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.
Pro-Abortionists: Is Adoption not an option?
Now I have no stance on this issue but I have noticed that not one person has mentioned adoption to anybody. This relieves the burden of poverty and give a chance for the child, fetus, cluster of cells, or whatever ypu wish to call it. What do you guys think? Is this a huge benefit to the pro-life side and maybe a checkmate or is adoption still not a good enough argument?
Oh so all the other arguments where you're arguing that it's the woman's choice to murder her offspring were just complete fiction, then. And I'll even write your next post, too.
I chuz this side Lizzie because adoption should be more of a solution and a part of the debate than it usually is. Good job on the topic.
However, you are soon going to see why it's a non starter. Women have abortions for many reasons... and some are not too pleasant to talk about. Women who get pregnant with another man while having an affair, for example. Selfish reasons like not wanting to see themselves like that, etc.
It's not as simple as it seems. Though I do still think it could be or should be considered more than it is.
Since no-one else is talking about it. I just want to say how cool it is that we have some adopted members of our family and some by friends. My wife and I had considered it too before we became caregivers to my grandmother and later our parents. (hers and mine).
Approximately 10% of women undergoing induced abortion suffer from immediate complications, of which one-fifth (2%) were considered major. That's risky! Your beter off not killing your child.
Abortion clinics have very low standereds. Your beter off going to a nice clean hospital to have a kid. You can get some nasty stuff at a abortion clinic.
Okay. I see your view and stance. I have a question though. What are the down sides of abortion and adoption on a comparative scale? Which out ways the other in positive and negatives ways?
One problem with adoption is supply and demand. If your baby is adopted, that means another baby out there didn't get adopted. There aren't enough people out there to adopt everyone.
One problem I have heard if that adoption agencies don't let people adopt. The process to make sure the parents are qualified causes a bunch of kids to never be adopted. Adoption is not easy, maybe fix that first.
I don't have any links. But I know someone who was adopted by people who specifically requested a child that no one wanted (in this case because she was 4 years old). Apparently kids waiting to be adopted have a shelf life.
I'm not sure about tax incentives, mainly because I'm in favor of greatly simplifying the tax code. But we do need some kind of adoption reform.
His syntax is implying that the function CTRL+Z is a function that undoes the very last thing you did. He is saying that hoping a program will handle the virus is like adoption but he is not comparing the two.
It would ruin his argument. His rhetoric composes of computer functions. If we say abortion is a virus then his side loses credibility. His statement is correct for his side.
Honestly, for me, no. It doesn't change anything about the fact the woman still is forced to have the baby.
This means 9 months of growing the baby, which includes sickness, weight gain, cramps, hormone changes, cravings, and is just generally painful. Then there's the actual birth of the baby, which I'm told is the most painful thing ever.
~
okay, for this part, I copied and pasted a previous argument regarding abortion and adoption, because I'm too lazy to write a new one. XD
~
And not only the mother, what about the child? Most adoption agencies are overrun with children anyway, and if the child does get adopted, won't (s)he wonder all their life about their birth parents? Not only that, there can be major side effects of being in foster care all your life. [ Read here: http://www.ehow.com/facts 4869628emotional-effects-children-foster-care.html ]
(NOTE: I'm not trying to imply that adoption is a bad idea, I'm just stating some side effects.)
"This means 9 months of growing the baby, which includes sickness, weight gain, cramps, hormone changes, cravings, and is just generally painful."
There are many things which are painful. For instance, existence! Pregnancy is one of those things in life which has its drawbacks, but it also has its befits.
We don't all agree with your claim that a government's intervention on behalf of the rights of the child in a pregnancy - is tantamount to "forcing" the woman to go through anything.
I think that sex should be an enjoyable thing... it shouldn't have to be constant worry about whether or not she's pregnant. Even condoms rip, and birth control doesn't work 100% of the time.
And it's not the government's body... It's the woman's.
~
And until that child can live outside of the woman's body, they should be considered part of her body as well. We don't give the same rights to 4 year olds and 40 year olds. That's because (the majority of) 40 year olds can survive on their own. (the majority of) 40 year olds can support themselves. 4 year olds can't. That's why they aren't given the same amount of rights.
