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.
Vote Republican, because forcing a ten-year-old rape victim against her will to give birth to the incestuous child of her pedophile, child rapist uncle is morally right.
Honestly, I think that is rather an over-simplification. I think there are some clear cut cases such as this one, but I think the issue in general is more complicated. I know a number of people who consider themselves to be Republican and/or pro-life who would not support the anti-abortion stance in this case who would be against abortion if the circumstances include consent and relatively low-risk pregnancy. I am not saying that is my stance, just that it is more complicated.
I think there are some clear cut cases such as this one, but I think the issue in general is more complicated.
And the GOP has taken the most simplistic naïve position possible: ban all abortions. So if you think this issue isn't a clear cut absolutist problem, then you go against what the Republican party stands for.
I know a number of people who consider themselves to be Republican and/or pro-life who would not support the anti-abortion stance in this case
And they would be going against the Republican position. The Republican Party Platform, ratified by the GOP and endorsed by Mitt Romney, is to be ban all abortion. No exceptions for anything. Not rape. Not incest. Not when the victim is a ten-year-old girl. Fvck. Not even when it's all three of those together at once like this.
I am not saying that is my stance, just that it is more complicated.
It may not be your stance, but it is the stance of the Republican Party. By thinking it's a more complicated issue, you go against the right, for whom simple-mindedness is the only way to go.
Valid points. My initial response was something of a misinterpretation on my part; I was thinking of your statement being a broad generalization about republicans overall (and I think there is a difference between the individuals who identify with this label and the party platform; diversity within groups, yadda, yadda... just as there is with democrats) rather than as a criticism of the vote Republican ticket and platform. Disregard my earlier criticisms, you were right on the spot with that one.
I think the GOP will fade into obscurity as society progresses unless they either reform their views on social issues, or at the very least, stop rallying around them. Abortion and gay marriage are not issues you want your party to rally around if you have the Republican position. The economy is what they should be pushing, not going after doctors who don't support their insane views.
I sincerely hope you are correct. I know a lot of people who have started questioning using the term republican to describe themselves because they feel like the GOP has changed what the term means so drastically from what it once was. It seems to me that they are alienating a lot of their potential constituency; my only hope is that that results in activism by moderate, reasonable conservatives rather than apathy and disengagement.
And of course, you are absolutely correct that they should be worrying about the economy instead of issues like abortion or same-sex marriage. The only trouble is they seem to have a reliable base that rewards their reactionary based stances on trigger issues like this. If it were not a tactic that was working I do not think it would be so prevalent. My hope is that they take it too far out and lose their base to open the may for moderates instead.
Should a child be punished for the sins of the father? Rape is a nasty case and already delicate for that matter... but having an abortion after being raped is like beating up the painter of your house after a bunch of kids vandalized it. Of course this analogy is toned down: rape = vandalization and the child = the painter and the abortion = the physical abuse... but the point of it is that one event caused another event... but you shouldn't answer evil with evil. Pro-choice advocates believe that the ends (the end of which they perceive; they can't comprehend that another person's life ended because of such means) justifies the means... which means in a sense they have no morals! Thats to say, its okay to steal drugs from the pharmacy because my wife will then be able to live! Pro-life people recognize the already bad situation and try to answer evil with goodness.
Why should a mentally ill 10 year old girl be forced to give birth to a child whose father is her uncle? It is extremely likely that without an abortion both will die.
Why should any innocent person be unwillingly killed for the sake of helping another innocent person? Your analogy could be compared to a situation where a psychopath says, "if Bob is not dead within the next 48 hours, I will kill this hostage." Obviously the hostage-taker means business... so should you kill Bob to save the hostage? Should you let the hostage die to save Bob? And of course, you never know if the hostage-taker after seeing that Bob is dead from you killing him, kills the hostage on the spot. You don't know if both the 10 year old and the baby are going to die... you don't if the girl will die during labor but the baby will live... you don't know if the baby will die and the girl will live... but you are automatically killing Bob (the baby) in hope that the hostage-taker will let the hostage go (the 10 year old). Sounds pretty immoral to me.
