stops them every time.
Yes, but I want to put a huge caveat here that in 95% of circumstances I would say it is not. There are, however, always situations when it might be necessary. For me, that includes when the mother's life is at risk (as in she will die trying to give birth), if there is no way for the baby to survive birth, and in cases of incest or rape.
That's it. A lot of people would argue it should be allowed if is determined that the child will be born with a significant defect, but I'm not so lenient on this. I've heard too many tales of predictions determined while a child is in the womb that turn out to be false (the doctor expected my child to live only a few days, but he's alive and kicking, etc.). Also, I have heard more and more horrible tales of people considering things like Down Syndrome, or body malformations such as missing limbs, to qualify as bad enough defects to kill the child.
But is an abortion sometimes justified? Yes. Unfortunately, such terrible situations do happen, but they are few and far between.
I believe it is just you who is always praying that.
What would happen if she did? Would my consciousness be somewhere else, or it wouldn't even exist? In either case, why should I bless anything? Even if I do, no one is sitting there to take the blessings.
But, now that I'm here (do you even bless for all the probabilities for you being conceived actually happening?), such things are no more of any consequence.
How could a non-existent entity count it's blessings either way?? If you believe in GOD, why can't you believe in letting GOD judge , and letting GOD punish?? Oh, ye of little faith.
So if you had a 13 year old daughter that was raped by a 50 year old man and became impregnated, you'd want that child as your grandchild and would want to force your daughter to live with the constant reminder of the trauma? You're fucked.
Anti-abortion activists seem to flip-flop on what exactly is worthy of life. It also seems kind of odd that they care so much about the potential for life, but the second something is out in the world they could care less about how well it thrives or struggles.
Not really self-defense, since the child doesn't choose to harm you.
But in such cases, the utilitarian choice would be to abort it. To murder it, that is. (Though calling it, or any abortion, a murder would be too dramatic to be true, unless that is about a child with differentiated brain, it does qualify, because of being a potential murder, and because our ethics aren't defined well enough.)
Those things would not have your interests in mind if they survive.
Killing something that would not even choose to harm you, because it is harming unintentionally, doesn't really qualify as self-defense. If it had not been killed and the harm would be inflicted, would it deserve capital punishment at the end?
I'm saying that any killing that is not specifically authorised is murder. Killing under self-defense might be legalised in general, but it isn't authorised. That'd need to be more specific.
But something being allowed to happen does not necessarily mean that it is authorised to happen.
Say, it wasn't allowed. Then, your being punished would be authorised.
Though I wonder whether I should defend it at all - after a few more steps, I'll have to assert that no action performed under an individual's own will is authorised, but only those performed by the rulers. But then, what is authority itself? Does anyone have any of it at all? And how can one qualify for having it - by power or by responsibility, or both? Some answers might appeal better to ears than others, but that factor doesn't matter.
Do you have any idea over the nature of authority? With that, we might come to more concrete conclusions.
Abortion is an intentional murder of a complete human person inside of the womb. Murder is never justifiable, therefore, abortion is never justifiable.
The 2 ways a pro choice person can respond to this statement are:
1.) No, it is not murder because the fetus is not wholly human.
2.) Yes, that's what abortion is. (Ive met people like this)
If you said that a fetus is not wholly human, then tell me, at what point does a fetus become a human person? What makes somebody a human person?
Id love to see someone try and defend abortion after considering my argument. I want to see what you have to say.