Sex is usually enjoyable - despite the risks for pregnancy.
You use the word "should" a lot.
As our laws already treat a child in the womb as a separate human being... I'm satisfied with that porton of our laws and I'm not willing to make compromises with it again.
Also, you seem to think that our right to life is something that is given to us by our government.
I (on the other hand) feel that I would have a right to my life in SPITE of what the government might think.
Oh I know you arent pro abortion. I just thought that this title would attract more serious debaters such as yourself. I know you are pro-choice and I never really use this term pro-abortion. I just want to learn about both sides of the abortion debate when it comes to adoption.
Where not fighting for abortion, we are fighting for the right to choose.
Pro-life is called pro-life because you support life and you want all fetuses to have the right to live.
If we called ourselves pro-abortion, then we would want all fetuses to be aborted, and that's not what I want, and I believe pretty much all other pro-choicers feel the same way.
We want women to feel free to live their life as they want to, so I insist you all call us pro-choicers, not pro-abortionists.
That said, now to the question.
I think adoption is a very good answer. I think all people should do that instead of abortion, because it is a wiser and healthier choice.
If I gave you the cutest kitten in the world to play with you, but I told you that you would only have it for nine months, then I would give it to somebody else - wouldn't a part of you wish that you never got the kitten in the first place, so you didn't have to first bond with it and then deal with the misery of losing it?
Forcing everybody to chose adoption instead of abortion is cool for those who ave the courage to do it, but not all people have this courage.
When you go to an adoption agency, and tell them that you're pregnant and you want to give the baby to a loving family, they will find tons of couples for you to choose from. Then you choose someone and you have a talk and blablabla.
Then suddenly it is time for you to give birth, and as soon as you see the baby you can't give it away.
So the result is, the couple who was really optimistic about your pregnancy, and excited and looking forward to becoming parents are now CRUSHED because now all of a sudden you changed your mind.
You are stuck with a baby you probably can't afford or aren't ready for, because if you choose adoption the reason you do it is most of the times because you can't give it a pleasant home, you don't have money or you are physically or mentally unstable.
This is how adoption goes about 75% of the time, and in my opinion things would be less dramatic if the baby never got to live. No one would miss it, people will in time forget that you were ever pregnant, and the baby would never get to life just as it wouldn't have if you just used a condom.
But you are for abortion in certain cases right? I am only talking to the pro abortionists. If you believe abortion should be allowed you are technically for it. If you are pro choice that implies that you are for the allowance of abortions. If it means this much to you I will change the debate title.
Well I dont take a stance I just want to argue for both sides at different times to learn as much as I can and I want to see what you all think of abortion. I will call you a pro-choice person. Sorry if pro-abortion is harming you. I can change the title to like abortionists or simply pro-lifers.
Exactly. Like some people think it should be legal for those to choose to buy a gun or not. Pro-gun would fit but really they're pro-choice to buy a gun.
Hmm thats not at all what pro-gun means. If there is a pro-gun lobbyist they're not going to say "you must buy more guns!" they're going to say "everyone has the right / choice to buy a gun". Being pro something can clearly sometimes mean being pro- the choice of something.
Well yes in a way a pro-lifer believes that a fetus has a choice / a right to live. A pro-lifer wouldn't have a problem if a fetus chose to die. Its not about forcing life on someone. Although of course in reality a fetus cannot choose.
To you though if you say pro- something it means a view that forces that thing on everything? Pro-gun is when someone believes everyone should have guns. Whereas I'd say its that everyone has a choice to have guns. Pro-drugs would mean to me the belief that everyone has the right to take drugs, whereas you'd see it as meaning everyone should take drugs.
I think a definition that means being pro- the right to choose whatever the pro- is about is a more useful and common definition. Pro- something clearly isn't about telling people exactly what they should do - its about giving them the right to choose that thing.
Support. I wouldn't change it if it were me, Lizzie - because it is what it is. However, I can see that it's taking away from your debate, so I can see why you might want to change it.