The body of a 10 year old is not developed enough to carry a child for 9 months even if both survive both childs will be severly damaged would you rather have 2 children die or be severly damaged rather then aborting one fetus
And who are we to decide for them what they want? Who are you or I to decide what that baby would rather have? Maybe he/she would rather have death than life... but many people (even though paralyzed or disabled in some sort of way) would choose life over death. Just because some people wouldn't want life because of damages sustained through child birth, a car wreck, etc. doesn't mean others would choose death also. It is a selfish answer to an undesirable consequence. We are all forced into situations that we hate and want to get out of.... but thats where immorality comes into play! This is where selfless people reign supreme... when even though they hate where they are, they choose not to counter evil with evil... they do good.
And who are to force a 10 year old mentally ill girl give birth to a child she does'nt even want when she is only a child herself? While risking a high chance of death for both of them.
This could also be compared to person beating up another person. Who are you to tell that person who wants to beat up the painter that he can't do it? Who are you to tell the thief from robbing the pharmacy because he needs it to save his wife that he can't do it? Who are you to tell that...... you could go on and on.... but the thing is this, it is still immoral. Should I let a person kill another person because otherwise he would kill me? It is immoral. Unless you truly believe that murder or theft or physical abuse or .... is morally okay then abortion is not acceptable in any situation.
It is far more immoral to force a 10 year old girl who is mentally ill to have a child whose father is her uncle and she does'nt even want the child while risking the high chance of both of the childrens deaths.
Am I to assume then that you do not believe in a basic right to self defense either?
Legally and ethically it generally accepted that: if a reasonable person would perceive that their life was in clear, significant, and probable danger in a given situation, and that they could not escape the situation, then it is acceptable to act in self defense. Where necessary this does justify lethal force.
Yes, that was a bit unclear in hindsight. To clarify: My intended point was largely that that was a more accurate comparison not that it was perfect. My intention was not to imply that the baby was attacking anyone or that the self-defense was directly analogous, but rather that society has acknowledged a fundamental human right to self-preservation in laws dealing with similar high risk situations involving fatal choices.
I personally believe in our survival instincts and that we have them for a reason. It may not be pleasant but if someone has to choose between themselves and anyone else, and all alternatives have been exhausted (which I believe they truly have in this circumstance), then I think an individual is justified in choosing their own survival and well-being.
So it is morally better to kill a person... than for a mentally ill person to carry a baby for 9 months... One is permanent while the other is limited.... Do you know what that baby wants? Based on your argument, you would have to take into consideration what the baby wants too. You are only including one facet of the equation! In a different but similar situation, would it be okay for a mother to kill a baby that she is taking care of, that was conceived because of rape, and was already born, because she didn't want to take care of it?
The Law of Biogenesis states that life cannot come from non-life but comes from preexisting organism of the same kind. Therefore, you are still killing a human... and if you are going to say that it is the level of development that is the determining factor, you have then become Hitler. Hitler thought he was doing good by destroying the "less developed" Jews and minorities so that evolution could continue and that humans could continue evolutionary development. Another example of "the ends justifying the means." Yet, you have yourself advocated Hitler if you believe a fetus is not as significant as a born baby.
I have already demonstrated to you that a fetus is a human via the Law of Biogenesis... If it is not a human then what is it? Is it some different species or kind? Is it a giraffe? It is a human! If you do not think it is viable then you have become Hitler... If you can't see that then good day to you! :)
You have not in fact proven that. Life comes from existing life, however that does not make an undeveloped fetus a viable life and scientifically the elements of human life (e.g. cognition, awareness, sensation of pain, etc.) are not present. See my other post.
The period at which a fetus is scientifically and legally determined to be a human being is when it develops the capacity for basic cognitive emotional experience (i.e. it feels and recognizes basic emotion/pain). This is not an arbitrary cut off.
Conversely, the point of conception is quite arbitrary and based only upon subjective personal beliefs. If you value potential life to that extreme of the pregnancy, you then must also prohibit the use of contraceptives (it is preventing life from existing organisms) and advocate for sexually assaulting those who do not wish to conceive children.
Finally, you are doing an extreme injustice to the memory of those who died and survived the Holocaust by making the comparison you have. The "less developed" theory was applied entirely differently, and referenced the systematic targeting and decimation of an entire ethnic population. Shame on you, truly. That aside, you have committed a logical fallacy by drawing yet another inaccurate comparison.
So if it is not a human then what is it? A giraffe?
And you have become Hitler if you believe it is not viable.
FYI my grandmother's parents were killed in the Holocaust... I am a Jew... my mom is a Jew (by blood)... so don't even try to pass of the argument by saying that it is an injustice.
While I am glad to know you are not speaking from total ignorance by referencing the Holocaust, you should know that Jews were not the only people persecuted and killed under Hitler's regime. LGBT people where victims as well, and I do identify with that community so with all due respect I have every ground to make the argument that I did. I do find it personally very disrespectful.
You have become Hitler if you believe it is not viable.
I gave you reasons why this is not an accurate representation; simply restating your erroneous assertion without countering my points does not make correct. Again: the Holocaust was a state instituted nation wide policy of extermination targeting an ethnic population as well as other minority populations and political dissidents. It was based upon bigotry and prejudice, not upon actual threat of loss of life or response to victimization. The situations are NOT the same.
So if it is not a human then what is it? A giraffe?
Again, with the ridiculous, unnecessary, and inaccurate examples to try to prove your point. Of course it is not a giraffe. It is a human fetus. Human referring to the genetic composition that identifies us, and fetus referring to the stage of development.
It was based on wanting to exterminate the lesser developed peoples of the world. So who decides what is a viable living person? Of course it was prejudicial but that does not disregard the fact that it was based on viability of people. They are the exact same.
So it is a human. And yet again, the development is subjective and thus like Hitler.
The United States does not "advocate" abortion. It legally permits it. There is definite difference in that there is not a campaign to force women of certain populations to abort their children.
How is empowering women to have control over their bodies a national movement to exterminate "lesser developed" peoples of the world? It is a domestic policy.
You keep on using the word "viability" in reference to Hitler's campaign, but I do not think you understand what it means. "Viable" refers to the likelihood for being able to live. Women do not abort babies because they hate them, they abort them for altogether different reasons and in this case it is done because of an immediate and highly probable risk of death.
The stages of development are not subjective and they are not arbitrary. They are based upon our scientific understanding of the development of the human embryo through the end of pregnancy. Not like Hitler. Seriously the last time I am going to say that. I feel like I am wasting my time.
To be honest, you are wasting your time... I completely disagree with you! haha on pretty much all aspects! :P
You can keep debating but I'm not! I have already said my position and its pretty flawless and very logical if you ask me! But nevertheless people can't see it... so I quit trying! Good day to you! :)
I was not debating to prove a point or win, so in that respect I do not consider it a waste of time for me to engage in an irreconcilable debate. I do it with the hope of better understanding those I disagree with. However, I will agree to disagree as this truly is getting nowhere, to my disappointment but not to my surprise. It would have been interesting to actually hear your stance on survival instinct and self-preservation in place of your accusing me of being like Hitler and then giving up, but I suppose the latter is a much more "flawless and logical" argument to make. Good day.
As an interesting note, Somalia has begun instituting a new government. It is still very unstable certainly, but the issue has been receiving a lot of attention from the diaspora population that is very dedicated to returning order to the nation. Not really a debate point, just an interesting tidbit. :)
Ugh, I hate abortion debates, but I hate scientific and historical inaccuracies even more.
The law of biogenesis has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever. I can't even see where you got it from. I believe Cuaroc's point that a fetus is not a human was more on the ethical and societal side of the coin.
Hitler did not kill the underdeveloped. Hitler killed those who did not match his warped idea of a perfect race, which included the developed and underdeveloped alike. The untermenschen has nothing to do with abortion either.