In fighting for "the right to choose" you are fighting for abortion, end of story!
Also, really... What is the difference between aborting a baby and giving him/her away for adoption. Earthier way, you are walking away from the child, adoption is just more humane.
In fighting for "the right to choose" you are fighting for abortion, end of story!
That's like saying fighting for abortion to be illegal is fighting for greater reproduction.
I am fighting for the right to choose. I don't WANT abortion, I think it is a horrible thing, but sometimes it is just necessary.
No one has ever said, hey let's have an abortion.
No one has ever said, oh I forgot my condoms, can't you just get an abortion?
I just want the right to choose, you can say I fight for abortion as much as you want, you don't change my belief's - you're only exposing yourself with denial of my true opinion.
"No one has ever said, hey let's have an abortion.
No one has ever said, oh I forgot my condoms, can't you just get an abortion?"
As a matter of fact, people have said that. I was appalled when I heard them.
As for the pro/con aborting thing, if you are pro-choice you must be pro-abortion because abortion gives woman a right to choose. Why must people be so vigilant about their right to suck their child out of their uterus when their other rights are being expunged. I see many many men and woman taking part in the pro-life/pro-choice debates all over the world, but they are ignoring the fact that the corporations are privatizing water supplies, debt is piling up, and wages have been stagnant since the 1970's! On top of that, the workers unions have been stripped of most of their power. These are the real, and very drastic problems we face today. Anyway, I know, this was a bit of a digression, but that's just what I believe.
What? There is a big difference between aborting a baby and putting it up for adoption. First of all, if you abort it no longer exists and if you put up for adop then it lives! Also, you may be walking away but the child will join someone else's life. At least the child will have a chance to live and have a family if you don't abort. Also the child may have an impact on the world. So, adoption is not at all like abortion.
I completely agree with you. I was using a different context in the previous context. She was saying about how abortion gets rid of the child if the mother doesn't want him/her and I was saying that adoption does the same thing in a more humane way.
Pro-abortion means you want all fetuses to be aborted.
That's not in any dictionary definition I have found. So, I have to conclude that is just something of a denial talking point from you.
Furthermore, I didn't callYOU anything.
But I won't deny that your actions are what they are - and it is those actions (being an advocate for legalized abortion) that makes a person "pro-abortion."
Saying you are pro-abortion is nothing more than an acknowledgment of the fact that you are fighting against my efforts to ban it.
Yes. Making it legal, making it an alternative making it a choice, not a force.
I am anti-abortion and you are my opponent.
That makes you pro-abortion.
Okay you are anti-abortion and because I am your opponent I am pro-abortion.
Lets turn it around and say you are pro-life and because I am your opponent I am anti-life?
That doesn't make sense. I am nor anti-life or pro-abortion I am pro-choice.
You certainly can't claim to be ANTI-abortion while you are fighting to keep it legal.
I am not saying I am anti-abortion, pro-life.
But neither am I pro-abortion or anti-life.
I am pro-choice. I don't fight for two sides, I fight for the side of freedom to choose how you want to live. Not for the side that wants to kill all fetuses.
1. I am not pro-life in every respect. I support wars, the death penalty, self defense and other situations where a life can be justifiably taken.
2. The dictionaries have it right in my opinion and if you want me to change my opinions, you are going to have to convince the authors of the dictionaries to change the definitions that I am basing my conclusions on - first.
As overpopulated as we are already, I'd rather see less kids up for adoption or with nowhere to go. If you don't want to have the baby, abort it. It's better than putting the burden of your child on everyone else.
The problem is.... if you are pregnant, you already have the baby (child) and then there is this pesky thing call basic human rights that the child (children) should be entitled to.
You damn well know you are insinuating that a fetus is the same thing as a child when it isn't. It's a fetus. With no thoughs. About as aware of its own existence as the eggs I had for breakfast.
The capacity to think is what we're valuing. We take care of our children because we want them to grow and become successful and all other residually imposed expectations people put on the youth. All which hinges on the idea that a baby is more than a sack of flesh that produces feces six times a day; that it has thought and conscience, and eventually purpose. If the debate was about the basic cells we consider living and human, pro-lifers would also be against circumcision, piercings, tattoos, and other forms of body modification.