Again, with the completely inaccurate comparisons. Of course it would not be justifiable for a mother to kill a born child that was conceived because of rape. For one, the child is a thinking and feeling being, whereas a fetus is scientifically not. Secondly, the argument here is not just that the rape justified the abortion but that the extreme likelihood of death to the ten year old child justifies it. You keep asking what the baby wants - the truth is, it does not want because it does not have the cognitive capacity of desire.
Can you remember anything from the moment you were born? Cognition and brain activity is not an argument... our brains continue to develop until our 40s
Did you want anything when you were a baby? Could you cognitively process anything?
Not the same. At the point where the baby is still a fetus the brain has not even developed to the point where it can register pain. The nervous system is not developed, let alone the psychological capacities.
Memory processes and other cognitive developments at a more complex level are not the same as the basic neurological developments that constitute the division between a fetus and a later term baby.
As for whether babies can cognitively process things - yes, they can. Basic faculties are in place (e.g. pain, facial and vocal recognition, etc.) that are not remotely developed in the fetus.
Okay, so if a baby was born with a defect in which it could not feel pain. Is it okay to kill it then? Is it okay to kill a person who is in a car wreck and has no feeling of pain? You are picking and choosing which things you want to define a viable person as... just as Hitler did!
Good grief, pain is not the only standard distinguishing the fetus it was just the primary point I discussed the most. The standard of being able to feel pain is not the sole basis, and that was not my argument. Further, if the child is already born then the risk to the mother (particularly high in this case) would not be a factor and the issue is an entirely different one than that which we are discussing. As is your other irrelevant example of the car crash victim. I am not picking and choosing, I am seeing things in collection together: the risk, the viability, the neurological development, etc. If anyone is picking and choosing the circumstances of this issue to favor their side it is you; you have consistently ignored the whole of the situation by choosing examples that do not parallel the one in question.
Hitler did not decide what was a viable person, he decided what the preferable type of person based upon his personal hatred of certain groups of people and his desire for power. He did not make his choices because his life was at risk. The conditions are not the same. If you persist in making this comparison I will cease this rather pointless tangential debate with you along with the actual topical one that you appear most willing to neglect in favor of sensationalist accusations.
Your analogies make positively no sense whatsoever. You have completely removed all of the extenuating circumstances and in so doing you have totally altered the circumstances of the situation to make it seem like an extreme choice absent the actual risks and initial victimization.
Saying that abortion is like murder, theft, and physical abuse is a gross over-simplification. It would be a far more accurate comparison to juxtapose abortion with self-defensive homicide, the latter of which the majority of people and our society does deem to be morally and legally justified. If your own life is threatened, particularly when it is threatened through no choice or willing action of your own, then you have a right to take whatever steps are necessary to protect yourself from that threat.
Your analogy is incorrect also. The baby is not attacking you but is instead innocent of all crimes. Compare it to this then... A mother has already given birth but has not been able to feed herself nor her child for a week and both are starving to death. She has just enough money to feed either herself or her child; the other one will die. Which one should she choose?
I am guessing that you are referring to my point regarding the greater similarity between self-defensive homicide and abortion? My point there was largely that that was a more accurate comparison not that it was perfect; comparisons rarely are actually. My intention was not to imply that the baby was attacking anyone or committing a crime, only that society has acknowledged a fundamental human right to self-preservation in laws dealing with similar high risk situations involving fatal choices.
Again, I do think that the circumstance you are presenting is incomplete considering that the child is already born versus being fetal. If I had to answer your query though, I would honestly say that I think the mother has the right to make the choice either way she wishes. I personally believe in our survival instincts and that we have them for a reason. It may not be pleasant but if someone has to choose between themselves and anyone else with no other circumstances present then I think they have every right to act in their self interest and choose themselves if all other options have been exhausted.
You are a monster if you want to force a mentally ill 10 year old girl to give birth to a child she does'nt want and as a end result they both die from the birth.