Actually, when you are a fetus, you have no birth certificate +citizenship papers or records which makes you a citizen of your nation and that entitles you to those rights. Fetus have no rights.
"Actually, when you are a fetus, you have no birth certificate +citizenship papers or records which makes you a citizen of your nation and that entitles you to those rights. Fetus have no rights."
In our nation you can be charged with murder for killing one.
Murder by definition is the act of one person illegally killing another person.
That makes the child in the womb more than a clump of cells. It recognizes them as a human being. A person.
Supporting Evidence:
U.S. Code
(www.law.cornell.edu)
"However, anti-choicers insist not only that a fetus is a human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of "begging the question."
Murder by definition is the act of one person illegally killing another person.
Okay, you`re going to have to do a few things. Define a legal person and a person then prove it through scientific methods and factual evidence.
Last time I checked it has to be illegal for it to be a crime.
Crime is the breaking of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction.
Last time I checked it has to be illegal for it to be a crime.
Crime is the breaking of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction.
The crime must first be alleged before it can eventually be prosecuted and proven in court.
also the anti choice argument is hard to believe or set aside as anything other then ludicrous because womens bodies are known to at times abort babies all by them selves.
The reasons the doctor gave my mother is that "Sometimes something is wrong with the fetus and the body rejects it causing it to die in the womb". by that i mean I almost had a sister... but by what your saying is that my mother murdered it. o.O
"Sometimes something is wrong with the fetus and the body rejects it causing it to die in the womb". by that i mean I almost had a sister... but by what your saying is that my mother murdered it. o.O
Your sister died naturally.
Murder is an act of criminal intent or criminal recklessness. Show me where I or anyone else has alleged that a naturally occurring miscarriage is an act of criminal intent or recklessness.
Their isn't anything criminal about abortion. You got yourself wrapped in a delusion in regards to murder. For abortion to be done with criminal intent you need two things. Abortion to be illegal and for it to be a person which is defined as
Person:
Noun
A human being regarded as an individual.
A fetus is not a human regarded as an individual. It has more parasitic qualities then individual qualities.
And i didn't accuse you of stating that a naturally occurring miscarriage is an act of criminal intent. I was making a generalization of how it happens naturally as well.
and if you go and say that I said a fetus is a parasite, there will be consequences.
I have already shared with you - the laws and legal definitions which support our claims.
You shared the biased view of the law without citing the full law and it's regards to a woman's right to choose to have the abortion. Where it was only murder if someone aborts the fetus unlawfully. I haven't rejected anything. I'm looking at the law objectively. You pervert it and throw it at me as propaganda.
You shared the biased view of the law without citing the full law and it's regards to a woman's right to choose to have the abortion. Where it was only murder if someone aborts the fetus unlawfully. I haven't rejected anything. I'm looking at the law objectively. You pervert it and throw it at me as propaganda.
If that were true, I would never have provided the links to that law as I have done so on so many occasions.
It is you who is trying to take things out of context.
I never said that the Unborn Victims of Violence act makes abortions a crime of murder.
I have only said that it supports our claims that it's a child and that a person can be charged with murder for unjustly killing a child in the womb.
A motion (M312) to establish a committee to re-examine Canada's legal definition of a human being was defeated September 26, 2012 in Parliament by a vote of 203 to 91. Canada’s Criminal Code states in Section 223 that a child only becomes a human being once he or she has fully proceeded from the womb.
On October 3, 1983, Borowski’s claim on behalf of the unborn child was dismissed by the Regina Court. “In a 31-page judgment, the judge concluded that the child in the womb was not a person under law, and ‘not within the scope of the term everyone utilized in the Charter’;
Sure it is, but the woman still has to carry through with the pregnancy for 9 months, deal with the changes in her body, and she'll of course have grown an emotional attachment to her child. Oh and giving birth isn't rainbows and butterflies.
I've already considered adoption rather than abortion, but I'm still thinking abortion is the better choice because of those reasons. ^
